{"id":"court_ctb_1536_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1536,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-03-10","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"受托人补充陈述（Trustee's Supplemental Statement） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1536（2023-03-10立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 就债务人申请暂缓执行藐视法庭裁决一事提交补充陈述，援引过往宣誓证词，回应并反驳债务人律师关于 Ace Decade 及相关资产可能归「张伟（Zhang Wei）」所有的主张。","summary_en":"TRUSTEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB Case No. 22-50073 ECF #1536 (filed Mar 10, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins submitted this supplemental statement regarding the Debtor's motion to stay pending appeal of the contempt order, addressing and rebutting the Debtor's claim that entity Ace Decade might be owned by Zhang Wei by citing past deposition testimony regarding the Sherry-Netherland apartment.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
x | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 | | |\n| HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | | |\n| Debtor.1 | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) | | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | | | |\n\n### **TRUSTEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER HOLDING HIM IN CONTEMPT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ORDER**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), files this supplemental statement (the\n\n\"Statement\") to respond to certain statements made by counsel to the Debtor at the March 7,\n\n2023 hearing (the \"Hearing\") on the *Individual Debtor's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of*\n\n*Order Holding Him in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* [Docket No. 1492] (the\n\n\"Motion to Stay\").2\n\n#### **STATEMENT**\n\n1. At the Hearing on the Motion to Stay, counsel for the Debtor asserted, *for the*\n\n*first time and after full briefing and a prolonged hearing as to ownership and contempt*, that\n\nAce Decade may actually be owned not by the Debtor but instead by an individual named Zhang\n\n1 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\n2 On March 6, 2023, the Trustee filed its objection to the Motion Stay [Docket No. 1505] (the \"Objection\"). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Statement have the meanings set forth in the Objection.\n\nWei. The Trustee files this Statement to alert the Court that even though this statement strains all credulity, it is, in fact, consistent with the Debtor's prior attempts to argue misleadingly that certain of his other assets were owned by the same individual.\n\n2. In particular, during the Debtor's depositions in connection with Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s litigation in the New York Supreme Court (the \"PAX Litigation\"), the Debtor at one point claimed that—notwithstanding the formal corporate formation documents unambiguously establishing Debtor's sole ownership of it—an individual named Zhang Wei (who allegedly resides in China) owned Genever Holdings Corporation (*i.e.*, the entity which wholly owns Genever Holdings LLC, which, in turn, owns the 18th floor apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel (the \"Sherry Netherland Apartment\")). During these depositions, the Debtor also claimed—conveniently—that Zhang Wei was \"in and out\" of prison in China, making it impossible for anyone to verify any of these assertions.\n\n3. For example, during the October 3, 2018 deposition, the Debtor testified as follows:\n\n- Q. Do you live in a residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel?\n- A. Sometimes.\n- Q. *Who owns that residence?*\n- *A. Mr. Zhang Wei*.\n- THE INTERPRETER: Z-H-A-N-G, W-E-I, phonetic spelling.\n- Q. Who is Zhang Wei?\n- A. Is a working partner, a fund, a conglomerate fund, a member of that.\n- Q. Is Zhang Wei a person or an entity?\n- A. It's a person.\n- *Q. Where does Zhang Wei live?*\n- *A. In prison.*\n- *Q. When did Zhang Wei purchase the residence?*\n- *A. This residence, it was in 2015.*\n- *Q. Do you have any ownership interest personally at all in the residence?*\n\n*A. No.*\n\n- Q. Have you heard of a company called -- we talked about this earlier -- Genever Holdings Corporation?\n- A. I heard of it.\n- Q. Does Genever Holdings Corporation own the residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel?\n- A. Yes.\n- *Q. What is Zhang Wei's relationship to Genever Holdings Corporation? A. Zhang Wei was entrusted by Genever.*\n- THE INTERPRETER: I'll instruct him to say it in parts. I just said because of accuracy, I like to interpret 100 percent, and if he gives me too much information, I will be leaving out information. So I just asked him to give me in segments.\n- *A. Mr. Zhang Wei was the initial person who put out the funds. I and this whole Genever Corporation was the entrusted party, and also to represent his investment, investors.*3\n\nDuring the October 3, 2018 deposition, the Debtor further stated:\n\n- *Q. Where is Zhang Wei in prison?*\n- *A. In prison.*\n- *Q. In what country?*\n- *A. In China.*\n- *. . . Q. You said earlier that Zhang Wei was in jail in China?*\n- *A. Yes.