{"id":"court_ctb_1614_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1614,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-03-29","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1614（2023-03-29立案）。破产法官 Julie A. Manning 于2023年3月21日主持召开的综合状况会议及动议听证会官方记录，涉及主案及相关衍生诉讼中的多项动议、证据开示争议、案件排期以及资产保险等程序事项。","summary_en":"Transcript of Hearing —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1614 (Filed 2023-03-29). Official transcript of the omnibus status conference and motion hearing held on March 21, 2023, before Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning, covering multiple pending motions, discovery disputes, scheduling, and asset insurance matters across the main bankruptcy case and related adversary proceedings.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, GENEVER HOLDINGS \\* CORPORATION and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003 INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,\\* Adv. Proc No. 23-05002 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut v. \\* March 21, 2023 \\* HO WAN KWOK, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nTRANSCRIPT OF ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO 4/27/23; MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO REMOVE TRUSTEE; MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT TO 4/10/23; MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTIN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For The Sherry-Netherland, SHERRY J. MILLMAN, ESQ. Creditor: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 TARUNA GARG, ESQ. Murtha Cullina 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the debtor, Mei Guo and ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. HK International: JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For Bravo Luck Limited, FRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ. Interested Party: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 1313 N. Market Street Washington, DC 19801 For Hing Chi Ngok, EVAN S. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. Interested Party: Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. 225 Asylum Street, 20th Floor Hartford, CT 06103\n\n3\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 2:35 p.m.) THE COURT: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC; 22- 500, excuse me -- 23-05002, Genever Holdings LLC, et al, and Kwok, et al, 23-05002, Genever Holdings, LLC, et al., vs. Kwok, et al., 22-05003, HK International Funds Investments, USA, Limited vs. Despins; 22-05027, Despins, et. al. versus Bravo Luck Limited, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 5 of 100\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
5 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Official |\n| 2 | Committee of Unsecured Creditors. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 4 | MR. SARNOFF:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Stuart |\n| 5 | Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers.
Thank you for granting remote |\n| 6 | access to my partner, Peter Friedman, whose plane got |\n| 7 | delayed.
He's with me today as well.
And Annecca Smith |\n| 8 | local counsel Robinson & Cole on behalf of PAX. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 10 | Could you hear all that?
Was that okay for you? |\n| 11 | You couldn't really hear it. |\n| 12 | I'm sorry, Mr. Sarnoff.
I am going to have to |\n| 13 | make you come forward to a microphone because we just can't |\n| 14 | pick it up. |\n| 15 | MR. SARNOFF:
Stuart Sarnoff on behalf of creditor |\n| 16 | PAX.
Mr. Friedman, my partner, is accessed remotely because |\n| 17 | he had a problem with his plane.
And Annecca Smith, of |\n| 18 | Robinson & Cole, is our local counsel and is here as well on |\n| 19 | behalf of PAX. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Thank you very much.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | Attorney Henzy? |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for |\n| 23 | the debtor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
James |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 6 of 100\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 6 Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor, Mei Guo, and HK International. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon. MS. GARG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Taruna Garg, of Murtha Cullina, representing the Sherry-Netherland. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MILLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sherry Millman, with Strook & Strook & Lavan, also representing the Sherry-Netherland. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you both for coming forward so we can hear your appearances. Anyone else noting an appearance for the record? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Despins, this is your request for a status conference, so please proceed. Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't talk to people on the Zoom. My fault. You can come forward, Mr. Despins, but I forgot to take Mr. Lawall's and Mr. Goldstein's appearances. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Evan Goldstein on behalf of Hing Chi Ngok. THE COURT: And, Mr. Lawall, you just have to unmute yourself. MR. LAWALL: My apologies, Your Honor. Good\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 7 afternoon. Fran Lawall, Troutman Pepper, on behalf of Bravo Luck. Your Honor, thank you for allowing us to participate by Zoom. THE COURT: You're welcome. And good afternoon. And, Mr. Friedman, obviously, we've taken your appearance for the record. Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. May I approach? THE COURT: Please. Thank you. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: So good afternoon, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. I'm just -- I'm going to cover a lot of this quickly, but I think it's important for the record. So on March 15th, the debtor was arrested at the Sherry-Netherland Apartments. Just to be clear, the apartment is owned by Genever BVI, a Chapter 11 debtor, which is itself wholly-owned by Genever U.S., which is the BVI entity. And Mr. Kwok was the sole shareholder of these -- one of these entities until we took over and so, therefore, the Trustee is the sole controlling party of these entities at this time. I forgot to mention at the last hearing that Yvette Wang was also arrested last -- on March 15th. You may remember Ms. Wang was the person that I think Mr. Kwok Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 7 of 100\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 8 of 100\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
8 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | mentioned was the controlling shareholder, or director of |\n| 2 | Ace Decade, one of the two, and he could not reach her or |\n| 3 | was unable to reach her, did not know how to reach her. |\n| 4 | But, anyway, she was arrested as well for the |\n| 5 | same, participation in the same types of offenses that Mr. |\n| 6 | Kwok was charged with, and she's held, my understanding, on |\n| 7 | 5 million bail until the \\$5 million bail is posted. |\n| 8 | I also understand that there was -- that the FBI |\n| 9 | found \\$100,000 -- more than \\$100,000 in cash in her |\n| 10 | apartment when they arrested her. |\n| 11 | Later in that day on March 15th, a fire broke out |\n| 12 | at the Sherry-Netherland apartment.
The Trustee's informed |\n| 13 | that at that time there were only FBI agents in the |\n| 14 | apartment. |\n| 15 | Yesterday, Your Honor, we filed a proposed amended |\n| 16 | emergency order seeking to allow the Trustee's investigation |\n| 17 | team to also access that apartment.
I'll cover that later. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Page 2, damage to the Sherry |\n| 20 | Netherland apartment.
Obviously, we have not been in the |\n| 21 | apartment so we -- this is really hearsay, but it appears |\n| 22 | that the damage is I would say material and/or substantial. |\n| 23 | And I wanted to add that I am not one of the |\n| 24 | parties that can visit the apartment, and that's not an |\n| 25 | accident.
I wanted it that way because I don't want any |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 9 of 100\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
9 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | allegations that somehow I was on the premises at any time. |\n| 2 | So Judge Cyganowski is really the only one that has access |\n| 3 | from the point of view of the Genever debtors to that |\n| 4 | property. |\n| 5 | But today, as of this time, no one has access to |\n| 6 | the property because the investigation is ongoing.
And if |\n| 7 | the -- so it's either a combination of the FBI and the |\n| 8 | Southern District of -- or the, sorry, the Police Department |\n| 9 | of the City of New York.
But at this time, no one has |\n| 10 | access.
I confirmed this again with counsel for the Sherry |\n| 11 | Netherland who is in the courtroom. |\n| 12 | Once access is open to others then we will allow |\n| 13 | others.
For example, the insurance companies have been |\n| 14 | clamoring to have access, and we told them no one can have |\n| 15 | access because it's still being -- the scene is still being |\n| 16 | investigated. |\n| 17 | In terms of insurance coverage, you know, I want |\n| 18 | to be careful here.
I'm going to talk about the policies, |\n| 19 | not -- you know, some people should not take this as money |\n| 20 | in the bank, far from it, but there's a policy that insures |\n| 21 | the apartment itself and its contents and the maximum amount |\n| 22 | there is 28 million.
I'm advised by AIG, the insurance |\n| 23 | company, that the maximum coverage there is 28 million and |\n| 24 | change.
I think it's 28,134,000.
But, anyway -- so it's |\n| 25 | around 28 million. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 10 of\n\n| | 100
Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
10 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And on top of that, there's third-party liability |\n| 2 | policies in place.
We don't have copies of those yet, but |\n| 3 | we've been informed by AIG that those policies -- there's a |\n| 4 | first layer of policy for \\$1 million, third-party liability, |\n| 5 | and there's a supplemental policy for another \\$10 million. |\n| 6 | And so that is for a total of \\$11 million of third-party |\n| 7 | liability.
And I'm advised that those amounts do not reduce |\n| 8 | the 28.
So they're separate policies. |\n| 9 | And, again, you know, we caution people from |\n| 10 | thinking that this is money in the bank at this time. |\n| 11 | The next item on the agenda, Your Honor, I want to |\n| 12 | spend some time on this, it's very important, is that the |\n| 13 | events of last week really call for a reset in these cases. |\n| 14 | And what do I mean by reset? |\n| 15 | Your Honor, PAX spent years and millions of |\n| 16 | dollars chasing Mr. Kwok in a New York State Court -- and, |\n| 17 | again, to be clear, this is not evidence, this is just the |\n| 18 | Trustee's views -- and that resulted in a very clear -- in |\n| 19 | very clear findings by Judge Ostrager, not only about the |\n| 20 | yacht, but also about Mr. Kwok and the way he conducts |\n| 21 | business regarding the use of shell companies, shell games |\n| 22 | that he played, et cetera. |\n| 23 | And in a bizarre way, Mr. Kwok got a second life |\n| 24 | in Chapter 11.
And I'll explain why to me it's not so |\n| 25 | bizarre, but he filed schedules and statements of financial |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 11 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | affairs showing practically no assets and no transfers of |\n| 2 | any kind practically in the 90 days or the year before the |\n| 3 | filing.
These are the sworn-to statements that he filed. |\n| 4 | And I say perhaps it was not so bizarre because |\n| 5 | people believed that he would come up with a settlement. |\n| 6 | And, in fact, there were discussions of settlement prior to |\n| 7 | the appointment of the trustee.
And there was a lot of |\n| 8 | activity on that front for a while.
And then the offer to |\n| 9 | settle was withdrawn and then a trustee was appointed. |\n| 10 | Upon the appointment of the Trustee, what happened |\n| 11 | is we went into what I would call an investigation mode, |\n| 12 | full-bore investigation mode, but that -- those efforts were |\n| 13 | impeded at every turn by the debtor.
This cost the estate |\n| 14 | millions of dollars.
I want to be clear about this. |\n| 15 | There's just non-stop examples of Kwok, or what I call his |\n| 16 | proxies or his surrogates objecting to everything, |\n| 17 | appealing, challenging discovery at every turn. |\n| 18 | And that includes the daughter and the son.
The |\n| 19 | son through Bravo Luck.
And we know, you know, Golden |\n| 20 | Spring, Ace Decade, the whole saga over Ace Decade, and so I |\n| 21 | don't need to repeat that here. |\n| 22 | But millions of dollars were spent on that which |\n| 23 | is clear now that it was a charade.
And I'm sorry to be so |\n| 24 | crude about it.
But the charade I'm referring to are the |\n| 25 | schedules of assets and liabilities and the statement of |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 12 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
12 |\n| 1 | financial affairs.
Those bear no relationship to reality. |\n| 2 | We know it now.
And this is why there needs to be a reset |\n| 3 | in the case.
I'll be more explicit in what I mean by that. |\n| 4 | And nevertheless, in the case, you know, before |\n| 5 | the indictments, there was this whole process about a |\n| 6 | settlement, potential settlement.
There was a lot of |\n| 7 | energies spent on that. |\n| 8 | And then there was the whole First Amendment, |\n| 9 | alleged, I would call faked First Amendment harassment |\n| 10 | campaign which kept everyone busy for at least two months. |\n| 11 | And all this sideshow happened for a purpose, |\n| 12 | which was to keep us from focusing on the obvious thing |\n| 13 | here, which is that the schedules of assets and liabilities |\n| 14 | and the statement of financial affairs were fictions. |\n| 15 | And we need to hit the reset button because the |\n| 16 | SEC complaint and the DOJ indictment, although they're not |\n| 17 | -- they have not been proven, they're allegations and we |\n| 18 | understand all of that, but they clearly paint a picture, |\n| 19 | the picture that we have been advocating all along, which is |\n| 20 | this concept that the son somehow is a successful |\n| 21 | businessman that's funding his father's expenses and his |\n| 22 | defense counsel, and also paying for his sister's yacht. |\n| 23 | And the fact that the daughter would own a \\$30 million |\n| 24 | yacht, that's all a fiction. |\n| 25 | And what I want to focus the Court on is in the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 13 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
13 |\n| 1 | indictment, there are specific allegations about transfers |\n| 2 | of millions of dollars from Kwok to the daughter and the |\n| 3 | son.
And you might say how do you know it's the daughter |\n| 4 | and the son? |\n| 5 | Well, there are two relatives mentioned, and, you |\n| 6 | know, they mention the relative -- I forget whether it's |\n| 7 | number one or number two -- but relative X is, you know, |\n| 8 | involved with the Lady May, so we know who that is.
And the |\n| 9 | other relative is involved in a different capacity.
That's |\n| 10 | the son.
So we know they're making allegations about |\n| 11 | transfers of millions of dollars. |\n| 12 | So this is not spin by the DOJ.
They're alleging |\n| 13 | at specific times transfers of millions of dollars to the |\n| 14 | son, to the daughter, to the wife.
I'm saying DOJ.
It |\n| 15 | includes the SEC. |\n| 16 | And the point is these allegations have not been |\n| 17 | proven.
We understand that.
But the DOJ would not be |\n| 18 | making allegations, specific allegations to transfers unless |\n| 19 | there was substantial evidence of that.
So what does that |\n| 20 | mean? |\n| 21 | From our point of view, Your Honor, and I'm sorry |\n| 22 | to say it that way, but it's obvious that this pretense that |\n| 23 | the son is paying for Zeisler and for Walken is just not |\n| 24 | reality. |\n| 25 | And I want to be clear, I am sure they got money |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 14 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 14 from entities that they believe are controlled by the son or the son told them that that's where the money comes from, but we know this is Kwok paying Kwok.\n\n And that's pretty serious. And that -- and that applies across the board. It applies to the expenses for the yacht, et cetera, et cetera. And these companies are created every day. There's a new name every day. I swear there has to be an employee that works for Kwok whose only job is to come up with names for these companies because they're creating some every day. And there's than 500 companies at this point that are part of the Kwok empire.\n\n And this is why Zeisler has to file supplemental disclosures saying, well, actually, it's not the son, it's company X, Macarone or whatever, it changes names all the time. That's because they're engaged in exactly what the DOJ -- they, I want to be clear, I'm talking about the son and the father here, not Zeisler -- are engaged in this shell game that Ostrager described.\n\n And there's another event, you know, that calls for a reset, which is there's not going to be plan funded by Mr. Kwok or his family. That's over. That was fiction we believe. And we believe it's over now and that changes the dynamic completely.\n\n And so you might think, Your Honor, this is an interesting speech, but practically what does that mean? So\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 15 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
15 |\n| 1 | let me talk about really concrete things. |\n| 2 | The ownership of the Sherry-Netherland apartment, |\n| 3 | you have to recall, Genever USA is the owner, legal titled |\n| 4 | owner of that apartment.
So if somebody is claiming an |\n| 5 | interest in that, it's their burden to show that, in fact, |\n| 6 | Genever is not the owner. |\n| 7 | And so the party that's coming in is Bravo Luck, |\n| 8 | which is the son of Mr. Kwok, saying, well, I have this |\n| 9 | trust agreement, and trust agreement which was never |\n| 10 | disclosed during three or four years of litigation before |\n| 11 | Judge Ostrager, was never mentioned to Judge Ostrager.
What |\n| 12 | does that tell you about the views of the lawyers who |\n| 13 | defended Mr. Kwok? |\n| 14 | Because this would have been a trump card for them |\n| 15 | to say, wait a minute, that apartment is not owned by Kwok. |\n| 16 | It's owned by the son.
That's an easy one, right?
But |\n| 17 | never mentioned for three years in that litigation. |\n| 18 | So now we have this agreement that they're |\n| 19 | providing saying, well, the son owns the Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 20 | And there's a fundamental issue here, which is there are two |\n| 21 | people to that agreement, the father and the son.
I don't |\n| 22 | think the father is going to come and testify about that |\n| 23 | agreement.
And now that leaves the son. |\n| 24 | And so practically what I think the Court should |\n| 25 | do, not today, but soon, is to direct Mr. Lawall to confirm |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 16 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | that the son will come to the United States to submit to a |\n| 2 | deposition to explain the facts surrounding that trust |\n| 3 | agreement. |\n| 4 | And why do I say that?
Because I don't believe |\n| 5 | that anybody in their right mind would ever tell him to come |\n| 6 | to the United States to testify in this, not only because we |\n| 7 | believe that his testimony that he gave elsewhere is not |\n| 8 | accurate, but because he's a relief defendant in the SEC |\n| 9 | action and he's named as a transferee of millions of dollars |\n| 10 | in the DOJ investigation.
But I don't care what his reasons |\n| 11 | are or not. |\n| 12 | But we cannot be spending hundreds of thousands of |\n| 13 | dollars on that litigation which is based on this fiction |\n| 14 | that somehow the son could buy a \\$70 million apartment. |\n| 15 | And if he wants to pursue that and try to undo the |\n| 16 | presumption, which is that we own the apartment because it's |\n| 17 | owned by Genever, he needs to come to the United States and |\n| 18 | be deposed.
If not, Your Honor, there should be a very |\n| 19 | streamlined process to establish or to confirm title in |\n| 20 | Genever USA.
So that's one of the -- |\n| 21 | I also forgot to mention that Mr. Kwok testified |\n| 22 | in the Ostrager litigation that it was Mr. Zang Wey, not the |\n| 23 | son, that owned the apartment.
But that's a different -- |\n| 24 | that's a different issue. |\n| 25 | So other aspects of the reset button, Your Honor, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 17 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 17 the proxies or satellites, what I call the satellites of Kwok or Kwok himself, should not get the benefit from his incarceration or from the fire at the Sherry-Netherland. This case needs to continue to move on. And what I mean by that is, this is like a runway at the airport. There are dozens of planes that need to take off and people are saying, well, there's no rush, nobody's going on vacation, we can wait for the planes to take off later. But that's wrong. Because although it's true that nobody's going to rent the apartment next week or the week after or the week after that, I understand that, we need to get rid of all the -- we need to clean up all these alleged ownership or rights that these people think that they have, because they will appeal, and that's going to take time. So we need to have all these planes take off so the runway is clear. And trust me, Your Honor, there will be many issues in this case that will be appealed. And, therefore, waiting because the debtor is in prison or because there was a fire is not the right thing to do. Could they -- could they get one week? This is -- actually we've offered them one week, sure. But generally this case needs to move forward. Other aspects of the reset button, I believe that\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 18 of\n\n| | 100
Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 18
counsel for Kwok and counsel for the proxies and satellites |\n| | |\n| 2 | need to take responsibility for promoting the fiction at |\n| 3 | this point.
And the fiction, as I told you, is that he owns |\n| 4 | nothing.
It's all owned by them.
And by that I mean that |\n| 5 | they cannot just say my client told me so and that's what |\n| 6 | I'm arguing in court. |\n| 7 | We're at a point now where they have to have a |\n| 8 | good-faith belief in what they're advancing, including the |\n| 9 | fact that the yacht is owned by the daughter, including the |\n| 10 | fact that the apartment is owned by the son, including the |\n| 11 | fact that the wife owns the -- owned the two houses in |\n| 12 | Connecticut, in Greenwich.
I mean, that's just -- it's all |\n| 13 | fiction. |\n| 14 | And so lawyers need to have a responsibility for |\n| 15 | that because it's costing the estate hundreds of thousands |\n| 16 | of dollars to deal with these issues. |\n| 17 | So where is this case heading? |\n| 18 | First, Your Honor, we need to secure assets, which |\n| 19 | involves getting ownership of assets or at least obtaining |\n| 20 | PJR's over those assets. |\n| 21 | Second, we need to pursue the proxies, satellites, |\n| 22 | for recoveries.
That means the daughter, the son, the wife, |\n| 23 | et cetera.
And there are other companies as well. |\n| 24 | Third, we need to monetize assets and get the |\n| 25 | legal infrastructure in place to start making distributions |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 19 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
19 |\n| 1 | to holders of valid claims.
We cannot wait for the criminal |\n| 2 | case to be resolved.
That will take -- I'm not a -- so it |\n| 3 | could take I should say years to resolve. |\n| 4 | And if we can get assets and we can monetize them |\n| 5 | and distribute them to real creditors, we should do that |\n| 6 | because that's our duty, and I think that it's fundamental. |\n| 7 | Fourth, we need to do all of that while |\n| 8 | eliminating or minimizing any potential conflict with the |\n| 9 | DOJ because we have a mutual shared goal which is to |\n| 10 | compensate victims. |\n| 11 | And I've done a number of cases, Your Honor, with |\n| 12 | the DOJ on the other side and I'm familiar with their |\n| 13 | forfeiture rights. |\n| 14 | I think Your Honor dealt with this in the -- was |\n| 15 | it the Goldberg case or one of these cases, and, you know, |\n| 16 | they have very powerful tools. |\n| 17 | And we're not interested in what's happening in |\n| 18 | their case and they're not interested in what's happening |\n| 19 | here except if this case is going to somehow impede their |\n| 20 | prosecution.
And that is why, Your Honor, we're in constant |\n| 21 | contact with them with respect to the assets only. |\n| 22 | So, for example, before we filed this motion for |\n| 23 | summary judgment that we wanted heard on an expedited basis, |\n| 24 | we called them.
We had a call with them on Saturday to say |\n| 25 | we want to make sure you understand we are seeking ownership |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 20 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | of the yacht now which is on your list of future potential |\n| 2 | forfeiture.
And they understood that and basically the |\n| 3 | message was go in peace.
We understand you need to do that. |\n| 4 | We're not going to interfere with that in any way. |\n| 5 | And we will continue to do that for every material |\n| 6 | decision in the case because there's no point in being in |\n| 7 | conflict with them because they are seeking to return money |\n| 8 | to victims and so are we. |\n| 9 | Okay.
So, Your Honor, that's the general speech. |\n| 10 | I apologize if it took too long.
Now, I'm ready to turn to |\n| 11 | point B, which is update on Sherry-Netherland apartment. |\n| 12 | And we didn't intend this to be a real formal, |\n| 13 | pretrial conference of any kind.
This is -- sorry.
To be |\n| 14 | clear, there are many adversary proceedings involving the |\n| 15 | Sherry-Netherland.
This is the ownership adversary |\n| 16 | proceedings, the three of them that have been consolidated. |\n| 17 | So we have no specific update other than what I've |\n| 18 | covered before on this one, except that we renew our request |\n| 19 | that Mr. Lawall be compelled to file, you know -- he can |\n| 20 | have enough time to consult with this client, but we need to |\n| 21 | understand that the son will come to the U.S. to testify |\n| 22 | under oath.
Because if that's not happening, that's a huge |\n| 23 | waste of time. |\n| 24 | So there are other Sherry-Netherland related |\n| 25 | adversary proceedings and those involve the termination of |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 21 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | the use by Mr. Kwok and potentially other family members of |\n| 2 | the apartment.
And on that the issue is very simple.
You |\n| 3 | know, they filed, or a number of them filed a request to |\n| 4 | say, oh, we should get three more weeks because of the |\n| 5 | incarceration or because of the fire.
There's no rush |\n| 6 | because nobody can use the apartment anyway. |\n| 7 | And I told you, Your Honor, our view is, okay, if |\n| 8 | they need more time, a week is plenty of time, but we need |\n| 9 | to move forward on this because we need to clear all of |\n| 10 | these things out for other matters that need to be -- that |\n| 11 | need to be dealt with.
Otherwise the runway will be |\n| 12 | completely congested. |\n| 13 | Next, is still -- I'm sorry.
In that adversary |\n| 14 | proceeding, the second one, which is what's called the |\n| 15 | termination of use adversary proceeding, Bravo Luck filed an |\n| 16 | intervention motion. |\n| 17 | We've had discussions with them about settling |\n| 18 | that by basically saying that nothing that will happen in |\n| 19 | that proceeding will affect the ownership issue, but those |\n| 20 | discussions are still pending. |\n| 21 | Still in the Sherry-Netherland, the last point, |\n| 22 | point two, is the emergency order.
We submitted a |\n| 23 | modification yesterday to provide that the Trustee -- not |\n| 24 | the Trustee, but the experts retained by the Trustee should |\n| 25 | have access to the apartment subject to supervision from the |\n| | |\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
22 |\n| 1 | Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 2 | The point is very simple, Your Honor.
You can |\n| 3 | imagine that with these sums involved, there could be a |\n| 4 | debate over coverage based on various arguments.
And our |\n| 5 | job is to make sure there is coverage if we can because |\n| 6 | that's in the interest of the estate. |\n| 7 | And so if the insurance companies who financially |\n| 8 | are conflicted, I'm not saying this in a negative way, but |\n| 9 | it's not in their interest of paying normally, if they're |\n| 10 | going to have their experts there, we want to have our |\n| 11 | people side by side with them to see what they're doing, |\n| 12 | what they're looking at, so that if there's ever an issue |\n| 13 | six months down the road, we're in the position where |\n| 14 | there's an expert from AIG that comes in with this, you |\n| 15 | know, video with very detailed information, and our expert |\n| 16 | comes in to say I never saw the place, I have no idea what |\n| 17 | went on there, so that's why we want access. |\n| 18 | You know, again, if people want to object to that, |\n| 19 | we'd be happy to entertain their objections, but we think |\n| 20 | that that modification should be made to the emergency order |\n\n to allow us to send our own experts to monitor what's going on.\n\n Moving on, Your Honor, to the Lady May. That's item C. As we said in our motion that's being heard now, today, seeking an expedited hearing, we're really concerned\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 23 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
23 |\n| 1 | that in light of the recent events, and we know that Mr. |\n| 2 | Vartan as lead counsel is not here, not on Zoom either, that |\n| 3 | the Lady May is being abandoned.
So I'm happy to be wrong |\n| 4 | on that. |\n| 5 | But, you know, they called us like on March 6th to |\n| 6 | say, oh, we can't get -- this was before the fire, Your |\n| 7 | Honor, they called us to say we can't get insurance for the |\n| 8 | Lady May.
It expires on March 28.
And the reason they said |\n| 9 | is that the ownership of the yacht -- and, you know, the |\n| 10 | subtext there is Kwok, and, you know -- we cannot let this |\n| 11 | asset be uninsured. |\n| 12 | And also at the same time, remember you had |\n| 13 | ordered that the daughter appear here for a hearing on the |\n| 14 | issue of Lamp Capital's obligation to pay.
