{"id":"court_ctb_1543_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1543,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | In re:                                | Cha","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re:                                | Chapter 11              |\n|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                  | Case No: 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                              |                         |\n|                                       |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                          |                         |\n| Movant,                               |                         |\n| v.                                    |                         |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE |                         |\n\nRespondent.\n\n### DECLARATION OF MEI GUO\n\nI, Mei Guo, hereby declare:\n\n1. I am in receipt of the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena directed to me (the \"Subpoena\") in the above matter. I make this declaration in order to demonstrate my compliance with the Subpoena, and in response to the Court's March 10, 2023 Order (ECF No. 1537), holding me, together with HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), in contempt and issuing sanctions for purported discovery violations with respect to the Subpoena and subsequent Court Orders.\n\n2. In submitting this declaration, I hope that the Court will understand that it has never been my intention to avoid discovery obligations, and I have worked to produce documents responsive to the Subpoena since receipt of the Subpoena.\n\n3. It is important for the Court to understand my lived experiences, which are helpful to explain why I am in possession of relatively few documents responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n### BACKGROUND\n\n4. The debtor, Kwok Ho Wan, is my father. He has been a political target of the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") for years. My father fled mainland China and, ultimately, Hong Kong to the United States in early 2015 after learning that the CCP was going to arrest him on politically motivated charges.\n\n5. The CCP took my father's refusal to submit to the false charges out on my mother, my extended family, and me.\n\n6. Just days after my father arrived in the United States, representatives of the CCP detained my mother and me for approximately 10 days. I alone was detained a second time in or about December 2016 for approximately 40 days. During each of those detentions, my communications with my family were cutoff, and I was physically and psychologically tortured.\n\n7. For example, I was kept awake for 48 hours at a time, monitored every minute of every day, and prohibited from physically moving, using the bathroom, or even brushing my hair, without the permission of my jailers.\n\n8. Following my release, my father remained an outspoken critic of the CCP and its many abuses. His criticisms continued to anger Chinese authorities. In or about April 2017, a highranking Chinese official told my mother and me that we would be permitted to briefly visit my father in the United States if we could convince him to stop exposing the CCP's corruption and return to China.\n\n9. On May 16, 2017, I traveled from China to the United States with my mother accompanied by the high-ranking Chinese official and several Chinese security agents. My mother\n\nand I were bargaining chips. During that visit, the high-ranking Chinese official was unable to coerce my dad to return to China. My mother and I disregarded the Chinese official's demands that we return to China, and remained in the United States. I feared being re-arrested and tortured again in China, and am presently seeking political asylum in the United States.\n\n## MY EXPERIENCE IN DETENTION HAS LEFT ME SCARED, DISTRUSTFUL AND IN CONSTANT FEAR OF THE CCP\n\n10. Although removed from the immediate dangers of living in China, I am not beyond the reach of the CCP and its agents. Indeed, I am regularly the subject of threats on social media, and am forced to live in constant fear for my safety.\n\n11. Among other things, my experience with the CCP, and the torture I suffered while I was in my mid-twenties, has drastically altered how I interact with the world, including the technology and means of communication that I utilize.