{"id":"court_ctb_1411_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1411,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al.,* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors. (Jointly Administered)\n\n# **DECLARATION OF GARY J. GAO IN SUPPORT OF UBS AG'S OPPOSITION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL**\n\n# **I. Introduction of Declarant**\n\n- I I, GARY GAO, am a lawyer qualified in the People's Republic of China. I am a Senior Partner at Zhong Lun Law Firm, Shanghai Office **(\"Zhong Lun\").** I am also the head of the Compliance and Regulatory Department of Zhong Lun.\n- 2 I received my LLB degree from the East China Institute of Political Science and Law (Currently: East China University of Political Science and Law) in 1990 and my LLM degree from the University of Hertfordshire in the UK in 2000.\n- 3 I started my legal career as a clerk in a district comi in Shanghai in 1990 and was subsequently promoted to a criminal judge. I was in those roles for five years. I have been admitted to the PRC Bar Association since 1995. I have been a partner of Zhong Lun since 2014. My practice specializations are government regulatory matters, crossborder corporate compliance and international dispute resolution, and I have practised PRC law for 27 years in the People's Republic of China. My working languages are English and Chinese.\n- 4 I have been recommended as a leading lawyer by *Legal 500 Asia Pacific* in the area of Regulatory and Compliance for three consecutive years from 2020 to 2022. I have been ranked as Band I by *Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2023* published by Chambers & Partners, a leading international legal research and rating institution. I have\n\nalso been listed as an *\"A-list Legal Elite\"* for the China market for 2022 by *China Business law Journal.* I have received several other awards including *Asia Law Profiles*  2022 Distinguished Practitioner in Compliance, Legal Band \"2021 Leading Lawyer in Compliance and Government Affairs\", \"2020 Leading Lawyer in Compliance and Government Affairs\" and \"2019 Leading Lawyer in Compliance\". You may find more details about my professional accomplishments and recognitions in Annex I (Gary Gao's CV) to my Declaration.\n\n5 Throughout my career, I have advised clients on a number of occasions on cases involving document disclosure in US litigation proceedings and cross-border transfer of data. In recent years, I have also acted as an expert witness in cases involving US litigation proceedings and cross-border transfer of data, including in *BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Celestial Nutrifoods Ltd* [2014] 4 SLR 331.\n\n## **II. Background**\n\n#### **(I) Purposes of Declaration**\n\n- 6 Ho Wan Kwok **(\"Kwok\")** filed for bankruptcy on 15 February 2022 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division **(\"Connecticut Bankruptcy Court\").**\n- 7 The Com1ecticut Bankruptcy Court appointed Luc Despins (the **\"Trustee\")** Chapter 11 Trustee to K wok's estate.\n- 8 UBS AG **(\"UBS\"** or the **\"Bank\")** is a banking financial institution with branches in several jurisdictions including the People's Republic of China. Kwok holds/has previously held several accounts with the Bank via personal investment companies. I have been asked by UBS AG's PRC Branch (the **\"PRC Branch\")** to provide this Declaration regarding: (i) the PRC laws and regulations relevant to the disclosure and cross-border transfer of financial data ordered in a US court subpoena (the **\"Subpoena\")**  that the Trustee in the above-captioned case served on UBS pursuant to bankruptcy Rule 2004; (ii) the impact of those laws and regulations on the ability of UBS AG's PRC Branch (the **\"PRC Branch\")** to comply with the Subpoena; and (iii) the alternatives that\n\ncould enable the Tmstee to pursue the disclosure he seeks without requiring the PRC Branch to violate PRC laws and regulations.\n\n- 9 Accordingly, this Declaration explains the restrictions imposed by PRC laws and regulations and describes the alternative that would enable the Tmstee to seek disclosure from the PRC Branch without causing a violation of PRC laws and regulations. In particular, this Declaration will describe how the Tmstee could seek the desired disclosure by seeking judicial assistance pursuant to the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the **\"Hague Evidence Convention\").**\n- IO The opinions expressed in this Declaration are my own, independent opinions. I confirm that in preparing this Declaration, I am aware that my primary duty is to the court and that such duty overrides any obligation I have to the persons from whom I receive my instructions or by whom I am paid.\n\n# **(II) Materials Reviewed**\n\n- 11 In preparation for providing this Declaration, I have developed familiarity with the events culminating in the Trustee's filing of the instant motion to compel UBS to produce certain information and documents to the extent that material exists and is in possession, custody or control of the PRC Branch (the **\"Motion to Compel\").** In particular, I have reviewed the Subpoena. It is my understanding that, in the Subpoena, the Tmstee has requested that UBS produce, among other materials, information and documents in possession of the PRC Branch relating to various entities and individuals, to the extent such infonnation and documents exist.\n- 12 Besides the above, I also reviewed the summary of the recognition regime under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **III. Executive Summary**\n\n13 The PRC Branch will not be able to comply with the Subpoena without violating PRC laws and regulations, absent (a) approval of PRC authorities (see Para. 20 to 32 for more details), (b) express consent of any account holder at issue (see Para. 28, 34, 36 for more details) and (c) the release of any other restrictions imposed by PRC laws and\n\nregulations. PRC laws and regulations impose broad restrictions on banks operating in PRC, including the PRC Branch of the Bank, which limit the circumstances in which information and documents relating to accounts at such branches can be disclosed. The laws imposing such restrictions include, but are not limited to, the *Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* **(\"PRC Civil Procedure Law\"),** *Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China* **(\"PRC Criminal Law\"),** *Data Security Law of the People's Republic of China* **(\"PRC DSL\"),** *Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China*  **(\"PRC CSL\"),** *Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China*  **(\"PRC PIPL\"),** *Commercial Banking Law of the People's Republic of China* **(\"PRC Commercial Banking Law\").** There are a range of financial regulations which also impose restrictions on the current circumstances. The PRC Branch will face severe consequences if it discloses information or documents relating to accounts held there in violation of PRC laws and regulations. Those consequences could include but are not limited to criminal penalties, significant fines, suspension of business, disqualification of senior management of the Bank and reputational hann. In addition, Trustee's request for PRC Branch to comply with the Subpoena to disclose such data would also potentially raise issues of PRC national security, confidentiality of criminal investigations, and raise political sensitivity concerns in China.\n\n14 The Trustee could pursue the alternative that would enable the Trustee to seek disclosure from the PRC Branch without causing a violation of the PRC laws and regulations. In particular, the Trustee could seek the desired disclosure by seeking judicial assistance pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention. It would be an effective and legitimate approach for Trustee, and PRC Branch would not violate the abovementioned restrictions imposed by PRC laws and regulations.