Well they |\n| 15 | withdrew that motion, which they thought was a clever way |\n| 16 | of, well, then she doesn't need to appear, because it's |\n| 17 | their motion and, therefore, she doesn't need to appear and |\n| 18 | we don't need to deal with that issue and we'll just let the |\n| 19 | Trustee deal with the consequences. |\n| 20 | But, you know, we're, you know, and creditors are |\n| 21 | calling me.
You know, I'll say -- sorry to out PAX, but |\n| 22 | they're saying what are you doing Trustee to protect this |\n| 23 | asset?
If there's a fire at the Sherry-Netherland, there |\n| 24 | could be a fire there too.
So what are you doing about |\n| 25 | this? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 24 And my response is I don't own that asset. I can't go in and insure or put, you know, security guards there. I have no control over this asset. And on top of that, Your Honor, we received a call from the Yachtzoo folks today saying that they have no more -- there's no contact between them and what they call the family office, which is probably Golden Spring or something like that, and that they're concerned that the yacht is being abandoned. They didn't use those terms. That's my spin on it to be fair. They're concerned that there are no more payments being made and that they don't know what the future holds. So, therefore, what we did, Your Honor, is to file a discrete summary judgment just on the collateral estoppel. And I want to be very clear, Your Honor, that's not my preference. That was not my preference. Why? Because I believe the evidence is compelling as a package. I believe that that count is compelling as well. But I don't -- I never want to put all my eggs in the same basket, but here we are doing that because that's the only claim that's discrete, that's legal in nature only. There's no witnesses there, meaning there's, you know, no need to bring Judge Ostrager as a witness to see what he said. We have that. The Trustee does not need to testify because I had no knowledge of this. I didn't exist\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 25 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
25 |\n| 1 | at that time.
And it's a very discrete count, but it gives |\n| 2 | us ownership.
We believe it should give us ownership of the |\n| 3 | ship. |\n| 4 | As I said, that's not our preference.
I'd rather |\n| 5 | have a full-blown hearing because we believe the evidence is |\n| 6 | compelling.
But the facts force us to seek summary |\n| 7 | judgment.
And we're not saying that's the basis to grant |\n| 8 | summary judgment. |\n| 9 | We're just saying that -- explaining to the Court |\n| 10 | why we are seeking summary judgment on that count only |\n| 11 | because that's the only one we see as a clear path without |\n| 12 | evidence, without delay, to get title to the ship, which is |\n| 13 | important to protect the ship. |\n| 14 | We also believe that's there no prejudice at all |\n| 15 | to the other side because, one, this issue has been on the |\n| 16 | table for more than six months.
Two, fully briefed.
For |\n| 17 | the PJR, this issue of collateral estoppel was fully briefed |\n| 18 | on both sides.
And I expressly told the team do not add one |\n| 19 | new case to the brief so that nobody can say, oh, there's a |\n| 20 | new argument, et cetera.
It's exactly the same argument, |\n| 21 | the same cases, same case law, it's all the same. |\n| 22 | So we were ready to argue this before Your Honor |\n| 23 | on March 15th, so people should be ready to do that.
We |\n| 24 | said, next week, on Monday, because that's the day before |\n| 25 | the expiration of the insurance coverage not knowing your |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 26 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | calendar, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | But the point is people should be ready to brief |\n| 3 | that like immediately because it's already been briefed.
So |\n| 4 | that's the Lady May and the situation there from our |\n| 5 | perspective. |\n| 6 | And I want to be clear that before doing this we |\n| 7 | did send the team, what I call the Kwok team and the Lady |\n| 8 | May team, an email saying, look, we understand the policy is |\n| 9 | about to expire.
If we're wrong, if you found somebody |\n| 10 | else, tell us.
That was sent on Saturday. |\n| 11 | If we're wrong about your willingness to fund the |\n| 12 | cost of the Lady May, you know, tell us.
Other than through |\n| 13 | the repair reserve which they've already taken the position |\n| 14 | that it should be taken out of the repair reserve, other |\n| 15 | than that, you know, tell us.
And there was no response. |\n| 16 | There's still no response to date.
So that's more than 48 |\n| 17 | hours ago.
So that's why we're proceeding in that fashion, |\n| 18 | Your Honor. |\n| 19 | So, Your Honor, there are updates on the 2004 |\n| 20 | discovery, but -- and they're matters on specifically on |\n| 21 | 2004 that I believe you scheduled. |\n| 22 | For example, the issue if the debtor should get |\n| 23 | more time to respond to the refusal to produce based on the |\n| 24 | Fifth Amendment.
I believe that you scheduled that for |\n| 25 | today.
Mr. Bassett will handle that. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 27 I just don't want to spend -- take too much of your time. But I think I've covered a lot of ground. I'm sure that opposing counsel will have views. And also people on what I would call our side of the aisle may have views as well. So at this point, subject to Your Honor having questions for me, I think I will let others be heard on these various issues. THE COURT: Okay. I do have a question or two. And I think I understood your report. So taking your report in order. So you don't have any -- you don't have any information yourself right now about what the status of the damage to the apartment is? You just, you said you had hearsay basically at this point. MR. DESPINS: Correct. It's materially substantial, but I don't have first hand, no. THE COURT: And they're -- your understanding is that there's some investigation by authorities? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: The FBI, the fire -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. So I've checked twice a day, and she's been properly annoyed with me for doing this, but counsel for the Sherry-Netherland, saying can we get in, can we get in, can we get in? Not we, but the insurance people and all that. And she's reported to me every time it's a\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 28 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
28 |\n| 1 | sealed place.
Only the police department or the FBI can |\n| 2 | have access.
The minute it's open, we will let you know. |\n| 3 | So as of today, as of now.
But she's here.
She has new |\n| 4 | news, she will tell us, so I don't think there's, you know, |\n| 5 | still a closed scene. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And with regard to the |\n| 7 | insurance coverage issue that you raised, does the estate |\n| 8 | have to make a formal claim on AIG's policies here, or -- |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, we have in a sense that we put |\n| 10 | them on notice. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
And so we're covering those bases. |\n| 13 | But I think we're talking about a lot of time before we hear |\n| 14 | what their position is. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Just curious about the claim issue. |\n| 18 | With regard to a hearing we've already had on the |\n| 19 | Sherry-Netherland and the motion, I think it was a motion |\n| 20 | that you filed to allow Sotheby's to also lease the |\n| 21 | property, not just try to sell the property, there was a |\n| 22 | notation on the docket I believe that we needed a new |\n| 23 | proposed order to grant that.
And I don't think we've seen |\n| 24 | that yet with regard to the Sherry-Netherland.
At least if |\n| 25 | it's been filed, I haven't seen it. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 29 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
29 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
I thought we had.
But my colleague |\n| 2 | is here.
If I may consult? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
I'm told that it was emailed to the |\n| 5 | courtroom deputy on March 10th, the revised order. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
Well, then I -- we'll find |\n| 7 | that.
Okay.
I don't -- maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't see |\n| 8 | it.
So that might be my fault. |\n| 9 | The amended emergency order that you filed |\n| 10 | yesterday with regard to the access to the apartment, are |\n| 11 | you asking that that be set for a hearing or are you asking |\n| 12 | the Court to enter that? |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:
We're asking the Court to enter it. |\n| 14 | Unless people have objections.
But I have not heard |\n| 15 | objections.
But of course given it's done on 24-hour's |\n| 16 | notice -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
We'll address that then. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I'll need to address that as part of |\n| 20 | this conference. |\n| 21 | So one thing we haven't done yet is -- one of the |\n| 22 | matters -- mean, we set the hearing today on the status |\n| 23 | conference in which you stated that you were going to |\n| 24 | address the things that you have addressed in your report. |\n| 25 | We have not addressed the -- |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 30 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
30 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
The motion to remove the Trustee. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
And when you talk about the PJR |\n| 5 | hearing that was supposed to start last week, obviously that |\n| 6 | didn't start.
Well, it started.
We had a hearing. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
But the orders have entered. |\n| 9 | But with regard to the issue about the summary |\n| 10 | judgment on the collateral estoppel effect of Justice |\n| 11 | Ostrager's findings regarding the ownership of the boat, |\n| 12 | that's something you want to be addressed before next |\n| 13 | Tuesday? |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah.
We want Your Honor today to |\n| 15 | schedule a hearing so that it's -- of course, we don't know |\n| 16 | your schedule, so we said Monday because wanted to give them |\n| 17 | the most amount of time possible to challenge this.
So they |\n| 18 | would file a response on Sunday and then we would have a |\n| 19 | hearing on Monday.
Not ideal for anyone, but that's what we |\n| 20 | propose. |\n| 21 | But for us, we believe that's the only clear |\n| 22 | chance, and I say chance, not a guarantee, of getting |\n| 23 | insurance in place by -- before the expiration of the other |\n| 24 | policy. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I just wanted to make sure I |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 31 understood your request. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. So on the issue of removing the Trustee, Your Honor, this is another, you know, reset button issue. Whatever the merits of that motion were then, which I thought didn't, had no merits, but at this point, we believe it's sanctionable for them to prosecute that motion today given what has transpired since then. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But I'll let them be heard on that. THE COURT: Right. I'm just -- I'm just trying to keep everything in order here. Just give me one moment, please. (Pause.) THE COURT: So, Trustee Despins, you also said that at one point, and I think you don't want to address it right now, but you talked about the 2004 discovery issues. And then I have no idea where things stand with regard to the contempt findings made with regard to the HK parties and what has happened with Golden Spring and Lamp Capital on the order to show cause. I think we have a hearing scheduled on that correct, April 18th, I think it is. And there was an issue about service of that the first time, service of the order to show cause on Golden Spring and Lamp Capital. And where does that stand? Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 31 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 32 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
For the record, it's Nick Bassett, |\n| 4 | from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 5 | I'm happy to address those issues, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | So with respect to -- first of all, I'm happy to |\n| 7 | provide a more extensive update on 2004 discovery generally |\n| 8 | if that would be helpful to the Court. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I don't think we need to do that right |\n| 10 | at the moment. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
But Trustee Despins mentioned it. |\n| 13 | What I'm really trying to understand is -- |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Sure. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
-- there are a lot of things |\n| 16 | obviously, but there was the contempt finding with the HK |\n| 17 | parties and Attorney Vartan.
I know that you asked for some |\n| 18 | time, additional time, to file your documents with regard to |\n| 19 | fees and that's fine.
I think that was granted even, I |\n| 20 | believe.
Okay. |\n| 21 | And then with regard to Golden Spring and Lamp |\n| 22 | Capital, the issue when we had that -- we had a hearing a |\n| 23 | few weeks ago and the issue was that the order to show cause |\n| 24 | hadn't been served. |\n| 25 | And then there was something filed by the HK |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 33 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
33 |\n| 1 | parties I believe that at least gave an address for Lamp |\n| 2 | Capital that you didn't have before for service.
Is that |\n| 3 | correct? |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
That's exactly right, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | As I reported at the last hearing at which we |\n| 6 | addressed this topic, we had received notification that the |\n| 7 | registered agent we had served previously for Lamp Capital |\n| 8 | was reporting that they no longer served as the registered |\n| 9 | agent, so that was the issue that we were having at the |\n| 10 | time.
We were able to resolve that and find a party to |\n| 11 | serve based on what Your Honor just alluded to. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
I believe it was the HK parties who, |\n| 14 | themselves, served Lamp Capital through an individual whose |\n| 15 | name has come up throughout the course of these proceedings. |\n| 16 | So we have -- we've served Lamp Capital through that person. |\n| 17 | We also -- and this happened I think just |\n| 18 | yesterday as a matter of fact, and we also have served |\n| 19 | Golden Spring again. |\n| 20 | And we will, if we have not already, be filing |\n| 21 | certificates of service on the docket so they will then have |\n| 22 | notice from our perspective of the hearing on the 18th on |\n| 23 | the order to show cause.
And we're prepared to appear then |\n| 24 | and, you know, address whatever issues may need to be |\n| 25 | addressed at that time. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 34 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And then I don't know if you're |\n| 2 | the right person to answer this question or the Trustee is |\n| 3 | or a combination of both of you, or anyone else I suppose |\n| 4 | that might want to be heard, so Yvette Wang has been |\n| 5 | arrested according to the Trustee.
And how does that impact |\n| 6 | what's going on with the Ace Decade entities in the UBS |\n| 7 | litigation in London? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
If I may, Your Honor, I'll address |\n| 9 | that? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
So what's happening in the U.K. is |\n| 12 | that there's still people appearing on behalf of Ace Decade |\n| 13 | saying -- lawyers, not saying who they're getting their |\n| 14 | instructions from, but -- and who claim that their clients |\n| 15 | control Ace Decade.
They're not saying who that is. |\n| 16 | And the Appellate Court in the U.K. ruled in favor |\n| 17 | of -- ruled against UBS, meaning found that there's |\n| 18 | jurisdiction in the U.K. to proceed with the claim. |\n| 19 | So what's happening right now is that UBS has sent |\n| 20 | me a letter saying you sat on the sidelines on the appeal. |\n| 21 | Going forward we need to know what your position is because |\n| 22 | the costs here will be in the order of maybe 300-500,000 |\n| 23 | pounds.
And so I'm dealing with that issue. |\n| 24 | But they're making the same request of Ace Decade |\n| 25 | and I understand there are negotiations going on between Ace |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 35 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
35 |\n| 1 | Decade and UBS on that matter. |\n| 2 | So the point is, I don't know what impact Yvette |\n| 3 | Wang has on this.
To be clear, our position has always been |\n| 4 | -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, isn't that the whole -- wasn't |\n| 6 | that the whole issue before was that -- |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
Well, our position has always |\n| 8 | been Yvette Wang is just a -- she's a title holder.
She has |\n| 9 | no -- she's an assistant.
She doesn't make decisions.
She |\n| 10 | just -- she's the owner or the controlling person of many of |\n| 11 | Mr. Kwok's entities, but it means nothing in terms of really |\n| 12 | her decision-making power.
It's all Kwok decides. |\n| 13 | So the answer is I don't know who's behind Ace |\n| 14 | Decade.
Personally, I think it's Kwok.
But I can't -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
What about -- weren't you -- I mean, |\n| 16 | maybe Mr. Bassett has to answer this question too, but |\n| 17 | wasn't there a problem with you trying to subpoena her |\n| 18 | because you didn't have an address and nobody would provide |\n| 19 | you with an address -- |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- and all the questions that were |\n| 22 | asked said we don't know how to locate her. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, do you know how to locate her |\n| 25 | now? |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 36 MR. DESPINS: Well, we know which -- where we can locate her, yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: We know she's at the -- THE COURT: So then you could serve her with a subpoena? Well, I don't know if you're going to, but you're saying -- MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: -- you can locate her now? MR. DESPINS: Well -- THE COURT: The issue -- at least as of now because there's an arrest. There's an indictment? MR. DESPINS: Correct. Well, there's -- THE COURT: What is there? MR. DESPINS: I don't know if it's a -- it was not a grand jury indictment. It was some other form that I'm not familiar with. But certainly she was charged with something. And she was held on \\$5 million bail. So I don't know if she posted bail or not. So we will check the docket in our case to see if she was released. But if she's going to be released, I know that one of the conditions is that she had to stay at her apartment with ankle bracelet and the whole -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- you know, the whole thing. Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 36 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 37 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
37 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
I just -- that's, you |\n| 2 | know, that's an issue that's been raised before this court |\n| 3 | several times -- |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- the issue of Ace Decade, who |\n| 6 | controls it, and the issue about Ms. Wang and her location. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So I assume if she's been arrested, |\n| 9 | somebody knows where she is. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah.
We know where she is, yeah. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Then the only other questions or |\n| 14 | issues that the parties, you know, asked the Court to look |\n| 15 | at, well, I don't know if all the parties asked the Court to |\n| 16 | look at, but you did, I know that, you asked me last week |\n| 17 | when we were starting the PJR hearing to look at the |\n| 18 | indictment that names Mr. Kwok and Mr. Je I believe. |\n| 19 | And there were assets that were -- seemed to be |\n| 20 | identified in that indictment that I'd never heard of in |\n| 21 | this case.
So is that the issues that you're trying to work |\n| 22 | out with the Department of Justice? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
That's one of the items that we're |\n| 24 | going to discuss with them.
There are two types of issues. |\n| 25 | Assets that they have actually frozen, like bank accounts. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 38 THE COURT: Yeah, I saw that. MR. DESPINS: And that -- and there's hundreds -- THE COURT: I'm talking more about things -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- that I'd never heard. Not that I should. I'm just saying. There's a -- there's a -- MR. DESPINS: No. For example, there's a house in New Jersey. THE COURT: Right. That was one. MR. DESPINS: That was news to us. THE COURT: And then a number of luxury automobiles. MR. DESPINS: We knew about some of those, but -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- so we were -- you know, that's one -- it was on our task list. So, yeah. We learned of new things in there. So one of the discussion items with them is how do we proceed? Because they're on the same wavelength that we need to make distributions to victims as quickly as possible. They know that even though they have stronger and better tools than we have in terms of identifying assets and all that, that we probably can proceed faster than them because they need to wait for a criminal conviction and that Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 38 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 39 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
39 |\n| 1 | could take a long time.
A trial is not likely to happen for |\n| 2 | a year or so.
So that's one of the discussions I am -- we |\n| 3 | need to have with them.
And hopefully it will be -- |\n| 4 | I mean, in the past, Your Honor, you know this |\n| 5 | from Goldberg, is that in the past these -- the way these |\n| 6 | cases have been resolved is the Chapter 11 Trustee gets |\n| 7 | appointed in both courts. |\n| 8 | Well, I'm already a Chapter 11 Trustee in this |\n| 9 | court, but gets appointed as the forfeiture manager or |\n| 10 | receiver, I forget the exact term, in the other court, and |\n| 11 | then this court has jurisdiction over how that process |\n| 12 | works. |\n| 13 | By the way, I don't want to mislead anyone. |\n| 14 | Nobody has agreed to that.
I'm just saying that there have |\n| 15 | been -- there are many examples involving Ponzi schemes or |\n| 16 | other cases of the sort where the Government realizes that |\n| 17 | they're very good at finding people, finding assets, but |\n| 18 | they're not the best at distributing assets and |\n| 19 | understanding who has a valid claim and who doesn't. |\n| 20 | So just to give you an example, the Fair Fund that |\n| 21 | the SEC collected for the GTV matter more than a year ago, |\n| 22 | only 70 million of that 425 million has been distributed. |\n| 23 | I'm not knocking them.
I'm just saying that they're -- this |\n| 24 | is not what they do. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
So is one of the issues that you're |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 40 going to have to coordinate at some point I would assume is the -- some people -- you've made -- some people have made comments about this SEC complaint and Fair Fund, but I don't believe that's anywhere in the record of this case I don't think. But you've talked about it so I have an idea. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: And actually, one of the witnesses testified about it -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- during the preliminary injunction hearing, right? She got back half of what she put in. MR. DESPINS: The 500,000. THE COURT: So, yeah. MR. DESPINS: The Government employee, yes. THE COURT: So I have an idea about what it is, but I don't -- I'm not professing to fully understand it. But is one of the issues that you're going to have to deal with in this case and with the I guess the Securities and Exchange Commission, if there are claims asserted in both that proceeding and this proceeding? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Except that -- So just a little bit of background on that case. Kwok was not a named party in that case. THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 40 of\n\nMR. DESPINS: His companies, again, that's my spin\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 41 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
41 |\n| 1 | on it, were involved.
And so what happened is the SEC |\n| 2 | realized that there was a public offering going on that was |\n| 3 | not registered and there were thousands of people sending |\n| 4 | money in.
So they froze that.
They were able to freeze the |\n| 5 | money or most of the money.
I think they're missing 37 |\n| 6 | million -- I shouldn't say 37 million because that's going |\n| 7 | to look like the other 37 -- but 30 million and change is |\n| 8 | missing, but they were able to freeze 425 million. |\n| 9 | And so they told the victims please come to us, |\n| 10 | file a request to receive some money.
People have done |\n| 11 | that.
But most of them are in Mandarin, not English |\n| 12 | speakers, so there's a lot of -- and so, therefore, to date, |\n| 13 | they've only been able to validate 70 million of |\n| 14 | distributions -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
-- out of the 425. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Now, what you just said is -- I may be |\n| 18 | just -- again, I don't -- you have a lot more knowledge than |\n| 19 | I do, but the 400 and some odd thousand that you're -- |\n| 20 | million, excuse me -- that you're talking about that the SEC |\n| 21 | has frozen, is that separate and distinct from the monies |\n| 22 | that are set forth in the -- |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
From the 600, yeah.
From the 630, |\n| 24 | yes. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 42 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
42 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
A lot of money.
Yes. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
That's -- |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
It's 630 plus 425, yes. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right. |\n| 5 | Now, I think, unless someone has some objection to |\n| 6 | the contrary, that we should deal with the issues in the |\n| 7 | main case first and then turn to specific motions and things |\n| 8 | that are in the adversary proceedings, that we put -- you |\n| 9 | know, as part of this status conference so that we can try |\n| 10 | to figure out where we're going from here.
All right. |\n| 11 | So if I were to look at the main case first, and I |\n| 12 | could be completely wrong, but it seems to me, unless the |\n| 13 | attorneys for Mr. Kwok and Ms. Guo and HK have some other |\n\n position, and maybe Mr. Kwok's spouse, does anyone have an objection to the motion to amend the emergency order about access to the apartment?\n\n I have looked at the order. I have to tell you have I studied it? No. But I've looked at it. And my original -- my review of it was that it didn't seem to me to be controversial. However, I obviously could be wrong. I mean, that parties -- it got filed yesterday. I don't remember what time it got filed. We've had hearings today. I've looked at -- I've looked at it.\n\n Does any party, either in the courtroom or on the phone, on the Zoom hearing, have an objection to the entry\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 43 of the amended emergency order regarding access to the Sherry-Netherland apartment? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, James Moriarty on behalf of the debtor. Between Attorney Henzy and I, admittedly we did not look at that order yesterday. I don't recall seeing it come through on ECF. THE COURT: It did though because I got it. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: So then you got it. MR. MORIARTY: I don't doubt it. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. MORIARTY: As I said, I didn't see it. THE COURT: No. I'm just telling you it did, that's all. MR. MORIARTY: If we -- if we can have a chance to take a look at it, maybe the Trustee's counsel has a copy, I don't think we've going to have an objection. THE COURT: We can print out a copy for you right now if you'd like. MR. MORIARTY: We do need to read it first. THE COURT: I understand. Hold on a second. Okay? MR. MORIARTY: Sure. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: We have a copy here. Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 44 MR. MORIARTY: They have a copy over there, Your Honor. THE COURT: Oh, they have a copy right there? MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. Well, hold on a second. (Pause.) THE COURT: So the proposed amended order appears as 1562. And it may be, Mr. Moriarty, you didn't know what it was because it doesn't say in the title, you know, you'd have to open up the document, that it shows that it's amending the order about the access to the apartment. So in your ECF notification, I think it just said notice of proposed order or something. MR. MORIARTY: So having looked at it, no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LAWALL: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LAWALL: On Zoom, Your Honor, again, Fran Lawall on behalf of Bravo. Your Honor, the concern we have is not giving the Trustee access and the ability to investigate, it's simply that Bravo, again, given the ownership issues, would like to be able to do a walk-through with the Trustee so we can Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 44 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 45 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
45 |\n| 1 | report to the client the status of the property and have the |\n| 2 | ability to hire our own investigator so that there's |\n| 3 | complete transparency here. |\n| 4 | Obviously, there's been a lot of allegations, |\n| 5 | which this is not the appropriate place to refute, but there |\n| 6 | is a significant issue with respect to ownership and we |\n| 7 | would simply like to have the ability to have our own |\n| 8 | independent investigator come in, work closely with the |\n| 9 | Trustee's investigator, so there's full transparency, but to |\n| 10 | make sure that we have access and we understand exactly what |\n| 11 | happened here as well. |\n| 12 | We would not impede the Trustee's investigation, |\n| 13 | but we would like the ability to bring in our own |\n| 14 | investigator to take a look at what's happening given the |\n| 15 | serious allegations that exist here. |\n| 16 | And until the issue with respect to ownership of |\n| 17 | this property is determined, and we can speak to that in a |\n| 18 | couple of minutes, Your Honor, when you turn to the Sherry |\n| 19 | issues, but at this stage, those issues remain live and they |\n| 20 | are important. |\n| 21 | And, again, we're not looking to impede the |\n| 22 | Trustee's doing.
Simply to make sure that we are able to |\n| 23 | take a look independently and see exactly what happened |\n| 24 | here. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor? |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 46 THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. I need to address that because Bravo Luck is Kwok. Okay. Let's not kid ourselves. The DOJ, FBI, I don't think he's going to -- I don't want to get involved in whether -- what rights he has to go and inspect the property. Whether he has these rights under criminal law, he'll exercise those rights, but not through the back door of Bravo Luck. I am 150 percent motivated to find that there's no coverage issue so that I'm covering the bases for Bravo Luck here. The argument that somehow -- on what planet would we go there and try to find that there's no coverage? That's insanity. My job is to get all the coverage that's available. So we don't need to have Bravo Luck, which by the way, let's not kid ourselves, Bravo Luck is Mr. Lawall and the son of the debtor. The debtor is in prison. You know, this court should not be involved in whatever the rights of the defendant in a criminal case are to send someone to inspect the property or not. That's for the criminal court to decide that. If he has that right, God bless him, he'll have access. But it's not for this court to do that. And to allow Bravo Luck access is really, you Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 46 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 47 know, a disguised way for the debtor to have access. Because the argument that an allegation's been made, yeah, tons of allegations have been made. But my job as the Trustee, as I said, is for everyone to see I want insurance coverage. So if anything, we're in a bizarre way aligned on that issue. So we don't need to have supervision. And it's just going to muddy the water with the criminal case and I don't want to do that, Your Honor. MR. LAWALL: Your Honor, if I may? I have been listening to the Trustee besmirch counsel, Bravo Luck and everyone else without evidence and at some point it's got to stop. The Trustee itself filed a motion with respect to the ownership issue. The Trustee acknowledges the \\$70 million came from Bravo Luck to buy this property. We have been before this court at every step of the way trying to move this litigation forward in a respectful way where evidence actually matters. The Trustee is trying to run roughshod over this. But to take shots at counsel, Your Honor, are entirely inappropriate. All we're asking for, Your Honor, and we're not trying to delay this, simply there is an ownership issue. And we will be there. There are issues with respect to Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 47 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 48 insurance. It goes beyond insurance, Your Honor. Because if there are allegations with respect to how this happened, the Trustee has made wild allegations. And at some point, they're probably going to spin an allegation that somehow Bravo Luck caused this fire. I'm saying, Your Honor, respectfully, enough already. All we're asking for is to follow the procedure. Let us -- let us at least have our own expert with the Trustee at our own cost to investigate what happened here. That's all. But I apologize, Your Honor, for getting animated. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, there was no allegations vis-a-vis -- first of all, I haven't heard -- I have not made any allegations regarding how the fire started or anything like that. So the allegations were about the fact that there's -- that the schedules of assets and liabilities in this case are fiction and I stand by that. Now, no argument has been made as to how and why the Trustee is not completely motivated to find coverage here and to find all the arguments in support of coverage, which should be Bravo Luck's position as well. So the only reason why they should have access is Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 48 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 49 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | because there's another angle that they want to pursue.
