{"id":"court_ctb_1362_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1362,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-09-21","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n### **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING UBS AG TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the Ho Wan Kwok's (the \"Individual Debtor\") chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"), hereby files this motion (the \"Motion to Compel\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form appended hereto (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\"), and Rules 2004 and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") compelling UBS AG (\"UBS\") to comply with this Court's *Order Granting First Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliates with the Debtor, and Relevant Banks* dated September 21, 2022 (ECF No. 866, the \"Rule 2004 Order\") and with the Trustee's Subpoena and Request for Production of Documents issued to UBS pursuant to such\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\norder, attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (collectively, the \"UBS Subpoena\"), and overrule UBS's objections to the UBS Subpoena, attached hereto as **Exhibit B** (the \"Objections\"). In support of the Motion to Compel, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n1. On September 7, 2021, the Trustee filed his First Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliates with the Debtor, and Relevant Banks (the \"First Omnibus 2004 Motion\") seeking discovery with respect to various legal and financial advisors to the Individual Debtor, persons affiliated with the Individual Debtor, and, as relevant here, banks at which the Individual Debtor and persons and entities related to the Individual Debtor are believed to have deposited funds or conducted financial transactions.\n\n2. In particular, the Individual Debtor, and individuals and entities controlled by or allied with him, held substantial assets at UBS, borrowed from, and otherwise did business with and through UBS. This is shown by, among other things, documents and information obtained by the Trustee reflecting accounts at UBS in the name of Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") – an entity the Individual Debtor previously owned (and which is now allegedly owned by the Individual Debtor's son), and which the Trustee's investigation suggests received, held, and distributed millions of dollars on the Individual Debtor's behalf.\n\n3. Indeed, UBS's involvement with the Individual Debtor is exemplified by a reference letter that UBS provided to the Sherry Netherland Board of Directors in 2015 (the \"Sherry Netherland Board\"), wherein UBS represented that the Individual Debtor had been \"a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012\" with \"funds involved in\n\nthis banking relationship [of] not less than USD400,000,000.\" A true and accurate copy of this letter is attached hereto as **Exhibit C** (the \"UBS Letter\"). UBS issued the UBS Letter from its office in Hong Kong (the \"Hong Kong Branch\") to the Sherry Netherland Board in Manhattan, presumably at the Individual Debtor's direction. 2\n\n4. Still further, the Trustee has obtained records reflecting that the UBS office located in Stamford, Connecticut (the \"Stamford Branch\") was involved in transactions that transferred millions of dollars funds from Bravo Luck's accounts at UBS. Thus, on numerous occasions, UBS has conducted business involving the Individual Debtor either within the United States or, in the case of the UBS Letter, directed to the United States.\n\n5. For these reasons, among others, the Trustee included UBS in his First Rule 2004 Motion. UBS did not object to the First Rule 2004 Motion, which the Court granted by its Rule 2004 Order on September 21, 2022. Pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order, the Trustee issued the UBS Subpoena, which subpoena was served on UBS at its Stamford Branch on September 26, 2022.\n\n6. UBS served the Trustee with its Objections on October 12, 2022. UBS's Objections did not specifically respond to the requests in the Requests for Production appended to the UBS Subpoena. Rather, they recited a blanket objection to producing documents related to accounts purportedly located in jurisdictions outside of the United States.\n\n7. The Trustee and UBS met and conferred (telephonically through counsel) regarding the UBS Subpoena. UBS first requested time to ascertain what documents and information are responsive to the UBS Subpoena and to consider its willingness to comply with the UBS\n\n<sup>2</sup> This letter was among the documents that the Sherry Netherland Board relied upon in approving the Individual Debtor's purchase, through co-debtors Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever (BVI)\") and Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever (US)\") and, together with the Individual Debtor and Genever (BVI), collectively, the \"Debtors\"), a condominium at the Sherry Netherland Hotel in Manhattan for approximately \\$70 million.\n\nSubpoena. The Trustee cooperated to provide UBS information in an effort to aid and expedite its review.\n\n8. UBS informed the Trustee earlier this month that it will not produce *any* documents or information – or even disclose what documents or information exists – responsive to the UBS Subpoena, because of banking privacy laws in foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, UBS has cited Hong Kong privacy laws and suggested that the Trustee pursue discovery through legal process in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, UBS has refused to confirm the individuals and entities for which it has responsive documents or even list the countries where it alleges responsive documents must be pursued. Thus, following the logic of UBS, in order to obtain documents responsive to the UBS Subpoena<sup>3</sup> , the Trustee would need to pursue Hague Convention discovery or commence recognition proceedings in *dozens of countries* throughout the world where UBS has branches:\n\n![](_page_3_Figure_3.jpeg)\n\n<sup>3</sup> UBS has stated only that \"accounts\" do not exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the British Virgin Islands. As the map of UBS's global presence reflects, numerous jurisdictions remain scattered across six continents. Throughout the meet-and-confer process, UBS has sought to put the onus on the Trustee to name specific jurisdictions where UBS should search its documents and information. While the Trustee has noted certain jurisdictions of particular interest (again, in the hopes of expediting production), the Trustee has likewise been clear that it is not his obligation to tell UBS where it maintains its own documents and information.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The white squares denote UBS branch locations. Source: http\n\n9. Alternatively, UBS has suggested that the Trustee secure consent from individuals and entities associated with the Individual Debtor. Obviously, such consent is not likely to be forthcoming, considering the posture of these cases. Rather, as the Court recently noted, the Trustee's investigation \"has been met with opposition at every step in the process …\" *Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, Adv. Pro. 22- 05032 (Jan. 11, 2023) [ECF No. 128] (the \"Injunction Decision\") at p. 37. <sup>5</sup>\n\n10. In discussions with UBS, the Trustee provided its counsel a copy of the UBS Letter and information reflecting the involvement of the Stamford Branch with respect to relevant accounts and transactions. UBS should also be aware of the foregoing from its own records and at no time has UBS denied that it directed the UBS Letter to the Sherry Netherland Board in Manhattan or the involvement of its Stamford Branch.\n\n11. The meet-and-confer process persisted *for months*, with the Trustee providing UBS documents and information in an effort to assist UBS's search and to highlight UBS's conduct in and towards the United States. This process has included more than half a dozen telephone conferences between counsel and numerous email exchanges.\n\n12. Ultimately, notwithstanding UBS's substantial business operations in the United States (particularly at the Stamford Branch), and UBS's business activities that occurred in the United States specifically relating to the Individual Debtor and the discovery at issue, UBS has refused to comply with the UBS Subpoena. Instead, UBS has proposed that the Trustee pursue purported alternatives that UBS knows or reasonably should know are unworkable in this Chapter\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Trustee has already issued subpoenas to several of the entities from which UBS suggests the Trustee seek consent (*i.e.*, Lamp Capital LLC and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.), and the entities simply ignored them. (*See* Motion to Compel [ECF No. 1046].) The notion that such entities would now provide the Trustee consent to obtain records from UBS is absurd.\n\n11 Case. If UBS had informed the Trustee of its ultimate position months ago, the Trustee would have saved substantial time and expense. Hence this Motion to Compel.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n13. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to, *inter alia*, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O).\n\n### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n14. The Trustee seeks entry of the Proposed Order compelling UBS to comply with the UBS Subpoena within fourteen days.\n\n### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **The Court Has Charged the Trustee to Investigate the Individual Debtor's Financial Condition and Has Authorized the Trustee's Use of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Discovery**\n\n15. UBS must comply with the UBS Subpoena and provide documents and information that are of key importance to the Trustee's investigation of the Individual Debtor's financial condition and affairs. The Trustee is tasked with investigating the Individual Debtor's assets and affairs for the benefit of the Individual Debtor's creditors. \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Grp. Ltd.*, Case No. 16-13625-JLG, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted).\n\n16. This includes revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); *see also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (\"Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations\n\ninclude discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\") (internal quotation and citation omitted)); *id.* (noting that \"[u]nlike traditional discovery, which narrowly focuses on the issues germane to the dispute, the scope of Rule 2004 is broad and unfettered, and has been likened to a fishing expedition and an inquisition\") (internal citations and punctuation omitted); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b) (authorizing scope of 2004 examinations \"relat[ing] . . . to . . . property . . . and financial condition of the debtor, or to *any matter* which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate\") (emphasis added).\n\n17. As set forth above, UBS has documents and information responsive to the UBS Subpoena. Following months-long discussions between the Trustee and UBS, the Trustee understands that UBS's sole basis for refusing to comply with the UBS Subpoena is the purported applicability of foreign privacy laws. UBS's reliance on foreign law to avoid its obligations to comply with the UBS Subpoena is misplaced.\n\n### **UBS Must Comply with the Subpoena, Including for Accounts It Alleges Are Overseas**\n\n18. The Second Circuit has repeatedly compelled foreign entities to produce documents \"notwithstanding competing foreign legal obligations.\" *Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC*, 706 F.3d 92, 114-116 (2d Cir. 2013); *see also United States v. Davis*, 767 F.2d 1025, 1033-35 (2d Cir. 1985); *United States v. First Nat'l City Bank*, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968). As have the district courts within this circuit. *See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. Wu*, 349 F. Supp. 3d 346, 364 (S.D.N.Y 2018); *Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A.