\n\n## **IV. Restrictions Imposed by PRC Laws and Regulations**\n\n## **(I) PRC Judicial Assistance**\n\n15 China imposes heightened restrictions for entities in China to produce documents in response to a U.S. subpoena. A1iicles 283 and 284 of *PRC Civil Procedure Law* (in Chinese: 9'1 \\$ A ~:#;;JsO 00 ~¥ Wi!ti'!) and *Frequently Asked Questions on Judicial Assistance in International Civil and Commercial Matters* (in Chinese: l;ifil~,ij;~if.J:fi:j§]\n\n¥tt/J,J:l}J '/Jl' Yt!. (ii] *!W/h/¥~,* hereinafter referred to as the **\"FAQ\")** issued by Ministry of Justice of the PRC **(\"MOJ\")** clearly provide that any assistance provided for 'litigation acts' in foreign court proceedings including investigation and collection of evidence must be conducted pursuant to relevant international treaties or diplomatic channels. Although there are differences between the disclosure procedures in U.S. and the evidence collection or investigation procedures in the PRC, the disclosure ordered by the Subpoena should be considered as a \"litigation act\". The abovementioned laws and FAQ are as follows:\n\n16 Article 283 of PRC Civil Procedure Law provides that *\"Pursuant to the international treaty concluded or participated by the People's Republic of China or in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, a People's Court and a foreign court may request each other to carry out service of documents, investigation and collection of evidence and any other litigation acts on its behalf.*\n\n*Where a request by a foreign court for assistance is prejudicial to the sovereignty, security or public interest of the People's Republic of China, the People's Court shall refuse to enforce.\"*\n\n17 Article 284 of PRC Civil Procedure Law provides that *\"Request for and provision of judicial assistance shall be carried out via the channels stipulated in the international treaty concluded or participated by the People's Republic of China; where there is no treaty, request for and provision of judicial assistance shall be carried out via diplomatic channels.*\n\n*An embassy or consulate of a foreign country based in the People's Republic of China may serve documents on a citizen of the foreign country and carry out investigation and collection of evidence, but shall not violate the laws of the People's Republic of China and shall not adopt mandatory measures.*\n\n*Except for the circumstances stipulated in the preceding paragraph, no foreign agency or individual shall carry out service of documents, investigation and collection of evidence in the People's Republic of China without the consent by the relevant administrative authorities of the People's Republic of China.\"*\n\n18 No. 5 of the FAQ provides the followings:\n\n*\"Q: How can foreign judicial authorities or judicial officers retrieve evidential materials located in China?*\n\n*A: The request for investigation and evidence collection shall be made by the foreign judicial authority or individual qualified to request for evidence collection to the MOJ through the channel prescribed in the treaty. Where the foreign country has not concluded relevant treaty with China, a request shall be made to the Ministry a/Foreign Affairs. After the request is examined and approved, it shall be enforced by the people's court, and the result shall be replied to the requesting party by the department receiving the request.* \"\n\n- 19 As China and the U.S. are both parties to the Hague Evidence Convention, and according to the *Rules of the Supreme People's Court on Judicial Assistance Requests for Service of Judicial Documents and Investigation and Evidence Collection in Handling Civil and Commercial Cases under International Conventions and Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaties (Amended in 2020)* (In Chinese: Jl~A~r!~Jt:!l~-f-1~:fl.il00~ffi0t\"J;FOx.J(:iiJ.E] \\$~M\\*~~g~~¥-#EJ\\$~~~~~~~~filEJ\\$~Mffl\\*~~~ ( 2020 11,lLiI) ) **(\"Rules on Judicial Assistance under Treaties\"),** the legitimate channel for a foreign judicial authority to carry out 'litigation acts' such as an order for disclosure of documents in PRC is through judiciary assistance in accordance with the Hague Evidence Convention.\n- 20 The position is also supported by other recently enacted laws, PRC DSL and PRC PIPL, emphasizing that unless prior approvals are obtained from competent Chinese authorities, (I) judicial agencies outside of China are prohibited from requesting disclosure of documents by entities in China; (2) entities in China and individuals in China are prohibited from cooperating with the request for disclosure of documents made by those judicial agencies. You may find more details about the PRC DSL and PRC PIPL in Para. 27 to 32.\n- 21 In particular, Article 36 of PRC DSL provides that *\"The competent authorities of China shall, in accordance with the relevant laws and the international treaties and agreements concluded or acceded to by China, or on the principle of equality and mutual benefit, handle the requests made by foreign judicial or law enforcement authorities for the provision of data. No organization or individual within the territory*\n\n*of China may provide foreign judicial or law enforcement authorities with data stored within the territory of China without the approval of the competent authorities of China.\"*\n\n- 22 A1iicle 41 of PRC PIPL provides that *\"The competent authorities of the People's Republic of China shall, in accordance with the relevant laws and the international treaties and agreements concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or under the principles of equality and mutual benefit, handle the requests made by foreign judicial or law enforcement authorities for providing the personal information stored within the territory of China. Without the approval of the competent authorities of the People's Republic of China, no personal information handler may provide the personal information stored within the territory of the People's Republic of China to foreign judicial or law enforcement authorities.* \"\n- 23 Based on the above, it can be concluded that under circumstances involving courts of foreign jurisdictions, such as a U.S. court, such approvals could be only obtained from MOJ, which then transfer to Supreme People's Court of PRC, following the Hague Evidence Convention procedures or diplomatic channels. A U.S. court order would not suffice to displace such necessary approvals to provide the PRC Branch with any protection.\n- 24 PRC authorities have also taken a clear and serious attitude towards document disclosure orders issued by U.S. courts and discouraged entity recipients in China to comply with such orders, unless the promulgated laws and regulations are complied with. According to the speech of Mr. PU Xiangrui, the Chief Legal Adviser of China Banking Association, published on the official website of the State Council of the PRC on June 26, 2019, <sup>1</sup>he believed that based on the provisions of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, without the pennission of the competent authorities of the PRC, no entities or individuals within the territory of the PRC shall provide any foreign entities with judicial assistance such as evidentiary mate1ials. He further pointed out that, US plaintiffs could obtain client infonnation from banks in China through judicial assistance pursuant to Hague Evidence Convention. Banks in China will cooperate and provide assistance in\n\n<sup>1</sup>**China Daily, China Banking Association: America1 s exercise of 0long-ann jurisdiction\" over Chinese banks violates**  the PRC Law, June 26, 2019, <htt l 9-06/26/content\\_5403308.htm>.\n\naccordance with the law. However, the behaviour of the U.S. court ordering a Chinese bank to directly provide the plaintiff in a case administered by it with the bank's client infonnation that is strictly protected by Chinese laws; and that, without the consent of the relevant competent authorities of the PRC and based solely on U.S. domestic laws, is a typical exercise of \"long-ann jurisdiction\" over a Chinese bank and clearly violates a series ofrelevant Chinese laws and regulations, including PRC Connnercial Bank Law and PRC Civil Procedure Law. Banks in China are not legally obligated to comply with the U.S. courts' orders.\n\n- 25 Based on the above, if the PRC Branch complies with the Subpoena and provides account infonnation as requested, both the PRC Branch and its employees will be in breach of the PRC laws and will face civil and even criminal penalties as a resnlt. Please find more details about such consequences in the Para. 31 to 32.