*\n- *Q. When did he go to jail?*\n- *A. I have to think about that. Always in a different disappearance mode. There have been thousands of people in disappearance mode. Do not know where they are.*\n- Q. Let me try to help, maybe. You and Zhang Wei were involved in applying to purchase the Sherry-Netherland residence in or around February/March 2015, right?\n- A. Zhang Wei and me? No, I was representing Zhang Wei.\n- Q. You were representing Zhang Wei in purchasing the apartment in or around February 22 or March 2015?\n- A. Approximately. I do not remember exact time. Just approximate.\n- Q. I'm just trying to -- I'm just trying to refresh you on the timing.\n- A. My recollection of time is very inaccurate. I do not remember.\n- *Q. Was Zhang Wei in jail at the time he was applying to purchase the Sherry-Netherland Hotel apartment?*\n- *A. No*.\n\n3 Oct. 3, 2018 Depo. Tr. at 27:12-29:6 (emphases added). Relevant excerpts of the October 3, 2018 deposition transcript are attached hereto as **Exhibit 1**.\n\n4 Oct. 3, 2018 Depo. Tr. at 41:8-11 and 56:6-57:8 (emphases added).\n\n4. Of course, all these statements were made *at a time when, according to Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") (i.e., the entity now allegedly owned by the Debtor's son) and the Debtor's son himself, the Sherry Netherland Apartment was purportedly held in trust for the benefit of Bravo Luck and the Debtor's son* pursuant to a purported trust agreement (the \"Purported Trust Agreement\"). This only further substantiates the Trustee's belief that the Purported Trust Agreement is not authentic and/or enforceable. At the appropriate time, the Trustee will demonstrate conclusively both that the Debtor has trotted out Zhang Wei's name at other junctures when it was convenient for him to try to deny ownership of other Debtor entities and that the Purported Trust Agreement is a sham for a host of other reasons as well.\n\n#### [*Remainder of page intentionally left blank*.]\n\nDated: March 10, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka, Esq. (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey, Esq. (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-2000 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett, Esq. *(pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1700 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz, Esq. *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron, Esq. (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 alexbongartz@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **Exhibit 1**\n\n**Excerpts of October 3, 2018 Deposition Transcript**\n\n# *PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN*\n\n*MILES KWOK October 3, 2018*\n\n\n\n*Original File 247294.TXT Min-U-Script® with Word Index* Case 22-50073 Doc 1536 Filed 03/10/23 Entered 03/10/23 15:16:09 Page 8 of 18\n\n| 1 | SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | COUNTY OF NEW YORK | | |\n| 3 | ------------------------------------------------x
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | | |\n| 4 | Plaintiff, | | |\n| 5 | -against- | | |\n| 6 | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | | |\n| 7 | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI,
a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK,
a/k/a HAOYUN GUY, | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | Defendant. | | |\n| 10 | Index No.: 652077/2017
------------------------------------------------x | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | 7 Times Square | | |\n| 13 | New York, New York | | |\n| 14 | October 3, 2018
9:39 a.m. | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | Videotaped Examination Before Trial | | |\n| 17 | of the MILES KWOK, before Kristi Cruz, a Notary | | |\n| 18 | Public of the State of New York. | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC | | |\n| 24 | 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10022 | | |\n| 25 | 212-750-6434
REF:
247294 | | |\n\n```\n 1 A P P E A R A N C E S:\n 2\n 3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff\n 5 Times Square Tower\n 6 7 Times Square\n 7 New York, New York 10036\n 8 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.\n 9 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.\n10 SARA N. PAHLAVAN, ESQ.\n11 212.326.2000\n12 emoss@omm.com\n13 ssarnoff@omm.com\n14 spahlavan@omm.com\n15\n16\n17 HODGSON RUSS LLP\n18 Attorneys for Defendant\n19 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300\n20 New York, New York 10158\n21 BY: MARK A. HARMON, ESQ.\n22 JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ.\n23 212.751.4300\n24 mharmon@hodgsonruss.com\n25 jsearles@hodgsonruss.com\n```\n\n```\n 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Cont'd)\n 2\n 3 ALSO PRESENT:\n 4 ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG, Mandarin Interpreter\n 5 DAN MACOM, Videographer\n 6 KARIN MAISTRELLO, Golden Spring\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n```\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1536 Filed 03/10/23 Entered 03/10/23 15:16:09 Page 11 of 18\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
No. |\n| 3 | Q.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | A.
