{"id":"court_ctb_1775_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1775,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-05-09","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会官方记录笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）破产案，CTB 22-50073 ECF #1775（2023-05-09立案）。速记机构出具的 2023 年 5 月 2 日 Julie A. Manning 法官主持之听证会认证笔录，记录了主破产案及对抗程序（Adv. Proc. No. 23-05002）中各方就休庭协商、刑事案保护令修改对接及聘用专家等动议的法庭辩论与陈述。","summary_en":"Hearing transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #1775 (filed May 9, 2023). Official certified transcript of the May 2, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning covering matters in the main bankruptcy case and adversary proceeding Adv. Proc. No. 23-05002, including discussions on adjournments, protective order modifications, and expert employment.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05002 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* v. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* May 2, 2023 \\* HO WAN KWOK, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF #1362 MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH BK RULE 2004 SUBPOENA BY UBS AG #1495 INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION OF CHAPT. 11 TRUSTEE AND HIS COUNSEL, PAUL HASTINGS, LLP, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 8, 2022 THROUGH OCTOBER, 2022 #1669 APPLICATION TO EMPLOY ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC AS EXPERT/CONSULTANT #1674 INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION/ALLOWANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR NEUBERT, PEPE AND MONTEITH #1704 AMENDED ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE #1 COMPLAINT 91(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT) BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 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\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 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 Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, PC 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Special Criminal Defense WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Counsel to Mr. Kwok: Brown Rudnick 601 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 For the Official Committee KRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ. Of Unsecured Creditors: Pullman & Comley, LLC P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Defendant, Hing Chi CHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ. Ngok: Meister Seelig & Fein LLP 125 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 3 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 2:06 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Adversary No. 23-5002, Genever Holdings, LLC versus Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. 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. MR. LINSEY: Hi, again, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the Trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the Committee, but only with respect to the main case, not the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. MR. MORIARTY: James Moriarty, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, in the adversary proceeding, Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein, for Defendant Hing Chi Ngok.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 4 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 4 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon. THE COURT: Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, special criminal defense counsel to the debtor, Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. All right. There are two matters on at 2:00 p.m. Trustee Despins, I don't know which order you're anticipating that we will handle those, but go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if Your Honor is okay with this, I think it would make sense to deal with the adversary proceeding matter -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. DESPINS: -- because it's really not going forward on a substantive basis. We'll just adjourn it. To make a long -- if that's okay, Your Honor, I can just give preamble as to why it should be adjourned -- THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: -- which is that we received a proposal from Zeisler regarding a way to resolve the adversary proceeding. We are -- we've considered it. And we've passed it on to the Sherry-Netherland because the Sherry-Netherland is not a party to the adversary proceeding, but practically they're a party to some\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 5 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 5 agreements that would need to be modified, so we need their involvement or their consent. I wouldn't say consent, because I don't want to be in a position where I'm being held to that, but it would be better to have their consent if we can get it. And, therefore, because we were not able to obtain their consent, it makes sense to adjourn this so that we can see if we can get their consent and not have to litigate this at all. And, therefore, we would ask the Court to adjourn this for two weeks, or whatever, you know, period you think is reasonable. THE COURT: Let me ask you, just so I make sure I understand what you just said. You received an offer to resolve the proceeding from Zeisler & Zeisler? MR. DESPINS: Basically that this is the proceeding to terminate the -- Mr. Kwok and the -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- Kwok members. Remember, his family has access to the Sherry-Netherland and we received a proposal that would obviate the need to litigate the issue. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But there are issues involving the Sherry-Netherland that we need their involvement in and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 6 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 6 that's why we could not proceed with that today. THE COURT: All right. That's fine. That's fine. But, Counsel, are you part of this resolution as well, this proposed resolution, so that there wouldn't be a need to litigate this matter? MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, we are -- we have been participating in the back and forth on the stipulation. We have not signed off on it yet, but are working with counsel on the draft stipulation. THE COURT: I just want to make sure everyone's talking together, right? It doesn't make any sense -- and you represent separately -- MR. MAJOR: Ms. Ngok. THE COURT: Ms. Ngok. Right. And what about -- okay, just give me a second, I mean, that's fine by the way. It's all fine. I'm just trying to understand the playing field. MR. DESPINS: The only one we need and missing is the son. But, again, at this point, we're just adjourning the hearing. THE COURT: Okay. So Zeisler and -- I just -- I agree that this is not a problem. Zeisler & Zeisler on behalf of Mr. Kwok and Mei Guo are submitting this proposal in an attempt to resolve without the need for litigation, is that correct?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 7 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
7 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. MORIARTY:
Not totally. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, okay. |\n| 3 | MR. MORIARTY:
On behalf of the debtor -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
The reason I ask is there's -- there |\n| 5 | are four defendants, right -- |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- in this adversary proceeding.
So I |\n| 8 | need to understand that, or not, or one way or another |\n| 9 | whether all four of these defendants are involved in this |\n| 10 | process or not. |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
So, on behalf of the debtor, |\n| 12 | Zeisler & Zeisler, who only represents the debtor in this |\n| 13 | adversary proceeding, has been trying to reach a resolution |\n| 14 | that would include the debtor's wife, Ms. Ngok, and his |\n| 15 | daughter, Ms. Guo.