If |\n| 2 | they -- if they think they should be covered, so do we. |\n| 3 | That's our job to try to make sure there is coverage. |\n| 4 | So what's the argument as to why they need to be |\n| 5 | involved? |\n| 6 | MR. LAWALL:
Your Honor, the reason is simple. |\n| 7 | The Trustee has repeatedly turned allegations into facts and |\n| 8 | then asked Your Honor to act on them.
We don't want the |\n| 9 | Trustee doing this in connection with the investigation. |\n| 10 | All we're asking for is to have an independent |\n| 11 | investigator, which, Your Honor, you can review the results. |\n| 12 | But we do, given the way the Trustee has conducted himself |\n| 13 | up to now, we are concerned about the neutrality of this |\n| 14 | investigation. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, let me -- let me just stop you |\n| 16 | for a second, Counsel. |\n| 17 | The only change to the order that's requested, |\n| 18 | that was requested in the -- an order has already entered. |\n| 19 | The only change in the order that was requested yesterday |\n| 20 | was to -- for access to any experts engaged by the Trustee |\n| 21 | and/or Genever U.S. to investigate the condition of the |\n| 22 | Sherry-Netherland apartment and/or the circumstances of the |\n| 23 | fire as accompanied by personnel of the Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 24 | So no one is going into the apartment other than |\n| 25 | authorities that have the right to go into the apartment |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 50 of
100 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
50 |\n| over which this court has no jurisdiction to -- they have to |\n| be accompanied by the personnel of the Sherry-Netherland. |\n| So with that in place, I think your clients interests are |\n| protected. |\n| And I'm prepared to enter that order with that |\n| change.
Okay?
So I understand your concerns, but I'm |\n| overruling your concerns. |\n| And I'm going to enter the amended emergency order |\n| with the -- with that, that's the only change in the order. |\n| The order's been in place since last week.
So it will be -- |\n| I will tell the courtroom deputy that the order appears in |\n| 15 -- document I.D. ECF No. 1562, and the conclusion of the |\n| hearings today -- |\n| Oh, I'm sorry, Counsel.
Did you wish to be heard? |\n| MS. MILLMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| Not to challenge entry of the amended order now -- |\n| THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
I'm sorry, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Yeah.
Hold on one second. |\n| MS. MILLMAN:
Yeah.
This is Sherry -- |\n| THE COURT:
Just if you'd state your name for the |\n| record, please. |\n| MS. MILLMAN:
Apologies.
This is Sherry Millman |\n| with Strook on behalf of the Sherry-Netherland.
And we're |\n| not by any means challenging the changes to the order. |\n| I just wanted to state again for the record that |\n| |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 51 as I think Mr. Despins told the Court the Sherry-Netherland is under direction from the federal, you know, authorities investigating that no one can get in as of yet. THE COURT: Sure. MS. MILLMAN: So any implementation of the other aspects of this order would await the authorities instructing us -- THE COURT: Absolutely. MS. MILLMAN: -- that we're allowed to. THE COURT: Absolutely. And the only addition to the order that the Trustee's asked for says any experts engaged by the Trustee. So he hasn't done that yet as far as I know. And so this is -- this is just to have that provision in the order. And I completely agree with you. When we discussed this order last week at the hearings, we all understood that this is an investigation scene that is under the jurisdiction apparently of the FBI, the New York City Police and Fire Department. So this court has no control over any of those entities and would never expect to have control. All this order does is -- not all, but what it does is once there's an ability for any of the parties in this order, other than those investigation authorities to have access, they will have access, but only with regard to Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 51 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 52 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
52 |\n| 1 | your clients being -- accompanying them through access. |\n| 2 | MS. MILLMAN:
Correct.
Correct. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So there will be a record kept by your |\n| 4 | client -- |\n| 5 | MS. MILLMAN:
Correct.
Correct. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- of every time anybody other than |\n| 7 | the authorities over which this court has no jurisdiction |\n| 8 | accesses the apartment, and your client will accompany those |\n| 9 | people -- |\n| 10 | MS. MILLMAN:
Correct. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
-- through the apartment at all times. |\n| 12 | MS. MILLMAN:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And that's what the order provides. |\n| 14 | MS. MILLMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
I understand. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yup. |\n| 16 | MS. MILLMAN:
But I just didn't want there to be |\n| 17 | any misunderstanding. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
No, I appreciate that.
No.
I know |\n| 19 | that no one has access to this apartment.
I mean, I don't |\n| 20 | know, I've been told -- |\n| 21 | MS. MILLMAN:
Yes. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
-- but it seems logical, correct -- |\n| 23 | MS. MILLMAN:
Correct. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
-- that no one would have access to |\n| 25 | this apartment at this time.
There's an ongoing |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 53 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | investigation -- |\n| 2 | MS. MILLMAN:
Correct. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- of which has nothing to do with -- |\n| 4 | (Courtroom audio recording equipment malfunction occurred |\n| 5 | between 3:45:33 p.m. and 3:51:30 p.m.
No available audio |\n| 6 | recording between these time stamps.) |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
--
and so what I'm saying to you is |\n| 8 | it's going to be heard fairly soon.
The issue is, is your |\n| 9 | client going to withdraw the motion or proceed with it? |\n| 10 | Which is completely -- you know, that |\n| 11 | determination needs to be made.
I understand that.
And I'm |\n| 12 | not quarreling with it.
But it's going to happen one way or |\n| 13 | another because it has to happen. |\n| 14 | You can't have a case where there's a position of |\n| 15 | a party that says the Trustee who's acting on behalf of |\n| 16 | everyone can't act.
I'm not going to go through three or |\n| 17 | four more months of things and then five months from now |\n| 18 | decide that he can't be the Trustee.
That makes no sense. |\n| 19 | I mean, it's a -- it's an imperative issue in the |\n| 20 | case. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, I understand.
I point out |\n| 22 | the motion's been pending for two and a half months, but -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
The reason's been pending for two and |\n| 24 | a half months, as you well know -- |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Is because of the mediation. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 54 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
54 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
It's also because of the preliminary |\n| 2 | injunction and the other issues that -- |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
There's been a lot -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
-- the Court has had to address -- |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Right. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- and the Federal Rules of Civil |\n| 7 | Procedure require the Court to address first. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, I would ask through April |\n| 11 | 13.
And I understand everything you've said. |\n| 12 | I don't know when I'm going to be able to speak to |\n| 13 | my client.
The communication I've gotten through the, you |\n| 14 | know, frankly, prospective criminal counsel is that -- and |\n| 15 | it's not to say that the bankruptcy is not extremely |\n| 16 | important, but that's -- that is not his priority today.
It |\n| 17 | just is not.
Which I, maybe I'm alone on this, but I |\n| 18 | understand that -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I don't think anybody's quarreling |\n| 20 | with that.
I mean -- |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
So I -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
-- but the issue still is either the |\n| 23 | motion gets withdrawn, it gets granted, or it gets denied. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 55 MR. HENZY: And I would ask for a continuance through April 13. And, Your Honor, I will say I want this to be resolved also, believe me. So I just -- I need to talk to the client. I don't know when I'm going to be able to do that. You know, we're whatever it is, five days out from fairly significant events taking place. I don't know what ability I'm going to have to communicate unless and until he's got criminal counsel. Now, again, maybe the federal public defender will speak to me. I'm not sure about that because I think that that counsel's input here is going to be important. So, anyway, I would ask that the motion be continued to April 13. I understand that I'm going to need to press it as quickly as possible and report to the parties and to the Court what the decision is. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. Your Honor, there is a prejudice to the pendency of this matter. I remember something along those lines being raised in the U.K. about the Trustee might be removed. So we just can't have this, you know, stay out there, particularly given that the arguments in that motion about the settlement was undone for improper reasons, all proved Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 55 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 56 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | out to be true.
Meaning true that the arguments that I made |\n| 2 | about H Coin and all that, exactly what happened. |\n| 3 | So that's why I say that to prosecute this motion |\n| 4 | at this time is sanctionable and we will seek sanctions. |\n| 5 | And it should be -- |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
And he can beat it to death.
Okay.
I |\n| 7 | have a client and I need to speak to my client.
I don't |\n| 8 | think that's hard to understand.
If he wants to threaten me |\n| 9 | with sanctions because I have a client and I need to speak |\n| 10 | to my client, then he can -- he can threaten me with |\n| 11 | sanctions.
I don't think this is -- the position is hard to |\n| 12 | understand though, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | You have a person who's in jail.
He's my client. |\n| 14 | I can't make decisions independent of my client.
I have to |\n| 15 | speak to my client. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 17 | What's the U.S. Trustee's Office position on the |\n| 18 | motion to remove the Trustee? |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, it does need an end. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I can't hear you, Attorney Claiborn. |\n| 21 | I'm sorry. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I think this microphone is -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
That microphone doesn't seem to be |\n| 24 | working.
Huh?
Sorry. |\n| 25 | (Pause.) |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 57 MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I wanted to say that I do think that the motion to remove the Trustee does need an end and it can't stay in perpetuity. And I think that what I didn't quite understand from what Attorney Henzy said is whether or not he actually has tried to speak to his client. I heard different things around other people not being to access his client, but I don't know whether or not he personally tried and was not able to access his client. Long story short, I realize that there are competing interests for Mr. Kwok right now, but this bankruptcy case does need to go and move and it can't sit here until Mr. Kwok decides to prioritize it. So it may be that the Court's best solution is to impose a date and a response time and then Mr. Kwok will have to abide by that. THE COURT: What do you mean a response time? MS. CLAIBORN: Meaning that a continuance to April 13th may just result in Mr. Henzy showing up on April 13th saying I haven't been able to get access to my client. I don't know what the answer is. THE COURT: I see. I just wanted to make sure I understood. MS. CLAIBORN: And what I'm suggesting is that we pick a path that has a very specific time frame for action Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 57 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 58 and decision making. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: I have said I am going to try to the best of my ability, whatever that ability is, to communicate with my client as soon as I can. I'm not a criminal lawyer. Right now, my communication has been through prospective criminal counsel. So I don't know when I'll be able to communicate with my client and when my client will be ready and in a position to talk about this motion. I'm going to act with as much diligence as I possibly can. I'm committing to the Court to that, to the parties, but I can't -- I can't do any more than that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to remove the Trustee? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. I will take a look at the -- right now, we have it scheduled for Thursday. It can't be this Thursday because you have, excuse me, a mediation in another case in this that's already been ordered by a court. So I, Mr. Despins, am not going to move forward with the motion to remove the Trustee on Thursday. I don't Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 58 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 59 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
59 |\n| 1 | know what I'm going to do yet.
I heard what everyone has |\n| 2 | said.
I'm going to think about it and probably -- |\n| 3 | What we need to think about is are the matters on |\n| 4 | -- are the other matters on Thursday, one of I think you're |\n| 5 | seeking to employ counsel in the U.K.
And I don't remember, |\n| 6 | I'll look right now, what the other matters are on Thursday. |\n| 7 | Hold on one second, please. |\n| 8 | So right now, what's scheduled, oh, are motions to |\n| 9 | quash subpoenas and a cross-motion to compel the |\n| 10 | application.
It's all -- mostly is discovery related. |\n| 11 | The motion to remove the Trustee will not be going |\n| 12 | forward on Thursday, the 23rd, at noon.
That's clear.
When |\n| 13 | it will, I'll take a look at it and we'll go from there. |\n| 14 | With regard to the discovery issues on Thursday, |\n| 15 | let's come back to those after we go through the specific |\n| 16 | matters in each of the adversary proceedings.
Okay? |\n| 17 | But just so everyone's clear, we are not having a |\n| 18 | hearing on the motion to remove the Trustee on Thursday, |\n| 19 | March 23rd.
That will be continued and I will figure out |\n| 20 | till what date and time after the hearing today. |\n| 21 | All right.
Now, let's -- now we can start turning |\n| 22 | to, I'm sorry, we still have to deal with the motion to |\n| 23 | extend time to respond to the show cause order with regard |\n| 24 | to Mr. Kwok. |\n| 25 | Mr. Moriarty, I think you filed that motion, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 60 correct? MR. MORIARTY: I did, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. James Moriarty for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. Your Honor, the debtor's response to the order to show cause, which requires him to show cause for his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination in response to this court's order on a motion compel, is currently due on March 28th, 2023. For the reasons that Attorney Henzy just articulated, the inability to get to speak with Mr. Kwok, and really importantly for this issue, Your Honor, we had been communicating on this issue with criminal counsel who had represented Mr. Kwok in various matters, those attorneys are not going to be representing him in this criminal case. 17 Mr. Kwok does not have private criminal counsel at this point in time. He's represented by a public defender as Attorney Henzy said. Mr. Kwok has, we believe, been engaged in trying to find counsel based on conversations that Attorney Henzy has had. So what we're asking for is a 30-day extension to April 27th, 2023 to respond to the order to show cause so that we can communicate with our client regarding the response and communicate with his criminal counsel regarding Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 60 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 61 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | this response which is really going to be a critical |\n| 2 | response because it's a Fifth Amendment issue.
And there |\n| 3 | can't be any doubt at this point in time that Mr. Kwok has a |\n| 4 | reasonable belief that his liberty is in jeopardy since he's |\n| 5 | been indicted and arrested. |\n| 6 | And as we pointed out, one other point, Your |\n| 7 | Honor, in the motion, the Department of Justice is taking a |\n| 8 | very hard stance on Mr. Kwok being let out on bail. |\n| 9 | Nobody's made a bail application at this point in time. |\n| 10 | But assuming that he remains incarcerated, to the |\n| 11 | extent this court orders him to do something, I don't know |\n| 12 | how he could possibly do it.
So that's another factor that |\n| 13 | goes into moving for this extension of time. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | Response to the motion, please. |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, again, Nick Bassett, |\n| 17 | from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Trustee. |\n| 18 | The Trustee opposes the request, Your Honor.
In |\n| 19 | fact, strongly opposes the request for an extension for |\n| 20 | several reasons. |\n| 21 | First, I think we need to not be blind to the |\n| 22 | history here and how long it's taken to get to this point. |\n| 23 | I won't go way back to the beginning, but as the Court well |\n| 24 | knows, we've been seeking this discovery from the Trustee |\n| 25 | since August. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 62 We went through a long arduous process of having a motion to compel, a hearing on that motion, an order that was not followed, an order to show cause. And it was on February 7th actually that the -- and it was even prior to that that we learned from his counsel that the debtor was going to be asserting the Fifth Amendment in a blanket manner supposedly to prevent him from producing a single additional document to the Trustee on any topic whatsoever. And then on February 7th, the debtor submitted a declaration with this court, at that time, that's a month and eight days before the announcement of the indictment and the criminal charges, he at that point had already taken the position that in his view under the law he had the right to assert the Fifth Amendment in blanket fashion as to all discovery sought for him. So to allow the debtor to now -- and I'll get to other points in a moment, but just to level set where we are, to allow the debtor to now get an additional 30 days, he was supposed to comply with the Court's order compelling production in January. And then he was supposed to, if he was going to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in his declaration that the Court ordered him to do on February 7th, he should have explained at that time why it was appropriate for him to\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 63 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | make that assertion and why he, in fact, is entitled to rely |\n| 2 | on the Fifth Amendment to not produce any documents. |\n| 3 | So, yes, the criminal charges have now been filed. |\n| 4 | But as of February 7th, he represented to this court in a |\n| 5 | declaration that his counsel submitted saying he had the |\n| 6 | Fifth Amendment protection at that time.
At a minimum, they |\n| 7 | need to be able to explain to the Court why that was |\n| 8 | justified then. |\n| 9 | If anything now, in light of the criminal charges, |\n| 10 | he may have other things to add to it, but he thought at |\n| 11 | that time he had the ability to make that argument and that |\n| 12 | should be explained. |\n| 13 | The other thing is there's absolutely no reason he |\n| 14 | can't respond by the 28th, which is the current deadline. |\n| 15 | Yes, I understand counsel apparently -- you know, |\n| 16 | I don't know the extent to which access has been tried to |\n| 17 | get by Zeisler to their client.
I understand there's an |\n| 18 | issue with criminal counsel.
But it will be nearly two |\n| 19 | weeks by the 28th since his arrest.
That, under the |\n| 20 | circumstances, I mean, it should be -- it should be enough |\n| 21 | time for them to find a way to consult with their client. |\n| 22 | I don't know what COVID protocols there are at the |\n| 23 | jail, but it can't be that he's not able to visit with |\n| 24 | counsel while he's being held.
That just can't be. |\n| 25 | The other thing I would say is this idea that he |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 64 of\n\n| | 100
Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 64
can't produce -- and the statement in the motion for an |\n| | |\n| 2 | extension was actually shocking when I read it -- the |\n| 3 | statement was that so long as the debtor's incarcerated, |\n| 4 | which based on the charges could theoretically be for the |\n| 5 | rest of his life, he's not able to produce documents in |\n| 6 | response to an order on a motion to compel. |\n| 7 | I don't know why the debtor would need to be |\n| 8 | outside of jail to have his counsel and others in possession |\n| 9 | of documents of which he has custody or control why he can't |\n| 10 | do that while he's incarcerated.
Of course he can.
So I |\n| 11 | don't understand that at all. |\n| 12 | The last point I would make, Your Honor, is that |\n| 13 | there is real urgency here.
We can't just sit back and let |\n| 14 | the debtor continue to perpetually ignore orders of this |\n| 15 | court and ignore his discovery obligations as he has for |\n| 16 | nearly the past year, especially in light of recent events. |\n| 17 | Your Honor, there have been news reports.
And |\n| 18 | obviously what happened at the Sherry-Netherland is under |\n| 19 | investigation.
We don't know what the cause will be.
But |\n| 20 | the New York Post reported that one of the things that's |\n| 21 | being investigated is whether the fire was started remotely |\n| 22 | in the apartment. |\n| 23 | And just a few hours ago, a reputable news outlet |\n| 24 | published a story talking about how in 2017 a Chinese court |\n| 25 | found that the debtor's brother and three other defendants |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 65 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | had burned 80 to 90 -- 70 to 80 boxes of documents, burned |\n| 2 | 70 to 80 boxes of documents that contained accounting |\n| 3 | records, receipts, et cetera that would have been damaging |\n| 4 | to the debtor. |\n| 5 | So, Your Honor, in light of what's going on, there |\n| 6 | are admittedly a lot of crazy events that none of us every |\n| 7 | anticipated, we can't be in a world where whoever has |\n| 8 | documents that might be critical to this case that we |\n| 9 | requested long ago can just sit on them and we the Trustee |\n| 10 | have to bear the risk of what might happen to those |\n| 11 | documents in the future. |\n| 12 | So we strongly object.
And to a 30-day extension, |\n| 13 | we absolutely object to that, Your Honor.
There's no reason |\n| 14 | it should be delayed at all, and certainly not by 30 days. |\n| 15 | Thank you. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
The only thing I would say in response |\n| 17 | to what you just said, Counsel, is with regard to the |\n| 18 | reports about the fire and the burning of other information |\n| 19 | some time ago, there's nothing in the record here in this |\n| 20 | court to support any of that, so I have to not consider |\n| 21 | that.
I mean, it's not at this point, you know -- |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
And I'm not asking the Court to |\n| 23 | consider that, Your Honor, as facts.
Certainly not.
All |\n| 24 | I'm saying is that just in light of the possibility that |\n| 25 | anything can happen -- |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 66 THE COURT: I understand that. I mean -- MR. BASSETT: -- we can't be in a world where we just sit back and wait. THE COURT: -- that's possible in any situation, right? I understand your point. I do understand that point. But, you know, unless and until the investigation produces some -- the investigation by the authorities who are investigating, right, produces something about how the fire was started or whatever, I just am not taking that into consideration. What I'm taking into consideration are issues that both parties have raised, which are that the discovery's been pending since August of 2020, that there have been different orders of this court that have required compliance with that discovery, that Mr. Kwok filed a blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege in February before -- I think more than a month before the indictment was issued, and that counsel is saying they need time to communicate with him. I'm going to take all of that into consideration in determining what to do in connection with the motion for extension of time. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor. THE COURT: I think Mr. Friedman wants to be Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 66 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 67 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
67 |\n| 1 | heard. |\n| 2 | Hold on just a second, Mr. Friedman. |\n| 3 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes.
I just wanted to make -- |\n| 4 | sorry. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Just hold on a second. |\n| 6 | So, Mr. Bassett, is there anything else you wanted |\n| 7 | to add? |\n| 8 | MR. BASSETT:
No.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | All right.
Go ahead, Mr. Friedman. |\n| 11 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Your Honor, I just wanted to say we |\n| 12 | think it's really important that this issue get addressed |\n| 13 | quickly because, for example, the debtor's obligations are |\n| 14 | ongoing. |\n| 15 | The debtor may, in the context of his defense, |\n| 16 | receive financial information from the Government, that is, |\n| 17 | the Government's required to produce.
He may on his own |\n| 18 | accord, if he has counsel, go out and do an investigation |\n| 19 | that would bring into -- under his auspices, custody or |\n| 20 | control, financial documents in order to disprove the |\n| 21 | Government's allegations, and those should be turned over to |\n| 22 | the Trustee because they relate to the debtor's financial |\n| 23 | condition. |\n| 24 | And, you know, once those are out there, they |\n| 25 | should be produced immediately if they're in the debtor's |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 68 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
68 |\n| 1 | custody, control, or one of his agents.
And resolving this |\n| 2 | issue I think will bring that issue to a head as well and on |\n| 3 | the Trustee hopefully with additional information to be able |\n| 4 | to pursue the debtor's assets wherever they are. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else wish to be heard on |\n| 6 | the motion to extend time for Mr. Kwok to respond to the |\n| 7 | order to show cause? |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, if I may, just a couple |\n| 9 | of points. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
To the extent that the Court finds |\n| 12 | that Mr. Kwok's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege |\n| 13 | was appropriate -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I couldn't hear you.
I'm sorry. |\n| 15 | Could you say that again? |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:
Sure. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
His invocation of his Fifth Amendment? |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
Privilege was appropriate under the |\n| 19 | circumstances -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
You mean as of February 7th? |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:
Then he has applied with the |\n| 24 | Court's order because he has invoked his Fifth Amendment |\n| 25 | privilege under the Constitution which he's entitled to do. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 69 And that is one of the reasons why it's critical that we have access to Mr. Kwok's criminal counsel once criminal counsel is retained. As I said, we had been working with criminal counsel on this issue. They're moving on. Mr. Kwok is in the process of retaining new criminal counsel. We're asking for 30 days to protect a constitutional right and that's all that we're asking for. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further from anyone? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. I will review this matter. And as true with the motion for extension of time on the hearing to remove the Trustee, I will rule hopefully within the next few days. But I'm going to review it all given what we've all talked about today. All right. And as far as the other matters on the calendar today, I'm going to turn -- I am now going to turn to specific adversary proceedings. Give me one second, please. It may be more than one. Okay. (Pause.) THE COURT: So now we're turning to the adversary proceedings. And I'm first going to turn to 23-05002, Genever Holdings, LLC, et al, versus Kwok, et al. And there are two motions that I said we were going to discuss at the Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 69 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 70 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
70 |\n| 1 | hearing, at the status conference today in that adversary |\n| 2 | proceeding. |\n| 3 | And the first motion is the motion to extend time |\n| 4 | to respond to the complaint, Mr. Moriarty, that you filed on |\n| 5 | behalf of the defendant, Mr. Kwok, seeking an extension of |\n| 6 | time until April 10 to respond to the complaint. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | And it's probably not fair to do this, but we |\n| 9 | asked for 21 days.
The Trustee agreed to seven.
If the |\n| 10 | Trustee is willing to split the difference and agree to 14, |\n| 11 | and if the Court's willing to do that, we would say the |\n| 12 | extension to April 3rd, 2023, that should give us sufficient |\n| 13 | time.
This is going to be an answer to a complaint.
That |\n| 14 | should give us sufficient time to communicate with our |\n| 15 | client hopefully and also to get the client's position on |\n| 16 | this. |\n| 17 | As Your Honor probably recalls, this is really a |\n| 18 | case to effectively evict the debtor and his family from the |\n| 19 | Sherry-Netherland.
And in light of what happened, I would |\n| 20 | like to speak to my client and determine if there's been a |\n| 21 | change of position.
