{"id":"court_ctb_1604_5","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1604,"sub_number":5,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-02-28","title":"Exhibit 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **Exhibit 5**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 7 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 2 of 11\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | |\n|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------|--|\n| | Justice | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | Plaintiff, | | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | | |\n| KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | | | | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | 019
MOTION SEQ. NO. | | |\n| WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | | | | |\n| HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n1 \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 10 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 5 of 11\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n2 \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 11 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 6 of 11\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 12 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 7 of 11\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 13 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 8 of 11\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 9 of 11\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-1 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 16 of 73 Case 22-50073 Doc 1604-5 Filed 03/27/23 Entered 03/27/23 14:12:10 Page 11 of 11\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: NCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**","body_zh":"证据 5\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交于 02/28/22 录入于 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 7 页，共 73 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1604-5 提交于 03/27/23 录入于 03/27/23 14:12:10 第 2 页，共 11 页\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\n出席：法官 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 庭部 IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\n太盟亚洲机会基金合伙企业（PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.），\n原告，\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n诉 - 动议日期\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云/郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（万古皓云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（皓云·郭），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，\n被告。---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 法官 BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n019\n动议序号\n\n动议判决 + 裁定\n\n在这起 2017 年的案件中，已有 1,180 项诉讼摘要记录——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭文贵，以下简称“郭”）试图通过将自己数额庞大的个人资产存放在一系列公司、信任的心腹和家庭成员名下来规避和欺骗其债权人——本法院现需判定原告太盟亚洲机会基金合伙企业（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，以下简称“PAX”）是否已履行其举证责任，以证明法院应当对郭作出民事藐视法庭的最终裁定（final Order of Civil Contempt）。基于下述理由，本法院正同步签发民事藐视法庭的最终裁定。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日获得了针对郭的判决，金额为 \\$116,402,019.57（NYSCEF 文件编号 716）。此后，PAX 历经数年努力以执行该判决，首先是确认郭在美国境内的资产，进而试图对这些资产进行扣押。PAX 在确认受郭控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的郭已将其资产隐匿在复杂的公司实体迷宫及家庭成员之中。这一计划使得郭能够声称自己没有任何资产，尽管他过着奢靡的生活；原告已用来自社交\n\n媒体的剪辑片段、照片和录像资料对郭的生活进行了归目梳理，显示郭挥金如土并炫耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日庭审笔录所指出的，该证据的证明力极低，因为提供该证据的证人除了知道这些资料可在各网站上获取之外，对于该“证据”的真实性并没有直接的一手了解。