And we have been communicating with |\n| 16 | Attorney Vartan on behalf of Ms. Guo. |\n| 17 | Now, Ms. Guo hasn't appeared in this case by |\n| 18 | counsel, but, as you know, Attorney Vartan has an attorney |\n| 19 | client relationship with her. |\n| 20 | And so the only one that would not be a part of |\n| 21 | this stipulation, as we have currently set it up, would be |\n| 22 | the son, Mileson Guo.
He is not in the U.S. and is not |\n| 23 | represented by counsel, hasn't appeared in this matter, and |\n| 24 | there's nobody for me to talk to about including him. |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, I -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 8 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
8 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Isn't this all about who has access to |\n| 2 | the apartment at what -- at what times? |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Isn't that what this is about? |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Basically it's to cut off |\n| 6 | permanently access to the apartment. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
But as to the son there have been |\n| 9 | many attempts at service.
You know.
Basically he's making |\n| 10 | sure we can't serve him, so we would default on this |\n| 11 | actually. |\n| 12 | We don't need to resolve this now, but I don't |\n| 13 | think that it would be an impediment to reaching a |\n| 14 | consensual resolution with the other members of the family. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, obviously, if |\n| 16 | there's an ability to resolve all or part of the adversary |\n| 17 | proceeding, then the Court would welcome that. |\n| 18 | But we still have to figure out how that's all |\n| | |\n| 19 | going to work with regard to the defendant, who's not |\n| 20 | represented by counsel or hasn't filed an appearance.
I |\n| 21 | suppose you could default them.
I mean, there's different |\n| 22 | ways you could proceed, right? |\n| 23 | But if we're going to get to the point of where |\n| 24 | there's actually some kind of a binding judgment, whether by |\n| 25 | stipulation or otherwise, all the defendants have to be |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 9 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
9 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | dealt with in some way, shape or form.
That's all I'm going |\n| 2 | to say about that.
I mean, that's -- that's what will have |\n| 3 | to happen.
So you'll all figure it out, I suppose. |\n| 4 | So with regard to timing, Trustee Despins, you |\n| 5 | want something as soon as two weeks from now, is that what |\n| 6 | you're saying? |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
Because I -- you know, the |\n| 8 | Sherry-Netherland got the draft yesterday, so that's plenty |\n| 9 | of time for them to respond and to see whether we have an |\n| 10 | agreement or not.
And if we don't, we might have to go |\n| 11 | forward with the proceeding.
But two weeks should be plenty |\n| 12 | of time. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I'm just looking at the Court's |\n| 14 | calendar.
There's a hearing scheduled for May 17th at 10 |\n| 15 | a.m. in the Despins vs. Greenwich Land adversary proceeding |\n| 16 | on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
You want that |\n| 17 | scheduled the same day or you want it scheduled on a |\n| 18 | different day?
I mean, I have no idea what's happening with |\n| 19 | that matter insofar as are there going -- is it going to be |\n| 20 | a long evidentiary hearing? |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
No. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I really have no idea.
You'll have to |\n| 23 | educate me as to that. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
And we always try to avoid those, |\n| 25 | Your Honor.
But it would be prudent to have it on a -- on a |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 10 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 10 different day because I -- THE COURT: A different day. All right. Well, the day before is a Tuesday, where we already have hearings scheduled in other cases. We have something scheduled at 2 o'clock already on the 16th. But I -- when I say that, it's something I think, I should -- I should make sure, but I could see that that might not be more than a half an hour or so. But let me take a look on that for a minute. (Pause) THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure if the matter that's on at 2 o'clock on the 16th is actually going to go forward, but I can't say that for right now. So what I could do is either schedule you for 2:30 or 3:00 on the 16th or schedule you at 2:00 and realize you might have to listen to something -- you don't have to listen, but there might be another matter at 2 o'clock. So how would you like to handle that, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: 2:30 is fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So we'll continue the pretrial conference. MR. DESPINS: That's on May 16th, Your Honor? THE COURT: May 16th, yeah. I just need a moment. I just -- there's so many different things, I have to make sure I'm in the right place.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 11 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 11 So, yes. So we will continue the pretrial conference in this adversary proceeding, 23-5002, to May 16th at 2:30 p.m. Okay? So that addresses that matter on the calendar. So now we have a continued hearing on the issue with regard to discovery and compliance with the subpoena served on Mr. Kwok. And I don't recall sitting here right now, but did we enter that order already with regard to the 200 questions? MR. DESPINS: You did. So there's only one issue that remains open. THE COURT: Okay. All right then. MR. DESPINS: So if I may, Your Honor? THE COURT: But did that order enter with regard -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. DESPINS: Yes, you did. THE COURT: I thought it did, but sometimes it hard to keep track. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. So go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we left the last hearing without resolving this issue because we didn't have a transcript. But now we do have a transcript and the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 12 transcript is very clear as to what transpired and what the agreement was. I, you know, don't want to do that -- you know, spend too much of the Court's time, but starting on page 113 of the transcript, lines 10 through 15. Mr. Best -- THE COURT: Give me a second to get there, please. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Sorry. THE COURT: 113? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. 113. THE COURT: Lines what? MR. DESPINS: 10 through 15. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: This is Mr. Best addressing the Court. \"What they -- what the problem which we need to figure out is the Southern District has a protective order or the use of that information. I don't know how that can be worked out with Your Honor and with counsel, but that will come up whether it's directly to the Department of Justice or through us, meaning that they would produce, they, the defendant, would produce to us documents.\" So that's the teeing up of the issue. Then I go next to page 123, lines 7 through 14. So page 123, lines 17 through 14. This is where I address the court, and I said, \"But the defendant, he has standing in that court to say you know what, Judge -- criminal judge, we\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 12 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 13 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
13 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | would like a modification to the protective order, and that |\n| 2 | modification would be that we,\" this is again the defendant, |\n| 3 | \"can provide to the Trustee, Chapter 11 Trustee, copies of |\n| 4 | the documents that the Government gave us or gives us.