*, 249 F.R.D. 429, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); *Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank, PLC*, 242 F.R.D. 33, 57-58 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).\n\n19. Foreign \"bank secrecy laws are not a 'get out of jail free' card.\" *Nike, Inc. v. Wu*, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 364.\n\nThe Supreme Court long ago recognized the difficulties faced by parties for whom compliance with a U.S. discovery order would violate foreign law. Operation of foreign law do[es] not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that [law]. Ultimately, the District Court possesses wide discretion to proceed in whatever manner it deems most effective.\n\n*Id.* (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (*citing Société Internationale Pour*\n\n*Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers*, 357 U.S. 197, 204-211, 78 S. Ct.\n\n1087, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1255 (1958)); *see also Linde*, 706 F.3d at 109.\n\n20. In *Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC*, the Second Circuit adopted from the Restatements a\n\nbalancing test governing the Court's \"discretion to enter a discovery order that may violate foreign\n\nlaw.\" *Nike, Inc. v. Wu*, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 364.\n\nSection 442 [of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States] provides that, in determining whether to issue a production order for information located abroad, courts should consider [1] \"the importance to the investigation or litigation of the documents or other information requested; [2] the degree of specificity of the request; [3] whether the information originated in the United States; [4] the availability of alternative means of securing the information; and [5] the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would undermine important interests of the state where the information is located.\" Restatement § 442(1)(c). Cases from our Circuit counsel that, when deciding whether to impose sanctions, a district court should also examine the [6] hardship of the party facing conflicting legal obligations and [7] whether that party has demonstrated good faith in addressing its discovery obligations.\n\n*Linde*, 706 F.3d at 109-10; *see also Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd*, 183 F.Supp.3d 409, 420\n\n(S.D.N.Y. 2016) (numbering factors).\n\n21. The balancing test under *Linde* tilts strongly in the Trustee's favor.\n\n22. Importance to the Investigation. The documents and information sought by the\n\nTrustee are of paramount importance to his investigation. Bravo Luck (at a time it was owned and controlled by the Individual Debtor) held hundreds of millions of dollars in UBS accounts. UBS represented to the Sherry Netherland Board that these funds were associated with the Individual Debtor \"through a personal investment company.\" (*See* UBS Letter.) The Trustee must uncover where these funds came from and what happened to them. Further, the Trustee's experience with other financial institutions that handled the Individual Debtor's assets suggests that the Individual Debtor, or individuals or entities controlled by or allied with him, may have held other assets at UBS. This information is likewise of critical necessity to understand the Individual Debtor's financial condition. Accordingly, the first factor favors the Trustee.\n\n23. Specificity of Requests. The document requests set forth in the UBS Subpoena are specific to the Individual Debtor and certain persons and entities that are directly related to or associated with him. The Trustee has worked with UBS to provide substantial additional information to assist UBS in conducting its internal review and search for documents and information. The Trustee's efforts in this regard have been met by UBS's refusal to comply with the UBS Subpoena. This factor thus likewise supports compelling production.\n\n24. Location of the Information. UBS is a \"global financial services firm\" 6 headquartered in Switzerland with substantial business operations located in the United States and with branches throughout the world. UBS was involved in transactions using relevant accounts through its Stamford Branch, which suggests that at least some responsive documents and information are located within the United States. Further, to the extent that UBS has additional documents and information located overseas, it has previously shown its ability (by its representations in the UBS Letter) to transmit these to the United States. It may not refuse to do so now in defiance of the UBS Subpoena. This factor supports the Trustee.\n\n25. Availability of Alternative Means to Obtain Information. UBS has suggested that the Trustee pursue evidence abroad by obtaining counsel in overseas jurisdictions, commencing recognition proceedings, and seeking document production in numerous foreign jurisdictions (a\n\n<sup>6</sup> UBS describes itself as, among other things, a \"global financial services firm.\" *See*  http\n\nlist of which UBS refuses to disclose). Alternatively, UBS has suggested that the Trustee pursue evidence via the Hague Evidence Convention – again, throughout the world. Neither suggestion presents a viable alternative, because either would cause delay and expense that these bankruptcy estates cannot afford. Rather, the Federal Rules and the Bankruptcy Rules provide a simpler, cheaper, faster mechanism for the Trustee to obtain production. \"The discovery procedures provided by the Hague Convention … are neither the exclusive nor even, necessarily, the first means for obtaining discovery from a foreign entity, as compared with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\" *In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig.*, 236 F.R.D. 177, 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); *see also Valois of Am., Inc. v. Risdon Corp.*, 183 F.R.D. 344, 349 (D. Conn. 1997) (noting that \"it is generally recognized that procedures under the Hague Convention are far more cumbersome than under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures\"). Because UBS will not even confirm where it alleges the Trustee would need to seek such documents, to ensure complete compliance the Trustee would be required to undertake Hague Convention discovery or institute recognition proceedings in dozens of countries throughout the world. These are not realistic alternatives.\n\n26. As the Court recently found, delay and expense are both immensely prejudicial to the Trustee's investigation and, thus, to these bankruptcy estates. *See* Injunction Decision at pp. 32-33 (\"The delay is particularly harmful because there may not be an adequate remedy at law to compensate for the delay. The Chapter 11 Trustee cannot hire professionals to assist with the investigation without Estate assets and Estate assets may be placed outside the reach of creditors while the investigation continues to be delayed.\"). UBS's suggestion that the Trustee obtain consent from persons and entities affiliated with the Individual Debtor is also plainly unrealistic considering the persistent refusal of the Individual Debtor, and his allies, to cooperate with the Trustee's investigation. The absence of viable alternatives supports compelling UBS.\n\n27. Noncompliance Undermines Important U.S. Interests. The United States has a crucial interest in ensuring that the Trustee is permitted to diligently investigate the Individual Debtor's financial affairs. The Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the Trustee's investigation for these bankruptcy estates. *See, e.g.,* Injunction Decision at pp. 38, 39, 41. The Trustee's investigation is essential to ensure that creditors may eventually recover from property that rightfully belongs to these estates under federal bankruptcy law.\n\n28. The Trustee's investigation is important not only for the benefit of these estates and their creditors, but also to ensure the integrity of the bankruptcy process. The Court recognized this in appointing the Trustee and continues to recognize this interest. *See id.* at pp. 54-55 (noting that the Trustee is an \"officer of the Court\" and discussing the integrity of the bankruptcy process). Other courts have likewise recognized the importance of this interest. *See, e.g., In re RnD Eng'g, LLC*, 556 B.R. 303, 313 (E.D. Mich. 2016 (\"the integrity of the bankruptcy process is an important consideration to the Court\"). This factor then also supports compelling production.\n\n29. Hardship and Good Faith. In asserting a hardship, UBS must \"show that the possibility of civil and/or criminal punishment is more than speculative.\" *CE Int'l Res. Holdings, LLC v. S.A. Minerals Ltd. P'ship*, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85650, \\*41-42 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013). UBS has provided no such showing; nor can it given, among other things, its conduct in the United States concerning the Debtors, and the involvement of UBS through its Stamford Branch in relevant transactions. By contrast, any prejudice claimed by UBS may be mitigated by a Court order directing its compliance with the UBS Subpoena and by the *Protective Order* previously entered in the Chapter 11 Case [ECF No. 923]. Further, while UBS has engaged in numerous meet-and-confer telephone conferences, its continuing outright refusal to comply with the UBS\n\nSubpoena – particularly after information uncovered by the Trustee reflecting UBS's conduct in and involving the United States – cannot be further maintained in good faith.\n\n30. Because all relevant factors support enforcing the UBS Subpoena, the Court should compel compliance by UBS.\n\n### **Whose Privacy Rights Is UBS Protecting?**\n\n31. UBS's prolonged resistance to compliance with the UBS Subpoena begs the question: Whose privacy interests is it protecting?\n\n32. As for the Individual Debtor, whom UBS has already acknowledged was its client in the UBS Letter, the Trustee stands in his shoes and is entitled to his records. As for Bravo Luck, it has long had notice of the Chapter 11 Case and is now appearing in the case through counsel. The Debtor's son (Qiang Guo) filed a proof of claim in the Genever US chapter 11 case [Claim No. 3-1 in case no. 22-50592]. These parties have accepted the Court's jurisdiction. Any could have opposed the First Omnibus 2004 Motion or moved to quash the UBS Subpoena had they wished to do so.\n\n33. In any event, UBS will be fully protected by a court order directing it to produce documents and information responsive to the UBS Subpoena. The Court should enter such an order without further delay and prejudice to these bankruptcy estates.\n\n### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n34. The Trustee has not previously sought the relief requested herein from this or any other court.\n\n### **CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL**\n\n35. As set forth above, and in the Declaration of Patrick R. Linsey filed herewith, counsel for the Trustee conferred with counsel for UBS in good faith in an effort to resolve this dispute without success.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order granting the relief requested in this Motion to Compel and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: January 23, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| 7<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n### **DECLARATION OF PATRICK R. LINSEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COMPELLING UBS AG TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA**\n\nI, Patrick R. Linsey, declare:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Connecticut and an associate at the law firm of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C., and counsel for Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"). I respectfully submit this declaration in support of the *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling UBS AG to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas* (the \"Motion\").