Maybe there hasn't been, but maybe |\n| 22 | there has been. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Attorney Bassett? |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I think it's been a |\n| 25 | theme today that obviously the Trustee's view -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 71 THE COURT: Can you get the microphone closer to you? I'm sorry. MR. BASSETT: That's okay. The Trustee's view is -- is very clearly, as the Trustee stated in his status report and as I was communicating during the last matter that, you know, we cannot be in a position where there are continual delays in the progress that the Trustee is trying to make in this case as a result of the recent events, et cetera. That very significant caveat being said, in the case of this particular request, we had said, you know, we'll give you a week to kind of get your bearings and get the answer on file. We're not going to stand in the way of extending that to 14 days, so we're fine with that. THE COURT: So you'll agree to April 3rd? MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then the motion to extend time will be granted in part and the extension will be granted through and including April 3rd. Okay, Mr. Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor. And I know Attorney Goldstein also has a motion for his client at this time. THE COURT: Yeah. He's next. That's the next Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 71 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 72 matter. Thank you. All right. Hold on -- just let me make a note. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. So then the next matter in 22, sorry, 23-05002 is the motion to extend time to respond to complaint to April 10. Attorney Goldstein, you represent the defendant in that, in connection with ECF No. 31, correct? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor. I represent Hing Chi Ngok. And we filed our first motion for an extension of time to respond to the complaint of the 21 days based on the previous conversation of the Court and the Trustee. If the Trustee is willing to extend the time to 14 days, Ms. Ngok would agree to the same. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So then the motion to extend time to respond to complaint will be granted in part. An order will enter granting an extension of time to April 3rd. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Then turning to the adversary 22-05003, HK Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 72 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 73 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 73 International, the HK International adversary proceeding. This is the motion to expedite the hearing on the summary judgment motion, correct? MR. DESPINS: Yes, it is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And so you're asking that the summary judgment motion -- well, no one has responded yet because it was filed yesterday. So what is the -- what are the -- what is the HK parties' response to the motion to expedite the hearing on the summary judgment? MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty, from Zeisler & Zeisler, for the HK parties as Your Honor just described them. The summary judgment motion was filed on Sunday/Monday. Part of it was filed Sunday evening, late. Part of it was filed on Monday morning early. The Trustee is asking that the HK parties respond to this motion within six days and that the Court hold a hearing on the seventh day. The local rule, as Your Honor knows, is 21 days to respond to motions. And motions for summary judgment generally are even further than that by agreement. We wouldn't ask for more than 21 days here. The issue that the Trustee raises is a res judicata issue and it was addressed in prior briefing.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 74 But this is a summary judgment motion. This is not a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion to dismiss. It's a summary judgment motion. The Trustee, through his counsel, has filed a I believe 48-paragraph, I could be off by a couple, Local Rule 56(a)(1) statement. HK is required to respond to that Local Rule 56(a)(1) statement. It's required to prepare its own 56(a)(2) statement with evidence. And there may be some additional facts that HK wants point out based on the record before Judge Ostrager, which is primarily what the Trustee relies on. There also may be evidentiary issues that the HK parties which to address within the 56(a)(1) statement of the Trustee. Is all of the evidence that the Trustee is relying on admissible? We don't know because we've only had the motion for a day. To require the HK parties, and I believe it's just HK in this case, Your Honor, not also Ms. Guo -- THE COURT: Yes, it is. MR. MORIARTY: -- so to require to HK to respond to a summary judgment motion where the Trustee is seeking a judgment which would give the Trustee title to the Lady May, a 25-ish million dollar asset, in six days is just fundamentally unfair. HK should have at least the full 21 days to respond to this motion, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 75 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
75 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I'm not sure if I |\n| 2 | completely agree with you that it's fundamentally unfair.
I |\n| 3 | understand your argument.
But Mr. Vartan represented HK and |\n| 4 | Ms. Guo and he has an appearance in this adversary |\n| 5 | proceeding in the matter before Justice Ostrager, and so I'm |\n| 6 | not sure it's fundamentally unfair.
However, I will take |\n| 7 | into consideration what you've said. |\n| 8 | The problem is in this situation the same |\n| 9 | counsel's been involved for several years now.
The matters |\n| 10 | in front of Justice Ostrager were brought to the Court's |\n| 11 | attention I think on the second or third day of the filing |\n| 12 | of this case.
We're more than a year past that now. |\n| 13 | And Attorney Vartan, not only has he appeared here |\n| 14 | and made arguments on behalf of HK and Mei Guo, but |\n| 15 | apparently argued this and introduced evidence and |\n| 16 | introduced witnesses on behalf of HK and Mei Guo in the PAX |\n| 17 | litigation in front of Justice Ostrager even though those |\n| 18 | parties were not parties to that litigation. |\n| 19 | So while I hear what you're saying, I think that |\n| 20 | this is -- this is not a normal case where someone has been |\n| 21 | met with a motion for summary judgment and never had an |\n| 22 | opportunity to litigate or discuss these issues in the past. |\n| 23 | And as a summary judgment motion does, and this |\n| 24 | one appears to do, it's saying there's already a final |\n| 25 | judgment that can't be disturbed. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 76 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | Now, you all have briefed the issue.
And |\n| 2 | apparently under New York Law, the ability to make a finding |\n| 3 | of collateral estoppel or res judicata is not impacted by a |\n| 4 | pending appeal where it would be in Connecticut under |\n| 5 | Connecticut law. |\n| 6 | So I will consider everything you've said, but I |\n| 7 | think that this is a different situation. |\n| 8 | If this was a case where there was no prior |\n| 9 | litigation among the parties, if the same entity who |\n| 10 | voluntarily commenced this adversary proceeding by the way, |\n| 11 | HK commenced this adversary proceeding, not Trustee Despins, |\n| 12 | and HK was represented in the action in which the Trustee is |\n| 13 | asking this court to make findings based on collateral |\n| 14 | estoppel or res judicata by the same lawyer who's in this |\n| 15 | case in front of this court, so it's not the same. |\n| 16 | It doesn't mean I might not agree with you fully, |\n| 17 | ultimately, but it's not the same.
It's not as if this was |\n| 18 | a brand new case filed and nobody had any idea of what was |\n| 19 | going on. |\n| 20 | And, in fact, you know, summary judgment in |\n| 21 | Connecticut -- and the district court rule says, which is |\n| 22 | the rule we follow with regard to summary judgment, that, |\n| 23 | you know, you don't -- you don't seek summary judgment in a |\n| 24 | district court unless you're convinced you're going to be |\n| 25 | successful. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 77 I mean, there's a -- there's very strong words that the district court judges includ in their local rules on summary judgment. I have to look at them sometimes. I don't remember all the words. But it says the Court appreciates the utility of summary judgment as a tool to manage the Court's workload by avoiding unnecessary trials. But at the same time, the Court wishes to discourage the filings of motions for summary judgment in circumstances where responsible counsel and self-represented parties should recognize the motion cannot be granted. Therefore, the Court has adopted this local rule to remind counsel and self-represented parties of the standard for summary judgment and of their obligations with respect to motions for summary judgment. So I just, you know, that's something that I look at anyway when motions for summary judgment are filed. It doesn't mean that it means the summary judgment motion is granted. It's that there's a -- the party who files the motion for summary judgment has an obligation to assert that there's no genuine issue of material fact to try. And if the -- if Trustee Despins is correct, which I don't know if he is or not, then -- and collateral estoppel can apply based upon a prior ruling that is -- under New York has collateral estoppel effect, then I don't Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 78 know -- I'm not sure what there would be to try. What you're asking is -- you're saying you need time to respond. The 21-day response period would be what? MR. MORIARTY: I believe April 10th, Your Honor. I believe. THE COURT: April 10th? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, may I be heard on this? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: I have to say I'm quite surprised by the argument here. Of course, in theory, they should get 21 days, but not a word about the insurance lapsing on the 28th. Not a word about, don't worry, we have the money. We'll pay the crew. We'll pay. So that's what tips this. One, there's no prejudice because this had already been fully briefed. The only thing that changed is that the standard -- the standard of proof is different on summary judgment than on prejudgement attachment, of course. But the -- We cited the same cases, exactly the same cases. Didn't add one case. So there's no surprise. This is just, you know, re-jiggering their brief that they already filed in opposition to this. So there's no -- there's no prejudice to them. Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 78 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 79 But the prejudice to the estate here is that if we're right that this is our yacht, there's no insurance on the 28th. They're not paying for anything. The crew is going to walk. So the point is that from the estate's point of view there is extreme prejudice. And the fact that he's not saying a word about that really surprised me. I thought they would say the Trustee's being an alarmist. We're going to take care of this. It's fine. But, no. It's scorched earth, meaning they're walking away from the ship. So we need to protect the estate. And that's plenty of reason to overcome the 21 days. And if it were not for the fact that there's no prejudice, there's extreme prejudice to the estate if we don't go forward, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, the -- so there is an issue with insurance. And I'm not denying that there's an issue with insurance. THE COURT: You just need to talk a little louder so we can hear you. MR. MORIARTY: Sure. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. MORIARTY: I said there is an issue with\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 80 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
80 |\n| 1 | insurance.
And I'm not denying that there's an issue with |\n| 2 | insurance. |\n| 3 | But what I'm focused on and what's before the |\n| 4 | Court is the motion to force a response to a summary |\n| 5 | judgment motion on six days. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I understand.
I guess what Mr. |\n| 7 | Despins is saying though is if you come up with payment for |\n| 8 | insurance, he won't press the summary judgment motion. |\n| 9 | MR. MORIARTY:
Right.
And it's not -- the issue's |\n| 10 | not payment, Your Honor.
The issue is the ability to |\n| 11 | procure a policy.
That's the issue. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, you've had a policy in the past. |\n| 13 | What happened? |\n| 14 | MR. MORIARTY:
People will not -- insurers will |\n| 15 | not write it. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Why? |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:
Well, what we've been told is the |\n| 18 | primary issue is what they call the UBO, the ultimate |\n| 19 | beneficial owner.
And where this -- so this is hearsay, |\n| 20 | Your Honor.
I'm just telling you what's been explained to |\n| 21 | me. |\n| 22 | This came up and really started to be an issue for |\n| 23 | insurer of vessels after the Russia/Ukraine war started and |\n| 24 | yachts of Russian oligarchs were being seized by western |\n| 25 | governments.
Not because the insurers were on the hook for |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 81 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | the value of the boats, but because the insurers were |\n| 2 | concerned about reputational risks and because the insurers |\n| 3 | were concerned about violating sanctions orders that were |\n| 4 | put in place by western governments. |\n| 5 | Now, that's not our issue here.
It's not a |\n| 6 | Ukraine/Russia issue.
But as a result of that issue, |\n| 7 | insurers started to look at what they call ultimate |\n| 8 | beneficial owner.
And here they see a relationship, whether |\n| 9 | it's correct, incorrect, true or not true, between this |\n| 10 | yacht and Mr. Kwok and they refused to write a policy. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, who wrote the policy that was in |\n| 12 | play -- that's in place until the 28th? |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
It is a company by the name of -- |\n| 14 | just give me -- Skuld, S-K-U-L-D.
That policy expired |\n| 15 | actually on February 28th.
Skuld agreed to extend it by one |\n| 16 | month and they've refused to extend it going forward. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And who negotiated with them to |\n| 18 | agree to extend it by one month? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
I believe -- I don't know, Your |\n| 20 | Honor.
I know that there was attorneys in my office that |\n| 21 | had conversations, but I can't tell you who negotiated that |\n| 22 | with them. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
But your office negotiated an |\n| 24 | extension? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
No.
I believe, Your Honor, that an |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 82 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | attorney in my office had discussions with whoever |\n| 2 | negotiated the extension, but I don't think we negotiated |\n| 3 | the extension. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, who was it that -- |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
And I don't -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- negotiated the extension? |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
I don't know. |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yeah.
Your Honor, I -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, you have to know.
Somebody in |\n| 10 | your office has to know if they had discussions with |\n| 11 | somebody who negotiated the extension. |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:
I agree.
But it wasn't myself and |\n| 13 | it wasn't Attorney Henzy.
There's obviously -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
But let's just step back.
Listen to |\n| 15 | what you just said to me, right?
You said no insurer will |\n| 16 | insure because, whether they're right or wrong, they |\n| 17 | associate the yacht with Mr. Kwok.
That's what you just |\n| 18 | said, right? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
That's what we have been told. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then if you can't get an |\n| 21 | extension of the insurance, why shouldn't the Trustee move |\n| 22 | forward with summary judgment in that short amount of time? |\n| 23 | Because the insurers think that the yacht is associated with |\n| 24 | Mr. Kwok. |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, two things. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 83 One, the Trustee could have moved for this motion or he could have moved for summary judgment months ago if he believes -- THE COURT: Not with regard to the fact that the insurance is lapsing. MR. MORIARTY: I agree. But if it's just a legal issue and it's that simple of a motion, he could have made the motion a long time ago. But there's also no guarantee that the -- THE COURT: But that doesn't matter. That doesn't matter. Let's just cut to the chase of what really matters here, right? MR. MORIARTY: There's no guarantee that the Trustee is going to be able to insure this boat either. So he's seeking to take this asset on six-days notice with no guarantee that he's going to be able to get a policy. THE COURT: And so why do you care? About that. About that. I'm saying -- I'm just trying to understand your thought process. MR. MORIARTY: So I -- THE COURT: Why would you care if the Trustee can't get a policy? MR. MORIARTY: Because the whole basis for the Trustee's we need this done yesterday is there's not going to be insurance. And if the Trustee can't get a policy, Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 83 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 84 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
84 |\n| 1 | then that's not a basis for moving this forward at lightning |\n| 2 | speed. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, what are you going -- what's |\n| 4 | your client going to do?
You're client's going to let the |\n| 5 | policy lapse and not have any insurance?
Isn't that -- |\n| 6 | isn't that -- wouldn't that be cause of action right there |\n| 7 | to not insure and asset that your client claims the entity |\n| 8 | owns? |\n| 9 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, the client can only do |\n| 10 | what the client can do.
And -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
But I don't know what that means. |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:
So we've -- again, my |\n| 13 | understanding, I wasn't involved in this, have had |\n| 14 | discussions or there have been discussions with 13 carriers, |\n| 15 | none of whom are willing to write a policy on this boat. |\n| 16 | And it's a particular type of insurance.
It's called |\n| 17 | protection and indemnity insurance.
There's three other |\n| 18 | policies that are currently in place and they're in place |\n| 19 | through 2024.
But for some reason, and again-- |\n| 20 | There's been three reasons.
The primary reason |\n| 21 | has been this UBO, ultimate beneficial owner.
The two other |\n| 22 | reasons that have been given for the refusal to write |\n| 23 | policies are the boat is in the navigable waters of the |\n| 24 | United States and the owner is a U.S. company.
Why that |\n| 25 | matters to insurers, Your Honor, I don't know. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 85 THE COURT: Well, we need to find out, right? Otherwise, you're going to have to respond to the summary judgment motion. So do you want to try to find the answers to these questions and inform the Court, or do you want to -- I mean, I know you don't want to respond to the summary judgment motion. But, I mean, you know, you can't have an asset, a potential asset that's subject to a temporary restraining order that your client agreed to, by the way, your client agreed to all that, now subject to a PJR, and another preliminary injunction, be uninsured. I mean, you just can't have that, right? So, you know, we can either try to come up with a solution to that or then I may have no choice but to mandate that you respond to summary judgment over your objection. And I understand your objection. I do. I'm not quarreling with it. But, you know, you -- you know. Some of us are old enough to remember that the first thing Judge Krechevsky used to say is do you have insurance? And if you didn't, he didn't want to hear about it or he said you better get that insurance and not come back into this courtroom until you have it. Right? So the -- we need to solve the problem one way or Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 85 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 86 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
86 |\n| 1 | another.
But we've got to solve -- |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
We can't wait until next week to solve |\n| 4 | it.
Today is Tuesday, right? |\n| 5 | MR. MORIARTY:
It is. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
We don't have a lot of time.
And I've |\n| 7 | seen insurance binders written in, you know, three hours. |\n| 8 | So what -- it can happen.
I mean, it could happen.
I'm not |\n| 9 | saying it will happen.
I'm saying it's not outside of the |\n| 10 | realm of possibility, right?
So we need to figure out how |\n| 11 | that's going to happen or I may have to do what the |\n| 12 | Trustee's asking me to do. |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | Is there a time by which you would like us to |\n| 15 | report back? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, let me think about that.
I |\n| 17 | mean, we have hearings scheduled on Thursday.
I don't know |\n| 18 | if Thursday gives you enough -- if, for example, you report |\n| 19 | back that there's no way that there's insurance coverage for |\n| 20 | another month or two, I'm cutting into your time to respond |\n| 21 | to summary judgment if I have to go down the path that the |\n| 22 | Trustee has proposed. |\n| 23 | So that's up to you I suppose in some respects.
I |\n| 24 | mean, I don't think we should go beyond Thursday.
I think |\n| 25 | our Thursday hearings are at 11 a.m. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 87 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
87 |\n| 1 | What were you going to say, Trustee Despins. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, we have people looking |\n| 3 | for insurance in a presumptuous way in the event the Court |\n| 4 | would grant the relief we're seeking.
And these people need |\n| 5 | to be working full bore.
We cannot wait until Thursday to |\n| 6 | know. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, we'll report back by 5 |\n| 9 | p.m. tomorrow if that's acceptable to the Court. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, I think we're going to have to |\n| 11 | have a hearing.
I don't think it's necessarily report back. |\n| 12 | I'm going to have to listen to what you have to say, right, |\n| 13 | because then I'm going to have to rule.
I'm going to have |\n| 14 | to figure out -- if you can't -- and whether you can or |\n| 15 | cannot, I have no idea. |\n| 16 | But if there's no ability from your perspective to |\n| 17 | have some insurance on this yacht after the 28th of March, |\n| 18 | then I may have no choice then but to move.
I have to |\n| 19 | protect, I don't, but the Court as the person that oversees |\n| 20 | the case as a whole, has to make sure that there are |\n| 21 | protections in place for assets.
I mean, you know -- |\n| 22 | So I think we have to have a hearing.
I think |\n| 23 | we'll have to continue this. |\n| 24 | But what I'll do is, and I might do the same on |\n| 25 | Thursday too, we'll see, and it's only under the specific |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 88 circumstances of what's going on right now, okay, because there's a lot going on as you can tell. We've been sitting here talking for a long time. I'm sure everybody's tired, but we have to deal with these issues. Let me just look back at the calendar for a second, please. (Pause.) THE COURT: Did you have a thought before I said something, Counsel? Were you going to say something else? MR. MORIARTY: I did, Your Honor. May I just speak with the Trustee for a moment? THE COURT: Certainly. Go right ahead. (Pause.) MR. MORIARTY: So, Your Honor, what I just spoke to the Trustee about is, and we've agreed that we will report back by 5 o'clock tomorrow, that we either have found insurance or we don't, and if we don't, then the Court can grant the Trustee's motion. THE COURT: All right. All right. MR. MORIARTY: Then that saves us from having -- THE COURT: So when you report back, you're going to send an email to the courtroom deputy box with CC'ing, is that what you're planning on doing? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. By 5 p.m. tomorrow? Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 89 MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: So, okay. All right. And if you don't have insurance, then what I would do is grant their scheduling order essentially -- MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: -- requiring you to respond, to the extent that you decide to, to respond to the motion for summary judgment. And then we'll -- so we're looking for a hearing on Monday the 27th on the summary judgment motion? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. And just to clarify, this is bound and paid insurance, you know, THE COURT: You know, whatever you two agreed to is fine with me. I just -- there has to be insurance. There just has to be. So when I'm looking at Monday's calendar, I have a couple of things that I could -- it's not -- I can -- they're easily movable, but I'm thinking obviously -- I don't know if you agree, Attorney Moriarty, but from what I've seen so far, it's a legal argument. You may disagree with it. I'm not -- I would expect that you both wouldn't need more than an hour each side for an argument. Do you think you'd need more than an hour each side for argument? MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. I would say less Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 90 than that. MR. MORIARTY: I don't think so, Your Honor. The one thing that I do want to say, and Attorney Vartan's name has come up a few times today, he had a 2 o'clock court hearing in New Jersey today. This was scheduled yesterday. My expectation is that he is going to be arguing this motion on Monday. MR. DESPINS: Yes. MR. MORIARTY: But I do not believe -- THE COURT: You want to go text him? Because we're having a hearing on Monday if there isn't an agreement with insurance. So I'm not changing the time because of -- I mean, that's not your issue. I understand that. But I'm not changing the time once I set it because of his availability or unavailability. MR. MORIARTY: Just so I'm clear, Your Honor, you're saying text him and find out his schedule on Monday so we -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, I'm prepared to start this hearing at 11:00 a.m., give each side an hour each at the most. That's it. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. All right. May I step out? THE COURT: Yes, please. Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 90 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 91 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | MR. MORIARTY:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 3 | Why don't we take a five-minute recess, or, you |\n| 4 | know, maybe ten minutes. |\n| 5 | But, Attorney Moriarty, that's what I need you to |\n| 6 | do, okay, and then you can report back. |\n| 7 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
If Mr. Moriarty needs more |\n| 9 | time, Attorney Henzy, let me know. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
I'm just -- I'm going to step out, |\n| 11 | Your Honor, and try to see if I can find (indiscernible) -- |\n| 12 | (Court recessed at 4:43 p.m.) |\n| 13 | (Proceedings resumed at 4:53 p.m.) |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead.
Did you have a chance |\n| 15 | to reach out? |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:
I did, Your Honor, but I was |\n| 17 | unsuccessful. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
You were unsuccessful? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, then you'll have to |\n| 21 | be prepared to argue the motion for summary judgment if -- |\n| 22 | you or someone in your office if Mr. Vartan is not |\n| 23 | available, if there is not insurance by tomorrow, because |\n| 24 | I'm going to have that hearing on Monday morning regardless. |\n| 25 | Okay? |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 92 MR. MORIARTY: Okay. I understand, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So we're going to -- we're going to -- so the motion to expedite the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, I'm not going to touch that right now. Because if tomorrow at 5:00, there's a -- I'm correct, right? Tomorrow at 5:00, if there's a report that there's insurance for a period of time, we're not going forward with summary judgment next Monday or are we, Attorney -- Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: No. Conceptually, yes. I'm just thinking whether it would be better to schedule that hearing and cancel it or -- that's really your decision? THE COURT: Well, I guess we'll grant it in part and schedule it and we'll enter something. It won't be in tonight. It will be tomorrow for Monday at 11:00, with the understanding that if there's some agreement with regard to insurance by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, that hearing may not proceed on Monday at 11:00. Now, that doesn't mean -- we'll have to -- we can discuss it again on Thursday I suppose. I mean, I don't know if you're -- if either of you are planning on being here on Thursday. I'm not sure it impacts the debtor directly. MR. MORIARTY: I don't believe -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 92 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 93 THE COURT: They're mostly discovery issues on Thursday now that the motion to remove the trustee won't be heard on Thursday. MR. MORIARTY: Correct. I know Attorney Henzy won't be here because he'll be somewhere else. THE COURT: Right. Right. I'm sorry. I forgot. MR. MORIARTY: And I don't know that anybody else from my office plans to be here. But if the Court schedules something that causes us to be here, we'll be here. THE COURT: Well, this is what -- let me just ask everyone before we go any further. I think, except for one thing that I haven't addressed with the parties yet, that I've addressed everything that you asked, Trustee Despins, and that the Court ordered today, is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's correct. THE COURT: I mean, is there -- I have one issue I need to raise with everyone, but it's not -- it's not anything with regard to what you've all talked about today. MR. DESPINS: That's correct. That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So what I'm going to do is as follows. I have one issue still. We have one issue. So we talked about this, Trustee Despins a few weeks ago, well before any of the events of last week, and Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 93 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 94 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
94 |\n| 1 | it had to do with Epiq's services and the fact that the |\n| 2 | clerk of the court and Epiq have been talking about |\n| 3 | transferring all the information back to the -- to this |\n| 4 | court, the clerk's office, to have the public claims |\n| 5 | register be in the control of the clerk's office with all |\n| 6 | the public claims and then have the confidential claims also |\n| 7 | be in control of the clerk's office but under seal, you |\n| 8 | know. |\n| 9 | And your concern was, or one of your concerns, and |\n| 10 | I think maybe the committee raised a concern and the U.S. |\n| 11 | Trustee raised a concern, about your ability to get into |\n| 12 | what is basically a portal to review claims. |\n| 13 | And so I think, although I think you need to |\n| 14 | confirm this and then you can tell me on Thursday, okay, |\n| 15 | that Epiq would still allow that to happen for the Trustee, |\n| 16 | the U.S. Trustee, and the committee if you want to get that |\n| 17 | information that way. |\n| 18 | But if they don't, you can still get it through |\n| 19 | the clerk's office.
There's going to be some kind of |\n| 20 | listing of confidential claims say, you know, confidential |\n| 21 | claimant one through whatever it is. That will be on the |\n| 22 | docket of the main case.
Nobody will know who the claimants |\n| 23 | are or anything.
So there's ways that it can happen.
But I |\n| 24 | don't know. |\n| 25 | You have to -- I would -- I think it makes sense |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 95 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
95 |\n| 1 | for you to talk to Epiq.
You retained them.
So see if they |\n| 2 | can keep that open. |\n| 3 | And see if they can keep open, if you wanted to, |\n| 4 | and I think you said you did, and I understand why you did, |\n| 5 | that -- I'm speaking to you, Trustee Despins. |\n| 6 | I'm looking at you, but obviously this is audio so |\n| 7 | nobody can understand who I'm speaking to -- that you wanted |\n| 8 | to have the docket still be available so that -- but that |\n| 9 | would mean that Epiq would have to continue to upload and |\n| 10 | maintain the docket.
I don't know if they're willing to do |\n| 11 | that or if you want them to do that or whatever. |\n| 12 | But I need to know those two issues by Thursday. |\n| 13 | Okay?
If possible, I need to understand what your thoughts |\n| 14 | are.
Because I have to enter some kind of order that amends |\n| 15 | their services and still -- they're still going to be -- and |\n| 16 | my understanding is they completely agree that they'll still |\n| 17 | be compelled to turn over any proofs of claim they get to |\n| 18 | the clerk's office if they get any more.
My understanding |\n| 19 | is there haven't been any proofs of claim for the last week |\n| 20 | or two. |\n| 21 | But we need to make sure that there's an order |\n| 22 | that they understand their ongoing obligations with regard |\n| 23 | to any proofs of claim they might receive. |\n| 24 | Then, whether or not they're going to keep this |\n| 25 | ability for you and the parties to the protective order and |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 96 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
96 |\n| 1 | the U.S. Trustee to get into, which is part of the bar date |\n| 2 | order, right, the bar date order talks about the protective |\n| 3 | order, to get into this shared information so you can see |\n| 4 | it, and whether or not they're going to maintain the docket, |\n| 5 | which would require them to do something, which I don't know |\n| 6 | if they're willing to do. |\n| 7 | So you need to talk to them about that.
Okay? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Will do. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
They'd have to continue to maintain |\n| 10 | the docket. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Will do, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then the only other thing I |\n| 13 | would say with regard to the claims in the case, I don't |\n| 14 | know the number, but I understand it's, you know, between |\n| 15 | public and confidential claims, it's over a thousand claims. |\n| 16 | You know, whatever it is, it is. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
I think it's over 1300. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Whatever it is, it is.