\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证词，并接受了交叉询问。在举行该听证会之前，PAX 为查找并扣押被告郭所拥有的资产开展了旷日持久的法律程序。除其他事项外，这些程序确立了郭对一艘名为“Lady May”（梅夫人号）的游艇行使占有支配与控制权，并导致了一系列限制郭和/或该名为“Lady May”的游艇登记所有人将“Lady May”移出本法院管辖范围的裁定。第一项此类裁定于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发（下文有详述），随后于 2020 年 10 月 15 日签发了一项裁定，限制“郭先生和/或……游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开管辖区域。（NYSCEF 文件编号 630）。如下文详述，郭在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在“Lady May”上度过。在导致 2020 年 9 月 30 日和 10 月 15 日限制性裁定的程序进行的同时，郭及其同伙安排“Lady May”于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，并在此后驶往巴哈马。2021 年 3 月 16 日，法院签发了一项有条件的民事藐视法庭裁定，责令如果郭未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将“Lady May”带回本法院管辖范围，则“Lady May”停留在本法院管辖范围之外的每一天，郭都将被处以 \\$500,000.00 的罚款。\n\n上诉分部第一法庭（Appellate Division, First Department）维持了本法院认定郭构成有条件民事藐视法庭的裁定，认定“每日 \\$500,000.00 的罚金旨在强力\n\n促使被告洗脱其藐视法庭行为，尽管他被允许这样做，但他没有表现出任何履行的意愿……”NYSCEF 文件编号 953，199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分部进一步认定：\n\n动议法院认定被告构成民事藐视法庭属于其自由裁量权范围内，因为原告以明晰且有说服力的证据确立了被告违反了一项其知晓的、具有法律效力且明确的法院指令，并且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（参见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan 案，26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；《司法法》[Judiciary Law] § 753）。……现指示动议法院进行证据听证会以解决关于该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分部的裁定，本法院安排了 2022 年 2 月 2 日的证据听证会，以解决郭是否为该游艇的实益所有人及控制人的问题。郭未在 2022 年 2 月 2 日的听证会上作证，此前针对 PAX 的资产开示努力，郭已援引其第五修正案权利，拒绝就涉及“Lady May”的事项作证或回应证据开示请求。原告证据 27、28、29、30。1 尽管郭援引了第五修正案，但他仍是多个司法管辖区内的活跃诉讼当事人，且在本次及其他法律程序中曾提供过先前的证词。\n\n郭还在本法院提起过一份诉状，案由为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng，案号 157025/2020，该案引用了来自 Freebeacon.com 网站日期为 2017 年 9 月 8 日的博客文章，郭在其中抱怨“涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……”（诉状第 8 段，NYSCEF 文件编号 001）（以下简称“Zeng 案诉状”）。Zeng 案诉状将郭描述为一名“直言不讳的中共批评者”，其“不遗余力地揭露中共及中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。《华盛顿邮报》（The Washington Post）报道称，特朗普总统的前顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在“Lady May”上被捕，并将班农先生描述为郭的朋友及商业\n\n1 “PX”指原告庭审证据（Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits）。\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交于 02/28/22 录入于 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 10 页，共 73 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1604-5 提交于 03/27/23 录入于 03/27/23 14:12:10 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n伙伴，“一名直言不讳的中国政府网络批评者，曾与该国情报机构关系密切，但目前因涉嫌诈骗、敲诈勒索和行贿罪名被北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体也报道称，班农先生曾不止一次乘坐郭的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n被告方证人在听证会上作出的口头证词以明晰且有说服力的方式证明了郭是“Lady May”的实益所有人并控制着该游艇，且郭对本法院和司法程序抱有彻底的藐视。\n\n郭曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，以下简称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上所提供的证词确立了郭在 2014 年以无对价的方式将 HK International 的 100% 权益转让给了一位名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人。屈女士是郭氏家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。此后郭逃离中国，2015 年 2 月 23 日，HK International 以 2,800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了“Lady May”。听证会上没有证词确立购买“Lady May”的资金来源，但郭的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）所作的未被反驳的证词确立了屈女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。庭审笔录 44。2 因此，一个合理的推论是，郭向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无可争议的是，屈女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日左右以 1 美元或无对价的方式将“Lady May”的所有权转让给了郭的女儿郭美。