\n\n12. During my first detention experience in January 2015, the CCP took possession of my then existing email accounts. Since my initial release from CCP detention on or about January 20, 2015, I have not had access to any email account that I utilized prior to that time. After my first detention, I did not use email as a means of communication for years, in fear of the CCP tracking and harassing me.\n\n13. After I was released from detention a second time in early 2017, my relationship with technology was further changed due to constant CCP monitoring. After I was released from CCP detention, I had to contact the CCP every evening and provide them with my exact location.\n\n14. Even after seeking asylum in the United States, I live in constant fear of the CCP, and am cautious with every interaction I have with technology for fear of the CCP tracking my whereabouts and harassment.\n\n15. These fears were realized when I first came to the United States in 2017. I was the\n\nvictim of multiple cyber-attacks, which I believe were orchestrated by the CCP. During one such attack, I received thousands of telephone calls per day as well as pornographic pictures to my phone. During other attacks, I've had my cellphone infiltrated and pictures and personal information posted to the internet, including my passport information. These attacks have sent a clear message – even though I am outside of China, I am not outside the reach of the CCP.\n\n### RULE 2004 SUBPOENA\n\n16. On August 19, 2022, I was served with the Trustee's Rule 2004 Subpoena, and thereafter served timely objections to the document requests attached to the Subpoena, asserting objections to certain of the enumerated Instructions and Definitions included with the requests for production, as well as objections to certain of the requests for production.\n\n17. On or about October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion seeking among other things, to compel compliance with the Subpoena.\n\n18. I responded to that motion on November 14, 2022, and explained the efforts I had undertaken to respond to the Subpoena. (ECF No. 1090).\n\n19. Specifically, I explained that after receiving the subpoena, I searched my email and text messages, and provided my then lead counsel, with copies of text messages I located related to the Lady May, including my text messages with the captain of the Lady May. I also provided copies of non-disclosure agreements with the crew of the Lady May, and produced numerous emails and draft agreements related to the loan transaction with Himalaya International Financial Group Limited (\"Himalaya\") that were in the possession of my counsel who negotiated the transaction.\n\n20. Additionally, upon receipt of the Subpoena, I reached out to my attorneys, including former counsel, and asked them to search for corporate documents and communications responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n21. As I explained in my November 14, 2022 opposition to the motion to compel, the only documents I withheld from production, based on what I understood to be valid objections regarding the breadth of the Subpoena, as well as my own security concerns, related to my personal assets. As my counsel wrote at the time: \"Other than documents related to their personal assets, HK USA and Ms. Guo have not withheld any responsive documents. HK USA owns the Lady May and nothing more so documents related to its assets were produced.\" (ECF No. 1090).\n\n22. Indeed, HK USA and I produced over two-thousand pages in response to the Subpoena.\n\n23. A hearing in connection with the Trustee's motion to compel was held on November 30, 2022.\n\n24. On January 20, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting the Trustee's motion in part (the \"January 20 Order\") (ECF #1353).\n\n25. Relevant to the Subpoenas, the January 20 Order directed that:\n\nMei Guo and HK (USA) shall, by 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2023, search for and produce to the Trustee:\n\n(i) documents responsive to the Trustee's requests, except as to the documents that concern the Lady May, dated June 1, 2014, or later, unless a particular request specifies a different time period and such time period does not begin before June 1, 2014;\n\n(ii) documents responsive to the Trustee's requests, except as the documents concern the Lady May, as to both assets the Debtor acknowledges he owns and assets that allegedly belong to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members, including Mei Guo herself, and associated entities, including HK (USA) itself; and\n\n(iii) documents responsive to the Trustee's requests that are within their custody, possession, or control, except as to the documents that concern the Lady May, including without limitation documents in the files of their current or former counsel and other agents and advisors, unless such documents have already been produced by their current or former counsel and other agents and advisors but without consideration of any potential future production by their current or former counsel and other agents and advisors.