\n- 26 Although no direct enforcement cases of the above provisions relating to the document disclosure orders have been observed publicly, the frequent promulgation of regulations on cross-border data provision indicates PRC government's position and fierce enforcement in this filed, which would impose the PRC Branch the risks of those serious penalties including warning, business suspension, business license revocation by the relevant competent authority, with a concurrent fine, if producing documents in response to the Subpoena.\n\n#### **(II) PRC Data Protection Laws**\n\n- 27 As stated above, PRC DSL and PRC PIPL echo the requirements for any judiciary assistance for responding to subpoenas issued by comis of foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, PRC data protection legislations also impose restrictions for cross-border transfer of sensitive information, including important data and personal information.\n- 28 According to the Article 38 of PRC PIPL, the necessary requirements for cross-border transfer of personal infonnation include (1) passing the security assessment conducted by the Cyberspace Administration of China of the PRC **(\"CAC\");** (2) being certified by a specialized agency for protection of personal infonnation; or (3) having entered into a contract with the overseas recipient( s) under the standard contract formulated by the CAC, specifying the rights and obligations of both parties. A separate consent\n\nrequirement is imposed by A1iicle 39 of PRC PIPL, which provides that to provide the personal information ofan individual to an overseas recipient outside the territory of the PRC, the personal infonnation processor shall infonn the individual of the relevant information such as the name of the overseas recipient, its contact infonnation, the purpose and method of handling, the type of personal infonnation and the method and procedure for the individual to exercise his or her rights against the overseas recipient, and shall obtain the individual's separate consent. According to Article 40 of PRC PIPL, Article 37 of PRC CSL and Article 31 of PRC DSL, cross-border transfer of important data and/or personal infonnation shall be subject to security assessment.\n\n29 For the PRC Branch, the account related information ordered to be disclosed by the Subpoena includes but not limited to all transaction infonnation, communication infonnation, KYC information. Such information contains not only privacy infonnation of the clients, but also infonnation related to the business operation of the PRC Branch which may constitute or include 'important data' and 'personal information' regulated under data protection legislations. According to the *Information Security Technology Guideline on the Identification of Important Data (Draft for Comments2 )* (in Chinese: {§ ,@,'?x:i:ti:;f: ll!~~:Jj,hQ!iJ1J:Jlti¥i (1iE>J<~~%'filli)) released by the National Infonnation Security Standardisation Technical Committee, 'important data' refers to data that exists in electronic fonn and may endanger national security and public interests once it is tampered with, destroyed, leaked, or illegally obtained or used. As personal financial information related to personal bank account is a type of important basic data accumulated in the daily business operations of banks, if there is any improper operation occurring to such personal financial information, not only the legitimate rights and interests of clients will be directly infringed, but also the risks and operation costs of banks will be increased. Consequently, financial data of banks could fall under the category of 'important data'. As provided by Article 4 of PRC PIPL, 'personal infonnation' refers to all kinds of information related to identified or identifiable natural persons recorded by electronic or other means. Account related infonnation showing the\n\n<sup>2</sup>**In practices in the PRC, the finalized and formal version ofa law, a regulation or a standard will be nearly the same as their \"draft for comments'' versions. And, the PRC authorities will refer to or even rely on the \"draft for comments'' versions during their analysis and enforcement. As a result, legal professionals and other entities or individuals concerned in the PRC usually pay close attention to and follow the guidance in the \"draft for comments\" versions.**\n\nfinancial activities of the debtor and other related individuals would certainly fall under the category of 'personal infonnation'.\n\n- 30 Therefore, to provide the requested account related infonnation stored within the territory of the PRC according to a U.S. court Subpoena, as the recipient is located abroad, the PRC Branch would be subject to the restrictions including: (I) obtaining approval of judiciary assistance as stated above; (2) passing the security assessment by CAC (according to Article 4 of *Security Assessment Measures for Outbound Data Transfers* (in Chinese: ~ tlis W m 'ti: :i: W 1i1i *!i:1'* Yit ), where a data processor provides critical data abroad, it shall declare security assessment for its outbound data transfer to the CAC through the local cyberspace administration at the provincial level; (3) obtaining separate consent from the accountholder; and ( 4) taking confidentiality measures in accordance with the confidentiality requirements including but not limited to the followings: taking confidentiality measures in accordance with the requirements stressed by 6.1.2 of Personal financial information protection teclmical specification (JR/T 0171-2020) (in Chinese: -t-A~ili<h1J!L1/i!,1JiHf':tJi:#~.ffim) issued by the People's Bank of China, that all parties participating in the process of transmission of personal financial information shall ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of such infonnation in the process of transmission. Specifically, the confidentiality measures required for the transmission include but not limited to technical measures such as secure channel and data encryption. Such requirement is also emphasized in the Measures for Security Assessment for Cross-border Transfer of Personal Information (Draft for Comment) (in Chinese: 1'-A1§}~'!-Wm'ti::i:v11i1i!i:J-Yt CfiE>R~:§,1,:frlli) ), Article 4 and Article 17 of which require that the data processor transferring the personal information abroad shall provide analysis reports on security measures to protect the personal information security and the legitimate rights and interests of the subjects of personal infonnation.\n- 31 For any violations, Article 48 of PRC DSL provides that violating entities will be subject to penalties such as warning, business suspension, business license revocation by the relevant competent authority, with a concurrent fine of CNY 100,000 (around USD 14,742) to CNY I million (around USD 147,417), or CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417) to 5 million (around USD 737,083) if serious consequences are caused, if they\n\nprovide data to a foreign judicial agency without the approval of the competent authority. In addition, relevant persons who are directly in charge or directly liable will be subject to a fine of CNY 50,000 (around USD 7,371) to CNY 500,000 (around USD 73,708). Article 46 of PRC DSL provides that the entities illlegally transfer abroad the important data will be subject to warning with a concurrent fine of CNY 100,000 (around USD 14,742), or business suspension, business license revocation with a concurrent fine of CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417) to 10 million (around USD 1,474,165) if serious consequences are caused. Relevant persons who are directly in charge or directly liable will be subject to a fine of CNY 100,000 (around USD 14,742) to CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417). Similarly, Article 66 of PRC PIPL states that entities in violation of any of the provisions of the law will be subject to penalties and fines. If the circumstances are severe, the fine may range from no more than CNY 50 million or no more than 5% of the turnover of the entity of the previous year. Person directly in charge or directly liable will be subject to fines and be prohibited from acting as senior management in corporate entities. Further, Article 66 of the PRC CSL also clearly provides that liabilities including warning, business suspension, business license revocation by the relevant competent authority, with a concurrent fine, will be imposed on entities which export data in violation of Article 37 of PRC CSL. In addition to penalties as stated above, according to Article 67 of PRC PIPL, any violations of PRC PIPL will be recorded in the credit archives and disclosed to the public.