Do you think my responses are fast |\n| 5 | enough? |\n| 6 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, I get to ask the questions |\n| 7 | today.
But I will answer that one.
These |\n| 8 | responses are fine.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Do you own a residence at the |\n| 10 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 11 | A.
No. |\n| 12 | Q.
Do you live in a residence at the |\n| 13 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 14 | A.
Sometimes. |\n| 15 | Q.
Who owns that residence? |\n| 16 | A.
Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 17 | THE INTERPRETER:
Z-H-A-N-G, W-E-I, |\n| 18 | phonetic spelling. |\n| 19 | Q.
Who is Zhang Wei? |\n| 20 | A.
Is a working partner, a fund, a |\n| 21 | conglomerate fund, a member of that. |\n| 22 | Q.
Is Zhang Wei a person or an entity? |\n| 23 | A.
It's a person. |\n| 24 | Q.
Where does Zhang Wei live? |\n| 25 | A.
In prison. |\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
When did Zhang Wei purchase the |\n| 3 | residence? |\n| 4 | A.
This residence, it was in 2015. |\n| 5 | Q.
Do you have any ownership interest |\n| 6 | personally at all in the residence? |\n| 7 | A.
No. |\n| 8 | Q.
Have you heard of a company |\n| 9 | called -- we talked about this earlier -- |\n| 10 | Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 11 | A.
I heard of it. |\n| 12 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings Corporation |\n| 13 | own the residence at the Sherry-Netherland |\n| 14 | Hotel? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
What is Zhang Wei's relationship to |\n| 17 | Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 18 | A.
Zhang Wei was entrusted by Genever. |\n| 19 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'll instruct him |\n| 20 | to say it in parts. |\n| 21 | I just said because of accuracy, I |\n| 22 | like to interpret 100 percent, and if he |\n| 23 | gives me too much information, I will be |\n| 24 | leaving out information.
So I just asked |\n| 25 | him to give me in segments. |\n\n 1 KWOK 2 A. Mr. Zhang Wei was the initial person 3 who put out the funds. I and this whole 4 Genever Corporation was the entrusted party, 5 and also to represent his investment, 6 investors. 7 THE INTERPRETER: He said is this 8 okay, I said yes. 9 Q. Were you the one who applied to the 10 Sherry-Netherland to live in the apartment? 11 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 12 the question. 13 A. One of them. 14 Q. Who else applied to live in that 15 apartment at the Sherry-Netherland? 16 A. I do not know. 17 Q. You don't know who else applied to 18 live in the same apartment at the 19 Sherry-Netherland -- 20 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 21 the question. 22 MR. MOSS: How about if I finish the 23 question and then you can object. 24 MR. HARMON: I thought you did. 25 MR. MOSS: Okay.\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
You don't know who else applied to |\n| 3 | live in the same apartment at the |\n| 4 | Sherry-Netherland that you applied to live in? |\n| 5 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 6 | the question. |\n| 7 | A.