It's a |\n| 19 | substantial number. |\n| 20 | Our local rules have a process for the -- of how |\n| 21 | claims are objected to, both individual claims or omnibus |\n| 22 | claims. |\n| 23 | What that order is going to provide whenever I |\n| 24 | enter it after you give me an update on Thursday, Trustee |\n| 25 | Despins, is it's going to provide for a 45-day response |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 97 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
97 |\n| 1 | period, as opposed to a 30-day response period, because of |\n| 2 | the specific facts and circumstances of this case and |\n| 3 | because claimants are located all over the place and they |\n| 4 | need to have appropriate time to have things mailed and |\n| 5 | whatever.
If they're not ECF filers, they're going to have |\n| 6 | to get mailed an objection to a proof of claim. |\n| 7 | I know that's off in the future, but I still have |\n| 8 | to enter this order to make sure it makes sense.
Okay? |\n| 9 | That will have to happen.
Everybody's going to have to |\n| 10 | understand that. |\n| 11 | And the other thing that people will have to |\n| 12 | understand is that there may -- most of the claims will have |\n| 13 | two claim numbers.
A claim number from Epiq and a claim |\n| 14 | number from the Court.
You just figure it out.
It's not |\n| 15 | going to be that hard.
We'll be able to figure it out. |\n| 16 | But just so everybody understands, since |\n| 17 | everything's coming back to the clerk's office, there is |\n| 18 | going to be two ways that you can identify a proof of claim. |\n| 19 | And we'll deal with that.
We'll address it when it happens. |\n| 20 | Okay. |\n| 21 | But given the orders in the Norwich case, and then |\n| 22 | apparently other cases throughout the country, as I said in |\n| 23 | prior hearings, I just don't want to have hearings about |\n| 24 | what was disclosed and not disclosed.
And it's just -- |\n| 25 | there's too many things that we need to address in this case |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 1614
Filed 03/29/23
Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05
Page 98 of
100 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | and we're not going to -- I don't want to spend any time on |\n| 2 | that.
So that's where we are. |\n| 3 | Does anybody have any questions about that?
That |\n| 4 | issue? |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Then with regard to |\n| 7 | Thursday's hearings, what I'm going to do is I'm going to |\n| 8 | allow those hearings to be held via Zoom since there's a |\n| 9 | possibility everybody has to be back here on Monday for |\n| 10 | another hearing.
And they are discovery issues, in my |\n| 11 | opinion. |\n| 12 | The motion to remove the Trustee is not going to |\n| 13 | be heard on the 23rd, so that's coming off the calendar. |\n| 14 | So the only things on the calendar on Thursday are |\n| 15 | motions to quash subpoenas and an application to employ. |\n| 16 | That's the only other thing. |\n| 17 | That can be -- I'm going to allow it to be held |\n| 18 | via Zoom so that we can try to minimize some costs here in |\n| 19 | the case. |\n| 20 | If there were other more substantial matters to be |\n| 21 | heard that day, which there were, but it's not going to be, |\n| 22 | then I would have required everyone to be here in person. |\n| 23 | But right now, given the specific facts and circumstances of |\n| 24 | these cases as they exist now, that's what I'm going to do. |\n| 25 | So I will -- I have to talk to the courtroom |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023 99 deputies about do the parties have to reach out to get -- we haven't even set up the Zoom information so I don't have it yet to give to you. But is that how it should be obtained from the parties for Thursday? They will reach out to the courtroom deputy box and then the Zoom information will be provided? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Calendar connect. THE COURT: Calendar connect box. Sorry. The calendar connect box. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. And then you will be provided with the information for the Zoom hearing. And it will be, you know, limited to participants in that hearing. Okay? Anything further we need to address this afternoon then? (No response.) THE COURT: All right. So, Attorney Moriarty, once we hear from you, and you'll CC, obviously, the Trustee and everything when you send your email tomorrow afternoon about the insurance. If there is not an agreement, then that -- the order will -- I've already scheduled the hearing for Monday at 11:00, but then that order will follow, which will require your reply in connection with the request that the Trustee made. Okay? Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 99 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 100 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok-March 21, 2023
100 |\n| 1 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
No one has any further |\n| 3 | questions?
Or is there anything else we need to address? |\n| 4 | (No response.) |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then court is adjourned. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | (Proceedings adjourned at 5:05 p.m.) |\n| 8 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved |\n| 9 | transcriber and certified electronic reporter and |\n| 10 | transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct |\n| 11 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 12 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | March 27, 2023 |\n| 16 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于 ＊ 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n ＊\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、Genever Holdings ＊\nCorporation（Genever控股公司）及 Genever ＊\nHoldings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），＊\n ＊\n债务人。 ＊\n ＊\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等， ＊ 对抗程序案号：22-05027\n ＊\n原告， ＊\n ＊\n诉 ＊\n ＊\nBravo Luck Limited（福运有限公司）等， ＊\n ＊\n被告。 ＊\n ＊\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS 对抗程序案号：22-05003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金\n投资（美国）有限公司）， ＊\n ＊\n原告， ＊\n ＊\n诉 ＊\n ＊\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）， ＊\n ＊\n被告。 ＊\n ＊\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever控股有限 对抗程序案号：23-05002\n责任公司）等， ＊\n ＊\n原告， ＊\n 布里奇波特，康涅狄格州\n诉 2023年3月21日\n ＊\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， ＊\n ＊\n被告。 ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n ＊\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审笔录由转录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n准许状态会议请求的命令之庭审笔录；将对说明理由命令作出答复的期限延长至4/27/23的动议；延期审理罢免受托人动议的动议；将对起诉状作出答复的期限延长至4/10/23的动议；加速审理动议；准许在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前举行状态会议请求的命令\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧迈律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nKRISTIN B. MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·B·梅休律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）：\nSHERRY J. MILLMAN, ESQ.（雪莉·J·米尔曼律师）\nStroock & Stroock & Lavan（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克与拉文律师事务所）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nTARUNA GARG, ESQ.（塔鲁娜·加格律师）\nMurtha Cullina（默萨·库利纳律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）及 HK International（香港国际）：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师）\nJAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ.（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表利害关系方 Bravo Luck Limited（福运有限公司）：\nFRANCIS J. LAWALL, ESQ.（弗朗西斯·J·拉沃尔律师）\nTroutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP（特劳特曼·佩珀·汉密尔顿·桑德斯律师事务所）\n1313 N. Market Street\nWashington, DC 19801\n\n代表利害关系方 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）：\nEVAN S. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.（埃文·S·戈尔茨坦律师）\nUpdike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.（厄普代克、凯利与斯佩拉西律师事务所）\n225 Asylum Street, 20th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n4\n（程序于下午2时35分开始。）\n\n法庭：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 及 Genever Holdings, LLC；22-500，抱歉——23-05002，Genever Holdings LLC 等诉 Kwok 等，23-05002，Genever Holdings, LLC 等诉 Kwok 等；22-05003，HK International Funds Investments, USA, Limited 诉 Despins；22-05027，Despins 等诉 Bravo Luck Limited 等。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。请第11章受托人先为记录作出庭声明。\n\n德斯平斯先生：下午好，法官阁下。卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n巴塞特先生：下午好，法官阁下。尼克·巴塞特，Paul Hastings 律师事务所，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n林西先生：下午好，法官阁下。帕特里克·林西，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：下午好。霍利·克莱伯恩，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n梅休女士：下午好，法官阁下。克里斯汀\n\n案号22-50073 文件1614 于03/29/23提交 于03/29/23 20:07:05录入 第5页，共100页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n1 梅休，Pullman & Comley，代表无担保债权人\n2 官方委员会。\n3 法庭：\n下午好。\n4 萨诺夫先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n斯图尔特\n5 萨诺夫，O'Melveny & Myers。感谢您准许我的合伙人彼得·弗里德曼远程\n6 接入，他的航班被延误了。\n7 他今天也与我一同出庭。还有 Annecca Smith，\n8 Robinson & Cole 的本地律师，代表 PAX。\n9 法庭：\n下午好。\n10 你们都能听到吗？对你们来说可以吗？\n11 你们实际上听不清。\n12 抱歉，萨诺夫先生。我得\n13 请你到麦克风前面来，因为我们实在无法\n14 听清。\n15 萨诺夫先生：\n斯图尔特·萨诺夫，代表债权人\n16 PAX。我的合伙人弗里德曼先生因其航班出了问题而远程\n17 接入。Annecca Smith，\n18 Robinson & Cole 的律师，是我们的本地律师，亦在此\n19 代表 PAX 出庭。\n20 法庭：\n非常感谢。谢谢。\n21 亨齐律师？\n22 亨齐先生：\n埃里克·亨齐，Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所，代表\n23 债务人。\n24 法庭：\n下午好。\n25 莫里亚蒂先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。詹姆斯\n\n案号22-50073 文件1614 于03/29/23提交 于03/29/23 20:07:05录入 第6页，共100页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n6 莫里亚蒂，Zeisler & Zeisler 律师事务所，代表债务人郭美及 HK International。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好。\n\n加格女士：下午好，法官阁下。塔鲁娜·加格，Murtha Cullina 律师事务所，代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n米尔曼女士：下午好，法官阁下。雪莉·米尔曼，Strook & Strook & Lavan 律师事务所，也代表 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n法庭：下午好。感谢二位走到前面来，以便我们能听到你们的出庭声明。还有其他人要为记录作出庭声明吗？\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生，这是您提出的举行状态会议请求，请继续。哦，抱歉。我们还没有和 Zoom 上的人交谈。是我的疏忽。德斯平斯先生，您可以到前面来，但我忘了记录拉沃尔先生和戈尔茨坦先生的出庭声明。\n\n戈尔茨坦先生：是的，法官阁下。下午好。埃文·戈尔茨坦，代表 Hing Chi Ngok。\n\n法庭：还有，拉沃尔先生，您只需取消静音。\n\n拉沃尔先生：抱歉，法官阁下。下午好。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n7 弗兰·拉沃尔，Troutman Pepper，代表 Bravo Luck。法官阁下，感谢您允许我们通过 Zoom 参加。\n\n法庭：不客气。下午好。还有，弗里德曼先生，显然我们已将您的出庭声明记入记录。谢谢。\n\n弗里德曼先生：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：下午好，法官阁下。我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：请。谢谢。请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，下午好，法官阁下。为记录起见，卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人。我只是——我将很快涵盖其中许多内容，但我认为这对记录很重要。因此，3月15日，债务人在 Sherry-Netherland 公寓被逮捕。为明确起见，该公寓由作为第11章债务人的 Genever BVI 所有，该实体本身由 Genever U.S. 全资拥有，后者是该英属维尔京群岛实体。在我们接管之前，郭先生是这些——其中一个实体的唯一股东，因此，受托人目前是这些实体的唯一控制方。我忘了在上次听证会上提及，Yvette Wang（王雁）也于上——3月15日被逮捕。您可能记得，王女士是我认为郭先生提到的 Ace Decade（十年集团）的控股股东或董事，二者之一，而他无法联系到她，或者说无法联系她，不知道如何联系她。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1614 于03/29/23提交 于03/29/23 20:07:05录入 第7页，共100页\n\n案号22-50073 文件1614 于03/29/23提交 于03/29/23 20:07:05录入 第8页，共100页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n1 但无论如何，她也因\n2 参与与郭先生被指控的同类犯罪而\n3 被逮捕。\n4 但无论如何，她也因\n5 参与郭先生被指控的同类犯罪而被逮捕，据我了解，\n6 她被羁押，保释金为5 million，直至缴纳该 \\$5 million 保释金。\n7 \n8 我还了解到——FBI\n9 在逮捕她时，在她的公寓内发现了 \\$100,000——超过 \\$100,000 的\n10 现金。\n11 3月15日当天稍后，Sherry-Netherland 公寓发生\n12 火灾。受托人获悉，\n13 当时公寓内只有 FBI 特工。\n14 \n15 昨天，法官阁下，我们提交了一项拟议修订的\n16 紧急命令，寻求准许受托人的调查\n17 团队也进入该公寓。我稍后会谈到这一点。\n18 法庭：\n好的。\n19 德斯平斯先生：\n第2页，Sherry\n20 Netherland 公寓的损害。显然，我们尚未进入该\n21 公寓，因此我们——这实际上是传闻，但看来\n22 损害可谓重大和／或实质性。\n23 我还想补充，我不是能够进入该公寓的\n24 人员之一，这并非偶然。\n25 我希望如此，因为我不希望有任何\n\n案号22-50073 文件1614 于03/29/23提交 于03/29/23 20:07:05录入 第9页，共100页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n1 指称说我以某种方式在任何时候到过该处所。\n2 因此，从 Genever 债务人的角度而言，Cyganowski 法官确实是唯一能够进入\n3 该财产的人。\n4 \n5 但是，截至今天目前，任何人都无法进入\n6 该财产，因为调查仍在进行中。如果——\n7 因此，要么是 FBI 和\n8 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）——或者，抱歉，是纽约市\n9 警察局的联合。但目前，任何人都无法\n10 进入。我再次向在法庭内的 Sherry\n11 Netherland 律师确认了这一点。\n12 一旦其他人获准进入，我们就会允许\n13 其他人进入。例如，保险公司一直\n14 急切要求进入，而我们告诉他们，任何人都不能进入，\n15 因为仍在——现场仍在接受\n16 调查。\n17 关于保险覆盖范围，您知道，我想\n18 在这里谨慎一些。我将谈论保单，\n19 而不是——您知道，有些人不应将此视为唾手可得的钱，绝非如此，\n20 但有一份保单为该公寓本身及其\n21 内部物品提供保险，最高金额\n22 为28 million。我获 AIG（美国国际集团）这家保险公司告知，\n23 其最高保险覆盖额为28 million 另加零头。\n24 我认为是28,134,000。但无论如何——因此，\n25 约为28 million。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1614 于03/29/23提交 于03/29/23 20:07:05录入 第10页，共100页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n1 此外，还有第三方责任\n2 保险单。我们尚未取得这些保单的副本，但\n3 AIG 已告知我们，这些保单——有一份\n4 \\$1 million 的第一层保险单，用于第三方责任，\n5 还有一份 \\$10 million 的补充保险单。\n6 因此，第三方责任保险合计\n7 为 \\$11 million。我获告知，这些金额不会减少\n8 该28。因此它们是独立的保单。\n9 再次强调，您知道，我们提醒人们不要\n10 认为这目前是唾手可得的钱。\n11 议程上的下一项，法官阁下，我想\n12 就此花一些时间，这非常重要，即\n13 上周发生的事件确实要求对这些案件进行重置。\n14 我所说的重置是什么意思？\n15 法官阁下，PAX 多年来花费数百万美元，在纽约州法院追查\n16 郭先生——再次明确，这不是证据，这只是\n17 受托人的观点——而这导致 Ostrager 法官作出了非常明确——\n18 非常明确的认定，不仅涉及游艇，\n19 也涉及郭先生及其就\n20 使用空壳公司、其所玩的空壳把戏等进行经营的\n21 方式。\n22 \n23 以一种奇怪的方式，郭先生在第11章程序中获得了第二次生命。\n24 我将解释为什么在我看来这并不那么\n25 奇怪，但他提交了财产清单和财务状况说明书\n\n财务状况说明，显示在申请提交前的90天或一年内，实际上几乎没有资产，也几乎没有任何形式的转移。这些是他提交并宣誓属实的陈述。\n\n我认为，或许这并不那么离奇，因为人们相信他会提出和解方案。事实上，在任命受托人之前曾进行过和解讨论。一段时间内，在这方面有很多活动。后来，和解要约被撤回，随后任命了一名受托人。\n\n受托人被任命后，我们进入了我所谓的调查模式，即全力调查模式，但这些工作在每一步都受到债务人的阻碍。这使破产财产花费了数百万美元。我想就此说清楚。\n\n郭文贵（Kwok）或我所称的其代理人或代言人，不断地对一切提出异议、提起上诉，并在每一步都对证据开示提出挑战，这样的例子不胜枚举。其中包括其女儿和儿子。儿子是通过 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）行事。我们知道 Golden Spring（黄金之春）、Ace Decade（艾斯十年），以及围绕 Ace Decade 的全部纠葛，因此我无需在此重复。\n\n数百万美元花在了这些事情上，而现在显然那是一场骗局。很抱歉我说得这么粗俗。但我所指的骗局，是资产和负债明细表以及财务状况说明。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n财务状况说明与现实毫无关系。我们现在知道了。因此，本案需要重置。我会更明确地说明我的意思。\n\n尽管如此，在本案中，您知道，在起诉书之前，曾有整个关于和解、潜在和解的程序。为此投入了很多精力。\n\n随后又出现了整场所谓的、我称之为伪造的第一修正案骚扰行动，使所有人至少忙碌了两个月。\n\n而这一切旁枝末节的事情都有一个目的，就是使我们无法关注此处显而易见的事情，即资产和负债明细表以及财务状况说明都是虚构的。\n\n我们需要按下重置按钮，因为美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的诉状和美国司法部（DOJ）的起诉书，尽管尚未得到证明，它们只是指控，我们理解这一点，但它们清楚地描绘出一幅图景，即我们一直主张的图景：儿子不知何故是一名成功的商人，为其父亲的开支和辩护律师提供资金，也为其姐姐的游艇付款。\n\n女儿会拥有一艘价值 $30 million 的游艇这一说法，完全是虚构的。\n\n我想请法庭关注的是，起诉书中包含关于郭文贵向女儿和儿子转移数百万美元的具体指控。您可能会说，您怎么知道是女儿和儿子？\n\n其中提到两名亲属，您知道，他们提到的亲属——我忘了是第一名还是第二名——但亲属 X 与 Lady May（五月夫人号）有关，所以我们知道那是谁。另一名亲属以不同身份参与。这就是儿子。因此，我们知道他们指控发生了数百万美元的转移。\n\n这不是司法部的炒作。他们指控，在特定时间向儿子、女儿和妻子转移了数百万美元。我说的是司法部，其中也包括 SEC。\n\n关键在于，这些指控尚未得到证明。我们理解这一点。但除非有实质性证据，司法部不会就转移作出具体指控。这意味着什么？\n\n从我们的角度来看，法官阁下，很抱歉这样说，但显而易见，儿子在为 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）和 Walken（沃肯）付款这一假象根本不符合现实。\n\n我想明确的是，我确信他们确实收到了款项，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 14 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023 14\n\n来自他们认为由儿子控制的实体，或者儿子告诉他们款项来自那里，但我们知道，这是郭文贵在为郭文贵自己付款。\n\n这相当严重。而且，这一情况普遍适用。它适用于游艇的开支，等等，等等。这些公司每天都在设立，每天都有一个新名称。我敢说，郭文贵一定有一名员工，其唯一工作就是为这些公司起名字，因为他们每天都在设立一些公司。到目前为止，郭文贵帝国的一部分公司已经超过500家。\n\n这就是为什么 Zeisler 必须提交补充披露，说明实际上不是儿子，而是 X 公司、Macarone（马卡罗内）或者其他什么公司；名称一直在变。那是因为他们正在从事司法部所说的——我想明确，我这里指的是儿子和父亲，而不是 Zeisler——奥斯特拉格（Ostrager）所描述的这种障眼法。\n\n还有另一件要求重置的事情，那就是不会有由郭文贵先生或其家人提供资金的重整计划。那已经结束了。我们认为那是虚构的，而且我们相信现在已经结束，这完全改变了局面。\n\n因此，法官阁下，您可能会认为这是一次有趣的陈述，但实际上这意味着什么？所以，\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n让我谈谈真正具体的事情。\n\n关于 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓的所有权，您必须记得，Genever USA（吉尼弗美国）是该公寓的所有人，即登记产权所有人。因此，如果有人主张对其享有权益，就应由其负担举证责任，证明事实上 Genever 并非所有人。\n\n因此，介入的一方是 Bravo Luck，即郭文贵先生的儿子，他说，我有这份信托协议；而该信托协议在奥斯特拉格法官（Judge Ostrager）面前进行了三四年的诉讼期间从未披露过，也从未向奥斯特拉格法官提及。这说明为郭文贵先生辩护的律师持有什么看法？\n\n因为这本应是他们的一张王牌，他们本可以说，等一下，该公寓不属于郭文贵。它属于儿子。这很容易，对吧？但在那场诉讼中三年从未提及。\n\n所以现在他们提供了一份协议，说，儿子拥有 Sherry-Netherland。这里有一个根本性问题，即该协议有两方当事人，父亲和儿子。我不认为父亲会前来就该协议作证。现在就只剩下儿子。\n\n因此，实际上，我认为法庭应当做的，不是今天，但很快，是指示 Lawall 先生（Mr. Lawall）确认儿子将来到美国接受证言录取，以说明围绕该信托协议的事实。\n\n我为什么这么说？因为我不相信任何理智正常的人会让他来美国就此作证，不仅因为我们认为他在其他地方作出的证词并不准确，而且因为他是 SEC 诉讼中的返还被告，并且在司法部调查中被列为数百万美元的受让人。但我不在乎他的理由是什么，或不是什么。\n\n但我们不能在这场诉讼上花费数十万美元，而该诉讼建立在儿子不知何故能够购买一套价值 $70 million 公寓的虚构说法之上。\n\n如果他想继续主张这一点，并试图推翻我们拥有该公寓这一推定——因为该公寓由 Genever 所有——他就必须来美国接受证言录取。否则，法官阁下，应当有一个非常简化的程序来确定或确认 Genever USA 的产权。这是其中之一——\n\n我还忘了提及，郭文贵先生在奥斯特拉格诉讼中作证称，拥有该公寓的是 Zang Wey（臧伟）先生，而不是儿子。但那是另一个——另一个问题。\n\n因此，法官阁下，重置按钮的其他方面是，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 17 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023 17\n\n郭文贵的代理人或卫星实体——我所称的郭文贵的卫星实体，或郭文贵本人——不应因其被监禁或 Sherry-Netherland 发生火灾而受益。本案需要继续推进。我的意思是，这就像机场的一条跑道。有数十架飞机需要起飞，而人们说，嗯，不着急，没有人要去度假，我们可以等以后再让飞机起飞。但这是错误的。