\n\n32 The competent authorities have fiercely enforced such provisions. For example, the Cyberspace Administration of China has imposed a fine of CNY 8. 026 billion yuan against Didi Global and a fine of CNY 1 million each for Didi Global's CEO and president on July 21, 2022 for the violations of PRC CSL, PRC DSL and PRC PIPL. Although Didi Global's violations have not been exhaustively listed in the public announcements due to national security considerations, according to the official answers to questions regarding Didi's penalties issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China on July 21, 2022, the non-compliance with the security censorship or assessment requirement before cross-border transfer of data has been an enforcement focus from and after this largest data protection penalty.\n\n#### **(IIl)PRC Financial Regulations**\n\n33 There are traditional obligations of the bank to keep its clients' infonnation confidential under PRC laws and regulations. Article 29 of *PRC Commercial Banking Law* provides general principal for keeping the confidentiality of the clients' infonnation. Additionally, the following regulations provided more specific requirements:\n\nArticle 9 of the *Administrative Measures on RMB Bank Settlement Accounts (Decree of the People's Bank of China No.5, 2003)* (in Chinese: AR r!HlH'rM~mlEf' -~1:ri't (9\" OOARflfff1?- 2003 ~ 5 %)): *Banks shall ensure confidentiality of information about depositors' bank settlement accounts. Banks shall have the right to decline any inquires by institutions or individuals on deposits and other relevant information on bank settlement accounts for institutions, unless stipulated otherwise by the laws and administrative regulations. Banks shall also have the right to decline any inquiries by institutions or individuals on deposits and other relevant information on bank settlement accounts for individuals, unless stipulated otherwise by the laws and administrative regulations.*\n\nArticle 4 of the *Administrative Measures for Client Due Diligence and Preservation of Clients' Identity Information and Transaction Records by Financial Institutions (PBOC, CB/RC and CSRC Decree [2022} No.* J) (in Chinese: ~ill1t!L:ti,J'.g'.f'ffijRiJlil~;fn'.g'.f' ~ffiM~R~a~~~#WR!l:r~(q:iOOAR ffq:iOO ff~~m••~~~~ 0! <sup>0</sup> 00i.iE~m,IW~~~~1?- (2022) ~ I %)): *A financial institution shall, under the principles of safety, accuracy, completeness and confidentiality, properly preserve its clients' identity information and transaction records and ensure that each and every transaction can be reproduced in such a manner as to provide the information necessa,y for the due diligence on its clients, the monitoring and analysis of transactions, the investigation of suspicious transaction activities as well as the investigation and handling of money-laundering and terrorist-financing cases.*\n\nArticle 5 of the *Anti-money Laundering Law of the People's Republic of China* (in Chinese: q:i if A R~;fn 00 .&i'31:/t\\Ut): *Customer identity information and transaction records obtained in the course of anti-money laundering duties or obligations*  *performed pursuant to the law must be kept confidential and not be disclosed to any organization or individual unless required by the provisions of the law.*\n\nArticle 8 of the *Provisions on Individual Deposit Accounts under Real Names (Decree of the State Council No. 285)* (in Chinese: *1'* A1'ftJzWif:r'~::3f#U~.lll'.iE(~9HJr:4-~= BJ\\.+ Ji-'%)): *Financial institutions and their staff members are responsible for keeping confidential the information about individual deposit accounts. Financial institutions shall not provide the information about individual deposit accounts to any entity or individual, and, have the right to refuse any entity or individual to inquire, freeze, transfer money deposited by individuals; however, an exception applies as otherwise provided in laws.*\n\n34 Besides the traditional obligations of confidentiality of financial institutions as introduced in Para.33, the *Notice of the People's Bank of China for Banking Financial Institutions to Get the Personal Financial Information Protection Work Well Done (No. 17 [201 l] of the PBOC)* (in Chinese: 9\" ~A l,(!/ilHT:A:'f1ilHT~~r.irlltJLt'q{/jQ:ff1' A~ r.ir!l{§}~,{Jj(Jf'I{'FB<Jll]H,U (i~'.& (2011) 17 -'%)) (the **\"Notice\")** published by the People's Bank of China provides more detailed requirements:\n\nArticle I of the Notice: *Personal financial information as mentioned in this Notice shall mean the following personal information obtained, processed and preserved by a banking financial institution by accessing to the information system, payment system and other systems of the People's Bank of China when it carries out the following business:*\n\n*(1) personal identity information, including the name, gender, nationality and ethnicity of the person, the type, number and validity period of his identity card, his occupation, means of contact, marital status, family status, domicile, the address of the entity for which he works, and his photo;*\n\n*(2) personal property information, including his income, real estates, vehicles, tax payment amount and reserve deposit amount;*\n\n*(3) personal account information, including his account, the time of opening the account, the bank of deposit, the balance in the account, and the transactions under the account;*\n\n*(4) personal credit information, including the repayments under his credit card, the repayment of his loans, and other information formed in his economic activities and able to reflect his credit conditions;*\n\n*(5) personal financial trading information, including the personal information obtained, preserved and kept by the banking financial institution in the process of intermediary business such as payment settlement, financial management and safe deposit box, as well as the personal information arising when the client has a business relation with a third-party institution such as insurance company, securities company, fund company and futures company, etc. via the bankingfinancial institution;*\n\n*(6) derivative information, including the information formed from processing and analysis of original information to reflect a certain person's facts, such as personal consumption habits, investment will, etc.;*\n\n*(7) other personal information obtained and preserved in the process of establishing a business relation with the person.*\n\nArticle 4 of the Notice: *A banking financial institution shall not distort or illegally use the personal financial information. When using the personal .financial information, it shall meet the purpose of collecting such information, and shall not commit the following acts:*\n\n*(1) selling the personal financial information;*\n\n*(2) providing any other institution or individual with the persona/financial information, unless othenvise authorized or consented to in writing by the individual when required by relevant business, or otherwise prescribed in any law or regulation or by the People's Bank of China;*\n\n*(3) using the persona/financial information in its marketing activity not for the pwpose of generating such information despite of the individual's objection.*\n\n35 For cross-border transfer issue specifically, there are also explicit restrictions on financial institutions, with certain statutory exceptions. For example, Article 6 of the Notice has provided the following restrictions on cross-border transfer of personal financial infonnation: *The personal financial information collected inside the territory of China shall be stored, processed and analysed also inside the territory of China.*\n\n*Unless otherwise prescribed by any law or regulation or the People's Banko( China, the banking financial institution shall not provide any domestic personal financial information to an overseas party. 