If he objects, I don't have to |\n| 8 | answer it, right? |\n| 9 | MR. HARMON:
This one you have to |\n| 10 | answer if you understand the question. |\n| 11 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 12 | Q.
How many other people applied to |\n| 13 | live in the apartment that you applied to live |\n| 14 | in at the Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 18 | Q.
Were any of those people that also |\n| 19 | applied to live at the apartment that you |\n| 20 | applied to live to at the Sherry-Netherland |\n| 21 | not members of your family? |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 23 | the question. |\n| 24 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 25 | Q.
Do you deal directly with the |\n\n| 1 | KWOK | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of | |\n| 3 | the question. | |\n| 4 | THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter, | |\n| 5 | before I said the objection, the -- | |\n| 6 | Mr. Kwok said: | |\n| 7 | A.
Mr. Zhang Wei and his attorneys. | |\n| 8 | Q.
Where is Zhang Wei in prison? | |\n| 9 | A.
In prison. | |\n| 10 | Q.
In what country? | |\n| 11 | A.
In China. | |\n| 12 | Q.
You have a son? | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q.
Am I pronouncing it correctly? | |\n| 15 | Mileson? | |\n| 16 | A.
English name is Mileson, but the | |\n| 17 | actual Chinese name is core chow. | |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER:
G U O Q I A N G, | |\n| 19 | phonetic spelling. | |\n| 20 | Q.
Is it okay with you if I use the | |\n| 21 | English name? | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 23 | Q.
Does your son Mileson Kwok have any | |\n| 24 | ownership in Genever Holdings Corporation? | |\n| 25 | A.
I do not know. | |\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
W-A-N-G, Y-A-N, |\n| 3 | P-I-N-G. |\n| 4 | Q.
Does she go by Yvette, not Eva? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
You said earlier that Zhang Wei was |\n| 7 | in jail in China? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
When did he go to jail? |\n| 10 | A.
I have to think about that.
Always |\n| 11 | in a different disappearance mode.
There have |\n| 12 | been thousands of people in disappearance |\n| 13 | mode.
Do not know where they are. |\n| 14 | Q.
Let me try to help, maybe.
You and |\n| 15 | Zhang Wei were involved in applying to |\n| 16 | purchase the Sherry-Netherland residence in or |\n| 17 | around February/March 2015, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Zhang Wei and me?
No, I was |\n| 19 | representing Zhang Wei. |\n| 20 | Q.
You were representing Zhang Wei in |\n| 21 | purchasing the apartment in or around February |\n| 22 | or March 2015? |\n| 23 | A.
Approximately.
I do not remember |\n| 24 | exact time.
Just approximate. |\n| 25 | Q.
I'm just trying to -- I'm just |\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | trying to refresh you on the timing. |\n| 3 | A.
My recollection of time is very |\n| 4 | inaccurate.
I do not remember. |\n| 5 | Q.
Was Zhang Wei in jail at the time he |\n| 6 | was applying to purchase the Sherry-Netherland |\n| 7 | Hotel apartment? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
Are you aware that my client has |\n| 10 | argued to the Court about a YouTube video? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And you're aware that whoever posted |\n| 13 | that video has represented that it was a tape |\n| 14 | of you having a conversation? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | A.
I don't understand the things you're |\n| 18 | saying. |\n| 19 | Q.
Have you ever heard that YouTube |\n| 20 | video? |\n| 21 | A.
Me, so many of them, thousands, |\n| 22 | hundreds of thousands of them.
I don't know |\n| 23 | which one you're referring to. |\n| 24 | Q.
I'm referring to the one -- do you |\n| 25 | understand that I'm referring to the one that |\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | we talked about earlier, two minutes ago, that |\n| 3 | Pacific Alliance argued about to the court in |\n| 4 | this case? |\n| 5 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 6 | Di
MR. HARMON:
This is beyond the |\n| 7 | scope of what we believe is appropriate |\n| 8 | for attachment discovery, and I'm going to |\n| 9 | direct the witness not to answer further |\n| 10 | questions about it. |\n| 11 | Q.