因为尽管确实没有人会在下周、下下周或再下一周租用该公寓，我理解这一点，我们需要消除所有这些——我们需要清理这些人认为其享有的所有所谓所有权或权利，因为他们会提起上诉，而那将需要时间。因此，我们需要让所有这些飞机起飞，以便跑道畅通。请相信我，法官阁下，本案将有许多问题被上诉。因此，因为债务人在监狱中，或者因为发生了火灾而等待，并不是正确的做法。他们能不能得到一周时间？实际上，我们已经给他们提供了一周，当然可以。但总体而言，本案需要继续推进。重置按钮的其他方面，我认为是，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 18 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n18\n\n郭文贵的律师以及代理人和卫星实体的律师，需要为在此时鼓吹这种虚构说法承担责任。这种虚构说法，如我告诉您的，是他什么也不拥有。一切都由他们拥有。我的意思是，他们不能只是说，我的当事人告诉我如此，这就是我在法庭上所主张的。\n\n我们现在到了这样一个阶段，他们必须对其提出的主张抱有善意相信，包括游艇由女儿拥有，包括公寓由儿子拥有，包括妻子拥有——曾拥有——康涅狄格州格林尼治的两栋房屋。我的意思是，那完全是虚构的。\n\n因此，律师必须对此承担责任，因为处理这些问题使破产财产花费了数十万美元。\n\n本案将走向何方？\n\n第一，法官阁下，我们需要保全资产，这涉及取得资产所有权，或至少就这些资产获得 PJR（判决前救济）。\n\n第二，我们需要向代理人、卫星实体追偿。这意味着女儿、儿子、妻子，等等。还有其他公司。\n\n第三，我们需要将资产变现，并建立开始进行分配所需的法律架构。\n\n向持有有效债权的人。我们不能等到刑事案件得到解决。那将需要——我不是——所以我应该说，可能需要数年才能解决。\n\n如果我们能够取得资产，并将其变现，然后分配给真正的债权人，我们就应当这样做，因为这是我们的职责，而且我认为这是根本性的。\n\n第四，我们需要在做到所有这些的同时，消除或尽量减少与DOJ（美国司法部）的任何潜在冲突，因为我们有一个共同的目标，即赔偿受害人。\n\n法官阁下，我曾处理过多起由DOJ作为对方当事人的案件，我熟悉其没收权利。\n\n我想法官阁下曾在——是Goldberg案还是这些案件中的某一案件——处理过这个问题，而且，如您所知，他们拥有非常有力的工具。\n\n我们并不关心他们案件中发生的事情，他们也不关心这里发生的事情，除非本案会以某种方式妨碍他们的起诉。\n\n这就是为什么，法官阁下，我们仅就资产问题与他们保持持续联系。\n\n例如，在我们提交这项请求加快审理的即决判决动议之前，我们给他们打了电话。\n\n我们在周六与他们通话，表示我们要确保你们理解，我们现在正寻求取得游艇的所有权，而该游艇目前列在你们未来可能没收的清单上。\n\n他们理解这一点，基本上传达的信息是：放心进行。我们理解你们需要这样做。\n\n我们不会以任何方式干扰此事。\n\n对于本案中的每一项重大决定，我们都会继续这样做，因为与他们发生冲突毫无意义；他们寻求向受害人返还金钱，我们也是如此。\n\n好的。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就是总体说明。如果花费时间过长，我表示歉意。现在，我准备转向B点，即关于Sherry-Netherland（舍里-内瑟兰酒店）公寓的更新情况。\n\n我们并不打算将此作为任何一种真正正式的审前会议。这是——抱歉。需要明确的是，涉及Sherry-Netherland的对抗程序有很多。本案是所有权对抗程序，即已合并的三起程序。\n\n因此，除我此前就本案所述内容外，我们没有具体更新；但我们再次请求强制Lawall先生提交文件——您知道，他可以有足够时间与其客户协商，但我们需要明确，该儿子将前往美国接受宣誓作证。因为如果不会发生这种情况，那将是对时间的巨大浪费。\n\n还有其他与Sherry-Netherland相关的对抗程序，这些程序涉及终止Kwok先生及可能其他家庭成员对该公寓的使用。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n在该事项中，问题非常简单。您知道，他们已经提交，或者其中若干人已经提交请求，称，哦，由于监禁或火灾，我们应当再获得三周时间。并不着急，因为无论如何没有人能够使用该公寓。\n\n法官阁下，我已向您说明，我们的观点是，好的，如果他们需要更多时间，一周时间已经足够，但我们需要推进此事，因为我们需要清理这些事项，以处理其他需要——需要处理的事务。否则，跑道将完全拥堵。\n\n接下来，仍然是——抱歉。在该对抗程序，即第二项、所谓终止使用对抗程序中，Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）提交了一项介入动议。\n\n我们已与他们讨论通过基本上说明该程序中发生的任何事情都不会影响所有权问题来解决该事项，但这些讨论仍在进行中。\n\n仍就Sherry-Netherland而言，最后一点，即第二点，是紧急命令。我们昨天提交了一项修改，规定受托人——不是受托人，而是受托人聘请的专家——应当在Sherry-Netherland的监督下获准进入该公寓。\n\n关键非常简单，法官阁下。您可以想象，鉴于所涉金额，可能会基于各种论点就承保范围产生争议。我们的职责是，如果能够做到，就确保存在承保，因为这符合破产财产的利益。\n\n因此，如果保险公司在财务上存在利益冲突——我并非以贬义方式这样说，但通常支付赔款并不符合其利益——如果他们要让自己的专家到场，我们希望我们的人与他们并肩在场，查看他们在做什么、在看什么，以便如果六个月后出现任何问题，我们不会处于这样的境地：AIG（美国国际集团）的一名专家带着这份——您知道——载有非常详细信息的视频到场，而我们的专家到场后说，我从未见过该地点，我不知道那里发生了什么，因此这就是我们希望获得进入权限的原因。\n\n您知道，同样，如果有人希望对此提出异议，我们乐于听取他们的异议，但我们认为应当对紧急命令作出该项修改，以允许我们派遣自己的专家监督正在发生的事情。\n\n法官阁下，接下来谈Lady May（“梅夫人”号）。这是C项。正如我们在当前审理、请求加快审理的动议中所述，我们确实担心——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1614\nFiled 03/29/23\nEntered 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n鉴于近期事件，并且我们知道作为主办律师的Vartan先生既不在现场，也未通过Zoom出席，“梅夫人”号正在被遗弃。当然，我愿意承认我对此判断错误。\n\n但是，您知道，他们大约在March 6th给我们打电话称，哦，我们无法为“梅夫人”号获得保险。这是在火灾发生之前，法官阁下，他们打电话告诉我们，无法获得“梅夫人”号的保险。该保险将于March 28到期。他们所说的原因是游艇的所有权——而且，您知道，其中的潜台词是Kwok——我们不能让这项资产处于未投保状态。\n\n同时，请记得您曾命令该女儿到庭，就Lamp Capital（兰普资本）付款义务问题举行听证。后来他们撤回了该动议；他们认为这是一种巧妙方式，即，既然如此，她就不需要出庭，因为这是他们的动议，因此她不需要出庭，我们也无需处理该问题，而只需让受托人承担后果。\n\n但是，您知道，我们——您知道——债权人正在给我打电话。您知道，我要说——抱歉点名PAX（派克斯），但他们在说，受托人，你正在做什么来保护这项资产？如果Sherry-Netherland发生火灾，那里也可能发生火灾。那么你正在为此做什么？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n而我的回应是，我并不拥有该资产。我不能进入那里投保，或者——您知道——在那里安排保安。我对该资产没有控制权。此外，法官阁下，我们今天接到Yachtzoo（游艇动物园）方面的电话，称他们与他们所谓的家族办公室——可能是Golden Spring（黄金春天）或类似机构——之间已经没有联系，他们担心该游艇正在被遗弃。他们没有使用这些措辞。为公平起见，这是我对此的解读。他们担心不再有人付款，也不知道未来会如何。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我们所做的是仅就争议排除提交一项单独的即决判决动议。我想非常明确地说明，法官阁下，这并非我的偏好。这不是我的偏好。为什么？因为我认为，作为一个整体，证据极具说服力。我认为该罪名项也极具说服力。但我不——我绝不愿将所有鸡蛋放在同一个篮子里；但我们现在这样做，是因为这是唯一单独、仅具法律性质的请求。这里没有证人，也就是说，您知道，无需传唤Ostrager法官作为证人来了解他说过什么。我们已有相关内容。受托人无需作证，因为我对此毫不知情。当时我并不存在。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1614\nFiled 03/29/23\nEntered 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\n这是一项非常单独的罪名项，但它使我们获得所有权。我们认为，它应当使我们获得该船的所有权。\n\n如我所述，这并非我们的偏好。我宁愿举行全面听证，因为我们认为证据极具说服力。但事实迫使我们寻求即决判决。我们并不是说这就是准予即决判决的依据。\n\n我们只是说明——解释给法院听——为什么我们仅就该罪名项寻求即决判决，因为这是我们所看到的唯一明确路径：无需证据、无需拖延，即可取得该船的所有权，而这对保护该船至关重要。\n\n我们还认为，这对对方完全不存在任何不利影响，因为，第一，该问题已经摆在桌面上六个多月。第二，已经得到充分书面陈述。就PJR而言，双方均已就该争议排除问题进行了充分书面陈述。我明确告诉团队，不要在书状中增加任何一个新案例，以免任何人说，哦，存在新论点，等等。这完全是相同的论点、相同的案例、相同的判例法，全部相同。\n\n因此，我们原本准备在March 15th于法官阁下面前就此进行辩论，因此各方应当已准备好这样做。我们提出，下周一，因为那是保险承保到期前一天，而我们不了解您的日程，法官阁下。\n\n但关键是，各方应当立即准备好就此提交书面陈述，因为已经就此进行了书面陈述。因此，这就是从我们的角度看“梅夫人”号及其相关情况。\n\n我想明确说明，在采取这一行动之前，我们确实向我所称的Kwok团队和“梅夫人”号团队发送了一封电子邮件，称，你们看，我们理解保单即将到期。如果我们错了，如果你们找到了其他人，请告诉我们。该邮件是在周六发出的。\n\n如果我们对你们愿意承担“梅夫人”号费用的判断有误，您知道，请告诉我们。除通过维修储备金之外——他们已经采取立场称，应从维修储备金中支付——除该方式之外，您知道，请告诉我们。但没有任何回应。截至目前仍没有回应。因此，那是在48小时以前。这就是我们以该种方式推进的原因，法官阁下。\n\n因此，法官阁下，关于2004调查取证存在更新情况，但——而且我相信您已专门就2004事项安排了相关事项。\n\n例如，债务人是否应获得更多时间，以基于第五修正案拒绝提供文件作出回应的问题。我相信您已将该事项安排在今天。Bassett先生将处理该事项。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n我只是不想占用——花费您太多时间。但我认为我已经涵盖了很多方面。我相信对方律师会有看法。并且，我所谓的我们这一方的人也可能会有看法。因此，此时此刻，除非阁下有问题要问我，我想我将让其他人就这些不同问题发表意见。\n\n法院：好的。我确实有一两个问题。我想我理解了你的报告。那么，按照你的报告顺序来说。你现在并没有——你本人并没有任何关于该公寓受损情况的资料？你只是说，截至目前，你基本上只有传闻证据。\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。损害在实质上很严重，但我没有第一手资料，没有。\n\n法院：而且——据你了解，当局正在进行某种调查？\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n法院：FBI（联邦调查局）、消防部门——\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。所以我每天查问两次，她对我这样做很恼火，但我一直问Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰人）的律师：我们能进去吗，我们能进去吗，我们能进去吗？不是我们，而是保险人员等等。她每次都向我报告说，那是一个封锁地点。只有警察部门或FBI可以进入。一旦开放，我们会通知你们。因此，截至今天，截至现在。不过她在这里。她有新的消息，她会告诉我们，所以我认为现场已经不再封锁。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n法院：好的。关于你提出的保险承保问题，遗产是否必须就此向AIG（美国国际集团）的保单提出正式索赔，还是——\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯，从某种意义上说，我们已经这样做了，因为我们已向他们发出通知。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：因此，我们正在处理这些事项。但我认为，在我们得知他们的立场之前，还需要很长时间。\n\n法院：明白。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法院：只是想了解索赔问题。关于我们已经就Sherry-Netherland及该动议举行的听证会，我认为是你提交的一项动议，要求允许Sotheby's（苏富比）也出租该房产，而不仅仅是试图出售该房产，我相信案卷中有一项记录称，我们需要一份新的拟议命令以批准该请求。而我认为，就Sherry-Netherland而言，我们尚未见到该命令。至少，如果已经提交，我没有见到。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\nDESPINS先生：我以为我们已经提交了。但我的同事在这里。我可以征询一下吗？\n\n法院：当然。\n\nDESPINS先生：我获告知，经修订的命令已于March 10th通过电子邮件发送给法庭书记员。\n\n法院：哦，好的。那么我——我们会找到它。好的。我不——也许是我错了，但我没有看到它。因此，那可能是我的过错。\n\n你昨天就进入该公寓一事提交的经修订紧急命令，你是请求就此安排听证会，还是请求法院签发该命令？\n\nDESPINS先生：我们请求法院签发该命令。除非有人提出异议。但我没有听到异议。当然，鉴于这是在24小时通知的情况下进行的——\n\n法院：好的。那么我们将处理该事项。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法院：我需要作为本次会议的一部分处理该事项。\n\n因此，我们尚未处理的一件事是——其中一项事项——我的意思是，我们今天安排了关于状态会议的听证会，你在会上表示将处理你在报告中已经处理的事项。我们尚未处理——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\nDESPINS先生：撤换受托人的动议。\n\n法院：对。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法院：当你谈到原定于上周开始的PJR听证会时，显然那并未开始。嗯，它开始了。我们举行了听证会。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法院：但命令已经签发。\n\n不过，关于就Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格）关于船只所有权认定的禁止反言效力作出简易判决的问题，这是你希望在下周二之前处理的事项？\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。我们希望阁下今天安排一次听证会，以便——当然，我们不知道您的日程安排，所以我们说星期一，因为我们希望给他们尽可能多的时间来质疑此事。因此，他们将在星期日提交答复，然后我们将在星期一举行听证会。对任何人而言都不理想，但这就是我们的提议。\n\n但对我们来说，我们相信这是在另一份保单到期之前——使保险生效的唯一明确机会，我说的是机会，而不是保证。\n\n法院：好的。我只是想确认我理解了你的请求。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。因此，关于撤换受托人的问题，阁下，这是另一个所谓的重置按钮问题。无论该动议当时的是非曲直如何——我认为它毫无依据——但鉴于此后发生的情况，我们认为他们今天继续推进该动议可予制裁。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：但我会让他们就此发表意见。\n\n法院：对。我只是——我只是试图让这里的一切保持有序。请稍等片刻。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：那么，Despins受托人，你还说过，在某个时候，我认为你现在不希望处理这个问题，但你谈到了2004取证问题。然后，我完全不知道就HK各方（HK parties）作出的藐视法庭认定目前进展如何，以及关于Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）和Lamp Capital（兰普资本）的说明理由令发生了什么。我想我们已经就此安排了听证会，对吗，April 18th，我想是。第一次曾出现送达问题，即向Golden Spring和Lamp Capital送达说明理由令。该事项目前进展如何？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第31页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，阁下。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：为记录起见，我是Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自Paul Hastings（保尔·哈斯廷斯律师事务所），代表Chapter 11受托人。我很乐意处理这些问题，阁下。\n\n关于——首先，如果这对法院有帮助，我很乐意就2004取证总体情况提供更详尽的最新说明。\n\n法院：我认为我们现在暂时不需要这样做。\n\nBASSETT先生：好的。\n\n法院：但Despins受托人提到了此事。我真正想要了解的是——\n\nBASSETT先生：当然。\n\n法院：——显然有很多事项，但曾有关于HK各方和Vartan律师（瓦尔坦律师）的藐视法庭认定。我知道你要求一些额外时间来提交有关费用的文件，这没有问题。我认为这甚至已经获准了。好的。\n\n然后，关于Golden Spring和Lamp Capital，我们几周前举行过一次听证会，问题是说明理由令尚未送达。随后，我相信HK各方提交了某些文件，至少提供了你先前不知道的Lamp Capital送达地址。对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\nBASSETT先生：完全正确，阁下。正如我在上次处理该议题的听证会上报告的那样，我们收到通知称，我们此前向Lamp Capital送达的注册代理人表示，他们不再担任注册代理人，因此这就是我们当时面临的问题。基于阁下刚才提到的情况，我们得以解决该问题并找到可以送达的一方。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBASSETT先生：我相信是HK各方自行通过一名在本程序过程中多次被提及的人士向Lamp Capital进行了送达。因此，我们已通过该人士向Lamp Capital送达。\n\n此外——事实上我想是就在昨天——我们还再次向Golden Spring进行了送达。\n\n而且，如果尚未提交，我们将向案卷提交送达证明，因此从我们的角度而言，他们将获知关于April 18th说明理由令听证会的通知。届时我们准备出庭，并且，您知道，处理届时可能需要处理的任何问题。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第34页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n法院：好的。然后，我不知道你是否是回答此问题的合适人选，或者受托人是否是，或者你们两人共同回答，或者我想任何其他希望发言的人也可以。因此，据受托人所述，Yvette Wang（王雁峰）已被逮捕。这对Ace Decade（艾斯十年）实体在伦敦涉及UBS（瑞银）的诉讼正在发生的情况有何影响？\n\nDESPINS先生：如果可以，阁下，我来处理这个问题？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：因此，英国正在发生的情况是，仍有人代表Ace Decade出庭——是律师，他们没有说明自己从谁那里获得指示，但——他们声称其客户控制Ace Decade。他们没有说明是谁。\n\n英国上诉法院作出了有利于——不利于UBS的裁决，即认定英国对推进该项请求具有管辖权。\n\n因此，目前发生的情况是，UBS向我发了一封信，说你在上诉中置身事外。今后，我们需要知道你的立场，因为这里的费用大约可能为300-500,000 pounds。因此，我正在处理这个问题。\n\n但他们也向Ace Decade提出同样的要求，我了解到，Ace Decade与UBS正在就该事项进行谈判。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n因此，关键是，我不知道Yvette Wang对此有何影响。明确地说，我们的立场一直是——\n\n法院：嗯，这不正是——之前的整个问题不就是——\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。嗯，我们的立场一直是，Yvette Wang只是——她是名义持有人。她没有——她是一名助理。她不作决定。她只是——她是郭先生众多实体的所有人或控制人，但就她实际的决策权而言，这毫无意义。一切都是郭先生决定。\n\n因此，答案是，我不知道谁在Ace Decade背后。就个人而言，我认为是郭先生。但我不能——\n\n法院：那——你们不是——我的意思是，也许Bassett先生也必须回答这个问题，但你们在试图向她发出传票时，不是曾遇到问题，因为你们没有地址，也没有人愿意向你们提供地址——\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n法院：——而且所有被问到的问题都说，我们不知道如何找到她。\n\nDESPINS先生：是的。\n\n法院：那么，你们现在知道如何找到她了吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 36\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯，我们知道——我们可以在哪里找到她，是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：我们知道她在——\n\n法庭：那么你们可以向她送达传票？嗯，我不知道你们是否会这样做，但你的意思是——\n\nDESPINS先生：不。\n\n法庭：——你们现在可以找到她？\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯——\n\n法庭：问题是——至少就目前而言，因为有逮捕。是否有起诉书？\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。嗯，有——\n\n法庭：有什么？\n\nDESPINS先生：我不知道这是否是——这不是大陪审团起诉书。那是我不熟悉的其他形式。但她当然被指控了某项罪名。并且她被以$5 million保释金羁押。因此，我不知道她是否已经缴纳保释金。我们将查阅本案的案卷，以确定她是否已获释放。但如果她将被释放，我知道条件之一是她必须佩戴电子脚镣待在她的公寓里，以及整个——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：——你知道，整套安排。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 36 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 37 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 法庭：好的。我只是——你知道，这个问题此前已多次在本法庭提出——\n\n4 DESPINS先生：是。\n\n5 法庭：——关于Ace Decade（艾斯十年）、谁控制该公司，以及关于Wang女士（王女士）及其所在地的问题。\n\n7 DESPINS先生：是。\n\n8 法庭：所以我假定，如果她已被逮捕，就有人知道她在哪里。\n\n10 DESPINS先生：是。我们知道她在哪里，是的。\n\n11 法庭：好的。\n\n12 DESPINS先生：是。\n\n13 法庭：那么，各方——你知道——要求本法庭审查的唯一其他问题或争议，嗯，我不知道是否所有各方都要求本法庭审查，但你确实要求了，我知道这一点，你上周在我们开始PJR听证时要求我审查提及Kwok先生（郭先生）和我相信是Je先生（杰先生）的起诉书。\n\n19 而该起诉书中似乎确认了一些我在本案中从未听说过的资产。因此，这是你们正试图与司法部协商解决的问题吗？\n\n23 DESPINS先生：这是我们将与他们讨论的事项之一。有两类问题：他们实际冻结的资产，例如银行账户。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 38\n\n法庭：是，我看到了。\n\nDESPINS先生：而且——而且有数百——\n\n法庭：我更多说的是一些——\n\nDESPINS先生：是。\n\n法庭：——我从未听说过的东西。并不是说我本应听说。我只是说。有一处——有一处——\n\nDESPINS先生：不。例如，新泽西州有一栋房屋。\n\n法庭：对。那是其中一项。\n\nDESPINS先生：那对我们来说是新闻。\n\n法庭：还有多辆豪华汽车。\n\nDESPINS先生：其中一些我们知道，但是——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：——所以我们当时——你知道，那是——那在我们的任务清单上。所以，是的。我们在其中了解到新的事项。因此，与他们讨论的事项之一是我们如何推进？因为他们与我们观点一致，即我们需要尽快向受害人进行分配。他们知道，尽管在确认资产等方面，他们拥有比我们更强、更好的工具，但我们可能比他们推进得更快，因为他们需要等待刑事定罪，而这——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 38 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n于 03/29/23 提交\n于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 可能需要很长时间。审判不太可能在一年左右之内进行。因此，这是我——我们需要与他们进行的讨论之一。并希望这将会——\n\n4 我是说，法官阁下，您从Goldberg案中知道，过去这些——这些案件的解决方式是，第11章受托人在两个法庭均获任命。\n\n8 嗯，我已经是本法庭的第11章受托人，但在另一个法庭被任命为没收管理人或接管人，我忘记了确切术语，然后本法庭对该程序如何运作具有管辖权。\n\n13 顺便说一句，我不想误导任何人。没有人同意这样做。我只是说，涉及庞氏骗局或其他同类案件的例子有很多，政府认识到，他们非常擅长寻找人员、寻找资产，但他们不最擅长分配资产，以及理解谁拥有有效请求权、谁没有。\n\n20 因此，举个例子，SEC（美国证券交易委员会）一年多前为GTV（GTV）事项收取的公平基金，在425 million中仅有70 million已被分配。\n\n23 我不是在批评他们。我只是说，这——这不是他们所做的事情。\n\n25 法庭：那么，我假定，你们在某个时候必须协调的问题之一是——有人——你们已经——有人就这份SEC起诉状和公平基金发表过意见，但我认为那并未载入本案记录，我想并没有。不过你们谈过它，所以我大致了解。\n\nDESPINS先生：是。\n\n法庭：而且实际上，其中一名证人就此作证——\n\nDESPINS先生：是。\n\n法庭：——是在初步禁令听证期间，对吗？她取回了其投入资金的一半。\n\nDESPINS先生：那500,000。\n\n法庭：所以，是的。\n\nDESPINS先生：那名政府雇员，是的。\n\n法庭：所以我大致了解它是什么，但我不——我并不声称完全理解它。但如果有人在该程序和本程序中均提出请求权，这是否是你们在本案中以及我想与证券交易委员会必须处理的问题之一？\n\nDESPINS先生：是。只不过——那么，稍微介绍一下该案的背景。Kwok并非该案中被列名的当事人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 40 页，共\n\nDESPINS先生：他的公司，再次说明，这是我的看法——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 41 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 参与其中。因此，发生的情况是，SEC意识到有一项未注册的公开发行正在进行，且数千人正在汇入资金。因此，他们冻结了该项资金。他们能够冻结该资金或大部分资金。我认为有37 million下落不明——我不该说37 million，因为那会看起来像另一个37——但有30 million零头下落不明，不过他们能够冻结425 million。\n\n9 因此，他们告诉受害人，请来向我们提出申请，以领取一些资金。人们已经这样做了。但他们大多数人说普通话，不说英语，因此存在很多——所以，截至目前，他们仅能够核实70 million的分配——\n\n15 法庭：好的。\n\n16 DESPINS先生：——在425中。\n\n17 法庭：现在，你刚才所说的是——也许我只是——再次说明，我不——你比我知道得多，但你所说的SEC已经冻结的400多——千，我是说million——是否与以下所列资金彼此独立且不同——\n\n23 DESPINS先生：与那600相比，是的。与那630相比，是的。\n\n25 法庭：好的。好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 42 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 DESPINS先生：很多钱。是。\n\n2 法庭：好的。好的。那——\n\n3 DESPINS先生：是630加425。\n\n4 法庭：好的。好的。\n\n5 现在，我认为，除非有人提出相反的异议，我们应当先处理主案中的问题，然后再处理作为本次状态会议一部分而提出的、对抗程序中的具体动议及事项，以便我们能够试图弄清楚接下来要往哪里走。好的。\n\n11 因此，如果我先审视主案，而我可能完全错了，但在我看来，除非Kwok先生、Guo女士（郭女士）和HK（HK）的律师有其他立场，以及或许Kwok先生的配偶，有人反对关于修改紧急命令以处理进入该公寓事宜的动议吗？\n\n我已经看过该命令。我必须告诉你们，我是否研究过它？没有。但我看过它。并且我对它的初步——审阅是，它在我看来似乎并无争议。然而，我显然可能是错的。我的意思是，各方——它昨天提交了。我不记得它是在什么时间提交的。我们今天已经举行了听证。我看过——我看过它。\n\n法庭内或通过电话、Zoom听证参加的任何一方，是否反对录入关于进入Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓的经修改紧急命令？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 43\n\nMORIARTY先生（莫里亚蒂先生）：法官阁下，我是代表债务人的James Moriarty。在Henzy律师（亨齐律师）和我之间，诚然，我们昨天没有看那项命令。我不记得在ECF中看到它传来。\n\n法庭：但它确实传来了，因为我收到了。\n\nMORIARTY先生：好的。\n\n法庭：那么你就收到了。\n\nMORIARTY先生：我不怀疑这一点。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nMORIARTY先生：如我所说，我没有看到它。\n\n法庭：不。我只是告诉你它确实传来了，仅此而已。\n\nMORIARTY先生：如果我们——如果我们能有机会看一看它，也许受托人的律师有一份副本，我认为我们不会提出异议。\n\n法庭：如果你愿意，我们现在可以为你打印一份副本。\n\nMORIARTY先生：我们确实需要先阅读它。\n\n法庭：我明白。等一下。好吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：当然。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：我们这里有一份副本。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 43 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 44\n\nMORIARTY先生：他们在那边有一份副本，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：哦，他们就在那儿有一份副本？\n\nMORIARTY先生：谢谢。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：好的。那么，等一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：因此，拟议的经修改命令显示为1562。Moriarty先生，可能你不知道它是什么，因为标题中没有说明——你知道，你必须打开文件——该文件显示它是在修改关于进入该公寓的命令。因此，在你的ECF通知中，我认为它只是写着拟议命令通知之类的内容。\n\nMORIARTY先生：既然已经看过，对此没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nLAWALL先生（洛瓦尔先生）：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：是。\n\nLAWALL先生：法官阁下，通过Zoom，再次说明，我是代表Bravo（布拉沃）的Fran Lawall。法官阁下，我们所担心的并非不让受托人进入以及不让其进行调查，只是鉴于所有权问题，Bravo希望能够与受托人一同进行现场查看，以便我们能够\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 于 03/29/23 提交 于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入 第 44 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n于 03/29/23 提交\n于 03/29/23 20:07:05 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n向当事人报告该财产的状况，并有能力聘请我们自己的调查员，以确保此处完全透明。\n\n显然，已经存在许多指控，而这里并非反驳这些指控的适当场所，但关于所有权存在重大问题；我们只是希望能够让我们自己的独立调查员参与进来，与受托人的调查员密切合作，以实现完全透明，同时确保我们也能获得查阅权，并准确了解此处究竟发生了什么。\n\n我们不会妨碍受托人的调查，但鉴于此处存在的严重指控，我们希望能够聘请自己的调查员审查正在发生的情况。\n\n在该财产所有权问题得到确定之前——阁下，我们可以在几分钟后您讨论 Sherry（谢里）相关问题时谈及此事——现阶段，这些问题仍然存在且十分重要。\n\n再次说明，我们并非要妨碍受托人的工作。只是为了确保我们能够独立审查，并确切了解此处发生了什么。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：阁下？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n法院：是。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：谢谢。我需要回应这一点，因为 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）就是 Kwok（郭文贵）。好吧。我们不必自欺欺人。美国司法部（DOJ）、联邦调查局（FBI）——我认为他不会——我不想介入讨论他是否——他是否有权前往检查该财产。无论他根据刑法是否享有这些权利，他都会行使这些权利，但不能通过 Bravo Luck 的后门来行使。我有百分之一百五十的动机去确认不存在承保问题，以便我在此为 Bravo Luck 做好周全准备。认为我们会以某种方式——我们究竟会在哪个星球上前往那里并试图认定不存在承保？那是荒谬的。