\n\n2. I have conferred with counsel for UBS AG (the \"UBS\") on several occasions over\n\nan extended period of time concerning the dispute addressed by the Motion, including (most\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nrecently) on January 20, 2023. Despite having so conferred in good faith, the Trustee and UBS were unable to resolve their dispute.\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and after reasonable inquiry, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nDated: January 23, 2023\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut Respectfully submitted,\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                           | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                     | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                         | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------      | x           |                         |  |\n\n### **[PROPOSED] ORDER COMPELLING UBS AG TO COMPLY WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA AND AWARDING SANCTIONS**\n\nUpon consideration of the Motion seeking an order compelling UBS AG. (the \"UBS\") to comply with the Court's *Order Granting First Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Legal and Financial Advisors to the Debtor, Entities and Individuals Affiliates with the Debtor, and Relevant Banks* dated September 21, 2022 (ECF No. 866, the \"Rule 2004 Order\") and with the subpoena (the \"UBS Subpoena\") the Trustee issued to UBS pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order, after notice and a hearing, *see* 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), it appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Motion is granted as set forth below.\n\n**ORDERED**: All objections of UBS to the UBS Subpoena are hereby **OVERRULED**.\n\n**ORDERED**: UBS shall search for and produce all documents responsive to the UBS Subpoena within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\nB2540 (Form 2540 – Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination) (12/15) Case 22-50073 Doc 1362 Filed 01/23/23 Entered 01/23/23 07:59:28 Page 19 of 38\n\n# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ District of \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Connecticut\n\nIn re \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nCase No. \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Ho Wan Kwok 22-50073\n\nDebtor\n\nChapter \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 11\n\n### **SUBPOENA FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION**\n\nTo: **\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_** UBS AG\n\n*(Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed)*\n\n *Testimony:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at an examination under Rule 2004, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. A copy of the court order authorizing the examination is attached. X\n\n| PLACE<br>NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.                       | DATE AND TIME |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| 195 Church Street, 13th Floor<br>New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |               |\n|                                                               |               |\n\nThe examination will be recorded by this method: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ court reporter/stenographer\n\n *Production:* You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the examination the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: X\n\n### See Requests for Production of Documents, attached hereto.\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ September \\_\\_, 2022\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nOR\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ *Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk* \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ *Attorney's signature* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing *(name of party)* \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Luc Despins, Ch. 11 Trustee\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.; Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.; 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com; (203) 821-2000\n\n### **Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena**\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n### **Request for Production of Documents**\n\n### **I. INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n1. Unless otherwise indicated, the requests for documents set forth below, (the \"Requests,\" and each, a \"Request\"), must be responded to separately and specifically. Each Request shall be answered fully unless it is in good faith objected to, in which event the reason for Your objection shall be stated in detail, as set forth below. If an objection pertains only to a portion of a Request, or a word, phrase or clause contained within it, You are required to state Your objection to that portion only and to respond to the remainder of the Requests.\n\n2. Electronically stored information must be produced in accordance with the\n\nfollowing instructions:\n\n- a. Images. Black and white images must be 300 DPI Group IV single-page TIFF files. Color images must be produced in JPEG format. File names cannot contain embedded spaces or special characters (including the comma). Folder names cannot contain embedded spaces or special characters (including the comma). All TIFF image files must have a unique file name, i.e. Bates number. Images must be endorsed with sequential Bates numbers in the lower right corner of each image. The number of TIFF files per folder should not exceed 1000 files. Excel spreadsheets should have a placeholder image named by the Bates number of the file.\n- b. Image Load File\n\t- a. Concordance® Data File. The data file (.DAT) contains all of the fielded information that will be loaded into the Concordance® database. The first line of the .DAT file must be a header row identifying the field names. The .DAT file must use the following Concordance® default delimiters: Comma ASCII character (020) Quote þ ASCII character (254). Date fields should be provided in the format: mm/dd/yyyy. Date and time fields must be two separate fields. If documents includes imaged emails and attachments, the attachment fields must be included to preserve the parent/child relationship between an email and its attachments. An OCRPATH field must be included to provide the file path and name of the extracted text file on the produced storage media. The text file must be named after the FIRSTBATES. Do not include the text in the .DAT file. For Documents with native files, a LINK field must be included to provide the file path and\n\nname of the native file. The native file must be named after the FIRSTBATES.\n\n- b. Concordance Image® OR Opticon Cross-Reference File. The image crossreference file (.LOG or .OPT) links the images to the database records. It should be a comma-delimited file consisting of seven fields per line with a line in the cross-reference file for every image in the database with the following format: ImageID,VolumeLabel,ImageFilePath,DocumentBreak,FolderBreak,Box Break,PageCoun.\n- c. Document Text. Text must be produced as separate text files, not as fields within the .DAT file. The full path to the text file (OCRPATH) should be included in the .DAT file. It is recommended document level ANSI text files, named per the FIRSTBATES/Image Key. Extracted text files must be in a separate folder, and the number of text files per folder should not exceed 1,000 files. There should be no special characters (including commas in the folder names). Text files must be provided on a document level.\n- d. Native Production for Certain File Types. File types that reasonably require viewing in their native format for a full understanding of their content and meaning must be produced in native format. These include, but are not limited to, spreadsheets, spreadsheet-like files (Microsoft Excel, comma separated values, tab separated values, etc.), Microsoft PowerPoint or other special presentation files, database files, and audio/visual files. Provide an image of a Bates numbered slip sheet indicating the presence of a native file, and include the path to the native as a field in the .dat file. Name the produced native file with the Bates number corresponding to the slip sheet for the file. Group native files within incrementally named \"NATIVE\" directories, separate from images directories.\n- e. De-duplication. Produce a single copy of each electronic document for which exact duplicates exist. For email messages, consolidate duplicates based on MD5 hash generated from the BCC, Body, CC, From, IntMsgID, To, and Attach properties. For email attachments and standalone electronic files, consolidate duplicates based on MD5 hash of the entire file.\n- f. Metadata. Produce extracted metadata for each document in the form of a Concordance compliant load file (.dat). The first line of the .DAT file must be a header row identifying the field names. The .DAT file must use the following Concordance default delimiters: Comma , ASCII character (020) Quote þ ASCII character (254)\n\nDate fields should be provided in the format: mm/dd/yyyy. Date and time fields must be two separate fields. Required metadata listed below:\n\n| Field Name   | Sample Data              | Description                                      |\n|--------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| FIRSTBATES   | EDC0000001               | First Bates number of native file document/email |\n| LASTBATES    | EDC0000001               | Last Bates number of native file document/email  |\n|              |                          | **The LASTBATES field should be populated        |\n|              |                          | for single page                                  |\n| ATTACHRANGE  | EDC0000001<br>-          | Bates number of the first page of the parent     |\n|              | EDC0000015               | document to the Bates number of the last page of |\n|              |                          | the last attachment \"child\" document             |\n| BEGATTACH    | EDC0000001               | First Bates number of attachment range           |\n| ENDATTACH    | EDC0000015               | Last Bates number of attachment range            |\n| CUSTODIAN    | Smith, John              | Email: Mailbox where the email resided           |\n|              |                          | Native: Name of the individual or department     |\n|              |                          | from whose files the document<br>originated      |\n| FROM         | John Smith               | Email: Sender                                    |\n|              |                          | Native: Author(s) of document                    |\n|              |                          | **semi-colon should be used to separate          |\n|              |                          | multiple entries                                 |\n| TO           | Coffman, Janice; LeeW    | Recipient(s)                                     |\n|              | [mailto:LeeW@MSN.com]    | **semi-colon should be used to separate multiple |\n|              |                          | entries                                          |\n| CC           | Frank Thompson [mailto:  | Carbon copy recipient(s)                         |\n|              | frank_Thompson@cdt.com]  | **semi-colon should be used to separate          |\n|              |                          | multiple entries                                 |\n| BCC          | John Cain                | Blind carbon copy recipient(s)                   |\n|              |                          | **semi-colon should be used to separate          |\n|              |                          | multiple entries                                 |\n| SUBJECT      | Board Meeting Minutes    | Email: Subject line of the email Native: Title   |\n|              |                          | of document (if available)                       |\n| FILE_NAME    | BoardMeetingMinutes.docx | Native: Name of the original native file,        |\n|              |                          | including extension                              |\n| DATE_SENT    | 10/12/2010               | Email: Date the email was sent                   |\n|              |                          | Native: (empty)                                  |\n| TIME_SENT/   | 07:05 PM GMT             | Email: Time the email was sent/ Time zone in     |\n| TIME_ZONE    |                          | which the emails were standardized               |\n| TIME_ZONE    | GMT                      | The<br>time zone in which<br>the emails<br>were  |\n|              |                          | standardized during conversion.                  |\n| LINK         |  EDC0000001.msg   | Hyperlink to the email or native file document   |\n|              |                          | **The linked file must be named per the          |\n|              |                          | FIRSTBATES number                                |\n| FILE_EXTEN   | MSG                      | The file type extension                          |\n|              |                          | representing                                     |\n|              |                          | the Email or                                     |\n| AUTHOR       | John Smith               | Email: (empty)                                   |\n|              |                          | Native: Author of the document                   |\n| DATE_CREATED | 10/10/2010               | Email: (empty)                                   |\n|              |                          | Native: Date the document was created            |\n\n| TIME_CREATED | 10:25 AM                  | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|--------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n|              |                           | Native: Time the document was created           |\n|              |                           | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n|              |                           | be combined with the DATE_CREATED field         |\n| DATE_MOD     | 10/12/2010                | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Date the document was last modified     |\n| TIME_MOD     | 07:00 PM                  | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Time the document was last modified     |\n|              |                           | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n|              |                           | be combined with the DATE_MOD field             |\n| DATE_ACCESSD | 10/12/2010                | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Date the document was last accessed     |\n| TIME_ACCESSD | 07:00 PM                  | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Time the document was last accessed     |\n|              |                           | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n|              |                           | be combined with the DATE_ACCESSD field         |\n| FILE_SIZE    | 5,952                     | Size of native file<br>document/email in KB     |\n| PGCOUNT      | 1                         | Number of pages in native file document/email   |\n| PATH         |   | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              | Agenda.doc                | Native: Path where native file document was     |\n|              |                           | stored including original file name.            |\n| INTFILEPATH  | Personal Folders\\Deleted  | Email: original location of email including     |\n|              | Items\\Board Meeting       | original file name.                             |\n|              | Minutes.msg               | Native: (empty)                                 |\n| INTMSGID     | <000805c2c71b\\$75977050\\$ | Email: Unique Message ID Native: (empty)        |\n|              | cb8306d1@MSN>             |                                                 |\n| MD5HASH      | d131dd02c5e6eec4693d9a0   | MD5 Hash value of the document.                 |\n|              | 698aff95c                 |                                                 |\n|              | 2fcab58712467eab4004583e  |                                                 |\n|              | b8fb7f89                  |                                                 |\n| OCRPATH      | TEXT/001/EDC0000001.txt   | Path to extracted text of the native file       |\n\n3. Each Request operates and should be construed independently and, unless otherwise indicated, no Request limits the scope of any other Request.\n\n4. All Documents are to be produced as kept in the usual course of business or are to be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in these Requests.\n\n5. Each Request contained herein extends to all Documents: (a) in Your possession, custody, or control; or (b) in the possession, custody, or control of anyone acting on Your behalf, including Your counsel or other representatives and advisors. Each Document shall be produced in its entirety.\n\n6. If You are requested to produce a Document that is no longer in Your possession, custody, or control, then Your response must (a) describe in detail the nature of the document and its contents; (b) identify the person(s) who prepared or authored the Document (and, if applicable, the Person(s) to whom the Document was sent); (c) identify the date on which the document was prepared or created; (d) state whether such Document (i) is missing or lost, (ii) has been destroyed, (iii) has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, to others, or (iv) was otherwise disposed of; (e) state the reason for, and the facts and circumstances surrounding, such disposition; (f) identify the Persons who authorized such disposition; (g) identify the date or approximate date of such disposition; (h) state when the Document was most recently in Your possession, custody or control; and (i) identify the Person, if any, presently in possession, custody, or control of such Document.\n\n7. If You are requested to produce a Document that has been destroyed, then Your response must state, in addition to the information required by the preceding Instruction: (a) the reason for the Document's destruction; (b) the identity of the Person who destroyed the Document; and (c) the identity of the Person who directed that the Document be destroyed.\n\n8. If You claim that a requested Document is privileged or attorney work-product, then Your response must: (a) state (i) a description of the Document adequate to support Your contention that the Document is privileged, (ii) the title of the Document, (iii) the date of the Document, (iv) the author of the Document, (v) the addressee of the Document, (vi) the identity of each Person who received or saw the original or any draft, copy, or reproduction of the Document, (vii) whether the Document itself, or any information contained or referred to in the Document is in the possession, custody, or control of any other Persons, and if so, the identity of such Persons, as well as a statement addressing how the information came into their possession, (viii) the claim of privilege under which the Document is withheld, and (ix) all of the circumstances upon which You will rely to support such claim of privilege; and (b) produce a privilege log containing all of the information requested in Part (a) of this Instruction for each Document withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege in accordance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e). For any part of a Document Request as to which a claim of privilege or work product is not made, responsive documents should be provided in full.\n\n9. If a portion of an otherwise responsive Document contains information subject to a claim of privilege, only that portion of the Document subject to the claim of privilege shall be deleted or redacted from the Document following the instructions above, and the rest shall be produced.\n\n10. The Requests are continuing in nature. You are hereby instructed to (a) supplement or correct any responses later learned to be incomplete or incorrect immediately upon learning that a prior response was incomplete or incorrect; and (b) produce any additional Documents that are called for under the\n\n11. If a Document is in a language other than English, You should provide that Document. If a Document is in a language other than English, and an English translation exists, You should provide both Documents.\n\n12. All references to Entities includes all affiliates thereof.\n\n13. All references to individual names include all alternative names, aliased, or nicknames.\n\n14. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, the period of time covered by the Document Requests is the period from February 5, 2012 to the date responses to the Document Requests are due.\n\n### **II. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION**\n\n15. The use of (a) any singular noun shall be construed to include the plural, and vice versa, and (b) a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all other tenses.\n\n16. The terms (a) \"and\" and \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of any request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope, and (b) \"each\" and \"any\" shall be deemed to include and encompass the words \"every\" and \"all.\"\n\n### **III. DEFINITIONS**\n\nThe definitions supplied by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) and the rules of construction supplied by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d), as incorporated by D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1(a), shall apply to the Document Requests. In addition, the following terms used in these Document Requests shall have the following meanings:\n\n1. \"You\" or \"Your\" or \"Yourself\" means and refers to UBS AG, together with any of its affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries, and any of their employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on their behalf.\n\n2. \"Debtor\" means Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Guo Wengui, Guo Haoyun, 郭文贵, or any other alias), together with his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf.\n\n3. \"Debtor's Son\" means Qiang Guo (a/k/a Mileson Kwok, 郭强, or any other alias), together with his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf.\n\n4. \"Debtor's Daughter\" means Mei Guo (a/k/a Mei Gui, 郭美, or any other alias), together with her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\n\n5. \"Debtor's Purported Wife\" means Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, Yue Qingzhi, 岳庆芝, or any other alias), together with her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\n\n6. \"Debtor's Family\" means, individually and collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\n\n7. \"2004 Discovery Targets\" means, individually and collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, ACA Capital Group Limited, Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd., Himalaya International Clearing Ltd., Himalaya International Payments Ltd., Himalaya International Reserves Ltd., Jesse Brown, William Je, William Je, Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, Bravo Luck Limited, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., Lamp Capital LLC, Greenwich Land LLC, Qu Guo Jiao, Daniel Thomas Podhaskie, Yvette Wang, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, Dawn State Limited, Rule of Law Society IV Inc., Rule of Law Foundation III, GTV Media Group, Inc., Voice of Guo Media, Inc., and Saraca Media Group Inc.