3*\n\n3 6 The exceptions mentioned in the above underlined provisions are statutory ones. The statutory exceptions and corresponding requirements are as follows:\n\nArticle 4 of *The Notice on Issues Relating to Proper Protection of Personal Financial Information by Financial Institutions in Banking Industry (Shang Hai Yin Fa [2011* J *No. 110) (in Chinese:* \\*'fil\\lir.illc~Wi'lltJLf/;J{;\\l(~J1-A~Wi'll{l§,i~J,1lf:1f'Ifi=fl\\*i'iiJJl!Nl'i{J:® J;U ( l:.liiHltK ( 2011) 110 % ) ) has provided the following exceptions for the above introduced restrictions on cross-border transfer of personal financial information: *Issues relating to provision of personal financial information by financial institutions in the banking industry to overseas parties: Article 6 of the Notice stipulates that, \"unless otherwise prescribed by any law or regulation or the People's Bank of China, the banking financial institution shall not provide any domestic personal financial information to an overseas party.\" However, where it is necessary to handle business for clients, upon the written authorization or consent o(the clients, domestic financial institutions in the banldng indus/Jy which provide domestic personal financial information to overseas head office, parent bank or branches and sub-branches shall not be deemed as a violation. Financial institutions in the banldng industry shall ensure that their overseas head office, parent bank or branches and sub-branches keep personal financial information obtained confidential.*\n\nBesides the above, Section 7.1.3 (d) of the *Personal Financial Information Protection Technical Specification (JRIT0171-2020)* (in Chinese: 1-A~Wi'll{l§,~,{lf:=rf'J5'z;fJ.ffim) has also provided the specific description and requirements of the exceptions for the above introduced restrictions on cross-border transfer of personal financial infonnation: *7.1.3 (d) Personal financial information collected and generated in the course of providing financial products or services within the territory of the People's Republic of China shall be stored, processed and analyzed within the territo1y.*\n\n<sup>3</sup>**These exceptions are stipulated in relevant regulations. However, a subpoena or a court order from the US is not an exception. Please find more details of such exceptions in Para. 36 in this Declaration.**\n\n*Where it is really necessary to provide personal financial information to overseas institutions (including head office, parent company or branch company, subsidiary company and other affiliated institutions necessary to complete the business) due to business needs, the specific requirements are as follows:*\n\n- *1) The transfer shall comply with the national laws and regulations and the relevant regulations of the competent department of the induslly.*\n- *2) The express consent of the subject of personal financial information shall be obtained.*\n- *3) The export security assessment of personal financial information shall be carried out in accordance with the methods and standards formulated by the relevant departments of the state and industry, so as to ensure that the data security protection capacity of overseas institutions meets the security requirements of the state, relevant departments of the industry and financial institutions.*\n- *4) The financial institution shall explicit inform and supervise the overseas institution to effectively perform its obligations such as confidentiality, data deletion and case investigation by means of signing agreements and on-site inspection.*\n- 3 7 The consequences for violating the above regulations on financial institutions are severe and may also have adverse impact on the executives of the financial institutions. Article IO of the Notice has provided the following consequences for violations: I,f *the People's Bank of China or its any branch at the level of prefecture or city central sub-branch accepts a complaint or finds that a banldng financial institution might have failed to perform the obligation of protecting personal financial information, it may make verifications according to law.* I,f *it ascertains that the banking financial institution has violated this Notice or is in other event of failing to perform the obligation of protecting the personal financial information, it may take the following measures:*\n\t- *(]) to make an appointment with the banking financial institution's senior manager for a conversation*<sup>4</sup> , *and to require the senior manager to state the facts;*\n\t- *(2) to order the banking financial institution to make a rectification within a time limit;*\n\n<sup>4</sup>**The \"conversation\" here is a severe measure taken by the Chinese authorities, which is a signal to the public that the person being invited to the ·'conversation'' has very severe misconducts. Such signal will also be interpreted as a significant bad news and may cause adverse impact on reputation.**\n\n*(3) to circularize the matter within the financial sector;*\n\n*(4) to suggest that the banking financial institution give sanctions to the directly responsible senior manager and other directly liable persons according to law;*\n\n*(5) to hand over the case to the judicial authority for punishment* if *the bankingfinancial institution is suspected to have committed a crime.*\n\n- 38 In the previous couple of years, there was a well-known case of a bank's violation of the personal infonnation protection rules in which penalties were imposed. CITIC Bank provided detailed information of a Chinese stand-up comedian's personal bank account transactions to a third party without the authorization of the client himself, violating the principle of confidentiality of depositors and allegedly *PRC Commercial Banking Law*  and the regulatory provisions of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission **(\"CBIRC\")** on the protection of personal infonnation. According to a punishment decision published by the CBIRC (CBIRC Penalty No. [2021) 5), one of the main violations of the law was that CITIC Bank \"mismanaged sensitive customer information and caused it to flow out; stored sensitive customer infonnation in violation of the law\". CBIRC imposed an administrative penalty of CNY 4.5 million on CITIC bank.\n- 39 Besides the PRC laws and regulations for protecting financial personal data, there are some industrial standards for protecting the confidentiality and security of financial data as well, for example, the Guide for the Classification of Financial Data Security ( (JR/T 0197-2020) ) (in Chinese: ~ill1~Jm~:i: ~:/!~:i:%t/Hi'ii¥i).\n- 40 In summary, considering the above regulations and cases, if the PRC Branch discloses the required infonnation of its clients, it will be subject to severe punishment according to PRC laws and regulations on financial institutions.\n\n#### **(IV) PRC Criminal Law**\n\n- 41 Illegal provision of client's personal information, in very severe circumstances, may lead to the result of being prosecuted of the \"C1ime of Infringement upon Citizens' Personal Infonnation\".\n- 42 Article 253 (A) of *Criminal Law of the PRC* stipulates as follows:\n\n*Whoever sells or provides personal information of citizens to others in violation of relevant provisions of the State,* if *the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years or criminal detention and shall also or only be fined;* if *the circumstances are particularly serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment/ram 3 to* 7 *years and shall be fined*\n\n*Whoever sells or provides personal information of citizens to others in violation of relevant provisions of the State, which is obtained during pe1forming duties or providing of services shall be sentenced to a heavier penalty according to the preceding paragraph.*\n\n*Where an entity commits any of the offences as described in the preceding three paragraphs, it shall be fined, and the person directly in charge and other directly liable persons shall be penalized in accordance with the applicable paragraph.*\n\nPursuant to this Article, those who illegally provide personal infonnation to others shall be sentenced to pecuniary penalty, criminal detention, or fixed-term imprisomnent up to 7 years. The penalty will be even heavier if such illegally provided personal infonnation is obtained during perfonnance of duties or provision of services. If the PRC Branch is considered as having illegally provided personal infonnation, in severe circumstances, it may be considered as illegal provision of personal infonnation that it obtained during its performance of services, which may lead to heavy sentences, and not only the PRC Branch entity, but also the PRC Branch's executive in charge of this matter, may be criminally liable.