我的职责是取得所有可获得的保险承保。因此，我们不需要 Bravo Luck；顺便说一句，我们不必自欺欺人，Bravo Luck 就是 Lawall先生（劳沃尔先生）和债务人的儿子。债务人正在服刑。您知道，本院不应当介入刑事案件被告是否有权派人检查该财产的问题。这应由刑事法院作出决定。如果他享有该权利，那很好，他将获得查阅权。但这不是本院应当处理的事情。允许 Bravo Luck 获得查阅权，实际上，您知道，是让债务人获得查阅权的一种变相方式。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 46 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n您知道，因为有人提出了指控这一论点——是的，已经提出了大量指控。但正如我所说，作为受托人，我的职责是让所有人看到，我希望获得保险承保。因此，即使以一种奇怪的方式，我们在该问题上是一致的。因此，我们不需要监督。而且这只会使刑事案件变得更复杂，我不想这样做，阁下。\n\nLAWALL先生（劳沃尔先生）：阁下，如果可以的话？我一直在听受托人在没有证据的情况下诋毁律师、Bravo Luck 以及其他所有人，而这种情况总得停止。受托人自己已经就所有权问题提出了一项动议。受托人承认，用于购买该财产的 $70 million 来自 Bravo Luck。我们在每一个步骤中都到本院出庭，试图以尊重的方式推进本诉讼，并且在此方式中证据确实重要。受托人正试图横冲直撞。但是，阁下，对律师进行攻击完全不恰当。阁下，我们所要求的一切，而且我们并非试图拖延此事，只是存在一个所有权问题。我们将会在场。存在有关保险的问题。这超出了保险的范围，阁下。因为如果存在关于这件事如何发生的指控，受托人已经作出了荒谬的指控。并且在某个时候，他们可能会编造一项指控，称 Bravo Luck 以某种方式导致了这场火灾。我恭敬地说，阁下，已经够了。我们所要求的只是遵循程序。请让我们——至少让我们自费聘请自己的专家，与受托人共同调查此处发生的事情。仅此而已。但阁下，我为自己情绪激动表示歉意。\n\n法院：没关系。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：阁下，并没有任何有关——首先，我没有听到——我没有就火灾如何发生或任何类似事情作出任何指控。因此，所涉指控是关于本案资产和负债清单系虚构这一事实，我坚持这一点。现在，没有人提出任何论点说明，受托人为何并非完全有动机在此寻求承保，并寻找所有支持承保的论点，这也应当是 Bravo Luck 的立场。因此，他们应当获得查阅权的唯一理由是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 48 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 49 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n因为他们希望追求另一个角度。如果他们认为自己应当获得承保，我们也是如此。我们的职责就是努力确保存在承保。\n\n那么，关于他们为何需要参与的论点是什么？\n\nLAWALL先生（劳沃尔先生）：阁下，理由很简单。受托人反复将指控变成事实，然后要求阁下据此采取行动。我们不希望受托人在调查中这样做。\n\n我们所要求的一切只是有一名独立调查员，阁下，您可以审查调查结果。但鉴于受托人迄今为止的行事方式，我们确实担心该调查的中立性。\n\n法院：好，让我——律师，让我先打断您一下。\n\n对该命令所请求的唯一变更，即在——一项命令已经录入。昨天对该命令所请求的唯一变更，是让受托人和/或 Genever U.S.（杰内弗美国）为调查 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓的状况和/或火灾情况而聘请的任何专家，在 Sherry-Netherland 人员陪同下获得进入权。\n\n因此，除依法有权进入该公寓的当局外，任何人都不得进入该公寓；对于这些当局，本院无管辖权——他们必须由 Sherry-Netherland 的人员陪同。因此，有了这一安排，我认为您当事人的利益已经得到保护。\n\n我准备以该项变更录入该命令。可以吗？\n\n因此，我理解您的担忧，但我驳回您的担忧。\n\n我将以该内容录入经修订的紧急命令；这就是对该命令的唯一变更。该命令自上周起一直有效。\n\n所以将会——我会告知法庭书记员，该命令载于文件识别号 ECF No. 1562，并且在今天庭审结束时——\n\n哦，抱歉，律师。您希望发言吗？\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：是的，阁下。并非要现在反对录入经修订的命令——\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，阁下。\n\n法院：好的。请稍等一下。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：好的。这是 Sherry——\n\n法院：请您先为记录陈述您的姓名。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：抱歉。我是代表 Sherry-Netherland 的 Strook（斯特鲁克律师事务所）的 Sherry Millman（谢里·米尔曼）。\n\n我们绝非要质疑对该命令的变更。我只是想再次为记录说明——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n正如我认为 DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）告诉本院的那样，Sherry-Netherland 正受正在调查的联邦当局指令约束，目前尚无人可以进入。\n\n法院：当然。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：因此，本命令其他方面的任何实施，都将等待当局指示我们——\n\n法院：完全正确。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：——我们获准实施。\n\n法院：完全正确。而且受托人所请求加入命令的唯一内容是，任何由受托人聘请的专家。据我所知，他尚未这样做。因此，这只是为了在命令中加入该项规定。我完全同意您的意见。上周我们在庭审中讨论该命令时，我们都明白，这是一处显然处于联邦调查局、纽约市警察局和消防局管辖之下的调查现场。因此，本院对这些实体均无控制权，也绝不会期待拥有控制权。该命令所做的一切是——并非全部，但其所做的是，一旦除调查当局之外的本命令中任何一方有能力获得进入权，他们将获得进入权，但仅限于——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 51 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n由您当事人在其进入期间陪同他们。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：正确。正确。\n\n法院：因此，您的当事人将保留记录——\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：正确。正确。\n\n法院：——记录除本院无管辖权的当局以外的任何人每次进入该公寓的情况，并且您的当事人将陪同这些人——\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：正确。\n\n法院：——始终在公寓内陪同他们。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：正确，阁下。\n\n法院：这正是该命令所规定的。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：是的，阁下。我明白。\n\n法院：是。\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：但我只是不希望存在任何误解。\n\n法院：不，我感谢您提出这一点。不。我知道没有人能够进入该公寓。我的意思是，我并不知道，我是被告知的——\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：是。\n\n法院：——但这似乎合乎逻辑，对吗——\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：正确。\n\n法院：——目前没有人会进入该公寓。正在进行一项——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交 03/29/23\n录入 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n调查——\n\nMILLMAN女士（米尔曼女士）：正确。\n\n法院：——与之毫无关系——\n\n（法庭录音设备在下午 3:45:33 至下午 3:51:30 之间发生故障。在这些时间戳之间没有可用录音。）\n\n法院：——所以，我要对您说的是，此事很快将被审理。问题是，您的当事人将撤回该动议，还是继续推进该动议？\n\n这完全是——您知道，必须作出该决定。我理解这一点。我并不反对这一点。但无论如何，这件事都会发生，因为它必须发生。\n\n不能在一个案件中出现这样的当事人立场，即代表所有人行事的受托人不能行事。我不会再经历三、四个月的事情，然后在五个月后才决定他不能担任受托人。这毫无意义。\n\n我的意思是，这在本案中是一个必须解决的问题。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：阁下，我理解。我指出，该动议已待决两个半月，但是——\n\n法院：如您所清楚知道的，该事项待决了两个半月的原因是——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：是因为调解。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交 03/29/23 录入 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 54 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n法庭：\n这也是因为初步禁令以及其他事项——\n\n亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：\n已经有很多——\n\n法庭：\n——本院必须处理的事项——\n\n亨齐先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n——而且《联邦民事诉讼规则》要求本院首先处理这些事项。\n\n亨齐先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，我请求延期至4月13日。\n\n我理解您所说的一切。\n\n我不知道何时才能与我的当事人交谈。坦率地说，我通过潜在的刑事辩护律师所得到的沟通是——这并不是说破产事项不是极其重要，但那——那不是他今天的优先事项。确实不是。\n\n对此，也许只有我这样认为，但我理解——\n\n法庭：\n我认为没有人对此提出异议。我的意思是——\n\n亨齐先生：\n所以我——\n\n法庭：\n——但问题仍然是，该动议要么被撤回，要么被准许，要么被驳回。\n\n亨齐先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 55\n\n亨齐先生：\n我请求延期至4月13日。而且，法官阁下，我要说的是，我也希望此事得到解决，请相信我。所以我只是——我需要与当事人交谈。我不知道何时能够做到。您知道，距离相当重大的事件发生还有五天左右。我不知道自己将有何种能力与他沟通，除非且直到他有了刑事辩护律师。再次说明，也许联邦公设辩护人会与我交谈。我对此不确定，因为我认为该律师的意见在此将会很重要。无论如何，我请求将该动议延期至4月13日。我明白我需要尽可能迅速地推进此事，并向各方当事人及本院报告决定为何。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。德斯平受托人（Trustee Despins）？\n\n德斯平先生（MR. DESPINS）：\n是的。法官阁下，本事项的悬而未决会造成不利影响。我记得英国曾提出过类似问题，即受托人可能被罢免。因此，我们不能让此事一直悬而未决，尤其是考虑到该动议中关于和解因不当理由被推翻的论点，均被证明——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第55页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日\n\n——属实。也就是说，我就H Coin及所有相关事项所提出的论点均属实，所发生的事情完全如我所说。\n\n因此，我才说在此时推进该动议可予制裁，我们将请求制裁。\n\n而且它应当——\n\n亨齐先生：\n他可以反复纠缠此事。好的。我有一名当事人，我需要与我的当事人交谈。我认为这并不难理解。如果他想因为我有一名当事人且我需要与我的当事人交谈而以制裁威胁我，那么他可以——他可以以制裁威胁我。不过，我认为这一立场并不难理解，法官阁下。\n\n有一个人被关在监狱里。他是我的当事人。我不能独立于我的当事人作出决定。我必须与我的当事人交谈。\n\n法庭：\n还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's Office）对罢免受托人动议的立场是什么？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：\n法官阁下，此事确实需要有个终结。\n\n法庭：\n我听不见您说话，克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）。抱歉。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我想这个麦克风——\n\n法庭：\n那个麦克风似乎不工作。嗯？抱歉。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日 57\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n法官阁下，我想说的是，我确实认为罢免受托人的动议需要有个终结，不能无限期地悬而未决。我从亨齐律师所说的话中并不完全理解的是，他是否实际上曾尝试与其当事人交谈。我听到的是其他人无法接触其当事人的不同说法，但我不知道他本人是否曾尝试接触其当事人而未能做到。长话短说，我意识到郭先生目前存在相互竞争的利益，但本破产案件需要继续推进，不能停在这里，直到郭先生决定将其列为优先事项。因此，本院最好的解决办法可能是设定一个日期和答复期限，然后郭先生将必须遵守。\n\n法庭：\n您所说的答复期限是什么意思？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n意思是，延期至4月13日可能只会导致亨齐先生在4月13日出庭时说，我一直无法接触我的当事人。我不知道答案是什么。\n\n法庭：\n我明白了。我只是想确保我理解了。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我所建议的是，我们选择一种具有非常具体的行动和决策时间框架的路径。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第57页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日 58\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n亨齐先生：\n法官阁下？\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\n亨齐先生：\n我已经说过，我将尽我所能——无论这种能力为何——尽快与我的当事人沟通。我不是刑事律师。目前，我是通过潜在的刑事辩护律师进行沟通。因此，我不知道何时能够与我的当事人沟通，也不知道我的当事人何时准备好并处于能够讨论该动议的状态。我将尽我可能以最大的勤勉行事。我向本院、向各方当事人作出该承诺，但我不能——我不能做得更多。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就罢免受托人的动议陈述意见吗？\n\n（无人答复。）\n\n法庭：\n好的。我将审阅——目前，我们将其排定于星期四审理。不能是本周四，因为您在本案的另一案件中有一项已经由法院命令安排的调解。因此，德斯平先生，我不会在星期四继续审理罢免受托人的动议。我不——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第58页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日\n\n——知道我将如何处理。我听取了每个人所说的话。我会考虑此事，并且可能——\n\n我们需要考虑的是，星期四的事项是否——其他事项是否——其中一项，我想您正在寻求聘用英国律师。我不记得了，我现在就看一下，星期四的其他事项是什么。请稍等片刻。\n\n所以目前排定的，哦，是撤销传票的动议和强制该申请的交叉动议。这些事项全部——大部分与证据开示有关。\n\n罢免受托人的动议不会于23日星期四中午继续审理。这一点明确。何时审理，我将审阅后再作决定。\n\n关于星期四的证据开示问题，在我们逐一审理各对立程序中的具体事项后，再回到这些问题上来。好吗？\n\n但为使每个人都清楚，我们不会于3月23日星期四就罢免受托人的动议举行听证会。该事项将延期，我将在今天的听证会后确定延期至何日何时。\n\n好的。现在，让我们——现在我们可以开始转向——抱歉，我们仍必须处理关于郭先生延长答复说明理由命令期限的动议。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty），我认为您提交了该动议，对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日 60\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表债务人Ho Wan Kwok的詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂（James Moriarty）。\n\n法官阁下，债务人对说明理由命令的答复——该命令要求其说明，在回应本院就强制动议所作命令时，其援引《第五修正案》不自证其罪特权的理由——目前应于2023年3月28日提交。基于亨齐律师刚才阐述的理由，即无法与郭先生交谈，以及对本问题而言极其重要的是，法官阁下，我们一直就本问题与曾在各种事项中代理郭先生的刑事律师沟通，但那些律师不会在本刑事案件中代理他。\n\n郭先生目前没有私人刑事辩护律师。如亨齐律师所说，他由一名公设辩护人代理。根据亨齐律师进行的谈话，我们相信郭先生一直在寻求聘请律师。因此，我们请求将答复说明理由命令的期限延长30天，至2023年4月27日，以便我们能够就答复与我们的当事人沟通，并就——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第60页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第61页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日\n\n——该答复与其刑事辩护律师沟通；这确实将是一份至关重要的答复，因为它涉及《第五修正案》问题。而且在此时，毫无疑问郭先生有合理理由相信其人身自由受到威胁，因为他已被起诉并被逮捕。\n\n而且，法官阁下，正如我们在动议中指出的另一点，司法部（Department of Justice）对于准许郭先生保释采取了极为强硬的立场。\n\n目前尚无人提出保释申请。\n\n但假定他仍被羁押，如果本院命令他做某事，我不知道他怎么可能做到。因此，这是支持请求延长期限的另一项因素。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n请对该动议作出答复。\n\n巴塞特先生（MR. BASSETT）：\n法官阁下，我再次说明，我是代表受托人的保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的尼克·巴塞特（Nick Bassett）。\n\n法官阁下，受托人反对该请求。事实上，受托人基于数项理由强烈反对延长期限的请求。\n\n首先，我认为我们不应忽视这里的历史以及达到目前这一步所耗费的时间。我不会追溯到最开始，但如本院十分清楚，我们自8月以来一直在向受托人寻求该等证据开示。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n录入日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n第62页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年3月21日 62\n\n我们经历了一个漫长而艰难的过程，包括提出强制动议、就该动议举行听证会、一项未被遵守的命令，以及一项说明理由命令。实际上是在2月7日——甚至在那之前——我们从其律师处得知，债务人将以一概而论的方式主张《第五修正案》，据称以阻止其就任何主题向受托人额外提交哪怕一份文件。\n\n随后，于2月7日，债务人向本院提交了一份声明。当时距离宣布起诉书和刑事指控还有一个月零八天，他当时已经采取的立场是，根据他的理解，依法律他有权就针对他的所有证据开示一概而论地援引《第五修正案》。\n\n因此，现在允许债务人——我稍后将谈到其他要点，但只是为了说明我们目前所处的位置——再获得30天的额外期限，他本应在1月遵守本院强制提交文件的命令。随后，如果他要在本院命令其于2月7日作出的声明中主张《第五修正案》特权，他本应当时解释为何他这样做是适当的。\n\n提出该主张，以及他事实上为何有权援引《第五修正案》而不提供任何文件。\n\n所以，是的，现在已经提出刑事指控。\n\n但截至 February 7th，他在其律师向本院提交的一份声明中表示，他当时受到《第五修正案》的保护。至少，他们需要能够向本院说明，为何当时这样做是正当的。\n\n如果说现在有什么不同，鉴于刑事指控，他可能还有其他事项要补充，但他当时认为自己有能力提出该论点，而这应当得到说明。\n\n另一点是，他完全没有理由不能在28日之前作出回应，那是目前的截止日期。\n\n是的，我理解律师显然——您知道，我不知道 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）为接触其当事人已作出何种程度的尝试。我理解刑事辩护律师方面存在一个问题。但到28日，距其被捕将近两周。在这种情况下，我的意思是，这应当——这应当足以让他们有时间找到与其当事人磋商的办法。\n\n我不知道拘留所内有哪些 COVID 防疫规定，但不可能在他被羁押期间无法会见律师。这不可能。\n\n我要说的另一件事是，这种认为他\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n64\n\n无法提供文件的说法——而且我读到延期动议中的陈述时，确实感到震惊——该陈述称，只要债务人被监禁，根据所涉指控，他理论上可能终身被监禁，他就无法依照关于强制提供动议的命令提供文件。\n\n我不知道，债务人为何必须身处监狱之外，才能让其律师及其他持有其保管或控制之文件的人提供这些文件；为何他在被监禁期间不能这样做。当然他可以。因此，我完全不理解这一点。\n\n阁下，我最后要说的一点是，这里确有紧迫性。我们不能只是坐视债务人持续无期限地无视本院命令，并且无视其取证义务，正如他在过去将近一年中所做的那样，尤其是考虑到最近发生的事件。\n\n阁下，已有新闻报道。显然，Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰酒店）发生的事情正在接受调查。我们不知道原因将会是什么。但 New York Post（《纽约邮报》）报道称，正在调查的事项之一是，该公寓内的火灾是否系远程引发。\n\n就在数小时前，一家信誉良好的新闻媒体刊发报道称，2017年，一家中国法院认定债务人的兄弟及另外三名被告曾焚烧80至90——70至80箱文件，焚烧了70至80箱载有会计记录、收据等内容的文件，而这些文件本会对债务人不利。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1614\nFiled 03/29/23\nEntered 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n阁下，鉴于正在发生的事情，诚然有许多我们任何人都从未预料到的疯狂事件；我们不能处于这样一种境地：任何持有我们很久以前请求、且可能对本案至关重要的文件的人，都可以只是压着这些文件不交，而我们受托人必须承担未来这些文件可能发生何种情况的风险。\n\n因此，我们强烈反对。对于30天的延期，我们绝对反对，阁下。完全没有理由再行拖延，更不用说拖延30天。\n\n谢谢。\n\n本院：对于你刚才所说的，律师，我唯一要回应的是，关于火灾以及一段时间以前焚烧其他资料的报道，本院的记录中没有任何内容支持其中任何一项，因此我必须不予考虑。我的意思是，目前这并不是，您知道——\n\n巴塞特先生（Bassett）：阁下，我并未请求本院将其作为事实予以考虑。当然不是。我所说的只是，鉴于任何事情都有可能发生——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n66\n\n本院：我明白。我的意思是——\n\n巴塞特先生：——我们不能处于一个只能坐视等待的境地。\n\n本院：——任何情况下都有这种可能，对吧？我明白你的意思。我确实明白这一点。但您知道，除非且直到调查——即主管机关所进行的调查，对吧——得出有关火灾如何引发或其他情况的结论，否则我不会将其纳入考虑。我将纳入考虑的是双方均已提出的问题，即取证自 August of 2020 起一直尚未完成；本院已作出不同命令，要求遵守该取证要求；Kwok先生在 February 提出其一概援引《第五修正案》特权的主张，时间是在——我认为是在起诉书发出前一个多月；以及律师表示他们需要时间与他沟通。我将在决定如何处理延期动议时考虑所有这些事项。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Friedman）：阁下。\n\n本院：我想弗里德曼先生希望\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 66 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1614\nFiled 03/29/23\nEntered 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n发言。\n\n请稍等一下，弗里德曼先生。\n\n弗里德曼先生：是的。我只是想——抱歉。\n\n本院：请稍等一下。\n\n那么，巴塞特先生，你还有什么想补充的吗？\n\n巴塞特先生：没有。谢谢，阁下。\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。\n\n好。请讲，弗里德曼先生。\n\n弗里德曼先生：阁下，我只是想说，我们认为迅速处理这一问题确实很重要，因为例如，债务人的义务是持续的。\n\n债务人可能会在其辩护过程中从政府获得财务信息，即政府被要求提供的信息。如果他有律师，他也可能自行开展调查，从而为反驳政府的指控而取得、置于其管理、保管或控制之下的财务文件；这些文件应当交给受托人，因为它们涉及债务人的财务状况。\n\n而且，您知道，一旦这些文件出现，如其处于债务人的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n保管、控制之下，或处于其代理人之一的保管、控制之下，就应立即提供。我认为，解决这一问题也将使这一问题得到明确，并希望使受托人获得更多信息，以便追查债务人无论位于何处的资产。\n\n本院：好的。还有其他人希望就延长Kwok先生回应说明理由令期限的动议发言吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty）：阁下，如获允许，我只说几点。\n\n本院：请讲。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：如果本院认定Kwok先生援引其《第五修正案》特权是适当的——\n\n本院：我没听清。抱歉。你能再说一遍吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：当然。\n\n本院：他援引《第五修正案》？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：在当时情况下，援引该特权是适当的——\n\n本院：你的意思是，截至 February 7th？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：正确。\n\n本院：好的。请继续。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：那么他已经遵守了本院命令，因为他援引了其根据《宪法》享有权利援引的《第五修正案》特权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n69\n\n而这正是我们一旦聘请刑事辩护律师后，必须能够接触Kwok先生的刑事辩护律师的原因之一。我说过，我们一直在与刑事辩护律师就此问题进行沟通。他们正在离任。Kwok先生正在聘请新的刑事辩护律师。我们请求30天，是为了保护一项宪法权利，而这就是我们所请求的全部。谢谢。\n\n本院：好的。还有其他人要补充吗？\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n本院：好的。我将审查此事。正如关于延长受托人罢免听证期限的动议一样，我希望将在未来几天内作出裁定。但鉴于我们今天讨论的全部情况，我将予以全面审查。好的。至于今天日程上的其他事项，我将转而——我现在将转向具体的对抗程序。请给我一点时间。可能不止一点时间。好的。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n本院：现在我们转向对抗程序。首先，我将处理23-05002，Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）等诉Kwok等案。在今天该对抗程序的状态会议上，有两项我说过我们将讨论的动议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 69 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1614\nFiled 03/29/23\nEntered 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n第一项动议是，莫里亚蒂先生，你代表被告Kwok先生提交的、请求将答辩状回应期限延长至 April 10 的延期动议。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，阁下。\n\n这样做或许不太公平，但我们请求了21天。受托人同意7天。如果受托人愿意折中，同意14天，并且本院愿意这样做，我们认为延至 April 3rd, 2023 应当能给予我们足够时间。这将是对起诉状的答辩。这应当能给予我们足够时间，希望能与我们的当事人沟通，并获得当事人对此事的立场。\n\n正如阁下可能记得，这实际上是一起旨在将债务人及其家人从Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰酒店）驱逐出去的案件。鉴于发生的事情，我想与我的当事人谈谈，以确定其立场是否已有变化。也许没有，但也许有。\n\n本院：巴塞特律师？\n\n巴塞特先生：阁下，我认为今天的主题显然一直是，受托人的立场——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n71\n\n本院：你能把麦克风靠近一些吗？抱歉。\n\n巴塞特先生：没关系。受托人的立场是——正如受托人在其状态报告中所述，以及我在刚才事项中所表达的那样，非常明确，即您知道，由于最近发生的事件等原因，我们不能处于受托人试图在本案中推进的进程不断延误的境地。尽管有这一非常重要的保留意见，但就这一特定请求而言，我们曾说，您知道，我们会给你们一周时间，以便你们稍作安顿并提交答辩。我们不会阻止将该期限延长至14天，所以我们对此没有异议。\n\n本院：那么你们同意延至 April 3rd？\n\n巴塞特先生：正确，阁下。\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。那么，延期动议将获部分准许，延期将准许至并包括 April 3rd。好的，莫里亚蒂先生？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，阁下。我知道戈德斯坦律师（Goldstein）目前也代表其当事人提出了一项动议。\n\n本院：是的。他接下来。这是下一项\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 71 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 第72页 事宜。谢谢。好的。请稍等——让我记一下。（停顿。）法院：好的。那么，23-05002 中的下一事项是将答复起诉状的期限延长至 April 10 的动议。Goldstein 律师（戈尔茨坦律师），就 ECF No. 31 而言，您代表该案被告，对吗？\n\n戈尔茨坦先生：是的，法官阁下。我代表 Hing Chi Ngok（Hing Chi Ngok）。根据法院与受托人此前的讨论，我们已提出第一次动议，请求将答复起诉状的期限延长 21 天。若受托人愿意将期限延长 14 天，Ngok 女士亦同意如此。\n\n法院：谢谢。Bassett 律师（巴塞特律师）？\n\n巴塞特先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。因此，延长答复起诉状期限的动议将获部分准许。将作出命令，将期限延长至 April 3rd。\n\n戈尔茨坦先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。接下来转向对抗程序 22-05003，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第72页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第73页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 第73页 International，即 HK International（HK International）对抗程序。这是要求加速审理简易判决动议的动议，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么您请求对简易判决动议——嗯，尚无人作出答复，因为该动议昨天才提交。那么，HK 当事方对加速审理简易判决动议的动议有何回应？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（Zeisler & Zeisler）的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），代表法官阁下刚才所称的 HK 当事方。简易判决动议是在周日/周一提交的。其中一部分于周日晚些时候提交，另一部分于周一清晨提交。受托人要求 HK 当事方在六天内答复该动议，并要求法院在第七天举行听证会。正如法官阁下所知，当地规则规定答复动议的期限为 21 天。简易判决动议通常经协议确定的期限甚至更长。我们在此不会要求超过 21 天。受托人提出的问题是既判力问题，且已在此前的书面陈述中处理。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第74页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 第74页 但这是一项简易判决动议。这不是依诉状判决动议，也不是驳回动议。这是一项简易判决动议。受托人通过其律师提交了一份我认为有 48 段、可能相差几段的 Local Rule 56(a)(1) 陈述。HK 必须答复该 Local Rule 56(a)(1) 陈述。其必须准备自己的附有证据的 56(a)(2) 陈述。并且，HK 可能希望基于 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）面前的记录指出一些额外事实，而受托人主要依赖的正是该记录。HK 当事方也可能希望就受托人的 56(a)(1) 陈述中的证据问题提出意见。受托人所依赖的全部证据是否均可采纳？我们不知道，因为我们仅持有该动议一天。