\n\n(ECF #1353).\n\n26. Upon receipt of the January 20 Order, I began taking steps to confirm my compliance with the Subpoena, which I believed I had already largely complied with based on my prior search and review for documents responsive to the Subpoena. Indeed, because I had already produced documents responsive to the Subpoena, other than those relating to my personal assets, I knew there would only be a small number of responsive documents, but nonetheless began searching for hard copy records and conducting an inventory of electronic records.\n\n### ACTIONS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA AND ORDER\n\n### A. Electronic Devices\n\n27. First, I understand that the Court has questioned \"what electronic documents/devices are in [my] custody, possession, and control.\" (ECF No. 1537).\n\n28. I have one laptop computer, which I have used for several years. I do not use a tablet or other similar device.\n\n29. The only other electronic device in my possession is my cell phone from which I access the messaging applications WhatsApp and Telegram.\n\n# B. Email Review\n\n30. I currently have access to three email accounts. I understand that the Court has requested some clarity regarding these email accounts. These three email addresses are the only email addresses that I have access to. As set forth above, I have not had access to the email\n\naccounts I used prior to my detention since my release. Moreover, since my release, I have sought to limit my email correspondence, and all written correspondence, as much as possible to avoid issues with CCP monitoring and hacking.\n\n31. When I first received the Subpoena, I searched all three email addresses for documents responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n32. I created the email account XXXXXX1989@gmail.com in or around January 30, 2021 to communicate with my attorneys at Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi with respect to the Lady May and the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court of New York. I reviewed every single email in this account, together with counsel, and confirmed that this email account contains no non-privileged emails or documents responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n33. I created the email account XXXXXX22@gmail.com in or around April 2022 for purposes of communicating with Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. Again, I reviewed every email in this account, together with my attorneys, and confirmed that this email account contains no nonprivileged emails or documents responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n34. My third email account is 1@XXXXXXXX.com, which was created in or around September 2019. I consider this email account my primary email account that I use for personal and work matters. To be clear, however, as set forth above, email is not my preferred means of communication. Generally, most of my communications occur by phone or through in-person communications.\n\n35. While I searched this account for responsive documents upon initial receipt of the Subpoena, on February 20, 2023, I provided my counsel with unfettered access to the 1@XXXXXXXX.com email account to run searches and review documents potentially responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n36. With counsel, we specifically ran search terms intended to be responsive to the Trustee's requests in the Subpoena, and performed searches for the following terms: \"Ho Wan Kwok,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Miles Guo,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Guo Haoyun,\" \"Qiang Guo,\" \"Mileson Kwok,\" \"Hing Chi Ngok,\" \"Hing Chi Ng,\" \"Yue Qingzhi,\" \"Daniel Podhaskie,\" \"Jason Miller,\" \"Steve Bannon,\" \"Karin Maistrello,\" \"Melissa