Are you aware, Mr. Kwok, that in a |\n| 12 | brief in this case that was signed by |\n| 13 | Mr. Harmon and Ms. Searles, they argued on |\n| 14 | your behalf that Pacific Alliance's assertion |\n| 15 | that the voices in this YouTube video were not |\n| 16 | proven? |\n| 17 | DI
MR. HARMON:
This is beyond the |\n| 18 | scope of what we believe to be appropriate |\n| 19 | discovery on attachment, and I'm going to |\n| 20 | direct the witness not to answer further |\n| 21 | questions on the subject. |\n| 22 | THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter, |\n| 23 | before I interpreted, he said: |\n| 24 | A.
Refuse to answer. |\n| 25 | Q.
Was it your voice on the YouTube |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\nx\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1\n（合并审理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n破产受托人关于个人债务人申请中止执行裁定其违反公司治理命令的动议的补充陈述\n\n在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称「债务人」）的第 11 章案件中被任命的第 11 章破产受托人（下称「受托人」）Luc A. Despins 提交本补充陈述（下称「陈述」），以回应债务人律师在 2023 年 3 月 7 日就《个人债务人申请中止执行裁定其违反公司治理命令的命令的动议》[案卷第 1492 号]（下称「中止执行动议」）举行的听证会（下称「听证会」）上发表的某些陈述。2\n\n陈述\n\n1. 在就中止执行动议举行的听证会上，在就所有权和蔑视法庭问题进行了充分的书面答辩和长时间的听证会之后，债务人的律师首次主张：Ace Decade（合盟有限公司）实际上可能并非归债务人所有，而是归一名叫 Zhang Wei（张伟）的个人所有。受托人提交本陈述，旨在提请法院注意，尽管该陈述令人难以置信，但实际上与债务人此前企图误导性地辩称其某些其他资产归同一人所有的做法是一致的。\n\n2. 特别是，在 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）于 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提起的诉讼（下称「PAX 诉讼」）中对债务人进行宣誓取证期间，债务人曾一度声称——尽管正式的公司设立文件明确确立了债务人对其拥有唯一所有权——一名叫 Zhang Wei（据称居住在中国）的个人拥有 Genever Holdings Corporation（即全资拥有 Genever Holdings LLC 的实体，而后者又拥有 Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪梨荷兰酒店）18 层的公寓（下称「雪梨荷兰公寓」））。在这些宣誓取证过程中，债务人还顺理成章地声称 Zhang Wei 在中国「进进出出」监狱，使任何人都不可能核实任何这些断言。\n\n3. 例如，在 2018 年 10 月 3 日的宣誓取证中，债务人作证如下：\n\n- 问：你住在雪梨荷兰酒店的一处住宅里吗？\n- 答：有时。\n- 问：谁拥有那处住宅？\n- 答：张伟先生。\n- 传译员：Z-H-A-N-G，W-E-I，音译。\n- 问：谁是张伟？\n- 答：是一个工作合伙人，一个基金，一个大型企业联合基金，其中的一个成员。\n- 问：张伟是个人还是实体？\n- 答：是个人。\n- 问：张伟住在哪里？\n- 答：在监狱里。\n- 问：张伟是什么时候购买那处住宅的？\n- 答：这处住宅，是在 2015 年。\n- 问：你个人对该住宅有任何所有权权益吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n- 问：你听说过一家名为——我们之前谈到过——Genever Holdings Corporation 的公司吗？\n- 答：我听说过。\n- 问：Genever Holdings Corporation 是否拥有雪梨荷兰酒店的那处住宅？\n- 答：是的。\n- 问：张伟与 Genever Holdings Corporation 是什么关系？答：张伟是受 Genever 委托的。\n- 传译员：我将指示他分段说。我刚才说为了准确起见，我希望百分之百传译，如果他给我的信息太多，我就会遗漏信息。