\n\n8. \"Associated Individuals\" means, individually and collectively, all individuals that (1) hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have been employees, directors, or otherwise are affiliated with one or more Associated Entities, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel,\n\nadvisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. Such Associated Individuals shall include, but are not limited to: Daniel Podhaskie, Jason Miller, Jesse Brown, William Je, Steve Bannon, Karin Maistrello, Melissa Francis, William Gertz, Arethusa Forsyth, Glenn Mellor, Jennifer Mercurio, Eduardo Eurnekian, Han Chunguang (a/k/a 韩春光), Qu Guojiao (a/k/a Qu Guo Jiao, 屈国姣), Guo Lijie (a/k/a 郭丽杰), Zhang Wei (a/k/a 张伟\\*), Lihong Wei Lafrenz (a/k/a Sara Wei, 魏丽红), Hao Haidong (a/k/a 郝海东), Ross Heinemeyer, Max Krasner, Kyle Bass, Melissa Mendez, Ya Li (a/k/a 李娅), Dinggang Wang (a/k/a 王定刚), An Hong (a/k/a 安红), Yvette Wang (a/k/a Yanping Wang, Yan Ping Wang, 王雁平), Fiona Yu, Je Kin Ming (a/k/a William Je, Yu Jianming, 余建明), Yaz Qingua, and Lao Jiang (a/k/a Jiang Yunfu, Jiang Yunfu Be, 姜云浮).\n\n9. \"Associated Entities\" means, individually and collectively, all organizations or Entities of any type that (1) have been owned, controlled, or invested in by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. Such Associated Entities shall include, but are not limited to: 7 Nod Hill LLC, AAGV Limited, ACA Investment Management Limited, ACA Capital Group Limited, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, AI Group Holdings Inc., Alfa Global Ventures Limited, Alfonso Global Limited, Allied Capital Global Limited, Alpine Fiduciaries SA, Anton Development Limited, Assets Sino Limited, Auspicious Coast Limited, Beijing Pangu Investment Co., Beijing Pangu Investment Co. Ltd., Beijing Pangu Investment Inc., Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited, Bravo Luck Limited, BSA Strategic Fund I, China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Limited, Chuang Xin Limited, Crane Advisory Group LLC, Creative Apex Investments Limited, Crystal Breeze Investments Limited,\n\nDawn State Limited, Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, Elite Well Global Limited, Empire Growth Holdings, G Club Operations LLC, G Fashion LLC, G News LLC, GETTR USA, Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever Holdings LLC, GFASHION MEDIA GROUP INC., GFNY, Inc., Globalist International Limited, GNews Media Group Inc., Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., Greenwich Land LLC, Guo Media, GTV Media Group, Inc., Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc., Head Win Group Limited, Henan Yuda, Himalaya Embassy, Himalaya Exchange, Himalaya Federal Reserve, Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd., Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. , Himalaya International Payments Ltd., Himalaya International Reserves Ltd., Himalaya Supervisory Organization, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinite Increase Limited, Infinitum Developments Limited, Insight Phoenix Fund, Lamp Capital LLC, Leading Shine Limited, Leading Shine NY Limited, Long Gate Limited, Next Tycoon Investments Limited, New Federal State of China (a/k/a NFSC), Noble Fame Global Limited, Rosy Acme Ventures Limited, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc., Rule of Law Fund, Rule of Law Society, Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., G-Translators PTY LTD, Saraca Media Group, Inc., Shiny Ace Ltd., Shiny Times Holdings Ltd., Spirit Charter Investment Limited, Stevenson, Wong & Co., TM Primrose Limited, Voice of Guo Media, Inc., Well Origin Ltd., World Century Limited, Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited, Whitecroft Shore Limited, and ZIBA Limited.\n\n10. \"Including\" or any variant thereof means \"including without limitation.\"\n\n11. \"And\" and \"or\" mean \"and/or,\" and shall be construed both conjunctively as well as disjunctively in order to maximize their scope.\n\n12. \"Any\" and \"all\" and \"each\" mean \"each and every.\"\n\n13. \"Each\" and \"every\" mean \"each and every.\"\n\n14. \"Third Party\" means a Person or Entity other than Yourself.\n\n15. \"Transfer\" shall have the meaning given to it by section 101(54) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n16. \"Document\" means any information or thing within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and includes, without limitation, each and every written, recorded, or graphic matter of any kind, type, nature, or description that is or has been in Your Possession, Custody or Control, including all printed and electronic copies of electronic mail, computer files maintained in electronic form, correspondence, memoranda, tapes, stenographic or handwritten notes, written forms of any kind, charts, blueprints, drawings, sketches, graphs, plans, articles, specifications, diaries, letters, telegrams, photographs, minutes, contracts, agreements, surveys, computer printouts, data compilations of any kind, telexes, facsimiles, emails, text messages, instant messages, voice messages, invoices, order forms, checks, drafts, statements, credit memos, reports, position reports, summaries, indices, books, ledgers, notebooks, schedules, transparencies, recordings, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials, films, video tapes, audio tapes, CDs, computer disks, brochures, pamphlets, punch-cards, time-slips, Tweets, social media posts, or any written or recorded materials of any other kind, and all meta-data thereof, however stored (whether in tangible or electronic form), recorded, produced, or reproduced, and also including but not limited to, drafts or copies of any of the foregoing that contain any notes, comments, or markings of any kind not found on the original documents or that are otherwise not identical to the original documents.\n\n17. \"Person(s)\" means an individual, corporation, proprietorship, partnership, association, or any other Entity. \"Person\" also includes any agent, representatives, or expert, including but not limiting to, attorneys or financial advisors.\n\n18. \"Entity\" means any natural Person, corporation, partnership, subsidiary, sole proprietorship, firm, board, joint venture, association, agency, authority, commission or other business entity or juristic Person, as well as any affiliate, agent, parent including but not limited to counsel, financial advisors, or any other representative.\n\n19. \"Regarding\" means concerning, describing, comprising, referring to, related to, supporting, favoring, opposing, bolstering, detracting from, located in, considered in connection with, bearing on, evidencing, indicating, reporting on, recording, alluding to, responding to, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, in relation to, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing constituting, and being.\n\n20. \"Relating to,\" \"relate(s) to\" or \"related to,\" when referring to any given subject matter, means, without limitation, any document that constitutes, comprises, involves, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers directly or indirectly to, or is in any way relevant to the particular subject matter identified.\n\n21. \"Communication(s)\" means, in the broadest possible sense, and without limitation, any transmittal of information or knowledge (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). Communication(s) further refers to all conversations, agreements, inquiries, or replies, whether in person, by telephone, in writing, or by means of electronic transmittal devices, and includes, but is not limited to, all correspondence, emails, recordings, transmittal slips, memoranda, telephone communications, voice messages, telegrams, telefaxes, telecopies, telexes, instant messages, chats, text messages, postings to a message board or group chat, social media posts, tweets, videos uploaded to any video platform, telephonic notes, or notes transmitted internally or with third parties.\n\n22. \"Asset(s)\" means any item of economic value that is subject to Possession, Custody, or Control. Asset includes all real and personal property, including but limited to, real estate, land, houses, apartments, condominiums, automobiles, yachts, boats, planes, jets, helicopters, cash, bank accounts, cryptocurrencies, securities, accounts receivables, inventory, and other tangible and intangible property.\n\n### **IV. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED**\n\n1. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present related to any account held by, controlled by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets, including any and all account statements, authorizations, power of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\n\n2. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present related to any funds, securities, property, or assets belonging to, held by, controlled by, on behalf of, or otherwise related to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets, including any and all account statements, authorizations, powers of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\n\n3. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present related to any business, commerce or financial transactions, including but not limited to any loan, line of credit, bailment, deposit, swap, securities transactions, mortgage, or ISDA, with any of the 2004 Discovery Targets, including any and all account statements, authorizations, powers of attorney, trusts, instructions or forms, copies of cancelled checks, correspondence, and wire transfers and related correspondence and instructions.\n\n4. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present relating to any wire transfer activity relating to the 2004 Discovery Targets, regardless of the existence of any accounts, including but not limited to all wire transfer receipts, account numbers, balances, authorizations, identification information related to the parties to the transfer, correspondence, instructions, or other records.\n\n5. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present related to any correspondence and communications between you and the 2004 Discovery Targets.\n\n6. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present related to any account with any 2004 Discovery Target relating to opening of the account, authorized users of the account and maintenance of the account.\n\n7. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present related to any antimoney laundering, know-your-customer, or other compliance activity relating to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets, including but not limited to any information provided by any of the 2004 Discovery Targets, or learned by You.\n\n8. All Documents dated between January 1, 2012 and the present relating to any communications with any regulator from any country, including but not limited to the Bank of England, the United States Federal Reserve, the S.E.C., the CFTC, FINRA, China Securities Regulatory Commission, People's Bank of China, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority relating to any of the 2004 Discovery Targets.\n\n## **EXHIBIT B**\n\n![](_page_34_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n**UBS Business Solutions US LLC** 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York NY 10019 Tel. +1-212-821 3000\n\nAmericas Litigation\n\nTheodore Wills Assistant General Counsel Tel: 615-393-7618 Theodore.Wills@ubs.com\n\nwww.ubs.com\n\n#### **Confidential**\n\nOctober 12, 2022\n\nBY EMAIL plinsey@npmlaw.com Patrick R. Linsey, Esq. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n\n**Re:** *In Re Ho Wan Kwok* United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut Case No. 22-50073 Our Matter No.: 43442005-2022-1244\n\nDear Counsel,\n\nThis letter is written on behalf of UBS AG (\"UBS\") in response to the Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination to UBS AG dated September 22, 2022 and served upon UBS by your firm in connection with the above-referenced action currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut (the \"Subpoena or Request\").