Francis,\" \"William Gertz,\" \"Arethusa Forsyth,\" \"Glenn Mellor,\" \"Jennifer Mercurio,\" \"Eduardo Eumekian,\" \"Han Chunguang,\" \"Qu Guojiao,\" \"Qu Guo Jiao,\" \"Guo Lijie,\" \"Zhang Wei,\" \"Lihong Wei Lafrenz,\" \"Sara Wei,\" \"Hao Haidong,\" \"Ross Heinemeyer,\" \"Max Krasner,\" \"Kyle Bass,\" \"Melissa Mendez,\" \"Ya Li,\" \"Dinggang Wang,\" \"An Hong,\" \"Yvette Wang,\" \"Yanping Wang,\" \"Yan Ping Wang,\" \"Fiona Yu,\" \"Je Kin Ming,\" \"William Je,\" \"Yu Jianming,\" \"Yaz Qingua,\" \"Lao Jiang,\" \"Jiang Yunfu,\" \"Jiang Yunfu Be,\" \"Nod Hill LLC,\" \"AAGV Limited,\" \"ACA Investment Management Limited,\" \"ACA Capital Group Limited,\" \"Ace Decade Holdings Limited,\" \"AI Group Holdings Inc.,\" \"Alfa Global Ventures Limited,\" \"Alfonso Global Limited,\" \"Allied Capital Global Limited,\" \"Alpine Fiduciaries SA,\" \"Anton Development Limited,\" \"Assets Sino Limited,\" \"Auspicious Coast Limited,\" \"Beijing Pangu Investment Co.,\" \"Beijing Pangu Investment Co. Ltd.,\" \"Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.\" \"Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited,\" \"Bravo Luck,\" \"BSA Strategic Fund I,\" \"China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Limited,\" \"Golden Spring,\" \"Chuang Xin Limited,\" \"Crane Advisory Group LLC,\" \"Creative Apex Investments Limited,\" \"Crystal Breeze Investments Limited,\" \"Dawn State Limited,\" \"Eastern Profit Corporation Limited,\" \"Elite Well Global Limited,\" \"Empire Growth Holdings,\" \"G Club Operations LLC,\" \"G Fashion LLC,\" \"G News LLC,\" \"GETTR USA,\" \"Genever Holdings Corporation,\" \"Genever Holdings LLC,\" \"GFASHION MEDIA GROUP INC.,\" \"GFNY, Inc.,\" \"Globalist International Limited,\" \"GNews Media Group Inc.,\" \"Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.,\" Greenwich Land LLC,\" \"Guo Media,\" \"GTV Media Group, Inc.,\" \"Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc.,\" \"Head Win Group Limited,\" \"Henan Yuda,\" \"Himalaya Embassy,\" \"Himalaya Exchange,\" \"Himalaya Federal Reserve,\" \"Himalaya Supervisory Organization,\" \"HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC,\" \"Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited,\" \"Infinite Increase Limited,\" \"Infinitum Developments Limited,\" \"Insight Phoenix Fund,\" \"Lamp Capital,\" \"Leading Shine,\" \"Leading Shine NY,\" \"Long Gate Limited,\" \"Next Tycoon Investments Limited,\" \"New Federal State of China,\" \"Noble Fame Global Limited,\" \"Rosy Acme Ventures Limited,\" \"Rule of Law Foundation III,\" \"Rule of Law Foundation IV,\" \"Rule of Law Fund,\" \"Rule of Law Society,\" \"Rule of Law Society IV,\" \"G-Translators PTY,\" \"Saraca Media Group,\" \"Shiny Ace Ltd.\" \"Shiny Times Holdings Ltd.,\" \"Spirit Charter Investment Limited,\" \"Stevenson, Wong & Co.,\" \"Voice of Guo Media, Inc.,\" \"Well Origin Ltd.,\" \"World Century Limited,\" \"Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited,\" \"Whitecroft Shore,\" and \"ZIBA Limited.\"\n\n37. After applying these search terms, I discovered a single email reflecting transfers from Leading Shine, one of my businesses, to my separate business that I began in the United States, and which is entirely unrelated to my father.\n\n38. I understand that the Court has questioned the search terms applied, and specifically that \"[t]here are no names of endearment or names denoting familiarity listed among the search terms.\"\n\n39. These searches were run with counsel after I had initially reviewed my email account in response to the Subpoena. I would like to be clear that these search terms were intended to be responsive to the Trustee's Subpoena, and if the Trustee would like me to run additional search terms in my email account, I will do so.\n\n40. In any event, I do not communicate with my father over email or any other form of electronic communication, and to the best of my knowledge, he does not have an email address.\n\n### C. Messaging Applications\n\n41. Next, I understand that the Court has also questioned my review of my WhatsApp and Telegram messages. Again, I initially conducted a review of these messaging applications upon receipt of the Subpoena. Indeed, I produced responsive communications to the Trustee in or around September 19, 2022 as MG-00001 through MG-00019.