庭审笔录 47。根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 文件编号 1162），郭女士最终将“Lady May”的所有权转让给了当前的所有权人 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”）。郭女士进一步声称她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管该\n\n2 “Tr.”指证据听证会的笔录，电子提交于 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179。\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交于 02/28/22 录入于 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 11 页，共 73 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1604-5 提交于 03/27/23 录入于 03/27/23 14:12:10 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\n“Lady May”每年数百万美元的所有费用（包括燃油费、维护费以及船长和船员工资）均由据称是郭氏家族办公室的 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring”）支付。\n\n在听证会上，郭女士作证称是她哥哥为她买下了“Lady May”。庭审笔录 46。法院无法采信这一证词，因为没有任何证据表明郭女士的哥哥参与了促成郭女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且事实上，在回答法院的提问时，郭女士承认在她取得该游艇之前发生的所有转让中，她哥哥均未参与。庭审笔录 47。\n\n听证会上提供的其他证词确立了郭每年夏天都屡次登上该游艇，而郭女士则很少登上该游艇。庭审笔录 88:8-20。“Lady May”的船长作证称，在 2020 年的 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间里郭都在该游艇上，这与他夏季的惯常做法一致。庭审笔录 87:24-88:7。在本法院签发 2020 年 9 月 30 日限制性裁定之后，2020 年 10 月“Lady May”被送往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并据称在 Golden Spring 的指示下随后于 2021 年 10 月被派往意大利。郭女士承认她知悉本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的限制性裁定以及本法院随后于 2021 年 3 月 16 日签发的责令将“Lady May”带回法院管辖范围的裁定。庭审笔录 55；57-60；62。\n\n郭女士作证称，一方面她指挥“Lady May”的航程路线，但另一方面又作证称由于郭的安全问题备受关注，因此任何航程路线都不会留存记录。庭审笔录 52。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在没有她陪同的情况下登上游艇时，他有权自由选择任何他想去的地方。庭审笔录 50。然而，根本问题在于究竟是谁在 2020 年 10 月指示将游艇移出本法院的管辖范围。郭女士声称在 2020 年 10 月初她不再希望\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 50-1 提交于 02/28/22 录入于 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 12 页，共 73 页 案件 22-50073 文件 1604-5 提交于 03/27/23 录入于 03/27/23 14:12:10 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给了 Golden Spring，而 Golden Spring 随后又将她的指令传达给了当时该船的船长 Heaslop 船长。庭审笔录 53。\n\n在进一步询问下，郭女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她该游艇需要转移到更温暖的地方。庭审笔录 55。郭女士随后重复了她此前已撤回的关于她哥哥将游艇赠予她的证词，并声明她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。庭审笔录 56。鉴于法院曾于 2020 年 9 月 30 日作出一项限制郭的临时限制令，该证词不可信\n\n……不得进行或导致进行任何出售、让与、转让或干预其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得向其支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 所规定的例外情况以及在正常业务过程中进行的除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May（“梅”号游艇）的时任船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）作证称，在 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往 Florida（佛罗里达州）前“几天”（且显然是在本院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日作出命令之后），Kwok 先生（Ho Wan Kwok，郭文贵）告诉 Captain Heaslop，Kwok 将不再作为宾客登上 Lady May。Tr. 89。Captain Heaslop 亦反驳了 Ms. Guo（郭美女士）称其曾就游艇调动向 Captain Heaslop 发出过指示的证词。Tr. 94。\n\nMs. Guo 还承认随后阅读了本院 2021 年 3 月 16 日要求 Lady May 在 2021 年 5 月 31 日前返回本院管辖范围的裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与其律师（其律师费由 Golden Spring（金泉公司）支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她对该裁定置之不理。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，且他与 HK USA 及 Golden Spring 进行沟通，但从未与 Ms. Guo 沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）也做出了相同的证词。Tr. 82。简而言之，Ms. Guo 声称其拥有并控制 Lady May 的证词在任何方面都不可采信。Ms. Guo 似乎是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使了支配和控制权，亦未提供任何确认其取得 Lady May 占有权的凭证，这纯粹是为了规避其父亲的债权人对 Lady May 进行扣押执行而设立的骗局。\n\nKwok 围绕 Lady May 所精心策划的“障眼法”（shell game）背后的种种把戏，与他在本诉讼悬而未决的五年期间所采取的每一项逃避和藐视行为如出一辙，这也是本案诉讼记录项高达 1,180 条的原因。