所以我只是要求他分段告诉我。\n- *答：张伟先生是最初出资的人。我和整个 Genever 公司是被委托方，并且也代表他的投资、投资人。*3\n\n在 2018 年 10 月 3 日的宣誓取证期间，债务人进一步陈述：\n\n- 问：张伟在哪个监狱？\n- 答：在监狱里。\n- 问：在哪个国家？\n- 答：在中国。\n- . . . 问：你之前说张伟在中国的监狱里？\n- 答：是的。\n- 问：他是什么时候进监狱的？\n- *答：这个我得想想。总是在不同的失踪模式中。有成千上万的人处于失踪模式。不知道他们在哪里。*\n- 问：也许我来帮帮你。你和张伟参与了在 2015 年 2 月/3 月左右申请购买雪梨荷兰住宅的事宜，对吧？\n- 答：张伟和我？不，我是代表张伟。\n- 问：你在 2015 年 2 月 22 日或 3 月左右代表张伟购买该公寓？\n- 答：大约是。我不记得确切时间。只是大概。\n- 问：我只是想——我只是想帮你回忆一下时间。\n- 答：我对时间的记忆非常不准确。我不记得了。\n- 问：在申请购买雪梨荷兰酒店公寓时，张伟在监狱里吗？\n- 答：没有。\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及诸多其他化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）和 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 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n2 2023 年 3 月 6 日，受托人提交了对中止执行动议的异议书 [案卷第 1505 号]（下称「异议书」）。本陈述中使用但未予定义的大写术语具有异议书中所述的含义。\n\n3 2018 年 10 月 3 日宣誓取证记录第 27 页第 12 行至第 29 页第 6 行（强调为后加）。2018 年 10 月 3 日宣誓取证记录的相关摘录作为附件 1 附于本陈述后。\n\n4 2018 年 10 月 3 日宣誓取证记录第 41 页第 8-11 行及第 56 页第 6 行至第 57 页第 8 行（强调为后加）。\n\n4. 当然，所有这些陈述都是在*根据 Bravo Luck Limited（下称「Bravo Luck」）（即据称现由债务人之子所有的实体）及债务人之子本人的说法，雪梨荷兰公寓据称根据一份据称的信托协议（下称「据称的信托协议」）为 Bravo Luck 和债务人之子的利益而以信托形式持有的时期*作出的。这只会进一步证实受托人的信念，即据称的信托协议是不真实的和/或不可执行的。在适当时机，受托人将确凿地证明：债务人在其他便利的时机也曾搬出张伟的名字，企图否认其对其他债务人实体的所有权；并且，由于许多其他原因，据称的信托协议也是虚假的。\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n日期：2023 年 3 月 10 日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\nLUC A. DESPINS，第 11 章破产受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka 律师 (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey 律师 (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 821-2000\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett 律师（特许临时执业）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1700\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz 律师（特许临时执业）\nDouglass Barron 律师（特许临时执业）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章破产受托人之代理律师\n\n附件 1\n\n2018 年 10 月 3 日宣誓取证记录摘录\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 对 KWOK HO WAN\n\nMILES KWOK 2018 年 10 月 3 日\n\n原始文件 247294.TXT 带有词语索引的 Min-U-Script 案号 22-50073 案卷 1536 提交于 03/10/23 录入于 03/10/23 15:16:09 第 8 页（共 18 页）\n\n1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院）\n\n2 COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约县）\n3 ------------------------------------------------x\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n4 原告，\n5 -针对-\n6 KWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\n7 GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，\n又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，\n又名 HAOYUN GUY，\n\n9 被告。