\n\n42. After receiving the January 20 Order and reviewing my messaging communications, I again reviewed my messages for potentially responsive communications. I also made my cellphone and messaging applications available to counsel for search and review. No responsive communications were found.\n\n43. I understand that the Court has questioned representations made by my counsel that I do not typically communicate with my family using messaging applications. This is true, and was intended to provide clarity in anticipation of potential questions from the Court regarding the limited production from my messages.\n\n44. I do not conduct business over messaging applications. Moreover, and going to the heart of the Subpoena, I do not have conversations regarding money or family business over messaging applications. Indeed, I would never, as I would never trust that any messaging application was immune from potential hacking by the CCP. I have searched these applications several times, and produced the responsive material to the Trustee.\n\n### D. Hard Copy Documents\n\n45. In addition to review of electronic communications, I also searched for hard copy records responsive to the Subpoena.\n\n46. When I first received the Subpoena, I reviewed my records for any hard copy corporate documents that might be responsive to the Subpoena, and I asked my attorneys to do the same, including former attorneys.\n\n47. Because the only documents that I originally withheld from production in response to the Subpoena related to my personal assets, upon receipt of the January 20 Order, I reviewed my records to determine whether I had any hard copy materials relating to my assets, and searched for any additional hard copy documents that may not have been initially produced.\n\n# E. Documents Regarding Personal Assets\n\n48. As explained above, because my primary objection to the Subpoena related to the production of information concerning my personal assets, upon receipt of the Court's January 20 Order, I focused on that portion of the Subpoena.\n\n49. I collected documents from my Citibank account, which was closed in December 2022. These documents have been produced.\n\n50. Since coming to the United States, I have faced multiple bank account closures. I originally utilized an account with Chase Bank, which was closed in 2017. After that account was closed, I opened an account with Bank of America and First County Bank in Connecticut. Both of these accounts have since been closed, and I do not have ready access to account statements for these accounts. Prior to submission of my attorney's certification on March 6, 2023, I had attempted to access account statements from closed bank accounts, but was unable to do so. While I do not have ready access to these account statements, I have reviewed the portion of the Court's March 10 Order relating to these bank accounts, and am seeking to obtain records from each of these accounts and will continue to do so, both on my own and through counsel.\n\n51. I also have an account with the Bank of China, but do not have electronic access to that account, and cannot visit a branch location due to safety concerns. While I have an account with the Bank of China, I have not used my bank card since coming to the United States, in fear of the CCP tracking my payments, and as a result, my location. Nonetheless, I have reviewed the portion of the Court's March 10 Order relating to my Bank of China account, and my counsel will seek records from the Bank of China on my behalf. I hope the Court can understand that my hesitancy to interact with the Bank of China comes from significant safety concerns borne out of my time spent in detention. Moreover, I have not, and will not, object to any efforts by the Trustee to secure these records from the Bank of China directly.\n\n52. Additionally, I have continued to review my records, and have produced additional documents relating to my personal assets to the Trustee. Among other things, I have requested documents from my accountant, which have been produced to the Trustee.\n\n### F. Documents from Agents and Advisors\n\n53. Finally, I understand that the Court has questions regarding my efforts to obtain documents from my agents and advisors.\n\n54. As I explained in my November 14, 2022 opposition to the motion to compel, upon receipt of the Subpoena, I sought documents from my former attorneys regarding HK USA. Those documents have been produced in my prior productions.