\n\n# **(V)N ational Security, Criminal Investigation, and Political Sensitivity**\n\n43 According to news reports5 of Chinese govermnent's official media in previous years, Kwok was involved in criminal investigations because he was accused of fabricating documents of the central govennnent of China as well as other possible crimes; Kwok\n\n<sup>5</sup> **For example, China Court, Xinhua: Forging National Official Documents and Directing a Farce-**\n\nExposing Guo Wengui's \"Top Secret Documents\" (f)',ii,;[l,];!( 0:Jt, -\\'i'iNJ\\$r41ii,JJillj--jll\\f.Z.\\$F,:Jtl/t \"tMl'i:Jt1'f\" H'liJiiJ ~kt\"), April 23, 2018, <http>;\n\n**Zhong Gong, People Daily, Case of Guo Wengui and Others Forging National Official Documents Cracked (!;~Jt:11.t~**  A 11:Ji!!i 00 ;!(f/1.7':0 :Jt~il!i{,JH<it), April 23, 2018,\n\n<sup>&</sup>lt;http 8042316 ! 915881.shtml>.\n\nwas one of the persons in the Red Notice List issued by the International Criminal Police Organization; some of Kwok's speeches jeopardized the reputation and security of China, because his speeches involved several senior officials of Chinese government. I am not in a position to comment on the above, but I do believe the above is highly politically sensitive and will leave a significant impact on the PRC Branch when considering the risks and harms of disclosing the required infonnation.\n\n- 44 As Kwok was and may still be involved in criminal investigations, the bank account information of him or his companies may also be deemed as important infonnation in criminal investigations. Apart from the general rules on protection of state secrets of China, Article 9(6) of the *State Secrets Law of the PRC* also explicitly classified \"secrets concerning activities for safeguarding state security and the investigation of criminal offences\" as \"state secrets\". For illegal disclosure of \"state secrets\" such as important information on ongoing criminal investigations, A1iicle 398 of the PRC Criminal Law provides that *\"[Crime of Intentionally Divulging State Secrets} [Crime of Negligently Divulging State Secrets} Any functiona,y of a State organ who, in violation of the provisions of the Law on Guarding State Secrets, intentionally or negligently divulges State secrets,* if *the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention;* if *the circumstances are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years. Any person who is not a functionary of a State organ commits the offence mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall, in light of the circumstances, be penalized in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.* \"\n- 45 If the required information under the Subpoena is considered as state secrets, due to the nature of state secrets and the political sensitivity, the provision of the required information will be considered illegal and may expose the PRC Branch to unpredictable and uncontrollable risks.\n\n# **V. Alternative Option Available to the Trustee to Obtain the Information Sought in the Subpoena**\n\n- 46 As stated in Para. 19, the US and the PRC are both signatories to the Hague Evidence Convention, which empowers contracting states to designate a central auth01ity to receive and review incoming \"letters of request\" for taking evidence in that country. If the letter ofrequest complies with requirements of the convention, the central authority will then \"transmit\" the \"letter of request\" to the competent authority to process the evidence collection.\n- 47 According to the Statistics on Judicial Assistance Cases in Civil and Commercial Matters in 2022 issued by the PRC Ministry of Justice **(\"MOJ\"),** the MOJ had concluded 1,827 requests of judiciary assistance including collection of evidence pursuant to judiciary assistance treaties including the Hague Evidence Convention as of the end of December, 2022, which evidences PRC's commitment to providing judiciary assistance in civil and commercial matters.\n- 48 Several US cases could also illustrate the application of and the benefit provided by the Hague Evidence Convention. For example, in 2011, Tiffany & Co. **(\"TIF\")** sought to enforce a financial judgment against alleged counterfeiters by applying to a US court to compel three Chinese banks to produce the defendants' Chinese account infonnation. The US court accepted the Chinese banks' argument that the plaintiff could have taken evidence through the Hague Evidence Convention and ultimately denied the discovery request.\n- 49 Procedures of obtaining evidence through the Hague Evidence Convention is clear and straightforward. The letter of request process under the Hague Evidence Convention starts with a judicial authority of the Requesting State, which will send a letter of request to the central authority in the Requested State. The letter will then be forwarded by the central authority of the Requested State to appropriate judicial authority to process, where the law of the Requested State will apply to the letter.\n- 50 In China, Articles 34 to 44 of the *Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Promulgation of \"Implementing Rules for Provisions on Requesting Judicial Assistance in Service of Documents and Evidence Collection in Accordance with International Conventions and Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaties (for Trial Implementation)\" (Fa Fa [2013* J *No. 6)*  (in Chinese:~~ A~\\$~% ~p '& «\\*rf:&t!if 00 ~jj;i;-g'J;fP,xX:itl El \\$t/Hl)J~g'l j}l:!!l\\_ ~ l'ili ••#EJ\\$~~~~~~-~filEJ\\$~M-\\*OO~~~-~~c~~)>OOD\n\nJ;U) ( i't '} ( 2013 ) 6 ~) further expressly state the procedures for the assistance from Chinese courts in evidence collection of civil and commercial cases to foreign courts.\n\n51 Foreign litigants seeking document discovery under the Hague Evidence Convention shall submit a Letter of Request to the Judicial Assistance Exchange Centre of the MOJ, which will then forward the Letter of Request to the Supreme People's Court of the PRC (the **\"SPC\").** After the SPC's review, a Letter of Fo1warding shall be prepared and submitted together with the request and its annexes to the High People's Court at the location of the witness or the location of the evidence, which will be further transmitted to the Intennediate People's Court or Basic-level People's Court at the location of the evidence or witness for review and processing. After carrying out the review, the judge in charge of investigation and evidence collection shall forward the results of evidence collection to the Personnel for International Judicial Assistance of the same comi. The Letter of Forwarding together with review and forwarding procedures will be subsequently carried out by the superior courts level by level until the SPC. The SPC shall review them and forward them to the Judicial Assistance Exchange Centre of the MOJ in a timely manner. To my knowledge, in most cases, the response to the Letter of Request could be obtained within one year or faster, depending on the specific case scenarios. In some complicated cases, it may take more than one year for the PRC court to decide. For example, in the case of *ALCALIS DE LA PATAGONIA S.A.I.C. v. RACING CLUB ASOCIACI6N Civil,* the National Court of First Instance in Civil and Commercial Matters of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina sought the disclosure of relevant payments regarding the transfer of a football player made to the defendant. On October 2021, the Argentine court submitted a letter of request to the MOJ for judicial assistance on evidence collection pursuant to Hague Evidence Convention. The letter of request was later reviewed and prepared as Letter of Judicial Assistance for Evidence Collection **(\"Letter for Evidence Collection\")** being transfer to the PRC Supreme Court, then to Shanghai High People's Court, and to Shanghai Pudong New District Primary People's Court **(\"Pudong Court\").** Upon receiving the Letter for Evidence Collection on December 29, 2021, Pudong Court took 23 days to review, investigate, collect the evidence and confirm the transfer of such evidence.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America\n\nthat the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on January 29'\\ 2023.\n\nGary J. Gao","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 （合并管理）\n\nGARY J. GAO（高杰）为支持 UBS AG（瑞银集团）反对第11章受托人提出的强制提交动议而作的声明\n\n一、声明人介绍\n\n1. 