\n10 索引号：652077/2017\n\n12 7 Times Square\n13 New York, New York\n14 2018 年 10 月 3 日\n上午 9:39\n\n16 在纽约州公证人 Kristi Cruz 面前进行的\n17 MILES KWOK 的录像审前宣誓取证。\n\n23 ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC\n24 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n25 212-750-6434\n参考号：\n\n1 出 席 人 员：\n3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\n4 原告代理律师\n5 Times Square Tower\n6 7 Times Square\n7 New York, New York 10036\n8 出庭律师：EDWARD MOSS 律师\n9 STUART SARNOFF 律师\n10 SARA N. PAHLAVAN 律师\n11 212.326.2000\n12 emoss@omm.com\n13 ssarnoff@omm.com\n14 spahlavan@omm.com\n\n17 HODGSON RUSS LLP\n18 被告代理律师\n19 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300\n20 New York, New York 10158\n21 出庭律师：MARK A. HARMON 律师\n22 JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES 律师\n23 212.751.4300\n24 mharmon@hodgsonruss.com\n25 jsearles@hodgsonruss.com\n\n1 出 席 人 员：（续）\n3 另有出席：\n4 ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG，普通话传译员\n5 DAN MACOM，摄像师\n6 KARIN MAISTRELLO，Golden Spring\n\n案号 22-50073 案卷 1536 提交于 03/10/23 录入于 03/10/23 15:16:09 第 11 页（共 18 页）\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 答：\n没有。\n3 问：\n谢谢。\n4 答：\n你觉得我回答得够快\n5 吗？\n6 问：\n郭先生，今天是由我来提问。\n7 但我可以回答这个问题。这些\n8 回答很好。\n谢谢。\n9 你在雪梨荷兰酒店拥有\n10 住宅吗？\n11 答：\n没有。\n12 问：\n你住在雪梨荷兰酒店的\n13 住宅里吗？\n14 答：\n有时。\n15 问：\n谁拥有那处住宅？\n16 答：\n张伟先生。\n17 传译员：\nZ-H-A-N-G，W-E-I，\n18 音译。\n19 问：\n谁是张伟？\n20 答：\n是一个工作合伙人，一个基金，一个\n21 大型企业联合基金，其中的一个成员。\n22 问：\n张伟是个人还是实体？\n23 答：\n是个人。\n24 问：\n张伟住在哪里？\n25 答：\n在监狱里。\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 问：\n张伟是什么时候购买该\n3 住宅的？\n4 答：\n这处住宅，是在 2015 年。\n5 问：\n你个人对该住宅有任何\n6 所有权权益吗？\n7 答：\n没有。\n8 问：\n你听说过一家名为——\n9 我们之前谈到过——\n10 Genever Holdings Corporation 的公司吗？\n11 答：\n我听说过。\n12 问：\nGenever Holdings Corporation 是否\n13 拥有雪梨荷兰酒店的\n14 住宅？\n15 答：\n是的。\n16 问：\n张伟与 Genever Holdings Corporation\n17 是什么关系？\n18 答：\n张伟是受 Genever 委托的。\n19 传译员：\n我将指示他\n20 分段说。\n21 我刚才说为了准确起见，我\n22 希望百分之百传译，如果他\n23 给我的信息太多，我就会\n24 遗漏信息。所以我只是要求\n25 他分段告诉我。\n\n1 KWOK 2 答：张伟先生是最初 3 出资的人。我和整个 4 Genever 公司是被委托方， 5 并且也代表他的投资、 6 投资人。 7 传译员：他问这样可以吗， 8 我说是的。 9 问：你是向 10 雪梨荷兰申请在该公寓居住的人吗？ 