\n\n55. I understand that the Court has raised that during my deposition I testified about my \"management and/or ownership positions in several companies in [my] family's business empire,\" and concluded that I \"almost assuredly [have] control over many documents in the possession of current or former attorneys and other agents and advisors.\"\n\n56. I have again made requests to my attorneys, former attorneys, accountants, tax advisors and managers regarding documents relating to my family's businesses. Among other measures, I contacted ACASS, the outside company that assisted with the sale of airplane referenced during my deposition. I will produce to the Trustee any documents I receive in response to these requests.\n\n57. I have endeavored to comply with the Subpoena directed towards me since receipt, and produced over two-thousand pages of documents. While I originally interposed objections to requests for documents relating to my personal assets, I understand that the Court has directed that I produce those documents, and I have taken steps to do so. As I explained in November 2022, other than materials relating to my personal assets, I did not withhold any other documents responsive to the Subpoena, which personal materials I am now producing to the Trustee.\n\n58. I take this matter very seriously, and therefore wanted to provide the Court with a comprehensive overview of my collection efforts and review of documents responsive to the Subpoena.\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and after reasonable inquiry, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nDated at New York, New York this 13th day of March, 2023.\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nMei Guo\n\n### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on this 13th day of March, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ Lee Vartan Lee Vartan","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\n案件涉及：第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n动议人，\n诉\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第11章破产受托人\n\n被申请人。\nMEI GUO（郭美）的声明书\n\n我，Mei Guo（郭美），谨此声明如下：\n\n1. 我已收到在上述案件中向我送达的受托人依据《破产程序规则》第2004条发出的传票（以下简称“传票”）。我作出本声明，旨在证明我遵守该传票，并对法院于2023年3月10日作出的裁定（ECF No. 1537）作出回应；该裁定裁定我与 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，以下简称“HK USA”）构成藐视法庭，并就涉及该传票及随后的法院命令中所谓违反证据开示义务的行为施加了制裁。\n\n2. 在提交本声明时，我希望法院能够理解，逃避证据开示义务绝非我的本意，且自收到传票以来，我一直在努力提供回应传票要求的文件。\n\n3. 法院有必要了解我的切身经历，这有助于解释为何我所持有的回应传票要求的文件相对较少。\n背景\n\n4. 债务人 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）是我的父亲。多年来，他一直是 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，以下简称“中共/CCP”）的政治目标。我父亲在得知中共将以带有政治动机的指控逮捕他后，于2015年初逃离中国大陆，并最终经由香港逃往美国。\n\n5. 中共将我父亲拒绝屈从于虚假指控的后果，发泄在我母亲、我的大家庭成员以及我的身上。\n\n6. 就在我父亲抵达美国几天后，中共代表将我母亲和我拘留了大约10天。2016年12月前后，我一人再次被拘留了大约40天。在每次拘留期间，我与家人的通讯均被切断，并遭受了身心上的折磨与酷刑。\n\n7. 例如，我曾一次被连续剥夺睡眠达48小时，每天每分钟都受到监视，未经看守许可，被禁止走动、使用洗手间，甚至不得梳头。\n\n8. 在我获释后，我父亲仍然直言不讳地批评中共及其诸多恶行。他的批评继续激怒中国当局。大约在2017年4月，一名中国高级官员告诉我母亲和我，如果我们能说服我父亲停止揭露中共的腐败并返回中国，我们将被允许前往美国对我父亲进行短暂探访。\n\n9. 2017年5月16日，我在该中国高级官员及数名中国安全特工的陪同下，与母亲一同从中国前往美国。我母亲和我当时是谈判筹码。在这次探访期间，该中国高级官员未能胁迫我父亲返回中国。我母亲和我没有理会该中国官员要求我们返回中国的命令，而是留在了美国。我害怕在中国再次被捕并遭受酷刑，目前正在美国申请政治庇护。\n拘留经历使我深感恐惧、充满不信任，并时刻生活在对中共的恐惧之中\n\n10. 尽管我已摆脱生活在中国的直接危险，但我仍未脱离中共及其代理人的势力范围。事实上，我经常在社交媒体上受到威胁，不得不生活在对自身安全的持续恐惧之中。\n\n11. 除其他方面外，我与中共交手的经历以及我在二十多岁时所遭受的酷刑，彻底改变了我与世界互动的方式，包括我所使用的技术手段和通信方式。\n\n12. 在2015年1月我第一次被拘留期间，中共控制了我当时使用的电子邮件账户。自2015年1月20日前后我首次从中共拘留中获释以来，我再也无法访问在此之前使用过的任何电子邮件账户。在第一次被拘留后，出于对中共追踪和骚扰的恐惧，我有数年时间没有使用电子邮件作为通信手段。\n\n13. 在2017年初我第二次从拘留中获释后，由于中共的持续监控，我与技术的关系进一步发生了改变。从中共拘留所获释后，我每天晚上都必须与中共联系，并向他们提供我的确切位置。\n\n14. 即使在向美国申请庇护之后，我仍然生活在对中共的持续恐惧中，对每一次使用技术设备都极为谨慎，唯恐中共追踪我的行踪并进行骚扰。\n\n15. 这些恐惧在我2017年刚到美国时便成为了现实。我曾遭受多次网络攻击，我认为这些攻击是由中共策划的。在其中一次攻击中，我每天接到数千个电话，手机还收到了淫秽图片。在其他攻击中，我的手机被入侵，照片和个人信息（包括我的护照信息）被发布在互联网上。这些攻击传递了一个明确的信号——即便我身在中国境外，也并未脱离中共的势力范围。\n第2004条传票\n\n16. 2022年8月19日，我收到了受托人依据第2004条发出的传票，此后我对传票所附的文件调取要求及时提出了异议，对文件调取要求中所包含的部分列举说明和定义提出了异议，并对某些具体的调取要求提出了异议。\n\n17. 2022年10月28日前后，受托人提出了一项动议，除其他事项外，请求强制执行传票。\n\n18. 我于2022年11月14日对该动议作出了回应，并解释了我为回应传票所做的努力。（ECF No. 1090）。\n\n19. 具体而言，我解释称，在收到传票后，我检索了自己的电子邮件和短信，并向我当时的主导律师提供了我找到的与 Lady May（五月夫人号）相关的短信副本，包括我与 Lady May 船长的短信记录。我还提供了与 Lady May 船员签署的保密协议副本，并提供了与 Himalaya International Financial Group Limited（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司，以下简称“Himalaya”）贷款交易相关的多封电子邮件和协议草案，这些文件当时由负责该交易谈判的我的律师所保管。\n\n20. 此外，在收到传票后，我联系了我的律师（包括前任律师），要求他们检索回应传票的公司文件和通信记录。\n\n21. 正如我在2022年11月14日对强制动议的反对意见中所解释的那样，基于我认为针对传票宽泛范围的有效异议以及我自身的安全考虑，我唯一未予提供的文件仅与我的个人资产相关。正如我的律师当时所写：“除与个人资产相关的文档外，HK USA 和郭女士未扣留任何符合要求的文件。