\n\n在如同本案中，法院“明确认定［Kwok 的］行为旨在或实际上破坏、损害、阻碍或损害了民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济”时，本院有权根据 Judiciary Law（《司法法》）§ 753 裁定 Kwok 构成民事藐视法庭——并“通过罚款和监禁对［其］进行惩罚”。见 Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定了四项要件：\n\n“［为］在特定案件中认定存在藐视法庭行为，必须确定：［1］明确表达了毫不含糊之指令的法院合法裁定当时处于有效状态；［2］必须能够以合理确定性表明该裁定遭到违抗……［3］此外，被裁定藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院裁定，尽管并非必须实际向该当事人送达该裁定……［4］最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了损害。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证词满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）亦作出了此种提示。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，简称 PAX）, 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“［PAX 已］以明确且令人信服的证据证明，［Kwok］违反了他知晓的法院合法、明确的指令，且该违抗行为导致原告的权利受到了损害……”）。\n\nPAX 所受持续“损害”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终可以通过对 Lady May 实施强制执行，以清偿其目前对 Kwok 享有的上亿美元判决债权。根据 CPLR § 5225，在债务人持有必要“权益”的情况下，“金钱或其他个人财产”可予扣押执行。为满足这一要求，“判决债务人无需对财产拥有法定所有权；享有实益权益即已足够。”见 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物所享有的权利或期待……而非对该物的法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary《布莱克法律词典》, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。Kwok 在 Lady May 中所拥有的远不止实益权益。Kwok 不仅控制着该游艇，而且看来是他提供了购买资金，且他正是该游艇的主要使用人。\n\n关键因素在于“该财产是否使［实益所有人］受益，犹如其直接收到了该财产一样”。同上（援引 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持对判决债务人因将其权益转让给其女儿而主张不再对财产享有权益的驳回）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，但仍准许判决债权人的财产移交动议，因为即便属实，证据亦表明其对财产“保留了控制权和/或权益”））。\n\n证据明确且令人信服地证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有实益权益并对其拥有控制权。关于后者，本院注意到了 Zeng 案的提起，并从全案记录事实中推断出，Kwok 采取了异乎寻常的手段来规避债权人对该游艇的追索。此外，Kwok 的“家族办公室”资助了该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n本院认定，Ms. Guo 的证词不仅前后自相矛盾、充满掩饰，而且被 Captain Heaslop、Ivanov 船长和 Stockil 先生的证词严重削弱——他们陈述称，在 Ms. Guo 直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未听从过 Ms. Guo 任何与游艇相关的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律确立的规则是，当事人在民事诉讼中援引 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）“可构成作出不利事实推定的依据”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。在需要或允许作出事实认定的任何时候，包括在藐视法庭动议中，均可适用不利推定。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实审理者可以针对未作证的证人作出相反证据所允许的最强推论。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（对未出庭的被告适用不利推定，因其“本应对证据提出的实质性问题知情”）。\n\nPAX 有权通过这两种途径获得不利推定。Kwok 在回应 PAX 的判决后证据开示时援引了其宪法第五修正案免于自证其罪的特权，包括在回应专门针对 Lady May 的要求时。尽管 Kwok 辩称此处适用不利推定并不恰当，理由是“只有在初步证明一份证据具有真实性之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但这一主张根本站不住脚。PAX 已提出了实质性可采证据，证明 Kwok 对 Lady May 享有必要的实益权益并对其拥有控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（解释称如果证据“往往能证明实质性事实的存在或不存在，即本案直接争议的事实，则该证据具有证明力”）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 脱离本院管辖范围已达 268 天。根据本院施加并经上诉法庭确认的每日 $500,000 罚款计算，由此产生的罚款总额将达 $134,000,000.00，这已超过了 PAX 尚未受偿的近 $120 million 判决金额，并且是 Lady May GBP £ 28 million 购买价格的数倍。然而，如果身家亿万的诉讼当事人在明知且故意违反法院裁定的同时，还能企图利用纽约州以及美国其他地方的法院程序，那么法治将不复存在。Kwok 必须在本院附生效登记通知的裁定送达后五个工作日内，向 PAX 汇付 $134,000,000.00。若该笔罚款未能按期足额支付，本院准备根据 Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部法定权力。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n勾选一项：\n案件已结\nX 非终局处置\nX 准予\n驳回\n部分准予\n其他\n申请：\n拟定裁定\n提交裁定\n若适用请勾选：\n包含移交/重新分配\n受托人指定\n移交裁判官审理","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3674,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-02-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-02-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:50:27"}