11 HARMON 律师：反对 12 提问形式。 13 答：其中之一。 14 问：还有谁申请在这处位于 15 雪梨荷兰的公寓居住？ 16 答：我不知道。 17 问：你不知道还有谁申请 18 居住在位于雪梨荷兰的 19 同一处公寓—— 20 HARMON 律师：反对 21 提问形式。 22 MOSS 律师：让我把问题提完 23 然后你再反对怎么样。 24 HARMON 律师：我以为你提完了。 25 MOSS 律师：好的。\n\n1 KWOK\n\n问：你不知道还有谁申请入住你申请入住的雪莉荷兰大厦（Sherry-Netherland）同一套公寓吗？\n\nHarmon 先生（哈蒙先生）：反对问题形式。\n\n答：如果他反对，我就不用回答了，对吧？\n\nHarmon 先生：如果你明白这个问题，这个你必须回答。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：还有多少其他人申请入住你申请入住的雪莉荷兰大厦的公寓？\n\nHarmon 先生：反对问题形式。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：那些同样申请入住你申请入住的雪莉荷兰大厦公寓的人当中，有没有人不是你的家庭成员？\n\nHarmon 先生：反对问题形式。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你是否直接打交道——\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\nHarmon 先生：反对问题形式。\n\n口译员：口译员声明，在我传译反对意见之前——郭先生说：\n\n答：Zhang Wei（张越）先生和他的律师们。\n\n问：张越在什么监狱服刑？\n\n答：在监狱里。\n\n问：在哪个国家？\n\n答：在中国。\n\n问：你有儿子吗？\n\n答：有。\n\n问：我的发音正确吗？Mileson？\n\n答：英文名字是 Mileson，但实际的中文名字是 core chow。\n\n口译员：G U O Q I A N G，拼音拼写。\n\n问：我使用他的英文名字你可以接受吗？\n\n答：可以。\n\n问：你的儿子 Mileson Kwok（郭强）在 Genever Holdings Corporation（日诺瓦控股公司）拥有任何股份所有权吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nKWOK\n\n口译员：W-A-N-G, Y-A-N, P-I-N-G。\n\n问：她使用的是 Yvette 这个名字，而不是 Eva 吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：你刚才说张越在中国坐牢？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：他什么时候坐牢的？\n\n答：我得想想。总是处于各种失踪状态。已经有成千上万的人处于失踪状态。不知道他们都在哪里。\n\n问：也许让我试着帮你想想。你和张越大约在 2015 年 2 月或 3 月期间参与了申请购买雪莉荷兰大厦的住宅，对吗？\n\n答：张越和我？不，我是代表张越。\n\n问：你是在 2015 年 2 月或 3 月左右代表张越购买该公寓？\n\n答：大概吧。我不记得确切时间了。只是大概。\n\n问：我只是想——我只是\n\nKWOK\n\n问：想帮你唤起对时间的记忆。\n\n答：我对时间的记忆非常不准确。我不记得了。\n\n问：张越在申请购买雪莉荷兰酒店（Sherry-Netherland Hotel）公寓的时候是在坐牢吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你知道我的委托人就一段 YouTube（油管）视频向法庭提出了主张吗？\n\n答：知道。\n\n问：并且你知道发布该视频的人曾声称那是你的一段对话录音吗？\n\nHarmon 先生：反对问题形式。\n\n答：我听不懂你在说什么。\n\n问：你听过那段 YouTube 视频吗？\n\n答：我，太多了，成千上万，几十万条。我不知道你指的是哪一个。\n\n问：我指的是——你明白我指的是我们刚才两分钟前谈到的、Pacific Alliance（太盟投资集团）在本案中向法庭主张的那一个吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nHarmon 先生：这超出了我们认为适于财产保全开示的范围，我将指示证人不要进一步回答有关此问题的内容。\n\n问：郭先生，你知道在本案中由 Harmon 先生和 Searles 女士（西尔斯女士）签署的一份书面诉状中，他们代表你主张 Pacific Alliance 关于该 YouTube 视频中声音的断言并未得到证实吗？\n\nHarmon 先生：这超出了我们认为适于财产保全开示的范围，我将指示证人不要进一步回答关于该主题的问题。\n\n口译员：口译员声明，在我翻译之前，他说：\n\n答：拒绝回答。\n\n问：那段 YouTube 上的声音是你的吗——","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3436,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:45:58"}