HK USA 仅拥有 Lady May，除此无其他资产，因此与该资产相关的文档均已提供。”（ECF No. 1090）。\n\n22. 事实上，HK USA 和我针对该传票已提供了两千多页的文件。\n\n23. 与受托人的强制动议相关的听证会于2022年11月30日举行。\n\n24. 2023年1月20日，法院作出裁定，部分准许了受托人的动议（以下简称“1月20日裁定”）（ECF #1353）。\n\n25. 与传票相关的部分，1月20日裁定指示：\n\nMei Guo（郭美）和 HK (USA) 应在2023年1月31日下午5:00之前检索并向受托人提供：\n\n(i) 回应受托人要求的文件，除涉及 Lady May 的文件外，日期为2014年6月1日或之后的，除非某项特定要求指明了不同的时间段且该时间段不早于2014年6月1日开始；\n\n(ii) 回应受托人要求的文件，除涉及 Lady May 的文件外，包括债务人承认其拥有的资产，以及据称属于除债务人以外的个人或实体的资产，包括但不限于其家庭成员（包括 Mei Guo 本人）及关联实体（包括 HK (USA) 本身）；以及\n\n(iii) 在其保管、占有或控制之下的回应受托人要求的文件，除涉及 Lady May 的文件外，包括但不限于其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问归档中的文件，除非该等文件已由其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问提供，但无需考虑其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问未来可能提供的任何文件。\n\n(ECF #1353)。\n\n26. 收到1月20日裁定后，我开始采取措施确认我对传票的遵守情况；根据此前为回应传票所进行的文档检索和审查，我认为自己已经在很大程度上遵守了传票要求。事实上，由于我已经提供了回应传票要求的文件（除与我个人资产相关的文档外），我知道符合要求的文件数量会很少，但我仍然开始检索纸质记录并对电子记录进行清点。\n为遵守传票和裁定所采取的行动\nA. 电子设备\n\n27. 首先，我理解法院曾质疑“有哪些电子文件/设备处于[我的]保管、占有和控制之下”。（ECF No. 1537）。\n\n28. 我有一台笔记本电脑，已经使用了几年。我不使用平板电脑或其他类似设备。\n\n29. 我持有的唯一其他电子设备是我的手机，我通过手机使用通信应用程序 WhatsApp 和 Telegram。\nB. 电子邮件审查\n\n30. 我目前可以使用三个电子邮件账户。我理解法院要求对这些电子邮件账户予以说明澄清。这三个电子邮件地址是我唯一有权限访问的电子邮件地址。如上所述，自获释以来，我一直无法访问被拘留前使用的电子邮件账户。此外，自获释以来，我一直尽可能减少电子邮件往来以及所有书面通信，以避免中共监控和黑客攻击带来的问题。\n\n31. 当我最初收到传票时，我检索了所有三个电子邮件地址中回应传票要求的文件。\n\n32. 我在2021年1月30日前后创建了电子邮件账户 XXXXXX1989@gmail.com，用于就 Lady May 以及在 Supreme Court of New York（纽约州最高法院）进行的藐视法庭诉讼程序与 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi 律师事务所的律师进行沟通。我与律师一起审查了该账户中的每一封电子邮件，并确认该电子邮件账户不包含任何非特权/非保密的或回应传票要求的电子邮件或文件。\n\n33. 我在2022年4月前后创建了电子邮件账户 XXXXXX22@gmail.com，用于与 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 律师事务所沟通。同样，我与我的律师一起审查了该账户中的每一封电子邮件，并确认该电子邮件账户不包含任何非特权/非保密的或回应传票要求的电子邮件或文件。\n\n34. 我的第三个电子邮件账户是 1@XXXXXXXX.com，创建于2019年9月前后。我认为该电子邮件账户是我用于个人和工作事务的主要电子邮件账户。然而，需要明确的是，如上所述，电子邮件并非我偏好的通信方式。通常情况下，我的大多数通信都是通过电话或面对面交流进行的。\n\n35. 虽然我在最初收到传票时就检索了该账户中符合要求的文件，但我仍在2023年2月20日向我的律师提供了对 1@XXXXXXXX.com 电子邮件账户的完全访问权限，以便其进行检索并审查可能回应传票要求的文件。\n\n36. 在律师陪同下，我们专门运行了旨在响应受托人（Trustee）在传票（Subpoena）中所提要求的检索词，并对以下词条执行了检索：“Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）”、“Miles Kwok（郭文贵）”、“Miles Guo（郭文贵）”、“Guo Wengui（郭文贵）”、“Guo Haoyun（郭浩云）”、“Qiang Guo（郭强）”、“Mileson Kwok（郭美）”、“Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）”、“Hing Chi Ng（岳庆芝）”、“Yue Qingzhi（岳庆芝）”、“Daniel Podhaskie”、“Jason Miller”、“Steve Bannon（斯蒂芬·班农）”、“Karin Maistrello”、“Melissa Francis”、“William Gertz（比尔·格茨）”、“Arethusa Forsyth”、“Glenn Mellor”、“Jennifer Mercurio”、“Eduardo Eumekian”、“Han Chunguang（韩春光）”、“Qu Guojiao（屈国娇）”、“Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）”、“Guo Lijie（郭丽杰）”、“Zhang Wei（张维）”、“Lihong Wei Lafrenz（卫丽红）”、“Sara Wei（萨拉/魏丽红）”、“Hao Haidong（郝海东）”、“Ross Heinemeyer”、“Max Krasner”、“Kyle Bass（凯尔·巴斯）”、“Melissa Mendez”、“Ya Li（李亚）”、“Dinggang Wang（王定刚）”、“An Hong（安红）”、“Yvette Wang（王雁平）”、“Yanping Wang（王雁平）”、“Yan Ping Wang（王雁平）”、“Fiona Yu（余建明）”、“Je Kin Ming（余建明）”、“William Je（余建明）”、“Yu Jianming（余建明）”、“Yaz Qingua”、“Lao Jiang（老江）”、“Jiang Yunfu（江运富）”、“Jiang Yunfu Be”、“Nod Hill LLC”、“AAGV Limited”、“ACA Investment Management Limited（阿曼基金投资管理有限公司）”、“ACA Capital Group Limited（阿曼资本集团有限公司）”、“Ace Decade Holdings Limited（创世纪留控股有限公司）”、“AI Group Holdings Inc.”、“Alfa Global Ventures Limited”、“Alfonso Global Limited”、“Allied Capital Global Limited”、“Alpine Fiduciaries SA”、“Anton Development Limited”、“Assets Sino Limited”、“Auspicious Coast Limited”、“Beijing Pangu Investment Co.（北京盘古氏投资有限公司）”、“Beijing Pangu Investment Co. Ltd.（北京盘古氏投资有限公司）”、“Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古氏投资有限公司）”、“Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited（北京政泉控股有限公司）”、“Bravo Luck”、“BSA Strategic Fund I”、“China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Limited（中国金泉（香港）有限公司）”、“Golden Spring（金泉）”、“Chuang Xin Limited”、“Crane Advisory Group LLC”、“Creative Apex Investments Limited”、“Crystal Breeze Investments Limited”、“Dawn State Limited”、“Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方财源有限公司）”、“Elite Well Global Limited”、“Empire Growth Holdings”、“G Club Operations LLC”、“G Fashion LLC”、“G News LLC”、“GETTR USA（盖特美国）”、“Genever Holdings Corporation”、“Genever Holdings LLC”、“GFASHION MEDIA GROUP INC.”、“GFNY, Inc.”、“Globalist International Limited”、“GNews Media Group Inc.”、“Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）”、“Greenwich Land LLC”、“Guo Media”、“GTV Media Group, Inc.”、“Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc.”