要求 HK 当事方——而且我相信本案中仅为 HK，法官阁下，并不包括 Guo 女士（郭女士）——\n\n法院：是的，仅为 HK。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——因此，要求 HK 在六天内答复一项简易判决动议，而受托人寻求的判决将使受托人取得 Lady May（“Lady May”号）所有权——这是一项约 25-ish million dollar 的资产——根本不公平。HK 至少应当获得完整的 21 天答复该动议，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第75页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n法院：好的。嗯，我不确定我是否完全同意您的看法，即这根本不公平。我理解您的论点。但 Vartan 先生（瓦尔坦先生）代表 HK 和 Guo 女士，并且他已在 Ostrager 法官面前的该对抗程序中出庭，因此我不确定这根本不公平。不过，我会考虑您所说的内容。\n\n问题在于，在这种情况下，同一律师已参与数年。Ostrager 法官面前的事项，我认为在本案提交后的第二天或第三天便已提请法院注意。如今已过去一年多。\n\n而且，Vartan 律师不仅在此出庭并代表 HK 和 Mei Guo（郭美）提出论证，而且显然还在 Ostrager 法官面前的 PAX（PAX）诉讼中代表 HK 和郭美进行论证、提交证据并提出证人，尽管这些当事方并非该诉讼的当事方。\n\n因此，尽管我听取了您的意见，但我认为这并非某人面对一项简易判决动议、此前从未有机会就这些问题进行诉讼或讨论的通常案件。\n\n而且，正如简易判决动议所应当做的，本案动议似乎是在主张已经存在一项不可动摇的终局判决。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第76页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n现在，各位已经就该问题提交了书面陈述。并且显然，根据纽约州法律，作出禁止反言或既判力认定的可能性不受待决上诉影响，而根据康涅狄格州法律，在康涅狄格州则会受其影响。\n\n所以，我会考虑您所说的一切，但我认为这是不同的情况。\n\n如果这是一个当事方之间此前并无诉讼的案件，如果自行提起该对抗程序的同一实体——顺便说一句，是 HK 提起该对抗程序，而非受托人德斯平斯——且 HK 在受托人请求本院基于禁止反言或既判力作出认定的那项诉讼中，由目前在本院本案中出庭的同一律师代理，那么情况就不同了。\n\n这并不意味着我最终不会完全同意您的意见，但情况并不相同。这并非新近提交的一宗案件，且无人知晓发生了什么。\n\n并且，事实上，康涅狄格州的简易判决——地区法院规则规定，而这正是我们就简易判决所遵循的规则——即，除非您确信将获成功，否则不得在地区法院寻求简易判决。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 第77页 我的意思是，地区法院法官在其关于简易判决的当地规则中使用了非常强硬的措辞。我有时必须查阅它们。我记不住所有措辞。但其规定，法院认可简易判决作为通过避免不必要审判来管理法院工作量之工具的效用。但与此同时，法院希望劝阻在负责任的律师和自行诉讼当事方应当认识到该动议不可能获准的情形下提交简易判决动议。因此，法院采纳该当地规则，以提醒律师和自行诉讼当事方简易判决的标准及其就简易判决动议所负的义务。因此，无论如何，当提交简易判决动议时，这是我会考量的事项。这并不意味着简易判决动议会获准。这意味着，提出简易判决动议的一方有义务主张不存在任何需要审判的真实重大事实争议。并且，如果受托人德斯平斯是正确的——我不知道他是否正确——且禁止反言可基于一项根据纽约州法律具有禁止反言效力的先前裁定而适用，那么我不\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第77页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 第78页 知道——我不确定还有什么需要审判。您所请求的是——您表示需要时间答复。21 天的答复期限将是何日？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我相信是 April 10，法官阁下。我相信是。\n\n法院：April 10？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可以就此发言吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我必须说，我对这里的论点颇感意外。当然，理论上，他们应获得 21 天，但没有一句提及保险将在 28 日失效。没有一句说，别担心，我们有钱。我们会支付船员费用。我们会支付。因此，这正是决定性因素。第一，不存在不利影响，因为此事已经过充分书面陈述。唯一改变的是标准——当然，简易判决的举证标准与判决前扣押不同。但——我们引用了相同的判例，完全相同的判例。没有增加一个判例。因此，不存在意外。这只是对他们已经就此提出的反对书状进行重新调整。因此，他们不会受到不利影响。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第78页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第79页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 第79页 但对破产财产的不利影响是，如果我们关于这艘游艇属于我们的主张是正确的，28 日将没有保险。他们不支付任何费用。船员将会离开。因此，问题在于，从破产财产的角度看，存在极其严重的不利影响。而他对此只字未提，确实令我感到意外。我原以为他们会说受托人是在危言耸听。我们会处理好这件事。没问题。但是，没有。他们是焦土政策，意即他们正放弃这艘船。因此，我们需要保护破产财产。这足以构成克服 21 天期限的理由。而且，如果不是因为不存在不利影响，如果我们不继续推进，破产财产将受到极其严重的不利影响，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。莫里亚蒂先生？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，关于——确实存在保险问题。我并不否认存在保险问题。\n\n法院：您需要稍微大声一点，以便我们听见您。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：当然。\n\n法院：请继续。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我说的是，确实存在关于保险的问题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交于 03/29/23\n登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n保险问题。我并不否认存在保险问题。\n\n但我所关注的，以及本院面前的问题，是要求在六天内对简易判决动议作出答复的动议。\n\n法院：我明白。我想，不过，德斯平斯先生所说的是，如果您能筹到保险付款，他就不会坚持推进简易判决动议。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：对。而且——问题不是付款，法官阁下。问题是获得保单的能力。这才是问题。\n\n法院：嗯，您过去有过保单。发生了什么事？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：没有人会——保险公司不会承保。\n\n法院：为什么？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，我们被告知的主要问题是他们所称的 UBO，即最终受益所有人。而关于这一点——所以，这是传闻，法官阁下。我只是告诉您向我所作的说明。\n\n这在俄罗斯/乌克兰战争开始后出现，并真正开始成为船舶保险公司面临的问题，当时俄罗斯寡头的游艇正被西方政府扣押。并非因为保险公司需要对……承担责任\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 登记于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第81页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n船只的价值，而是因为保险人担心声誉风险，并且因为保险人担心违反西方政府施行的制裁命令。\n\n现在，这不是我们在此要处理的问题。这不是乌克兰/俄罗斯问题。但由于该问题，保险人开始审查他们所谓的最终受益所有人。在这里，他们认为，无论这种关联是否正确、错误、真实或不真实，这艘游艇与 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生之间存在关联，因此他们拒绝出具保单。\n\n法庭：那么，目前生效至 28 日的保单是谁承保的？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：是一家名为——请稍等——Skuld（斯库尔德，S-K-U-L-D）的公司。该保单实际上于 February 28th 到期。Skuld 同意将其延长一个月，但拒绝进一步延长。\n\n法庭：好的。是谁与他们协商，同意将其延长一个月？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：我相信——我不知道，法官阁下。我知道我办公室的律师曾进行过谈话，但我无法告诉您是谁与他们协商了此事。\n\n法庭：但你们办公室协商了延期？\n\nHenzy（亨齐）先生：没有。我相信，法官阁下，我办公室的一名律师曾与协商该延期的人进行讨论，但我认为我们并未协商该延期。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 82 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n法庭：好的。那么，是谁——\n\nHenzy（亨齐）先生：而且我不——\n\n法庭：——协商了延期？\n\nHenzy（亨齐）先生：我不知道。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：是的。法官阁下，我——\n\n法庭：那么，你们必须知道。你们办公室里必须有人知道，如果他们曾与协商延期的人进行讨论。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：我同意。但不是我本人，也不是 Henzy（亨齐）律师。显然——\n\n法庭：但我们退一步说。听听你刚才对我说的话，对吧？你说，没有保险人愿意承保，因为无论他们对错与否，他们都将该游艇与 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生联系在一起。你刚才是这么说的，对吧？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：这是我们被告知的情况。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，如果你们无法延长保险，为什么受托人不应当在这短暂期间内推进简易判决？因为保险人认为该游艇与 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生有关联。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：法官阁下，有两点。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 83\n\n第一，如果受托人认为——他本可在数月前提出本动议，或者提出简易判决动议。\n\n法庭：不是就保险即将失效这一事实而言。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：我同意。但如果这只是一个法律问题，而且是如此简单的动议，他本可很久以前就提出该动议。但也不能保证——\n\n法庭：但那无关紧要。那无关紧要。我们直截了当地谈谈这里真正重要的事情，好吗？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：不能保证受托人也能够为这艘船投保。因此，他寻求在提前六天通知的情况下接管该资产，却不能保证他能够获得保单。\n\n法庭：那么你为什么在意？在意这一点。我是说——我只是想了解你的思路。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：所以我——\n\n法庭：如果受托人无法获得保单，你为什么会在意？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：因为受托人“我们昨天就得办完这件事”的整个依据，是将不会有保险。如果受托人无法获得保单，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 83 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交于 03/29/23\n录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n那么，这就不是以闪电般速度推进此事的依据。\n\n法庭：那么，你——你的当事人将要怎么做？你的当事人要让保单失效而没有任何保险吗？那岂不是——岂不是——你当事人声称该实体拥有的一项资产未投保，这本身不就是诉因吗？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：法官阁下，当事人只能做当事人能做的事。而且——\n\n法庭：但我不知道这是什么意思。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：所以我们——再次说明，据我了解，我没有参与此事，曾与 13 家保险公司进行讨论，或者曾有讨论，其中没有一家愿意为这艘船出具保单。这是一种特定类型的保险，称为保障与赔偿保险。目前还有另外三份保单在生效，并且有效至 2024。但由于某些原因，再次说明——已有三项理由。主要理由是这个 UBO，即最终受益所有人。对于拒绝出具保单所给出的另外两项理由是，该船位于美国可航行水域内，且所有人为一家美国公司。为什么这对保险人重要，法官阁下，我不知道。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 85\n\n法庭：那么，我们需要查明，对吧？否则，你们将不得不对简易判决动议作出回应。所以，你们是想试着找到这些问题的答案并通知法庭，还是想要——我的意思是，我知道你们不想回应简易判决动议。但是，我的意思是，你们知道，你们不能有一项潜在资产，该资产受你当事人同意的临时限制令约束——顺便说一下，你的当事人同意了所有这些——现又受 PJR（判决前救济）及另一项初步禁令约束，却没有投保。我的意思是，你们就是不能这样，对吧？所以，你们知道，我们可以设法找到解决方案，否则我可能别无选择，只能命令你们不顾异议地对简易判决作出回应。我理解你们的异议。我理解。我并不与之争辩。但是，你们知道，你们——你们知道。有些人年纪大到还记得，Krechevsky（克雷切夫斯基）法官过去最先说的话是：你有保险吗？如果没有，他就不想听你说任何事情，或者他说你最好取得那份保险，在有保险之前不要再回到这个法庭。对吧？所以，我们需要以某种方式解决问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 85 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交于 03/29/23\n录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n另一种方式。但我们必须解决——\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：我们不能等到下周再解决。今天是星期二，对吧？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我们没有很多时间。而且我见过保险暂保单在，你知道，三个小时内就出具。所以，什么——这可以发生。我的意思是，这可能发生。我并不是说一定会发生。我是说，这并非不可能，对吧？所以，我们需要弄清楚这将如何实现，否则我可能不得不采取受托人要求我采取的做法。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：明白，法官阁下。您希望我们在何时之前回复？\n\n法庭：那么，让我想一想。我的意思是，我们安排了周四的听证会。我不知道周四是否能给你们足够的时间——例如，如果你们回复说，在未来一个或两个月内不可能获得保险保障，那么如果我必须走受托人所提出的路径，我就会占用你们回应简易判决的时间。所以，在某些方面，这取决于你们。我认为我们不应超过周四。我想我们周四的听证会是在上午 11 点。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交于 03/29/23\n录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023\n\n你刚才要说什么，Despins（德斯平斯）受托人？\n\nDespins（德斯平斯）先生：法官阁下，我们已经在以预作安排的方式寻找保险，以防法庭准予我们所寻求的救济。这些人需要全力以赴地工作。我们不能等到周四才知道。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：法官阁下，如果法庭可以接受，我们将在明天下午 5 点前回复。\n\n法庭：那么，我认为我们将不得不举行听证会。我认为这不一定只是回复。我将不得不听取你们要说的内容，对吧，因为之后我将不得不作出裁定。我将不得不弄清楚——如果你们不能——而你们是否能做到，我毫无头绪。但是，如果从你们的角度看，在 March 28th 之后无法为这艘游艇取得某种保险，那么我可能别无选择，只能采取行动。我必须保护——不是我，而是作为监督整个案件的人的法庭，必须确保对资产已作出保护安排。我的意思是，你们知道——所以我认为我们必须举行听证会。我认为我们将不得不继续审理此事。但我将会做的是，而且周四我可能也会做同样的事，我们再看，并且这仅限于当前所发生之事的具体情形，好吗，因为正如你们所见，有很多事情在进行。我们已经坐在这里谈了很长时间。我相信大家都累了，但我们必须处理这些问题。请让我回头看一下日程表。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：律师，在我说话之前，你有什么想法吗？你还要说些什么吗？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：有，法官阁下。我可以和受托人谈一会儿吗？\n\n法庭：当然。请便。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：所以，法官阁下，我刚才与受托人谈的是，我们已同意将在明天下午 5 点前回复，说明我们要么已找到保险，要么没有；如果没有，法庭可以准予受托人的动议。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：那样我们就不用——\n\n法庭：那么，当你们回复时，你们将向法庭书记员邮箱发送电子邮件并抄送各方，是你们计划这样做吗？\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：是。\n\n法庭：好的。明天下午 5 点前？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1614 提交于 03/29/23 录入于 03/29/23 20:07:05 第 88 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—March 21, 2023 89\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：是。\n\n法庭：那么，好的。好的。如果你们没有保险，那么我会做的是，实质上准予他们的排期命令——\n\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——要求你们在你们决定作出回应的范围内，对简易判决动议作出回应。然后我们将——所以，我们安排在 Monday the 27th 就简易判决动议举行听证会？\n\nDespins（德斯平斯）先生：是，法官阁下。并且为澄清起见，这是已约束并已付款的保险，您知道，\n\n法庭：你们二人同意的任何事情对我都可以。我只是——必须有保险。就是必须有。因此，当我查看周一的日程表时，我有几件事情可以——并不是——我可以——它们很容易调整，但我显然在想——我不知道你是否同意，Moriarty（莫里亚蒂）律师，但从我目前所见，这是一项法律论辩。你可能不同意。我并非——我预计你们双方进行辩论各自不需要超过一小时。你认为你们各方辩论会需要超过一小时吗？\n\nBassett（巴塞特）先生：不，法官阁下。我会说更少。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 90 以上。\nMoriarty（莫里亚蒂）律师：我不这么认为，法官阁下。我确实想说的一点是，Vartan（瓦尔坦）律师的名字今天已被提到几次；他今天下午2点在新泽西州有一场法庭听证会。这是昨天安排的。我预计他将在周一就该动议进行辩论。\nDespins（德斯潘）先生：是。\nMoriarty律师：但我不认为——\n法院：你想去给他发短信吗？因为如果未能就保险达成协议，我们将在周一举行听证会。因此，我不会因为——我是说，这不是你的问题。我理解这一点。但我一旦确定时间，就不会因他的可出席或不可出席而更改时间。\nMoriarty律师：为了让我明确，法官阁下，您的意思是给他发短信，了解他周一的日程，以便我们——\n法院：是。\nMoriarty律师：好的。\n法院：我的意思是，我准备在上午11:00开始这场听证会，最多给每一方各一小时。仅此而已。\nMoriarty律师：好的。好吧。我可以出去一下吗？\n法院：是，请。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交日期 03/29/23 登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05 第90页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 Moriarty律师：\n谢谢。\n2 法院：\n是，请。\n3 我们休庭五分钟，或者，你\n4 知道，也许十分钟，如何。\n5 但是，Moriarty律师，这就是我需要你\n6 做的，好吗，然后你可以回来报告。\n7 Moriarty律师：\n是。\n8 法院：\n好的。如果Moriarty先生需要更多\n9 时间，Henzy（亨齐）律师，请告诉我。\n10 Henzy律师：\n我只是——我准备出去一下，\n11 法官阁下，并试着看看我能否找到（听不清）——\n12 （法庭于下午4:43休庭。）\n13 （庭审于下午4:53恢复。）\n14 法院：\n请继续。你是否有机会\n15 联系？\n16 Moriarty律师：\n有，法官阁下，但我\n17 未能联系上。\n18 法院：\n你未能联系上？\n19 Moriarty律师：\n是。\n20 法院：\n好吧。那么，如果——\n21 如果明天之前没有保险，你或你办公室中的某人，若Vartan先生\n22 无法出席，必须准备就简易判决动议\n23 进行辩论，因为\n24 无论如何，我将在周一上午举行那场听证会。\n25 好吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 92 Moriarty律师：好的。我明白，法官阁下。谢谢。\n法院：好吧。那么我们将要——我们将要——因此，对于加速就简易判决动议举行听证会的动议，我现在不会处理它。因为如果明天下午5:00，有一项——我说得对吧？明天下午5:00，如果有报告称在一段期间内存在保险，我们下周一就不继续进行简易判决了，还是会继续，Despins受托人？\nDespins先生：不。从概念上说，是的。我只是想，安排该听证会然后取消它是否会更好，还是——这确实是您的决定？\n法院：那么，我想我们将部分准许该动议并安排听证会，我们会作出一项命令。不会在今晚作出，而是在明天作出，安排于周一上午11:00举行，但有一项理解，即如果明天下午5:00之前就保险问题达成某种协议，该听证会可能不会在周一上午11:00进行。现在，这并不意味着——我们将不得不——我想我们可以在周四再次讨论。我是说，我不知道你们——你们二位是否计划周四到这里来。我不确定这会直接影响债务人。\nMoriarty律师：我不认为——\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交日期 03/29/23 登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05 第92页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日 93 法院：既然关于撤换受托人的动议不会于周四审理，周四现在大多是证据开示问题。\nMoriarty律师：正确。我知道Henzy律师不会在这里，因为他将在别处。\n法院：对。对。抱歉。我忘了。\nMoriarty律师：而且我不知道我办公室的其他任何人是否计划到这里来。但是，如果法院安排某项事项导致我们必须到这里来，我们就会到这里来。\n法院：那么，这是——在我们继续之前，让我问大家。我认为，除了我尚未与各方讨论的一件事外，我已经处理了你要求的所有事项，Despins受托人，而且法院今天已作出命令，是这样吗？\nDespins先生：是这样。\n法院：我是说，有没有——我有一个问题需要向大家提出，但这——这不是关于你们今天所谈的任何事项。\nDespins先生：是这样。是这样，法官阁下。\n法院：好的。因此，我将要做的是如下。我还有一个问题。我们有一个问题。因此，几周前，在上周发生的任何事件之前很久，我们讨论过这件事，Despins受托人，而且\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交日期 03/29/23 登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05 第93页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交日期 03/29/23 登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05 第94页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 这涉及Epiq（艾匹克）的服务，以及法院书记员和Epiq一直在讨论\n2 将所有信息转回——转回本\n3 法院、书记员办公室，以便公开债权\n4 登记册由书记员办公室控制，其中包含所有\n5 公开债权，并且保密债权也\n6 由书记员办公室控制，但予以密封，\n7 你知道。\n8\n9 而你的担忧，或者你的担忧之一，并且\n10 我认为可能委员会提出了一项担忧，美国\n11 受托人也提出了一项担忧，是关于你进入\n12 基本上是一个审查债权的门户网站的能力。\n13 因此，我认为，尽管我认为你需要\n14 确认此事，然后你可以在周四告诉我，好吗，\n15 Epiq仍会允许受托人、\n16 美国受托人和委员会，如果你们希望通过该方式取得\n17 该信息，进行如此操作。\n18 但如果他们不允许，你们仍可通过\n19 书记员办公室取得。将会有某种\n20 保密债权清单，比如，你知道，保密\n21 债权人一号直至任何相应编号。该清单将载入\n22 主案案卷。没有人会知道债权人\n23 是谁或任何事情。因此，这可以通过一些方式实现。但我\n24 不知道。\n25 你必须——我会——我认为有道理的是\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 你与Epiq谈谈。是你聘用了他们。因此，看看他们\n2 能否保持该项开放。\n3 并且看看他们能否保持开放，如果你希望，\n4 而且我认为你说过你希望，我也理解你为何如此希望，\n5 即——我是在对你说，Despins受托人。\n6 我在看着你，但显然这是音频，所以\n7 没有人能理解我在对谁说——你希望\n8 案卷仍然可供查阅，以便——但这将意味着\n9 Epiq必须继续上传和\n10 维护案卷。我不知道他们是否愿意这样做，\n11 或者你是否希望他们这样做，或者无论如何。\n12 但我需要在周四之前知道这两个问题。\n13 好吗？如有可能，我需要了解你的想法。\n14 因为我必须作出某种命令，修改他们的服务，同时——他们仍将——并且\n15 我的理解是，他们完全同意，如果他们再收到任何债权证明，\n16 他们仍将被要求把任何收到的债权证明交给\n17 书记员办公室。我的理解是，\n18 过去一两周没有收到任何债权证明。\n19\n20 但我们需要确保存在一项命令，\n21 使他们理解其对于任何可能收到的债权证明\n22 所负的持续义务。\n23 然后，无论他们是否将为你和保护令的当事人保留\n24 该项权限，以及\n25 美国受托人进入该系统的权限，该系统是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交日期 03/29/23 登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05 第96页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 债权申报截止日期命令的一部分，对吧，债权申报截止日期命令谈到了保护\n2 令，以便进入这些共享信息，\n3 使你们能够查看它，以及他们是否将维护案卷，\n4 这将要求他们采取行动，而我不知道\n5 他们是否愿意这样做。\n6\n7 因此，你需要与他们讨论此事。好吗？\n8 Despins先生：\n会的。\n9 法院：\n他们必须继续维护\n10 案卷。\n11 Despins先生：\n会的，法官阁下。\n12 法院：\n好的。那么，关于本案债权，我\n13 要说的唯一另一件事是，我不知道数目，但我理解\n14 它是，你知道，在公开和保密债权之间，\n15 有超过一千项债权。\n16 你知道，无论具体数目是多少，就是多少。\n17 Despins先生：\n我认为超过1300项。\n18 法院：\n好的。无论具体数目是多少，就是多少。这是一个\n19 相当大的数目。\n20 我们的地方法规规定了针对——\n21 对债权提出异议的程序，包括单项债权或综合\n22 债权。\n23 在你于周四向我提供更新后，我作出该项命令时，\n24 Despins受托人，该命令将规定45日答复\n25 期限，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1614 提交日期 03/29/23 登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05 第97页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 而非30日答复期限，因为\n2 本案的具体事实和情形，且\n3 因为债权人位于各地，他们\n4 需要有适当时间邮寄文件以及\n5 诸如此类。如果他们不是ECF申报人，他们将必须\n6 通过邮寄收到对债权证明的异议。\n7 我知道那是将来的事，但我仍必须\n8 作出该命令，以确保它合理。好吗？\n9 那必须发生。每个人都必须\n10 理解这一点。\n11 而人们还必须\n12 理解的另一件事是，可能——大多数债权将有\n13 两个债权编号。一个来自Epiq的债权\n14 编号和一个来自法院的债权编号。你们自行弄清楚。\n15 这不会那么难。我们将能够弄清楚。\n16 但为了让每个人明白，既然\n17 所有东西都回到书记员办公室，将有\n18 两种方式可以识别一份债权证明。\n19 我们会处理此事。发生时我们会解决它。\n20 好的。\n21 但鉴于Norwich（诺维奇）案中的命令，以及\n22 显然全国其他案件中的命令，如我在\n23 先前听证会中所说，我只是不希望就\n24 披露了什么和未披露什么举行听证会。而且这只是——\n25 本案中有太多事项需要处理\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 1614\n提交日期 03/29/23\n登记日期 03/29/23 20:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年3月21日\n\n1 而我们不会——我不想在\n2 那上面花任何时间。因此，这就是我们目前的情况。\n3 有人对此有任何问题吗？关于\n4 该问题？\n5 Despins先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n6 法院：\n好的。好吧。那么，关于\n7 周四的听证会，我将要做的是，我将允许\n8 通过Zoom（Zoom）举行这些听证会，因为存在\n9 每个人都必须在周一回到这里参加另一场听证会的可能性。\n10 而且，在我看来，这些是证据开示问题。\n11\n12 关于撤换受托人的动议不会于23日审理，因此将从日程表上\n13 撤下。\n14 因此，周四日程表上唯一的事项是\n15 撤销传票动议和聘用申请。\n16 这是仅有的其他事项。\n17 该事项可以——我将允许通过Zoom举行，\n18 以便我们可以努力尽量减少本案的一些\n19 费用。\n20 如果当日有其他更为实质性的事项\n21 需要审理，而原本确实有，但现在将不会有，\n22 那么我本会要求每个人亲自到场。\n23 但目前，鉴于\n24 这些案件现存的具体事实和情形，这就是我将要做的。\n25 因此，我将——我必须与法庭书记员交谈\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023 关于法庭书记员，双方是否必须联系以取得——我们甚至尚未设定 Zoom 信息，所以我现在还没有信息可以提供给你。但周四是否应当由双方取得该信息？他们将联系法庭书记员收件箱，然后将提供 Zoom 信息？法庭书记员：Calendar connect。法庭：Calendar connect 收件箱。抱歉。Calendar connect 收件箱。好的。抱歉。谢谢。然后将向你提供 Zoom 听证会的信息。并且，如你所知，将仅限于该听证会的参与者。好吗？那么，今天下午我们还需要处理其他事项吗？（无人回应。）法庭：好的。那么，Moriarty 律师（莫里亚蒂），一旦我们收到你的消息，并且，显然，你明天下午就保险事宜发送电子邮件时会抄送受托人及所有相关方。如果未能达成协议，那么——该命令将——我已安排周一上午 11:00 举行听证会，但随后将作出该命令，要求你就受托人提出的请求作出答复。好吗？Case 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 99 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1614 Filed 03/29/23 Entered 03/29/23 20:07:05 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）-March 21, 2023\n\nMORIARTY 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。没有人还有其他问题吗？或者我们还需要处理其他事项吗？\n\n（无人回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。那么休庭。\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯潘）：谢谢。\n\n（庭审于下午 5:05 休庭。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录员及经认证的电子记录员和记录员，特此证明，以上内容系根据上述案件庭审程序的官方电子录音制作的准确庭审记录。\n\nMarch 27, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","CIPA","forfeiture","Luc Despins","GTV"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":31,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1562,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28305,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-29","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:29:14"}