本人，GARY GAO（高杰），是具有中华人民共和国执业资格的律师。本人系 Zhong Lun Law Firm, Shanghai Office（中伦律师事务所上海办公室，以下简称“Zhong Lun”）的高级合伙人。本人亦为 Zhong Lun 合规与监管部负责人。\n\n2. 本人于1990年获得 East China Institute of Political Science and Law（华东政法学院；现称 East China University of Political Science and Law〔华东政法大学〕）法学学士学位，并于2000年获得英国 University of Hertfordshire（赫特福德郡大学）法学硕士学位。\n\n3. 本人于1990年在上海一家地区法院担任书记员，开始法律职业生涯，后晋升为刑事法官。本人担任上述职务共五年。本人自1995年起获准加入中华人民共和国律师协会。本人自2014年起担任 Zhong Lun 合伙人。本人执业专长为政府监管事务、跨境公司合规及国际争议解决，并已在中华人民共和国执业中华人民共和国法律27年。本人工作语言为英语和中文。\n\n4. 本人于2020年至2022年连续三年获 Legal 500 Asia Pacific（《法律500强亚太》）评为监管与合规领域领先律师。本人获国际领先法律研究及评级机构 Chambers & Partners（钱伯斯）出版的 Chambers Greater China Region Guide 2023（《钱伯斯大中华区指南2023》）评为第一档律师。本人亦获 China Business Law Journal（《中国商法》）评为2022年中国市场“A榜法律精英”。本人还获得其他多项奖项，包括 Asia Law Profiles 2022 Distinguished Practitioner in Compliance（《亚洲法律概览2022》合规杰出执业者）、Legal Band “2021 Leading Lawyer in Compliance and Government Affairs”（《法律评级》“2021年合规与政府事务领先律师”）、“2020 Leading Lawyer in Compliance and Government Affairs”（“2020年合规与政府事务领先律师”）及“2019 Leading Lawyer in Compliance”（“2019年合规领先律师”）。有关本人的专业成就及所获认可的更多详情，载于本声明附件I（Gary Gao 的简历）。\n\n5. 在本人的职业生涯中，本人曾多次就涉及美国诉讼程序中的文件披露及数据跨境传输的案件向客户提供意见。近年来，本人亦在涉及美国诉讼程序及数据跨境传输的案件中担任专家证人，包括 BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd（BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd）诉 Celestial Nutrifoods Ltd（Celestial Nutrifoods Ltd）一案，[2014] 4 SLR 331。\n\n二、背景\n\n（一）声明目的\n\n6. HO WAN KWOK（以下简称“Kwok”）于15 February 2022向 United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院，以下简称“Connecticut Bankruptcy Court”）申请破产。\n\n7. Connecticut Bankruptcy Court 指定 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯，以下简称“Trustee”）担任 Kwok 财产的第11章受托人。\n\n8. UBS AG（以下简称“UBS”或“Bank”）是一家银行金融机构，在包括中华人民共和国在内的多个法域设有分行。Kwok 通过个人投资公司在该银行持有/曾持有多个账户。UBS AG 的中华人民共和国分行（以下简称“PRC Branch”）要求本人就以下事项作出本声明：(i) 与美国法院传票（以下简称“Subpoena”）所要求披露及跨境传输金融数据有关的中华人民共和国法律法规；在上述标题所示案件中，Trustee 依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004 向 UBS 送达该传票；(ii) 该等法律法规对 UBS AG 的中华人民共和国分行（以下简称“PRC Branch”）遵守该传票能力的影响；以及 (iii) 可使 Trustee 在不要求 PRC Branch 违反中华人民共和国法律法规的情况下寻求其所要求披露的替代方案。\n\n9. 因此，本声明解释中华人民共和国法律法规施加的限制，并说明可使 Trustee 在不导致违反中华人民共和国法律法规的情况下向 PRC Branch 寻求披露的替代方案。具体而言，本声明将说明 Trustee 如何可根据 Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters（《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》，以下简称“Hague Evidence Convention”）寻求司法协助，以获得所需披露。\n\n10. 本声明所表达的意见为本人独立意见。本人确认，在准备本声明时，本人知悉本人首要职责是对法院负责，且该职责优先于本人对向本人作出指示或向本人支付报酬之人士所负的任何义务。\n\n（二）审阅材料\n\n11. 为作出本声明，本人已了解导致 Trustee 提交本项要求 UBS 提交由 PRC Branch 占有、保管或控制的某些信息和文件（在该等材料存在的范围内）的强制提交动议（以下简称“Motion to Compel”）的相关事件。具体而言，本人已审阅 Subpoena。本人理解，Trustee 在 Subpoena 中要求 UBS 提交其所占有的、与多个实体和个人有关的信息和文件，其中包括 PRC Branch 所占有的信息和文件，但以该等信息和文件存在为限。\n\n12. 除上述材料外，本人还审阅了《美国破产法典》第15章项下承认制度的摘要。\n\n三、执行摘要\n\n13. 除非取得：(a) 中华人民共和国主管机关的批准（更多详情见第20至32段）；(b) 任何涉案账户持有人的明确同意（更多详情见第28、34及36段）；以及 (c) 解除中华人民共和国法律法规施加的任何其他限制，否则 PRC Branch 将无法在不违反中华人民共和国法律法规的情况下遵守 Subpoena。中华人民共和国法律法规对在中华人民共和国经营的银行，包括 Bank 的 PRC Branch，施加广泛限制，限制与该等分行账户有关的信息和文件可被披露的情形。施加该等限制的法律包括但不限于：《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（以下简称“PRC Civil Procedure Law”）、《中华人民共和国刑法》（以下简称“PRC Criminal Law”）、《中华人民共和国数据安全法》（以下简称“PRC DSL”）、《中华人民共和国网络安全法》（以下简称“PRC CSL”）、《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》（以下简称“PRC PIPL”）及《中华人民共和国商业银行法》（以下简称“PRC Commercial Banking Law”）。亦有一系列金融监管规定对当前情形施加限制。若 PRC Branch 违反中华人民共和国法律法规披露与在其处持有的账户有关的信息或文件，将面临严重后果。该等后果可包括但不限于刑事处罚、重大罚款、暂停营业、取消 Bank 高级管理人员任职资格以及声誉损害。此外，Trustee 要求 PRC Branch 遵守 Subpoena 并披露该等数据，也可能引发中华人民共和国国家安全、刑事侦查保密及中国政治敏感性方面的问题。\n\n14. Trustee 可采取替代方案，使其能够在不导致违反中华人民共和国法律法规的情况下向 PRC Branch 寻求披露。具体而言，Trustee 可根据 Hague Evidence Convention 寻求司法协助，以获得所需披露。这将是 Trustee 可采取的有效且合法的方法，且 PRC Branch 不会违反上述中华人民共和国法律法规施加的限制。\n\n四、中华人民共和国法律法规施加的限制\n\n（一）中华人民共和国司法协助\n\n15. 中国对中国境内实体为回应美国传票而提交文件施加更严格的限制。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第283条和第284条，以及中华人民共和国司法部（以下简称“MOJ”）发布的《国际民商事司法协助常见问题》（以下简称“FAQ”），明确规定，就外国法院程序中包括调查取证在内的“诉讼行为”所提供的任何协助，均须根据相关国际条约或外交途径进行。尽管美国的披露程序与中华人民共和国的取证或调查程序之间存在差异，Subpoena 所要求的披露应被视为“诉讼行为”。上述法律及 FAQ 内容如下：\n\n16. PRC Civil Procedure Law 第283条规定：“根据中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约，或者按照互惠原则，人民法院和外国法院可以相互请求，代为送达文书、调查取证以及进行其他诉讼行为。\n\n外国法院请求协助的事项有损于中华人民共和国的主权、安全或者社会公共利益的，人民法院不予执行。”\n\n17. PRC Civil Procedure Law 第284条规定：“请求和提供司法协助，应当依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约所规定的途径进行；没有条约关系的，通过外交途径进行。\n\n外国驻中华人民共和国的使领馆可以向该国公民送达文书和调查取证，但不得违反中华人民共和国的法律，并不得采取强制措施。\n\n除前款规定的情况外，未经中华人民共和国主管机关准许，任何外国机关或者个人不得在中华人民共和国境内送达文书、调查取证。”\n\n18. FAQ 第5项规定如下：\n\n“问：外国司法机关或司法官员如何调取位于中国的证据材料？\n\n答：调查取证请求应由外国司法机关或者有资格提出取证请求的个人，按照条约规定的途径向司法部提出。外国与中国未缔结相关条约的，应向外交部提出请求。请求经审查批准后，由人民法院执行，并由受理请求的部门向请求方回复结果。”\n\n- 19 鉴于中国和美国均为 Hague Evidence Convention（海牙取证公约）的缔约方，并根据《最高人民法院关于依据国际公约和双边司法协助条约办理民商事案件中请求送达司法文书和调查取证的司法协助请求的规则（2020年修正）》（以下简称“条约项下司法协助规则”），外国司法机关在中华人民共和国境内实施诸如命令披露文件等“诉讼行为”的合法途径，是依照 Hague Evidence Convention（海牙取证公约）进行司法协助。\n\n- 20 近期颁布的其他法律，即 PRC DSL（中华人民共和国数据安全法）和 PRC PIPL（中华人民共和国个人信息保护法），也支持该立场，强调除非事先获得中国主管机关的批准，(1) 中国境外的司法机关不得要求中国境内实体披露文件；(2) 中国境内实体和中国境内个人不得配合该等司法机关提出的文件披露请求。有关 PRC DSL 和 PRC PIPL 的更多详情，见第27至32段。\n\n- 21 尤其是，PRC DSL 第36条规定：“中国主管机关应当依照有关法律和中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约、协定，或者按照平等互利原则，处理外国司法或者执法机构关于提供数据的请求。未经中国主管机关批准，中华人民共和国境内的组织、个人不得向外国司法或者执法机构提供存储于中华人民共和国境内的数据。”\n\n- 22 PRC PIPL 第41条规定：“中华人民共和国主管机关根据有关法律和中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约、协定，或者按照平等互利原则，处理外国司法或者执法机构关于提供存储于中华人民共和国境内的个人信息的请求。未经中华人民共和国主管机关批准，个人信息处理者不得向外国司法或者执法机构提供存储于中华人民共和国境内的个人信息。”\n\n- 23 基于上述情况，可以得出结论：在涉及美国法院等外国法域法院的情形下，该等批准只能从 MOJ（司法部）获得，随后依照 Hague Evidence Convention（海牙取证公约）程序或外交渠道转交至 Supreme People's Court of PRC（中华人民共和国最高人民法院）。美国法院命令不足以取代该等必要批准，亦不能为 PRC Branch（中国分行）提供任何保护。\n\n- 24 中国主管机关对美国法院作出的文件披露命令亦采取了明确而严肃的态度，并不鼓励中国境内的实体接收人遵从该等命令，除非已遵守颁布的法律和法规。根据 China Banking Association（中国银行业协会）首席法律顾问 PU Xiangrui（蒲向瑞）先生于2019年6月26日在 PRC State Council（中华人民共和国国务院）官方网站发表的讲话，其认为，依据 PRC Civil Procedure Law（中华人民共和国民事诉讼法）的规定，未经中华人民共和国主管机关许可，中华人民共和国境内的任何实体或个人不得向任何外国实体提供证据材料等司法协助。其进一步指出，美国原告可根据 Hague Evidence Convention（海牙取证公约）通过司法协助从中国境内银行获取客户信息。中国境内银行将依法予以配合和协助。\n\n1 China Daily（中国日报），《中国银行业协会：美国对中国银行行使“长臂管辖权”违反中华人民共和国法律》，2019年6月26日。\n\n然而，美国法院命令一家中国银行直接向其审理案件中的原告提供受中国法律严格保护的该银行客户信息的行为，且未取得中华人民共和国有关主管机关同意、仅依据美国国内法作出该等命令，是对中国银行行使“长臂管辖权”的典型做法，并且明显违反包括 PRC Commercial Bank Law（中华人民共和国商业银行法）和 PRC Civil Procedure Law（中华人民共和国民事诉讼法）在内的一系列中国相关法律和法规。中国境内银行在法律上没有义务遵从美国法院的命令。\n\n- 25 基于上述情况，若 PRC Branch（中国分行）遵从该传票并按要求提供账户信息，则 PRC Branch（中国分行）及其雇员均将违反中国法律，并因此面临民事甚至刑事处罚。有关该等后果的更多详情，见第31至32段。\n\n- 26 尽管尚未公开观察到与上述文件披露命令相关规定直接执行的案件，但有关跨境提供数据的法规频繁颁布，表明中华人民共和国政府在该领域的立场及严格执法。如果 PRC Branch（中国分行）为回应该传票而出示文件，其将面临包括警告、停业、由有关主管机关吊销营业执照以及并处罚款在内的严重处罚风险。\n\n(II) 中国数据保护法律\n\n- 27 如上所述，PRC DSL（中华人民共和国数据安全法）和 PRC PIPL（中华人民共和国个人信息保护法）呼应了对回应外国法域法院发出传票所需司法协助的要求。此外，中国数据保护立法还对敏感信息的跨境传输施加限制，包括重要数据和个人信息。\n\n- 28 根据 PRC PIPL 第38条，个人信息跨境传输的必要要求包括：(1) 通过 PRC Cyberspace Administration of China（中华人民共和国国家互联网信息办公室，以下简称“CAC”）进行的安全评估；(2) 经专门的个人信息保护机构认证；或(3) 按照 CAC 制定的标准合同与境外接收方订立合同，明确双方的权利和义务。PRC PIPL 第39条还规定了单独同意要求，即向中华人民共和国境外接收方提供个人信息时，个人信息处理者应当告知个人境外接收方的名称、联系方式、处理目的和方式、个人信息种类以及个人向境外接收方行使权利的方式和程序等相关事项，并取得个人的单独同意。根据 PRC PIPL 第40条、PRC CSL（中华人民共和国网络安全法）第37条以及 PRC DSL（中华人民共和国数据安全法）第31条，重要数据和/或个人信息的跨境传输应当接受安全评估。\n\n29 对于 PRC Branch（中国分行）而言，该传票命令披露的账户相关信息包括但不限于所有交易信息、通信信息和 KYC（了解你的客户）信息。该等信息不仅包含客户的隐私信息，还包含与 PRC Branch（中国分行）经营活动有关的信息，而该等信息可能构成或包括受数据保护立法规制的“重要数据”和“个人信息”。根据 National Information Security Standardisation Technical Committee（全国信息安全标准化技术委员会）发布的《信息安全技术 重要数据识别指南（征求意见稿）》， “重要数据”是指以电子形式存在，一旦被篡改、破坏、泄露或者被非法获取、非法利用，可能危害国家安全和公共利益的数据。由于与个人银行账户有关的个人金融信息属于银行在日常经营活动中积累的一类重要基础数据，如该等个人金融信息发生任何不当操作，不仅会直接侵害客户的合法权益，还会增加银行的风险和运营成本。因此，银行金融数据可能属于“重要数据”类别。根据 PRC PIPL（中华人民共和国个人信息保护法）第4条，“个人信息”是指以电子或者其他方式记录的与已识别或者可识别的自然人有关的各种信息。显示债务人及其他相关个人金融活动的账户相关信息当然属于“个人信息”类别。\n\n2 在中华人民共和国实践中，法律、法规或标准的最终正式版本将与其“征求意见稿”版本几乎相同。而且，中华人民共和国主管机关在分析和执法过程中将参考甚至依赖“征求意见稿”版本。因此，中华人民共和国的法律专业人士以及其他有关实体或个人通常密切关注并遵循“征求意见稿”版本中的指引。\n\n- 30 因此，为根据美国法院传票提供存储于中华人民共和国境内的所请求的账户相关信息，鉴于收件人位于境外，中国分行将受到以下限制：(1) 获得如上所述的司法协助批准；(2) 通过国家互联网信息办公室（Cyberspace Administration of China，CAC）的安全评估（根据《数据出境安全评估办法》第4条（中文：数据出境安全评估办法），数据处理者向境外提供重要数据的，应当通过所在地省级网信部门向国家互联网信息办公室申报数据出境安全评估）；(3) 获得账户持有人的单独同意；以及 (4) 根据保密要求采取保密措施，包括但不限于以下措施：按照中国人民银行（People's Bank of China）发布的《个人金融信息保护技术规范》（JR/T 0171-2020）（中文：个人金融信息保护技术规范）第6.1.2条强调的要求采取保密措施，即所有参与个人金融信息传输过程的各方均应确保该等信息在传输过程中的保密性、完整性和可用性。具体而言，传输所要求的保密措施包括但不限于安全通道、数据加密等技术措施。该要求亦在《个人信息出境安全评估办法（征求意见稿）》（中文：个人信息出境安全评估办法（征求意见稿））中得到强调，其第4条和第17条要求向境外提供个人信息的数据处理者提供有关保护个人信息安全及个人信息主体合法权益的安全措施分析报告。