、“Head Win Group Limited”、“Henan Yuda（河南裕达）”、“Himalaya Embassy（喜马拉雅大使馆）”、“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”、“Himalaya Federal Reserve（喜马拉雅联邦储备）”、“Himalaya Supervisory Organization（喜马拉雅监督机构）”、“HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC”、“Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）”、“Infinite Increase Limited”、“Infinitum Developments Limited”、“Insight Phoenix Fund”、“Lamp Capital”、“Leading Shine（亮威有限公司）”、“Leading Shine NY”、“Long Gate Limited”、“Next Tycoon Investments Limited”、“New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）”、“Noble Fame Global Limited”、“Rosy Acme Ventures Limited”、“Rule of Law Foundation III（法治基金 III）”、“Rule of Law Foundation IV（法治基金 IV）”、“Rule of Law Fund（法治基金）”、“Rule of Law Society（法治社会）”、“Rule of Law Society IV（法治社会 IV）”、“G-Translators PTY”、“Saraca Media Group”、“Shiny Ace Ltd.”、“Shiny Times Holdings Ltd.”、“Spirit Charter Investment Limited”、“Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文生黄律师事务所）”、“Voice of Guo Media, Inc.”、“Well Origin Ltd.”、“World Century Limited”、“Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited”、“Whitecroft Shore”以及“ZIBA Limited”。\n\n37. 应用这些检索词后，我发现了一封电子邮件，反映了从我名下的企业之一 Leading Shine（亮威有限公司）向我在美国开创的另一家完全独立的企业进行转账的情况，该企业与我父亲完全无关。\n\n38. 我理解法院对所适用的检索词提出了质疑，具体而言是“检索词中未列出任何爱称或表示亲昵的称呼”。\n\n39. 这些检索是在我为响应传票而初步审查了自己的电子邮件账户之后，在律师陪同下进行的。我想澄清的是，这些检索词旨在响应受托人的传票，如果受托人希望我在我的电子邮件账户中运行额外的检索词，我将予以配合。\n\n40. 无论如何，我不通过电子邮件或任何其他形式的电子通讯与我父亲联络，且据我所知，他并没有电子邮件地址。\n\nC. 即时通讯应用\n\n41. 其次，我理解法院对我审查 WhatsApp 和 Telegram 消息的情况也提出了质疑。同样，我在收到传票后即对这些即时通讯应用进行了初步审查。事实上，我已于 2022年9月19日 左右向受托人提供了响应性的通讯记录，编号为 MG-00001 至 MG-00019。\n\n42. 在收到 1月20日裁定 并审查了我的通讯消息后，我再次审查了自己的消息以查找可能具有响应性的通讯。我还将我的手机和即时通讯应用提供给律师进行检索和审查。未发现具有响应性的通讯。\n\n43. 我理解法院对我律师所作陈述提出了质疑，即我通常不使用即时通讯应用与家人联络。这属实，且作出该陈述是为了针对法院可能就我通讯记录提供数量有限而提出的疑问预先作出澄清。\n\n44. 我不在即时通讯应用上开展业务。此外，触及本传票核心的是，我不会在即时通讯应用上讨论涉及资金或家族业务的事宜。事实上，我绝不会这样做，因为我绝不相信任何即时通讯应用能够免受 CCP（中国共产党）的潜在黑客攻击。我已经对这些应用进行了数次检索，并将响应性材料提供给了受托人。\n\nD. 纸质文件\n\n45. 除了审查电子通讯外，我还搜寻了响应传票的纸质记录。\n\n46. 当我最初收到传票时，我审查了我的记录中是否有任何可能响应传票的纸质公司文件，并且我要求我的律师（包括前任律师）也同样照做。\n\n47. 由于我最初响应传票时唯一拒绝提供的文件仅涉及我的个人资产，因此在收到 1月20日裁定 后，我审查了我的记录，以确定我是否持有与我资产相关的任何纸质材料，并搜寻了最初可能未提供的任何额外纸质文件。\n\nE. 关于个人资产的文件\n\n48. 如上所述，由于我对传票的主要异议涉及提供有关我个人资产的信息，因此在收到法院的 1月20日裁定 后，我将重点放在了传票的该部分。\n\n49. 我收集了我的 Citibank（花旗银行）账户的文件，该账户已于 2022年12月 关闭。这些文件已经提供。\n\n50. 自来到美国以来，我面临了多次银行账户被关闭的情况。我最初使用的是 Chase Bank（大通银行）的账户，该账户于 2017年 被关闭。在该账户关闭后，我在 Bank of America（美国银行）和康涅狄格州的 First County Bank（第一县银行）开设了账户。这两个账户后来均已被关闭，我无法随时获取这些账户的对账单。在 2023年3月6日 提交我律师的证明书之前，我曾试图获取已关闭银行账户的对账单，但未能成功。虽然我无法随时获取这些账户对账单，但我已审查了法院 3月10日裁定 中与这些银行账户相关的部分，并且我正在争取从这些账户中获取记录，并将继续自行以及通过律师这样做。\n\n51. 我还在 Bank of China（中国银行）开立有账户，但我无法通过电子方式访问该账户，且出于安全考虑无法前往网点。虽然我在中国银行有账户，但自来到美国后我就没有使用过我的银行卡，因为担心 CCP 会追踪我的付款，并进而追踪我的位置。尽管如此，我已经审查了法院 3月10日裁定 中与我的中国银行账户相关的部分，我的律师将代表我向中国银行调取记录。我希望法院能够理解，我对与中国银行接触的顾虑源于我被拘留期间经历所产生的重大安全担忧。此外，对于受托人直接从中国银行获取这些记录的任何努力，我过去没有、将来也不会提出异议。\n\n52. 此外，我继续审查了我的记录，并向受托人提供了与我个人资产相关的补充文件。除其他事项外，我还向我的会计师索取了文件，这些文件已提供给受托人。\n\nF. 来自代理人和顾问的文件\n\n53. 最后，我理解法院对我从我的代理人和顾问处获取文件的努力存有疑问。\n\n54. 正如我在 2022年11月14日 反对强制作出动议的答辩中所解释的，在收到传票后，我向我的前任律师索取了有关 HK USA 的文件。这些文件已包含在我先前的提供物中。\n\n55. 我理解法院提出，在我的 deposition（宣誓证词陈述/采证作证）过程中，我曾就我在“[我]家族商业帝国中的数家公司担任的管理和/或所有权职位”作证，并认定我“几乎必然对现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问所持有的许多文件拥有控制权”。\n\n56. 我已再次向我的律师、前任律师、会计师、税务顾问和管理人员提出了索取有关我家族业务文件的要求。在其他措施中，我联系了 ACASS，即在我宣誓证词陈述中所提及的协助出售飞机的外部公司。我将向受托人提供响应这些要求而收到的任何文件。\n\n57. 自收到针对我的传票以来，我一直努力予以遵守，并已提供了两千多页的文件。虽然我最初对索取与我个人资产相关文件的要求提出了异议，但我理解法院已下令要求我提供这些文件，并且我已采取措施照做。正如我在 2022年11月 所解释的，除了与我个人资产相关的材料外，我没有隐匿任何其他响应传票的文件，而这些个人材料我现在正在提供给受托人。\n\n58. 我非常严肃地对待此事，因此希望向法院全面概述我就响应传票的文件所做的收集和审查工作。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，据我所知、所悉并经合理查询后相信，我谨在受伪证罪处罚的原则下声明，上述内容真实无误。\n\n日期：2023年3月13日，于纽约州纽约市。\n\n___________________________\n\nMei Guo（郭美）\n\n送达证书\n\n我特此证明，于 2023年3月13日，上述文书的副本已通过电子方式归档。本归档通知将通过法院的电子归档系统以电子邮件方式发送给所有当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的指示，以邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子归档的人员。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本归档文件。\n\n/s/ Lee Vartan\nLee Vartan","key_entities":["CCP","Guo","Je","Kwok","Himalaya","Ho Wan Kwok","Miles Guo","Despins","Yanping Wang","William Je","GTV","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1090,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1353,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1537,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3702,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:46:28"}