\n\n### **OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS and INSTRUCTIONS and DEFINITIONS**\n\nUBS objects to the production of any documents related to accounts located in jurisdictions outside of the United States. United States Bankruptcy courts do not have jurisdiction over UBS entities in jurisdictions outside of the United States as UBS entities in jurisdictions outside of the United States do not conduct business in the United States. Also, US UBS employees do not have access to the systems that house the documents related to accounts held in jurisdictions outside of the United States and employees of UBS entities in jurisdictions outside of the United States could face criminal penalties if they were to produce documents in response to a United States District Court subpoena.\n\nUBS objects to the production of Documents related to any regulator of UBS, anti-money laundering Documents, and other compliance Documents as the production of such documents could expose UBS to legal and/or regulatory liability.\n\nUBS objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as compliance would impose significant expense and burden on UBS, a non-party, and the issuing party has failed to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing such hardships on UBS. For example, certain of\n\nPatrick R Linsey October 12, 2022 2 / 2\n\nthe Requests could be sought from the parties to the action. UBS contends that the Requests fail to identify documents with reasonable particularity, including but not limited to identifying a reasonable time-period for which you are seeking discovery. Moreover, certain requests can be construed as seeking documents that are in UBS's affiliates' possession, custody or control having corporate identities separate and apart from UBS and therefore not in UBS's possession, custody or control.\n\nUBS will not produce documents or information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection which UBS is entitled to assert. UBS reserves the right to recall from discovery any inadvertently produced document that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product immunity doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Further, UBS will not produce documents from UBS's offices or those of its affiliates or subsidiaries located outside of the United States that would violate the laws of any other jurisdiction.\n\nUBS's forgoing objections and responses to the Subpoena, does not concede that responsive documents exist or are within its possession, custody, or control. Further, no documents will be produced absent entry of an appropriate confidentiality stipulation and protective order governing their use and disclosure. UBS reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses.\n\nSubject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, UBS is willing to meet and confer in an effort to narrow or eliminate areas of dispute relating to this Request.\n\nSincerely,\n\n*/s/ Theodore Wills* Theodore Wills Assistant General Counsel\n\n# **EXHIBIT C**\n\n52/F TiAfo International Finance Centre 8 Finance Street, Centra!, Hor.'g Kong Tel. +852-2971 88S8 Fa;< +852-2971 8001\n\nFeb. *23,* 2015\n\nI\n\nI I\n\nI\n\nI I I I\n\nI I I\n\nI\n\nI\n\nI\n\nI I\n\nI\n\nI\n\nI\n\nI I\n\nBoard of Directors of the.Sherry-Netherland The Sherry-fsJetherland . 781 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022\n\nDear Sirs,\n\n## **Bank Reference - [Application for Real Estate Investments]**\n\nWe have been asked to provide a reference letter in connection with Application for Real Estate Investments. We confirm that:\n\n**Kwok Ho Wan**\n\n[client's ID:\n\nhas been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012 and during this time Mr. Kwok Ho Wan has'had a satisfactory banking retationship with us. As at 18 Feb. 2015, the funds involved in this banking relationship is not less than USD400, 000,000,\n\nThe above information is'based on our experience of this banking relationship as at current date and is given in confidence for your private use only, without any responsibility on the part of UBS AG or its employees. This letter may only be used in the business context outlined at the beginning of this letter and does.not constitute a guarantee or any other obligation on the part of UBS AG, In particular,, we are under no obligation to inform you of any subsequent change of circumstances in this banking relationship,\n\nYours faithfully, For and on behalf of UBS AG Hong Kong Branch\n\nTorn^ Chedng\n\nManaging'6irector Stephen vycng\n\nManaging Director <sup>I</sup>","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第11章受托人请求作出命令，强制 UBS AG（瑞银集团）遵守《破产规则》2004 传票的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“个人债务人”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中被任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，特此根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（“联邦规则”）第26条和第37条，以及《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第2004条和第9016条，提交本动议（“强制动议”），请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上如随附于本动议的命令草案（“拟议命令”）所示，强制 UBS AG（“UBS”）遵守本院于 September 21, 2022 作出的《准许第11章受托人根据《破产规则》2004及地方法则2004-1提出的第一份补充综合动议，以作出命令授权就债务人的其他法律和财务顾问、与债务人有关联的实体和个人以及相关银行进行证据开示的命令》（ECF No. 866，“规则2004命令”），以及受托人根据该命令向 UBS 发出的传票和文件提供请求，后者作为附件A随附于本动议（统称“UBS传票”），并驳回 UBS 对 UBS传票提出的异议，该等异议作为附件B随附于本动议（“异议”）。为支持强制动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1　本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n事实背景\n\n1. 于 September 7, 2021，受托人提交了《第11章受托人根据《破产规则》2004及地方法则2004-1提出的第一份补充综合动议，以作出命令授权就债务人的其他法律和财务顾问、与债务人有关联的实体和个人以及相关银行进行证据开示》（“第一份综合2004动议”），请求就个人债务人的各类法律和财务顾问、与个人债务人有关联的人士，以及与本案相关的、个人债务人及与其有关联的人士和实体被认为曾在其中存入资金或进行金融交易的银行进行证据开示。\n\n2. 特别是，个人债务人以及由其控制或与其结盟的个人和实体在 UBS 持有大量资产，向 UBS 借款，并与及通过 UBS 以其他方式开展业务。这一点尤其可由受托人取得的文件和信息证明，其中反映 Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”）名下在 UBS 的账户——Bravo Luck 是个人债务人此前拥有的一家实体（现据称由个人债务人的儿子拥有），且受托人的调查显示，该实体曾代表个人债务人接收、持有及分配数百万美元。\n\n3. 实际上，UBS 与个人债务人的关系可由 UBS 于 2015 向 Sherry Netherland 董事会（“Sherry Netherland 董事会”）提供的一封推荐信说明，UBS 在该信中表示，个人债务人“自 July 2012 起通过一家个人投资公司一直是我们的客户”，且“该银行关系所涉资金不少于 USD400,000,000。”该信的真实准确副本作为附件C随附于本动议（“UBS信函”）。UBS 从其位于香港的办事处（“香港分行”）向位于曼哈顿的 Sherry Netherland 董事会出具 UBS信函，推定系依个人债务人的指示。2\n\n4. 此外，受托人已取得记录，显示位于康涅狄格州斯坦福德的 UBS 办事处（“斯坦福德分行”）参与了从 Bravo Luck 在 UBS 的账户转出数百万美元资金的交易。因此，UBS 曾多次在美国境内开展涉及个人债务人的业务，或者如 UBS信函所示，开展指向美国的业务。\n\n5. 基于上述等理由，受托人在其第一份规则2004动议中列入了 UBS。UBS 未对第一份规则2004动议提出异议，本院于 September 21, 2022 通过其规则2004命令准许了该动议。根据规则2004命令，受托人发出了 UBS传票，该传票于 September 26, 2022 在 UBS 的斯坦福德分行送达 UBS。\n\n6. UBS 于 October 12, 2022 向受托人送达其异议。UBS 的异议并未具体回应随附于 UBS传票的文件提供请求中的各项请求。相反，异议概括性地反对提供与据称位于美国境外司法辖区的账户相关的文件。\n\n7. 受托人与 UBS 就 UBS传票进行了会谈协商（通过律师电话进行）。UBS 首先请求时间，以确定哪些文件和信息对 UBS传票具有回应性，并考虑其遵守 UBS传票的意愿。受托人予以配合，向 UBS 提供信息，以协助并加快其审查。\n\n2　该信是 Sherry Netherland 董事会据以批准个人债务人通过共同债务人 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever (BVI)”）和 Genever Holdings LLC（“Genever (US)”）购买曼哈顿 Sherry Netherland Hotel 一套约 \\$70 million 的公寓的文件之一；Genever (BVI) 和 Genever (US) 与个人债务人合称“债务人”。\n\n8. UBS 于本月早些时候告知受托人，其不会提供任何对 UBS传票具有回应性的文件或信息——甚至不会披露存在哪些文件或信息——理由是外国司法辖区的银行隐私法。具体而言，UBS 援引香港隐私法，并建议受托人通过香港的法律程序寻求证据开示。同时，UBS 拒绝确认其持有回应性文件的个人和实体，甚至拒绝列出其声称必须在其中寻求回应性文件的国家。因此，按照 UBS 的逻辑，为取得对 UBS传票具有回应性的文件3，受托人将需要在 UBS 设有分支机构的世界各地数十个国家寻求《海牙公约》证据开示或启动承认程序：\n\n3　UBS 仅表示，“账户”不存在于美国、英国和英属维尔京群岛。如 UBS 全球业务分布图所示，六大洲仍分布着众多司法辖区。在会谈协商过程中，UBS 一直试图将责任置于受托人，要求其指明 UBS 应在哪些具体司法辖区搜索其文件和信息。虽然受托人指出了若干特别关注的司法辖区（同样是为了加快文件提供），但受托人也明确表示，告知 UBS 其自行在哪里保存文件和信息并非受托人的义务。\n\n4　白色方格表示 UBS 分支机构所在地。来源：http\n\n9. 或者，UBS 建议受托人取得与个人债务人有关联的个人和实体的同意。鉴于本案的情形，显然不太可能获得此类同意。相反，正如本院最近指出，受托人的调查“在程序的每一步都遭遇了反对……”《部分准许初步禁令动议的决定备忘录》，Adv. Pro. 22-05032 (Jan. 11, 2023) [ECF No. 128]（“禁令决定”）第37页。5\n\n10. 在与 UBS 的讨论中，受托人向其律师提供了 UBS信函副本，以及反映斯坦福德分行参与相关账户和交易的信息。UBS 也应从其自身记录中知悉上述情况，且 UBS 从未否认其向曼哈顿的 Sherry Netherland 董事会发送 UBS信函，亦未否认其斯坦福德分行的参与。\n\n11. 会谈协商过程持续数月，受托人向 UBS 提供文件和信息，以协助 UBS 搜索，并强调 UBS 在美国境内及针对美国的行为。该过程包括律师之间超过六次电话会议及大量电子邮件往来。\n\n12. 最终，尽管 UBS 在美国开展了大量业务经营（尤其是在斯坦福德分行），并且 UBS 在美国境内开展了与个人债务人及所涉证据开示具体相关的业务活动，UBS 仍拒绝遵守 UBS传票。相反，UBS 建议受托人寻求 UBS 知道或理应知道在本第11章案件中不可行的所谓替代方案。若 UBS 数月前即告知受托人其最终立场，受托人本可节省大量时间和费用。因此提出本强制动议。\n\n5　受托人已向 UBS 建议受托人寻求同意的数个实体发出传票（即 Lamp Capital LLC 和 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.），但该等实体仅仅置之不理。（见强制动议 [ECF No. 1046]。）认为该等实体现在会向受托人提供同意以从 UBS 取得记录的想法荒谬可笑。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n13. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对审理本事项具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，审判地适当。根据包括 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O) 在内的规定，本事项属于核心程序。\n\n所请求的救济\n\n14. 受托人请求作出拟议命令，强制 UBS 在十四日内遵守 UBS传票。\n\n救济依据\n\n本院已责成受托人调查个人债务人的财务状况，并已授权受托人使用《破产规则》2004证据开示\n\n15. UBS 必须遵守 UBS传票，并提供对受托人调查个人债务人的财务状况和事务至关重要的文件和信息。受托人的职责是为个人债务人债权人的利益调查个人债务人的资产和事务。“规则2004审查的目的，是协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围，发现资产，审查交易，并评估是否发生不当行为。”In re Transmar Commodity Grp. Ltd., Case No. 16-13625-JLG, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（省略内部引述和引证）。\n\n16. 这包括揭示破产财产的性质和范围，并发现债务人可能故意或非故意隐匿的资产。In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); 另见 In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（“规则2004审查的正当目标\n\n包括发现资产、审查交易以及确定是否已发生不当行为。”）（省略内部引文和引注）；同上（指出，“与仅狭义聚焦于争议相关问题的传统证据开示不同，规则2004的范围广泛且不受拘束，常被比作撒网式调查和审讯”）（省略内部引注和标点）；Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)（授权进行与“……债务人的……财产……及财务状况，或可能影响债务人财产管理的任何事项”有关的2004审查）（强调部分为原文所加）。\n\n17. 如上所述，UBS（瑞银）持有响应UBS传票的文件和信息。在受托人与瑞银进行了数月讨论后，受托人了解到，瑞银拒绝遵从UBS传票的唯一理由是所谓外国隐私法的适用性。瑞银试图依赖外国法逃避其遵从UBS传票义务的做法并无依据。\n\n瑞银必须遵从传票，包括其声称位于境外的账户\n\n18. 第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）已多次命令外国实体提交文件，“即使存在相冲突的外国法律义务。”Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 706 F.3d 92, 114-116 (2d Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Davis, 767 F.2d 1025, 1033-35 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968). 本巡回区内的地区法院亦然。See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d 346, 364 (S.D.N.Y 2018); Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 249 F.R.D. 429, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank, PLC, 242 F.R.D. 33, 57-58 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).\n\n19. 外国“银行保密法并非‘免于承担法律后果’的通行证。”Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 364.\n\n最高法院（Supreme Court）早已认识到，当事人如遵从美国证据开示命令将违反外国法时所面临的困难。外国法的适用并不剥夺美国法院命令受其管辖的一方提交证据的权力，即使提交行为可能违反该[法律]。最终，地区法院拥有广泛裁量权，可以其认为最有效的任何方式推进程序。\n\nId.（省略内部引注和引号）（引用 Société Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 204-211, 78 S. Ct. 1087, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1255 (1958)）；see also Linde, 706 F.3d at 109.\n\n20. 在Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC一案中，第二巡回上诉法院采纳了《重述》中的一项衡量测试，该测试规制法院“作出可能违反外国法的证据开示命令”的裁量权。Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 364.\n\n第442条［《美国对外关系法重述（第三）》］规定，在决定是否就位于境外的信息作出提交命令时，法院应考虑：[1]“所请求的文件或其他信息对调查或诉讼的重要性；[2] 请求的具体程度；[3] 该信息是否起源于美国；[4] 获取该信息的替代方式是否可得；以及[5] 不遵从请求将在何种程度上损害美国的重要利益，或者遵从请求将在何种程度上损害信息所在地国家的重要利益。”Restatement § 442(1)(c). 本巡回区的判例表明，在决定是否施加制裁时，地区法院还应审查：[6] 面临相冲突法律义务的一方所承受的困难，以及[7] 该方是否已证明其在履行证据开示义务方面具有善意。\n\nLinde, 706 F.3d at 109-10; see also Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd, 183 F.Supp.3d 409, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)（对因素编号）。\n\n21. Linde案下的衡量测试强烈倾向于受托人。\n\n22. 对调查的重要性。受托人所寻求的文件和信息对其调查至关重要。Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）在由个人债务人拥有和控制期间，在瑞银账户中持有数亿美元。瑞银向Sherry Netherland Board（雪莉·尼德兰董事会）表示，这些资金通过“一家个人投资公司”与个人债务人有关联。（见UBS Letter。）受托人必须查明这些资金来自何处以及其后续去向。此外，受托人与其他曾处理个人债务人资产的金融机构打交道的经验表明，个人债务人或由其控制或与其结盟的个人或实体，可能在瑞银持有其他资产。该等信息同样对于了解个人债务人的财务状况具有关键必要性。因此，第一项因素有利于受托人。\n\n23. 请求的具体性。UBS传票所列文件请求具体针对个人债务人以及与其直接相关或具有关联的某些个人和实体。受托人已与瑞银合作，提供了大量额外信息，以协助瑞银进行内部审查并搜索文件和信息。受托人在此方面所作的努力，遭到了瑞银拒绝遵从UBS传票的回应。因此，该因素同样支持强制提交。\n\n24. 信息所在地。瑞银是一家“全球金融服务公司”6，总部设在瑞士，在美国拥有大量业务运营，并在世界各地设有分支机构。瑞银通过其Stamford Branch（斯坦福德分行）参与了使用相关账户的交易，这表明至少部分响应性文件和信息位于美国境内。此外，就瑞银持有位于境外的额外文件和信息而言，其此前已表明有能力（通过其在UBS Letter中的陈述）将其传输至美国。其现不得藐视UBS传票而拒绝这样做。该因素支持受托人。\n\n25. 获取信息的替代方式是否可得。瑞银建议受托人通过在境外司法辖区聘请律师、启动承认程序，并在众多外国司法辖区寻求文件提交，以在境外取得证据（瑞银拒绝披露其中的国家名单）。\n\n6 瑞银自称，除其他事项外，是一家“全球金融服务公司”。See http\n\n或者，瑞银建议受托人通过《海牙取证公约》取得证据——同样是在世界各地进行。两项建议均不构成可行的替代方案，因为任一方案均会造成这些破产财产无力承受的延误和费用。相反，《联邦规则》和《破产规则》为受托人获得提交提供了一种更简单、更便宜、更快速的机制。“与《联邦民事诉讼规则》相比，《海牙公约》规定的证据开示程序……既非从外国实体获取证据开示的唯一方式，也不必然是首要方式。”In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 236 F.R.D. 177, 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Valois of Am., Inc. v. Risdon Corp., 183 F.R.D. 344, 349 (D. Conn. 1997)（指出“通常认为，《海牙公约》下的程序远比《联邦民事诉讼规则》下的程序繁琐”）。由于瑞银甚至不确认其声称受托人需要在何处寻求此类文件，为确保完全遵从，受托人将不得不在世界各地数十个国家进行《海牙公约》取证或启动承认程序。