\n\n- 31 《中华人民共和国数据安全法》（PRC DSL）第48条规定，未经主管机关批准向外国司法机构提供数据的违法实体，将由有关主管机关处以警告、责令停业整顿、吊销营业执照等处罚，并处CNY 100,000 (around USD 14,742)至CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417)的罚款；造成严重后果的，处CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417)至5 million (around USD 737,083)的罚款。此外，直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员将被处以CNY 50,000 (around USD 7,371)至CNY 500,000 (around USD 73,708)的罚款。《中华人民共和国数据安全法》第46条规定，违法向境外转移重要数据的实体将被处以警告，并处CNY 100,000 (around USD 14,742)的罚款；造成严重后果的，责令停业整顿、吊销营业执照，并处CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417)至10 million (around USD 1,474,165)的罚款。直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员将被处以CNY 100,000 (around USD 14,742)至CNY 1 million (around USD 147,417)的罚款。同样，《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》（PRC PIPL）第66条规定，违反该法任何规定的实体将受到处罚和罚款。如情节严重，罚款可为不超过CNY 50 million或该实体上一年度营业额的5%。直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员将被处以罚款，并被禁止在公司实体中担任高级管理人员。此外，《中华人民共和国网络安全法》（PRC CSL）第66条亦明确规定，对于违反《中华人民共和国网络安全法》第37条出口数据的实体，将由有关主管机关施加包括警告、责令停业整顿、吊销营业执照以及并处罚款在内的责任。除上述处罚外，根据《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》第67条，任何违反《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》的行为均将记入信用档案并向社会公布。\n\n32 主管机关一直严格执行该等规定。例如，中国国家互联网信息办公室（Cyberspace Administration of China）于July 21, 2022，就滴滴全球（Didi Global）违反《中华人民共和国网络安全法》、《中华人民共和国数据安全法》和《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》的行为，对滴滴全球处以CNY 8.026 billion yuan罚款，并分别对滴滴全球的首席执行官和总裁各处以CNY 1 million罚款。尽管出于国家安全考虑，滴滴全球的违法行为并未在公开公告中得到详尽列举，但根据中国国家互联网信息办公室于July 21, 2022发布的关于滴滴处罚的官方问答，在此项最大规模的数据保护处罚之后，数据跨境转移前未遵守安全审查或评估要求已成为执法重点。\n\n（III）中国金融法规\n\n33 根据中国法律法规，银行负有对其客户信息保密的传统义务。《中华人民共和国商业银行法》第29条规定了对客户信息保密的一般原则。此外，下列法规规定了更具体的要求：\n\n《人民币银行结算账户管理办法》（中国人民银行令〔2003〕第5号）（中文：人民币银行结算账户管理办法）第9条：银行应当为存款人的银行结算账户信息保密。对单位银行结算账户的存款和有关资料，除法律、行政法规另有规定外，银行有权拒绝任何单位或个人查询。对个人银行结算账户的存款和有关资料，除法律、行政法规另有规定外，银行亦有权拒绝任何单位或个人查询。\n\n《金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法》（中国人民银行、中国银行保险监督管理委员会和中国证券监督管理委员会令〔2022〕第1号）（中文：金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法）第4条：金融机构应当按照安全、准确、完整和保密的原则，妥善保存客户身份资料和交易记录，确保能够以足以为客户尽职调查、交易监测分析、可疑交易活动调查以及洗钱和恐怖融资案件调查处理提供必要信息的方式，重现每一笔交易。\n\n《中华人民共和国反洗钱法》（中文：中华人民共和国反洗钱法）第5条：依法履行反洗钱职责或义务过程中获得的客户身份资料和交易信息，应当予以保密；非依法律规定，不得向任何单位和个人提供。\n\n《个人存款账户实名制规定》（国务院令第285号）（中文：个人存款账户实名制规定）第8条：金融机构及其工作人员有责任对个人存款账户信息保密。金融机构不得向任何单位或个人提供个人存款账户信息，并有权拒绝任何单位或个人查询、冻结、划扣个人存款；但法律另有规定的除外。\n\n34 除第33段所述金融机构的传统保密义务外，中国人民银行发布的《中国人民银行关于银行业金融机构做好个人金融信息保护工作的通知》（中国人民银行〔2011〕17号）（中文：中国人民银行关于银行业金融机构做好个人金融信息保护工作的通知）（以下简称“《通知》”）对中国人民银行提出了更为详细的要求：\n\n《通知》第1条：本通知所称个人金融信息，是指银行业金融机构在开展下列业务时，通过接入中国人民银行的信息系统、支付系统以及其他系统获取、处理和保存的下列个人信息：\n\n(1) 个人身份信息，包括个人姓名、性别、国籍、民族、身份证件种类、号码和有效期限、职业、联系方式、婚姻状况、家庭状况、住所、工作单位地址和照片；\n\n(2) 个人财产信息，包括收入、房产、车辆、纳税额和公积金缴存金额；\n\n(3) 个人账户信息，包括账户、开户时间、开户行、账户余额和账户交易情况；\n\n(4) 个人信用信息，包括信用卡还款情况、贷款还款情况，以及在经济活动中形成的、能够反映其信用状况的其他信息；\n\n(5) 个人金融交易信息，包括银行业金融机构在支付结算、理财和保管箱等中间业务过程中获取、保存和留存的个人信息，以及客户通过银行业金融机构与保险公司、证券公司、基金公司和期货公司等第三方机构发生业务关系时产生的个人信息；\n\n(6) 衍生信息，包括对原始信息进行处理和分析后形成的、反映特定个人情况的信息，例如个人消费习惯、投资意愿等；\n\n(7) 在与个人建立业务关系过程中获取和保存的其他个人信息。\n\n《通知》第4条：银行业金融机构不得篡改或非法使用个人金融信息。使用个人金融信息时，应当符合收集该等信息的目的，不得有下列行为：\n\n(1) 出售个人金融信息；\n\n(2) 向其他机构或个人提供个人金融信息，但因相关业务需要且个人书面授权或同意的，或者法律法规或中国人民银行另有规定的除外；\n\n(3) 在个人明确反对的情况下，将个人金融信息用于非产生该等信息目的的营销活动。\n\n35 就跨境转移问题而言，金融机构亦受到明确限制，但存在某些法定例外。例如，《通知》第6条对个人金融信息跨境转移作出如下限制：中国境内收集的个人金融信息，应当在中国境内存储、处理和分析。\n\n除法律法规或中国人民银行另有规定外，银行业金融机构不得向境外提供境内个人金融信息。3\n\n36 上述带下划线条款中提及的例外情形均为法定例外。法定例外及相应要求如下：\n\n《银行业金融机构个人金融信息保护工作有关问题的通知》（Shanghai Yin Fa [2011] No. 110）（中文：《中国人民银行上海总部关于做好银行业金融机构个人金融信息保护工作的通知》（沪银发〔2011〕110号））第4条规定了对上述个人金融信息跨境传输限制的以下例外情形：关于银行业金融机构向境外提供个人金融信息的问题：该通知第6条规定：“除法律法规及中国人民银行另有规定外，银行业金融机构不得向境外提供境内个人金融信息。”但是，为客户办理业务确有需要，且经客户书面授权或同意，银行业境内金融机构向境外总行、母行或者分支机构提供境内个人金融信息的，不视为违反本通知。银行业金融机构应当确保其境外总行、母行或者分支机构对获取的个人金融信息予以保密。\n\n除上述规定外，《个人金融信息保护技术规范》（JR/T 0171-2020）（中文：《个人金融信息保护技术规范》）第7.1.3(d)节亦对上述个人金融信息跨境传输限制的例外情形作出了具体说明和要求：“7.1.3(d) 在中华人民共和国境内提供金融产品或者服务过程中收集和产生的个人金融信息，应当在境内存储、处理和分析。”\n\n3 这些例外情形由相关法规规定。然而，美国传票或法院命令并不构成例外情形。有关该等例外情形的更多详情，请参见本声明第36段。\n\n因业务需要，确需向境外机构（包括为完成业务所必需的总行、母公司或分公司、子公司及其他关联机构）提供个人金融信息的，应当符合下列具体要求：\n\n1）传输应当符合国家法律法规以及行业主管部门的相关规定。\n\n2）应当取得个人金融信息主体的明示同意。\n\n3）应当按照国家和行业有关部门制定的办法和标准开展个人金融信息出境安全评估，以确保境外机构的数据安全保护能力符合国家、行业有关部门及金融机构的安全要求。\n\n4）金融机构应当通过签订协议、现场检查等方式，明确告知并监督境外机构有效履行保密、数据删除及案件调查等义务。\n\n37 金融机构违反上述规定的后果十分严重，亦可能对金融机构的高级管理人员产生不利影响。该通知第10条规定了以下违反规定的后果：如中国人民银行或其地市中心支行以上分支机构受理投诉，或发现银行业金融机构可能未履行保护个人金融信息义务的，可以依法进行核查。如查实银行业金融机构违反本通知，或者存在其他未履行保护个人金融信息义务情形的，可以采取下列措施：\n\n（1）约谈银行业金融机构的高级管理人员，并要求高级管理人员说明事实；\n\n4 此处的“约谈”是中国主管机关采取的一项严厉措施，向公众传递被邀请参加“约谈”的人员存在非常严重不当行为的信号。该信号亦将被解读为重大负面消息，并可能对声誉造成不利影响。\n\n（2）责令银行业金融机构限期改正；\n\n（3）在金融系统内予以通报；\n\n（4）建议银行业金融机构依法对直接负责的高级管理人员和其他直接责任人员给予处分；\n\n（5）银行业金融机构涉嫌犯罪的，移送司法机关依法处理。\n\n38 在过去几年中，曾发生一起广为人知的银行违反个人信息保护规则并受到处罚的案件。CITIC Bank（中信银行）未经客户本人授权，向第三方提供一名中国脱口秀演员个人银行账户交易的详细信息，违反了存款人保密原则，并涉嫌违反《中华人民共和国商业银行法》以及中国银行保险监督管理委员会（China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission，CBIRC）关于个人信息保护的监管规定。根据CBIRC公布的处罚决定书（CBIRC Penalty No. [2021] 5），中信银行的主要违法行为之一是“客户敏感信息管理不善并发生泄露；违法存储客户敏感信息”。CBIRC对中信银行处以CNY 4.5 million的行政处罚。\n\n39 除保护金融个人数据的中华人民共和国法律法规外，亦存在保护金融数据保密性和安全性的行业标准，例如《金融数据安全 数据安全分级指南》（JR/T 0197-2020）（中文：《金融数据安全 数据安全分级指南》）。\n\n40 综上，考虑到上述法规和案例，如中华人民共和国分行披露其客户被要求提供的信息，将根据中华人民共和国有关金融机构的法律法规受到严厉处罚。\n\n（IV）中华人民共和国刑法\n\n41 在情节极其严重的情况下，非法提供客户个人信息可能导致因“侵犯公民个人信息罪”而被起诉。\n\n42 《中华人民共和国刑法》第253条（一）规定如下：\n\n违反国家有关规定，向他人出售或者提供公民个人信息，情节严重的，处3年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处或者单处罚金；情节特别严重的，处3年以上7年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金。\n\n违反国家有关规定，将在履行职责或者提供服务过程中获得的公民个人信息，出售或者提供给他人的，依照前款的规定从重处罚。\n\n单位犯前三款规定之罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，依照各该款的规定处罚。\n\n根据本条，非法向他人提供个人信息者可被判处罚金、拘役或最高7年有期徒刑。如非法提供的该等个人信息是在履行职责或提供服务过程中获得的，处罚将更加严厉。如中华人民共和国分行被认定非法提供个人信息，在情节严重的情况下，该行为可能被认定为非法提供其在提供服务过程中获得的个人信息，从而可能导致严厉刑罚；不仅中华人民共和国分行实体，其负责该事项的高级管理人员亦可能承担刑事责任。\n\n（V）国家安全、刑事侦查及政治敏感性\n\n43 根据中国政府官方媒体过往年度的新闻报道5，Kwok（郭文贵）因被指控伪造中国中央政府文件及其他可能犯罪行为而卷入刑事调查；Kwok曾是国际刑事警察组织发布的红色通缉令名单中的人员之一；Kwok的部分言论危及中国的声誉和安全，因为其言论涉及数名中国政府高级官员。我无权就上述事项发表评论，但我确实认为上述事项具有高度政治敏感性，并且在考虑披露所要求信息的风险和危害时，将对中华人民共和国分行产生重大影响。\n\n5 例如，China Court（中国法院网）、Xinhua（新华社）：《伪造国家机关公文 导演一出闹剧——揭露郭文贵“绝密文件”》，April 23, 2018；\n\nZhong Gong（中工网）、People Daily（人民日报）：《郭文贵等人伪造国家机关公文案告破》，April 23, 2018，<http 8042316 ! 915881.shtml>。\n\n44 由于Kwok曾经且可能仍卷入刑事调查，其本人或其公司银行账户的信息亦可能被视为刑事调查中的重要信息。除中国关于保护国家秘密的一般规则外，《中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法》第9条第（6）项还明确将“维护国家安全活动和追查刑事犯罪中的秘密事项”列为“国家秘密”。对于非法泄露正在进行的刑事调查重要信息等“国家秘密”的行为，《中华人民共和国刑法》第398条规定：“【故意泄露国家秘密罪】【过失泄露国家秘密罪】国家机关工作人员违反《保守国家秘密法》的规定，故意或者过失泄露国家秘密，情节严重的，处3年以下有期徒刑或者拘役；情节特别严重的，处3年以上7年以下有期徒刑。非国家机关工作人员犯前款罪的，依照前款的规定酌情处罚。”\n\n45 如传票项下所要求的信息被认定为国家秘密，鉴于国家秘密的性质及政治敏感性，提供所要求的信息将被视为违法，并可能使中华人民共和国分行面临不可预测且不可控制的风险。\n\nV. 受托人获得传票所寻求信息的可行替代方案\n\n- 46 如第19段所述，美国和中华人民共和国均为《海牙取证公约》的缔约国，该公约授权缔约国指定一个中央机关，负责接收和审查为在该国取证而提交的“取证请求书”。如该取证请求书符合公约要求，中央机关随后将把该取证请求书“转递”至有管辖权的机关办理证据收集事宜。\n\n- 47 根据中华人民共和国司法部（Ministry of Justice of the PRC，以下简称“MOJ”）发布的《2022年民商事司法协助案件统计》，截至2022年12月底，司法部已办结1,827件司法协助请求，包括根据《海牙取证公约》等司法协助条约提出的取证请求，这表明中华人民共和国致力于在民商事领域提供司法协助。\n\n- 48 数起美国案件亦可说明《海牙取证公约》的适用及其所提供的益处。例如，2011年，Tiffany & Co.（蒂芙尼公司，以下简称“TIF”）为执行针对被指控售假者的金钱判决，向美国法院申请强制三家中国银行提供被告在中国的账户信息。美国法院接受了中国银行提出的论点，即原告本可通过《海牙取证公约》取证，并最终驳回了该证据开示请求。\n\n- 49 通过《海牙取证公约》获取证据的程序清晰且直接。《海牙取证公约》下的取证请求书程序始于请求国的司法机关，该机关将向被请求国的中央机关发送取证请求书。该请求书随后将由被请求国的中央机关转交适当的司法机关办理，而被请求国的法律将适用于该请求书。\n\n- 50 在中国，《最高人民法院关于印发〈根据国际公约和双边司法协助条约办理送达文书和调查取证司法协助请求的规定（试行）〉的通知》（Fa Fa [2013] No. 6）第34条至第44条进一步明确规定了中国法院为外国法院办理民商事案件调查取证司法协助的程序。\n\n51 根据《海牙取证公约》寻求文件证据开示的外国诉讼当事人，应向MOJ的司法协助交流中心提交取证请求书，该中心随后将该取证请求书转交中华人民共和国最高人民法院（Supreme People's Court of the PRC，以下简称“SPC”）。经SPC审查后，将制作转递函，并将其与请求书及其附件一并提交至证人所在地或证据所在地的高级人民法院，该高级人民法院将进一步转交证据或证人所在地的中级人民法院或基层人民法院审查和办理。完成审查后，负责调查取证的法官应将取证结果转交同一法院的国际司法协助工作人员。此后，转递函连同审查和转递程序将由上级法院逐级办理，直至SPC。SPC应审查该等材料，并及时将其转交MOJ的司法协助交流中心。据我所知，在大多数案件中，取证请求书的答复可在一年内或更快获得，具体取决于案件的具体情形。在一些复杂案件中，中华人民共和国法院作出决定可能需要一年以上。例如，在ALCALIS DE LA PATAGONIA S.A.I.C. v. RACING CLUB ASOCIACI6N Civil一案中，阿根廷共和国布宜诺斯艾利斯自治市民商事初审国家法院寻求披露就一名足球运动员转会向被告支付的相关款项。2021年10月，阿根廷法院根据《海牙取证公约》向MOJ提交了请求司法协助取证的取证请求书。该取证请求书随后经审查并制作为《调查取证司法协助函》（“取证函”），被转交至中华人民共和国最高人民法院，继而转交至上海市高级人民法院，再转交至上海市浦东新区人民法院（“浦东法院”）。浦东法院于2021年12月29日收到取证函后，用时23日完成审查、调查、收集证据并确认该等证据的转交。\n\n本人根据美利坚合众国法律，以伪证罪处罚为担保声明，\n\n上述内容真实且正确。\n\n于2023年1月29日签署。\n\nGary J. Gao（加里·J.·高）","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","CIPA","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":7523,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:20:36"}