这些并非现实的替代方案。\n\n26. 如法院近期认定，延误和费用均会对受托人的调查，进而对这些破产财产，造成极大不利影响。See Injunction Decision at pp. 32-33（“延误尤其有害，因为可能不存在足以补偿该等延误的充分法律救济。第11章受托人若无破产财产资产，便无法聘请专业人士协助调查；而在调查持续被延误期间，破产财产资产可能被置于债权人的追索范围之外。”）。鉴于个人债务人及其盟友持续拒绝配合受托人的调查，瑞银建议受托人取得与个人债务人有关联的个人和实体的同意，也显然并不现实。不存在可行替代方案支持强制瑞银遵从。\n\n27. 不遵从损害美国的重要利益。美国对于确保受托人获准勤勉调查个人债务人的财务事务具有至关重要的利益。法院已多次确认受托人的调查对这些破产财产的重要性。See, e.g., Injunction Decision at pp. 38, 39, 41. 受托人的调查对于确保债权人最终能够从依联邦破产法正当属于这些破产财产的财产中获得追偿至关重要。\n\n28. 受托人的调查不仅为了这些破产财产及其债权人的利益，也为了确保破产程序的完整性。法院在任命受托人时已认识到这一点，并继续认可该利益。See id. at pp. 54-55（指出受托人是“法院官员”，并讨论破产程序的完整性）。其他法院同样认可该利益的重要性。See, e.g., In re RnD Eng'g, LLC, 556 B.R. 303, 313 (E.D. Mich. 2016 (“破产程序的完整性是法院的重要考量因素”)。因此，该因素亦支持强制提交。\n\n29. 困难与善意。为主张困难，瑞银必须“证明遭受民事和/或刑事处罚的可能性并非仅属推测。”CE Int'l Res. Holdings, LLC v. S.A. Minerals Ltd. P'ship, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85650, \\*41-42 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013). 瑞银未作出任何此类证明；且鉴于包括其在美国有关债务人的行为以及瑞银通过其斯坦福德分行参与相关交易在内的事项，其也无法作出该等证明。相比之下，瑞银所主张的任何不利影响，可以通过法院命令其遵从UBS传票以及第11章案件中此前作出的保护令[ECF No. 923]予以减轻。此外，尽管瑞银参与了多次会面协商电话会议，但其持续完全拒绝遵从UBS传票——尤其是在受托人发现反映瑞银在美国境内及涉及美国行为的信息之后——已无法再以善意维持。\n\n30. 由于所有相关因素均支持执行UBS传票，法院应强制瑞银遵从。\n\n瑞银在保护谁的隐私权？\n\n31. 瑞银长期抵制遵从UBS传票，不禁令人质疑：其保护的是谁的隐私利益？\n\n32. 就个人债务人而言，瑞银已在UBS Letter中承认其是瑞银的客户，受托人承继其地位并有权取得其记录。至于Bravo Luck，其早已知悉第11章案件，现正通过律师在该案中出庭。债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）在Genever US第11章案件中提交了债权证明[Claim No. 3-1 in case no. 22-50592]。这些当事人均已接受法院的管辖。任何一方如愿意，均可对第一项综合2004动议提出异议，或申请撤销UBS传票。\n\n33. 无论如何，UBS AG（瑞银集团）将因法院命令其提交对瑞银传票作出回应的文件和信息而获得充分保护。法院应立即作出该等命令，不得再行延误并损害这些破产财产。\n先前未提出请求\n\n34. 受托人此前未曾向本院或任何其他法院寻求本文件所请求的救济。\n律师证明\n\n35. 如上所述，并如随附提交的Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）声明所载，受托人的律师已本着诚信与瑞银的律师进行协商，试图解决本争议，但未成功。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出拟议命令，准予本强制执行动议所请求的救济，以及任何其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：January 23, 2022　　　　　　　　　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　　　　　　　　　第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey　Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437）　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思律师事务所）　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, Connecticut 06510　(203) 781-2847　plinsey@npmlaw.com\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区）BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　:\n:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林赛）关于支持第11章受托人请求作出命令强制UBS AG遵守规则2004传票之动议的声明\n\n本人，Patrick R. Linsey，声明：\n\n1. 本人是一名获准在康涅狄格州执业的律师，并为Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.的律师，以及Luc A. Despins作为第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持第11章受托人请求作出命令强制UBS AG遵守规则2004传票之动议（以下简称“动议”）。\n\n2. 本人已在较长期间内多次就本动议所涉争议与UBS AG（以下简称“UBS”）的律师进行协商，包括（最近一次）\n\n7. 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）以及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n于January 20, 2023。尽管已本着诚信进行该等协商，受托人与UBS未能解决其争议。\n\n根据28 U.S.C. § 1746，依据本人所知、所获信息及所信，并经合理查询后，本人谨在伪证处罚的约束下声明，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n日期：January 23, 2023\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　　　　　　　　　谨此提交，\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey　Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437）　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, Connecticut 06510　(203) 781-2847　plinsey@npmlaw.com\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK，\n等，　:\n:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n[拟议] 强制UBS AG遵守规则2004传票并裁定制裁的命令\n\n经审议该动议，该动议请求作出命令，强制UBS AG（以下简称“UBS”）遵守法院于September 21, 2022作出的《准予第11章受托人根据破产规则2004及地方法规则2004-1请求作出命令授权就债务人的其他法律及财务顾问、与债务人关联的实体及个人以及相关银行进行调查的第一次补充综合动议的命令》（ECF No. 866，以下简称“规则2004命令”），以及受托人根据规则2004命令向UBS发出的传票（以下简称“瑞银传票”）；在通知及听证后，见11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，鉴于有理由按下述条件准予所请求的救济；现据此\n\n命令：按下文规定准予该动议。\n\n命令：兹驳回UBS对瑞银传票提出的所有异议。\n\n命令：UBS应于本命令作出后十四（14）日内，检索并提交对瑞银传票作出回应的所有文件。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法官\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n1. 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）以及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok财产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n证物A\n\nB2540（表格2540——规则2004审查传票）（12/15）案号22-50073　文件1362　提交日期01/23/23　录入日期01/23/23　07:59:28　第19页，共38页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ District of \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Connecticut\n\n关于 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n案号：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Ho Wan Kwok 22-50073\n\n债务人\n\n第\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 11章\n规则2004审查传票\n\n致：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ UBS AG\n\n（被传票指向之人的姓名）\n\n证言：兹命令你于下述时间、日期和地点出席，并在根据《联邦破产程序规则》规则2004进行的审查中作证。随附授权该审查的法院命令副本。X\n\n地点\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.　日期和时间\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n审查将以以下方式记录：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 法院记录员/速记员\n\n提交：你或你的代表还必须携带以下文件、电子存储信息或物品参加审查，并必须允许检查、复制、测试或抽样该等材料：X\n见随附的文件提交请求。\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》规则45的下列规定，依《联邦破产程序规则》9016适用于破产案件，现随附于后——有关履行地点的规则45(c)；有关作为受传票约束之人所受保护的规则45(d)；以及有关你对本传票的回应义务及未回应的潜在后果的规则45(e)和45(g)。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ September \\_\\_, 2022\n\n法院书记员\n\n或\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 书记员或副书记员签名 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 律师签名 Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437）\n\n签发或请求本传票、代表（当事人名称）\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 的律师姓名、地址、电子邮件地址和电话号码为：Luc Despins，第11章受托人\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.; Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.; 195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510　plinsey@npmlaw.com; (203) 821-2000\n致签发或请求本传票之人的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或检查场所，则必须在向被指向之人送达前，向每一方当事人送达通知及本传票副本。Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4)。\n文件提交请求\n一、指示\n\n1. 除非另有说明，下列文件请求（以下简称“请求”，每一项称为“一项请求”）必须分别并具体作出回应。除非基于诚信提出异议，否则应完整答复每一项请求；如提出异议，则应按下述规定详细说明你提出异议的理由。如异议仅涉及某项请求的一部分，或其中所含的一个词语、短语或条款，你仅须说明对该部分的异议，并对其余请求作出回应。\n\n2. 电子存储信息必须依照以下指示提交：\n\n- a. 图像。黑白图像必须为300 DPI Group IV单页TIFF文件。彩色图像必须以JPEG格式提交。文件名不得包含嵌入空格或特殊字符（包括逗号）。文件夹名称不得包含嵌入空格或特殊字符（包括逗号）。所有TIFF图像文件必须具有唯一文件名，即Bates编号。每张图像右下角必须标注连续的Bates编号。每个文件夹内的TIFF文件数量不得超过1000个文件。Excel电子表格应具有以该文件Bates编号命名的占位图像。\n- b. 图像加载文件\n\t- a. Concordance®数据文件。数据文件（.DAT）包含将加载至Concordance®数据库的全部字段信息。.DAT文件的第一行必须为标明字段名称的标题行。.DAT文件必须使用以下Concordance®默认分隔符：逗号ASCII字符（020）引号þ ASCII字符（254）。日期字段应以如下格式提供：mm/dd/yyyy。日期和时间字段必须为两个独立字段。如文件包括已成像的电子邮件及附件，则必须包括附件字段，以保留电子邮件与其附件之间的父/子关系。必须包括OCRPATH字段，以提供所提交存储介质上提取文本文件的文件路径和名称。文本文件必须以FIRSTBATES命名。请勿在.DAT文件中包含文本。对于含有原生文件的文件，必须包括LINK字段，以提供文件路径和\n\n- b. Concordance Image® 或 Opticon 交叉引用文件。图像交叉引用文件（.LOG 或 .OPT）将图像与数据库记录关联。该文件应为逗号分隔文件，每行由七个字段组成；数据库中的每一张图像均应在交叉引用文件中有一行，格式如下：ImageID,VolumeLabel,ImageFilePath,DocumentBreak,FolderBreak,Box Break,PageCount。\n\n- c. 文档文本。文本必须作为单独的文本文件提供，而不得作为 .DAT 文件中的字段提供。文本文件的完整路径（OCRPATH）应包含在 .DAT 文件中。建议提供文档级 ANSI 文本文件，并按 FIRSTBATES/Image Key 命名。提取的文本文件必须存放在单独的文件夹中，每个文件夹中的文本文件数量不得超过 1,000 个。文件夹名称中不得含有特殊字符（包括逗号）。文本文件必须按文档级别提供。\n\n- d. 特定文件类型的原生格式提供。为充分理解其内容和含义而合理需要以原生格式查看的文件类型，必须以原生格式提供。这些文件包括但不限于电子表格、类电子表格文件（Microsoft Excel、逗号分隔值、制表符分隔值等）、Microsoft PowerPoint 或其他特殊演示文件、数据库文件以及音频/视频文件。应提供一张带有 Bates 编号的隔页图像，以表明存在原生文件，并在 .dat 文件中将原生文件路径作为字段列入。所提供的原生文件应以与该文件隔页对应的 Bates 编号命名。原生文件应归入按递增方式命名的“NATIVE”目录中，并与图像目录分开。\n\n- e. 去重。对于存在完全重复件的每一电子文档，仅提供一份副本。对于电子邮件，应根据由 BCC、Body、CC、From、IntMsgID、To 和 Attach 属性生成的 MD5 哈希值合并重复件。对于电子邮件附件和独立电子文件，应根据整个文件的 MD5 哈希值合并重复件。\n\n- f. 元数据。应以符合 Concordance 标准的加载文件（.dat）形式，为每一文档提供提取的元数据。.DAT 文件的第一行必须为标明字段名称的标题行。.DAT 文件必须使用以下 Concordance 默认分隔符：逗号 , ASCII 字符（020）引号 þ ASCII 字符（254）\n\n日期字段应按以下格式提供：mm/dd/yyyy。日期和时间字段必须分为两个独立字段。以下列出必需的元数据：\n\n字段名称　示例数据　说明\n\nFIRSTBATES　EDC0000001　原生文件文档/电子邮件的首个 Bates 编号\nLASTBATES　EDC0000001　原生文件文档/电子邮件的最后一个 Bates 编号\nLASTBATES 字段应针对单页文件填写\nATTACHRANGE　EDC0000001\n-　父文档首页的 Bates 编号至最后一个附件“子”文档最后一页的 Bates 编号\nEDC0000015\nBEGATTACH　EDC0000001　附件范围的首个 Bates 编号\nENDATTACH　EDC0000015　附件范围的最后一个 Bates 编号\nCUSTODIAN　Smith, John　电子邮件：该电子邮件所在的邮箱\n原生文件：文档来源文件所属的个人或部门名称\nFROM　John Smith　电子邮件：发件人\n原生文件：文档作者\n多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nTO　Coffman, Janice; LeeW　收件人\n[mailto:LeeW@MSN.com]　多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nCC　Frank Thompson [mailto:　抄送收件人\nfrank_Thompson@cdt.com]　多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nBCC　John Cain　密送收件人\n多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nSUBJECT　Board Meeting Minutes　电子邮件：电子邮件主题行 原生文件：文档标题（如有）\nFILE_NAME　BoardMeetingMinutes.docx　原生文件：原始原生文件名称，包括扩展名\nDATE_SENT　10/12/2010　电子邮件：电子邮件发送日期\n原生文件：（空）\nTIME_SENT/　07:05 PM GMT　电子邮件：电子邮件发送时间/电子邮件标准化所使用的时区\nTIME_ZONE\nTIME_ZONE　GMT　转换过程中电子邮件被标准化所使用的时区。\nLINK　EDC0000001.msg　指向电子邮件或原生文件文档的超链接\n链接文件必须按 FIRSTBATES 编号命名\nFILE_EXTEN　MSG　表示电子邮件或原生文件的文件类型扩展名\nAUTHOR　John Smith　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文档作者\nDATE_CREATED　10/10/2010　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文档创建日期\n\nTIME_CREATED　10:25 AM　电子邮件：（空）\n\n原生文件：文档创建时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，不得与 DATE_CREATED 字段合并\nDATE_MOD　10/12/2010　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文档最后修改日期\nTIME_MOD　07:00 PM　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文档最后修改时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，不得与 DATE_MOD 字段合并\nDATE_ACCESSD　10/12/2010　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文档最后访问日期\nTIME_ACCESSD　07:00 PM　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文档最后访问时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，不得与 DATE_ACCESSD 字段合并\nFILE_SIZE　5,952　原生文件文档/电子邮件的大小，以 KB 计\nPGCOUNT　1　原生文件文档/电子邮件的页数\nPATH　电子邮件：（空）\nAgenda.doc　原生文件：存储原生文件文档的路径，包括原始文件名称。\nINTFILEPATH　Personal Folders\\Deleted　电子邮件：电子邮件的原始位置，包括原始文件名称。\nItems\\Board Meeting　原生文件：（空）\nMinutes.msg\nINTMSGID　<000805c2c71b\\$75977050\\$　电子邮件：唯一邮件 ID 原生文件：（空）\ncb8306d1@MSN>\nMD5HASH　d131dd02c5e6eec4693d9a0　文档的 MD5 哈希值。\n698aff95c\n2fcab58712467eab4004583e\nb8fb7f89\nOCRPATH　TEXT/001/EDC0000001.txt　原生文件提取文本的路径\n\n3. 每项请求均独立适用并应独立解释，除非另有说明，任何一项请求均不限制其他任何请求的范围。\n\n4. 所有文档应按照通常业务过程中保存的方式提供，或者应予整理和标注，以对应本请求中的类别。\n\n5. 本文所载每项请求延及所有文档：（a）由贵方占有、保管或控制的；或（b）由代表贵方行事的任何人占有、保管或控制的，包括贵方的律师或其他代表和顾问。每份文档均应完整提供。\n\n6. 如要求贵方提供的某份文档已不再由贵方占有、保管或控制，则贵方的答复必须：（a）详细说明该文档的性质及其内容；（b）确认编制或撰写该文档的人员（以及，如适用，该文档发送给的人员）；（c）确认该文档编制或创建的日期；（d）说明该文档是否（i）遗失或丢失，（ii）已被销毁，（iii）已自愿或非自愿地转移给他人，或（iv）以其他方式处置；（e）说明该等处置的原因以及相关事实和情形；（f）确认授权该等处置的人员；（g）确认该等处置的日期或大致日期；（h）说明该文档最近一次由贵方占有、保管或控制的时间；以及（i）确认目前占有、保管或控制该文档的人员（如有）。\n\n7. 如要求贵方提供的某份文档已被销毁，则除前述指示要求的信息外，贵方的答复还必须说明：（a）销毁该文档的原因；（b）销毁该文档的人员身份；以及（c）指示销毁该文档的人员身份。\n\n8. 如贵方主张所请求的文档享有特权或属于律师工作成果，则贵方的答复必须：（a）说明（i）足以支持贵方关于该文档享有特权之主张的文档描述，（ii）文档标题，（iii）文档日期，（iv）文档作者，（v）文档收件人，（vi）收到或见过该文档原件或任何草稿、副本或复制件的每一人员身份，（vii）该文档本身或该文档所载或提及的任何信息是否由任何其他人员占有、保管或控制；如是，该等人员的身份，以及说明该等人员如何取得该信息的陈述，（viii）据以拒绝提供该文档的特权主张，以及（ix）贵方将据以支持该等特权主张的全部情形；以及（b）根据 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e)，就每一份因主张特权而被拒绝提供的文档，提供一份特权日志，其中载有本指示第（a）部分所要求的全部信息。对于文档请求中未主张特权或工作成果保护的任何部分，应完整提供响应性文档。\n\n9. 如一份本应响应的文档的一部分含有受特权主张保护的信息，则仅应依照上述指示从该文档中删除或遮蔽受特权主张保护的部分，其余部分应予提供。\n\n10. 本请求具有持续性。现指示贵方：（a）一旦得知先前答复不完整或不正确，应立即补充或更正任何后来发现不完整或不正确的答复；以及（b）提供根据下列规定所要求的任何补充文档\n\n11. 如文档使用英语以外的语言，贵方应提供该文档。如文档使用英语以外的语言，且存在英文译本，贵方应同时提供两份文档。\n\n12. 对实体的所有提及均包括其所有关联方。\n\n13. 对个人姓名的所有提及均包括所有其他姓名、别名或昵称。\n\n14. 除非另有明确说明，文档请求所涵盖的期间为自 February 5, 2012 起至文档请求答复到期之日止。\nII. 解释规则\n\n15. （a）任何单数名词的使用应解释为包括复数，反之亦然；以及（b）任何时态动词的使用应解释为包括该动词在所有其他时态下的使用。\n\n16. （a）“and”和“or”应视需要解释为连词或选择连词，以将否则可能被解释为不在任何请求范围内的所有答复纳入该请求范围；以及（b）“each”和“any”应视为包括并涵盖“every”和“all”。\nIII. 定义\n\n由 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) 提供的定义以及由 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d) 提供的解释规则，并经 D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1(a) 纳入者，适用于文档请求。此外，本文件请求中使用的下列术语具有以下含义：\n\n1. “You”或“Your”或“Yourself”系指 UBS AG（瑞银集团），连同其任何关联方、母公司和子公司，以及其任何雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人。\n\n2. “Debtor”系指 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Guo Wengui、Guo Haoyun、郭文贵或任何其他别名），连同其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人。\n\n3. “Debtor's Son”系指 Qiang Guo（郭强）（又名 Mileson Kwok、郭强或任何其他别名），连同其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人。\n\n4. “Debtor's Daughter”系指 Mei Guo（郭美）（又名 Mei Gui、郭美或任何其他别名），连同其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人。\n\n5. “Debtor's Purported Wife”系指 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）（又名 Hing Chi Ng、Yue Qingzhi、岳庆芝或任何其他别名），连同其雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人。\n\n6. “债务人家属”系指，个别及共同而言，债务人、债务人的儿子、债务人的女儿、债务人声称的妻子，以及与债务人有任何其他亲属关系者。\n\n7. “2004 年调查取证对象”系指，个别及共同而言，债务人、债务人家属、ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司）、Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）、Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、Himalaya International Payments Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际支付有限公司）、Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）、Jesse Brown（杰西·布朗）、William Je（威廉·杰）、William Je（威廉·杰）、Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（香港国际基金投资〔美国〕有限责任公司）、Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）、Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、Qu Guo Jiao（屈国姣）、Daniel Thomas Podhaskie（丹尼尔·托马斯·波德哈斯基）、Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）、Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司）、Rule of Law Society IV Inc.（法治协会 IV 公司）、Rule of Law Foundation III（法治基金会 III）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）、Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体之声公司）以及 Saraca Media Group Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）。\n\n8. “关联个人”系指，个别及共同而言，所有符合下列情形的个人：(1) 持有、控制、保管或对债务人或债务人家属拥有、控制或享有的资产具有处置权；或 (2) 曾为一个或多个关联实体的雇员、董事，或以其他方式与其有关联的个人，以及前述任何主体各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表前述任何主体行事的任何人。该等关联个人包括但不限于：Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）、Jason Miller（杰森·米勒）、Jesse Brown（杰西·布朗）、William Je（威廉·杰）、Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）、Karin Maistrello（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛）、Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯）、William Gertz（威廉·格茨）、Arethusa Forsyth（阿瑞图萨·福赛斯）、Glenn Mellor（格伦·梅勒）、Jennifer Mercurio（詹妮弗·梅尔库里奥）、Eduardo Eurnekian（爱德华多·尤尔内基安）、Han Chunguang（又名 韩春光）、Qu Guojiao（又名 Qu Guo Jiao、屈国姣）、Guo Lijie（又名 郭丽杰）、Zhang Wei（又名 张伟*）、Lihong Wei Lafrenz（又名 Sara Wei、魏丽红）、Hao Haidong（又名 郝海东）、Ross Heinemeyer（罗斯·海内迈耶）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Kyle Bass（凯尔·巴斯）、Melissa Mendez（梅丽莎·门德斯）、Ya Li（又名 李娅）、Dinggang Wang（又名 王定刚）、An Hong（又名 安红）、Yvette Wang（又名 Yanping Wang、Yan Ping Wang、王雁平）、Fiona Yu（菲奥娜·余）、Je Kin Ming（又名 William Je、Yu Jianming、余建明）、Yaz Qingua（亚兹·青瓜）以及 Lao Jiang（又名 Jiang Yunfu、Jiang Yunfu Be、姜云浮）。\n\n9. “关联实体”系指，个别及共同而言，所有符合下列情形的任何类型组织或实体：(1) 曾由债务人或债务人家属拥有、控制或投资；或 (2) 对债务人或债务人家属拥有、控制或享有的任何资产直接或间接享有权益，以及前述任何主体各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表前述任何主体行事的任何人。该等关联实体包括但不限于：7 Nod Hill LLC（7 诺德山有限责任公司）、AAGV Limited（AAGV 有限公司）、ACA Investment Management Limited（ACA 投资管理有限公司）、ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司）、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）、AI Group Holdings Inc.（AI 集团控股公司）、Alfa Global Ventures Limited（阿尔法全球创投有限公司）、Alfonso Global Limited（阿方索全球有限公司）、Allied Capital Global Limited（联合资本全球有限公司）、Alpine Fiduciaries SA（阿尔卑斯受托人股份公司）、Anton Development Limited（安东开发有限公司）、Assets Sino Limited（中资资产有限公司）、Auspicious Coast Limited（吉祥海岸有限公司）、Beijing Pangu Investment Co.（北京盘古投资公司）、Beijing Pangu Investment Co. Ltd.（北京盘古投资有限公司）、Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资股份公司）、Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited（北京泽尼思控股有限公司）、Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）、BSA Strategic Fund I（BSA 战略基金 I）、China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Limited（中国金泉〔香港〕有限公司）、Chuang Xin Limited（创新有限公司）、Crane Advisory Group LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）、Creative Apex Investments Limited（创意顶峰投资有限公司）、Crystal Breeze Investments Limited（水晶微风投资有限公司）、Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司）、Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）、Elite Well Global Limited（精英环球有限公司）、Empire Growth Holdings（帝国增长控股）、G Club Operations LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）、G Fashion LLC（G 时尚有限责任公司）、G News LLC（G 新闻有限责任公司）、GETTR USA（GETTR 美国）、Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼维尔控股公司）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼维尔控股有限责任公司）、GFASHION MEDIA GROUP INC.（GFASHION 媒体集团公司）、GFNY, Inc.（GFNY 公司）、Globalist International Limited（全球主义者国际有限公司）、GNews Media Group Inc.（GNews 媒体集团公司）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、Guo Media（郭媒体）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）、Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc.（汉密尔顿资本控股公司）、Head Win Group Limited（海德温集团有限公司）、Henan Yuda（河南豫达）、Himalaya Embassy（喜马拉雅大使馆）、Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）、Himalaya Federal Reserve（喜马拉雅联邦储备）、Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）、Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、Himalaya International Payments Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际支付有限公司）、Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）、Himalaya Supervisory Organization（喜马拉雅监督组织）、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（香港国际基金投资〔美国〕有限责任公司）、Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Infinite Increase Limited（无限增长有限公司）、Infinitum Developments Limited（无限发展有限公司）、Insight Phoenix Fund（洞察凤凰基金）、Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）、Leading Shine Limited（领先光辉有限公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（领先光辉纽约有限公司）、Long Gate Limited（长龙门有限公司）、Next Tycoon Investments Limited（下一大亨投资有限公司）、New Federal State of China（中国新联邦国，又名 NFSC）、Noble Fame Global Limited（高贵名望环球有限公司）、Rosy Acme Ventures Limited（玫瑰顶点创投有限公司）、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会 III 公司）、Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc.（法治基金会 IV 公司）、Rule of Law Fund（法治基金）、Rule of Law Society（法治协会）、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治协会 IV 公司）、G-Translators PTY LTD（G-翻译者私人有限公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）、Shiny Ace Ltd.（闪耀艾斯有限公司）、Shiny Times Holdings Ltd.（闪耀时代控股有限公司）、Spirit Charter Investment Limited（精神特许投资有限公司）、Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、黄及公司）、TM Primrose Limited（TM 樱草有限公司）、Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体之声公司）、Well Origin Ltd.（良好起源有限公司）、World Century Limited（世界世纪有限公司）、Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited（全球机会控股有限公司）、Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）以及 ZIBA Limited（ZIBA 有限公司）。\n\n10. “包括”或其任何变体，系指“包括但不限于”。\n\n11. “和”及“或”系指“和/或”，并应同时按合取及析取方式解释，以最大化其范围。\n\n12. “任何”及“所有”及“每一”均系指“每一及全部”。\n\n13. “每一”及“每个”均系指“每一及全部”。\n\n14. “第三方”系指除您以外的个人或实体。\n\n15. “转让”应具有《破产法典》第 101(54) 条赋予该词的含义。\n\n16. “文件”系指属于 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 范围内的任何信息或物品，并包括但不限于任何种类、类型、性质或描述的、现由或曾由您占有、保管或控制的每一及全部书面、记录或图形材料，包括所有电子邮件的打印件和电子副本、以电子形式保存的计算机文件、通信函件、备忘录、磁带、速记或手写笔记、任何种类的书面表格、图表、蓝图、绘图、草图、曲线图、计划、文章、规格说明、日记、信件、电报、照片、会议记录、合同、协议、调查、计算机打印件、任何种类的数据汇编、电传、传真、电子邮件、短信、即时消息、语音留言、发票、订购单、支票、汇票、对账单、贷项通知单、报告、头寸报告、摘要、索引、账簿、总账、笔记本、明细表、透明胶片、录音、目录、广告、宣传材料、胶片、录像带、录音带、CD、计算机磁盘、宣传册、小册子、穿孔卡、工时单、推文、社交媒体帖子或任何其他种类的书面或记录材料，以及其全部元数据，无论以何种方式存储（无论为有形或电子形式）、记录、制作或复制；还包括但不限于前述任何材料的草稿或副本，如该等草稿或副本载有原始文件中不存在的任何种类笔记、评论或标记，或在其他方面与原始文件不相同。\n\n17. “个人”系指个人、公司、独资企业、合伙企业、协会或任何其他实体。“个人”还包括任何代理人、代表或专家，包括但不限于律师或财务顾问。\n\n18. “实体”系指任何自然人、公司、合伙企业、子公司、独资企业、商号、董事会、合资企业、协会、机构、主管机关、委员会或其他商业实体或法人，以及任何关联方、代理人、母公司，包括但不限于律师、财务顾问或任何其他代表。\n\n19. “关于”系指涉及、描述、包含、提及、与之相关、支持、有利于、反对、加强、减损、位于其中、结合考虑、对其有影响、证明、表明、报告、记录、暗示、回应、与之连接、评论、就其而言、有关、与其相关、讨论、显示、描述、反映、分析、构成及属于。\n\n20. 当“与……有关”、“涉及”或“相关”提及任何特定主题事项时，系指但不限于构成、包含、涉及、载有、体现、反映、识别、陈述、直接或间接提及或以任何方式与所识别的特定主题事项有关的任何文件。\n\n21. “通信”在最广义且不受限制的意义上，系指任何信息或知识的传递（以事实、观点、询问或其他形式）。通信还系指所有谈话、协议、询问或答复，无论是当面、通过电话、书面方式或通过电子传输设备进行，并包括但不限于所有往来函件、电子邮件、录音、传送单、备忘录、电话通信、语音留言、电报、电话传真、传真复制件、电传、即时消息、聊天、短信、向留言板或群聊发布的信息、社交媒体帖子、推文、上传至任何视频平台的视频、电话笔记，或在内部或与第三方之间传递的笔记。\n\n22. “资产”系指受占有、保管或控制的具有经济价值的任何项目。资产包括所有不动产和动产，包括但不限于房地产、土地、房屋、公寓、共管公寓、汽车、游艇、船只、飞机、喷气式飞机、直升机、现金、银行账户、加密货币、证券、应收账款、存货及其他有形和无形财产。\n\nIV. 应提交的文件\n\n1. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与任何由任何 2004 年调查取证对象持有、控制、代表其持有或以其他方式与其有关的账户相关的文件，包括任何及全部账户对账单、授权书、委托书、信托文件、指示或表格、已注销支票副本、通信函件，以及电汇及相关通信函件和指示。\n\n2. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与任何属于任何 2004 年调查取证对象、由其持有、控制、代表其持有或以其他方式与其有关的资金、证券、财产或资产相关的文件，包括任何及全部账户对账单、授权书、委托书、信托文件、指示或表格、已注销支票副本、通信函件，以及电汇及相关通信函件和指示。\n\n3. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与同任何 2004 年调查取证对象进行的任何商业、贸易或金融交易相关的文件，包括但不限于任何贷款、信贷额度、寄托、存款、掉期、证券交易、抵押贷款或 ISDA，包括任何及全部账户对账单、授权书、委托书、信托文件、指示或表格、已注销支票副本、通信函件，以及电汇及相关通信函件和指示。\n\n4. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与 2004 年调查取证对象有关的任何电汇活动相关的文件，不论是否存在任何账户，包括但不限于所有电汇收据、账户号码、余额、授权书、与转账当事人有关的身份识别信息、通信函件、指示或其他记录。\n\n5. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与您和 2004 年调查取证对象之间的任何往来函件及通信相关的文件。\n\n6. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与任何 2004 年调查取证对象的任何账户有关、涉及账户开立、账户获授权使用人及账户维护的文件。\n\n7. 所有日期在 January 1, 2012 至今期间、与任何涉及任何 2004 年调查取证对象的反洗钱、了解你的客户或其他合规活动相关的文件，包括但不限于任何 2004 年调查取证对象提供的任何信息，或您获知的任何信息。\n\n8. 自 2012 年 1 月 1 日至今与任何国家的任何监管机构进行的、与任何 2004 年证据开示对象有关的任何通信相关的所有文件，包括但不限于英格兰银行、美国联邦储备系统、S.E.C.、CFTC、FINRA、中国证券监督管理委员会、中国人民银行、香港证券及期货事务监察委员会及香港金融管理局。\n\n附件 B\n\nUBS Business Solutions US LLC（瑞银美国商业解决方案有限责任公司）\n1285 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York NY 10019\n电话：+1-212-821 3000\n\n美洲诉讼事务\n\nTheodore Wills（西奥多·威尔斯）\n助理总法律顾问\n电话：615-393-7618\nTheodore.Wills@ubs.com\n\nwww.ubs.com\n保密\n\nOctober 12, 2022\n\n通过电子邮件\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.（帕特里克·R·林赛律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n事由：关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）\n案号：22-50073\n我方事项编号：43442005-2022-1244\n\n尊敬的律师：\n\n本函代表 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）就贵所于 September 22, 2022 向 UBS 送达的、与目前在 United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）审理的上述案件有关的《向 UBS AG 发出的 Rule 2004 审查传票》作出答复（以下简称“传票或请求”）。\n\n对文件请求、指示及定义的异议\n\nUBS 反对提交任何与位于美国境外司法管辖区的账户有关的文件。美国联邦破产法院对位于美国境外司法管辖区的 UBS 实体不具有管辖权，因为位于美国境外司法管辖区的 UBS 实体不在美国开展业务。此外，美国 UBS 员工无权访问存放与位于美国境外司法管辖区的账户有关文件的系统，而位于美国境外司法管辖区的 UBS 实体员工如为回应美国联邦地区法院传票而提交文件，可能面临刑事处罚。\n\nUBS 反对提交与 UBS 的任何监管机构有关的文件、反洗钱文件及其他合规文件，因为提交该等文件可能使 UBS 面临法律和/或监管责任。\n\nUBS 以传票范围过宽且造成不当负担为由反对该传票，因为遵从该传票将给作为非当事人的 UBS 造成重大费用和负担，而发出方未能采取合理措施避免给 UBS 施加此类困难。例如，部分\n\nPatrick R. Linsey\nOctober 12, 2022\n2 / 2\n\n请求可向本案当事人寻求。UBS 主张，该等请求未能以合理的具体性确定文件，包括但不限于确定贵方寻求证据开示的合理时间范围。此外，某些请求可被解释为寻求由 UBS 关联方占有、保管或控制的文件，该等关联方具有独立于 UBS 的公司法人身份，因此不在 UBS 的占有、保管或控制之下。\n\nUBS 不会提交受律师—客户特权、律师工作成果原则或 UBS 有权主张的任何其他特权或保护所保护而免于披露的文件或信息。UBS 保留从证据开示中撤回任何因疏忽而提交的、受律师—客户特权、工作成果豁免原则或任何其他适用特权或豁免保护的文件的权利。此外，UBS 不会提交来自 UBS 位于美国境外的办事处或其关联方或子公司办事处的、将违反任何其他司法管辖区法律的文件。\n\nUBS 对传票提出的前述异议及答复，并不承认存在回应性文件，或该等文件处于其占有、保管或控制之下。此外，除非已作出管辖其使用及披露的适当保密约定和保护令，否则不会提交任何文件。UBS 保留补充或修改这些答复的权利。\n\n在不放弃前述异议的前提下，UBS 愿意会面协商，以努力缩小或消除与本请求有关的争议领域。\n\n谨上，\n\n/s/ Theodore Wills\nTheodore Wills（西奥多·威尔斯）\n助理总法律顾问\n\n附件 C\n\n52/F Two International Finance Centre\n8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong\n电话：+852-2971 8888\n传真：+852-2971 8001\n\nFeb. 23, 2015\n\nThe Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰人酒店）董事会\nThe Sherry-Netherland\n781 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n\n尊敬的先生们：\n\n银行资信证明——[房地产投资申请]\n\n我们获请就房地产投资申请提供一封资信证明函。我们确认：\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）\n\n[客户身份证号：\n\n自 July 2012 起一直通过一家个人投资公司成为我行客户。在此期间，Kwok Ho Wan 先生与我行保持了令人满意的银行业务关系。截至 18 Feb. 2015，该银行业务关系所涉资金不少于 USD400,000,000。\n\n上述信息基于截至目前日期我们对该银行业务关系的经验，并在保密基础上仅供贵方私人使用；UBS AG 或其员工对此不承担任何责任。本函仅可用于本函开头所述的业务背景，且不构成 UBS AG 的保证或任何其他义务。特别是，我们没有义务告知贵方该银行业务关系其后发生的任何情况变化。\n\n谨启，\n代表 UBS AG Hong Kong Branch（瑞银集团股份公司香港分行）\n\nTony Cheung（张东）\n董事总经理\nStephen Yeung（杨伟）\n董事总经理","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Despins","Miles Guo","William Je","Paul Hastings","GTV","Saraca","Luc Despins","Yanping Wang","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":128,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":866,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":923,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":10191,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-09-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-09-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:16:31"}