This |\n| 5 | court, Your Honor, could direct the debtor to seek such a |\n| 6 | modification of the protective order.
This is my proposal.\" |\n| 7 | Then page 139, lines 7 through 19. So page 139, |\n| 8 | lines 7 through 19.
Again, Mr. Best addressing the Court. |\n| 9 | And it's more lines 13 through 19.
\"But we are in agreement |\n| 10 | in principle that's subject to the U.S. Department of |\n| 11 | Justice and really most importantly the District Court Judge |\n| 12 | agreeing to the disclosure of it.
I'm sure with many |\n| 13 | limitations or qualifications that we won't stand in the way |\n| 14 | of that.
The discussion really is what's the best way? |\n| 15 | How's the best way to accomplish that?\" |\n| 16 | Then page 140, lines 4 through 6.
Again, Mr. Best |\n| 17 | addressing the Court.
\"There's a concern from the U.S. |\n| 18 | Trustee's counsel,\" I guess that's a misnomer, it was -- is |\n| 19 | the Trustee's counsel, that they don't have standing in the |\n| 20 | Southern District for the subpoena.
I don't care how we get |\n| 21 | home.
There are multiple ways of doing that.\" |\n| 22 | And then lower down on that page, still page 140, |\n| 23 | lines 20 to 23.
Again, Mr. Best.
\"And so I want the help - |\n| 24 | - to help the Court explore this and then help the Court in |\n| 25 | fashioning an order that -- or a ruling or you don't -- or |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 14 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
14 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | you don't -- I mean, I don't even know if you need to assure |\n| 2 | ruling, but I'd like clarity on the way forward.\" |\n| 3 | And then page 141, lines 10 through 15.
This is |\n| 4 | where I address the court and I say, \"And so what should |\n| 5 | happen is that I think the Court,\" meaning Your Honor, |\n| 6 | \"should enter an order saying that the debtor is directed to |\n| 7 | seek a modification of any applicable protective order in |\n| 8 | the criminal case to allow the Chapter 11 Trustee access to |\n| 9 | the document produced by the Government to the debtor.\" |\n| 10 | Couldn't be clearer. |\n| 11 | Then on page 143, or sorry, the bottom of 142, |\n| 12 | line 25, and the top of 143, lines 1 and 2.
Mr. Best, \"I'm |\n| 13 | fine with counsel proposing a draft order that we look at |\n| 14 | and get to Your Honor if that's the easiest way of doing |\n| 15 | it.\" |\n| 16 | And then on lines, same page, 143, lines 7 through |\n| 17 | 9.
\"So that I think there's an agreement to be -- to abide |\n| 18 | by.
If the Southern District allows to use the information |\n| 19 | subject to a protective order, them being part of the |\n| 20 | protective order.
There's no mention that it has to come |\n| 21 | directly from the Department of Justice to us.\" |\n| 22 | Then, even the Court, although that was cut off, |\n| 23 | this is on page 146, I was trying to correct the statement |\n| 24 | that had been made, but on top of 146, it says the Court, |\n| 25 | \"The debtor will seek, but then share with you,\" meaning |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 15 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
15 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with the Trustee, once their -- once their -- it's not -- |\n| 2 | it's cut off because Your Honor's -- I said \"correct\".
But |\n| 3 | basically what you were saying is that once they get the |\n| 4 | documents from the DOJ they'll share with you, the Trustee. |\n| 5 | Page 149, lines 9 through 11.
I believe this is |\n| 6 | the Court, nope, yeah, it is the Court.
\"There's an |\n| 7 | agreement.
We're going to proceed with that agreement.
I'm |\n| 8 | going to hold Mr. Best and Mr. Despins to that agreement.\" |\n| 9 | Then I go to page 149, 14 through 18.
\"The Court: |\n| 10 | All I would say about what you just said is that when you |\n| 11 | say see your client, I understand -- I understand you have |\n| 12 | to see your client.
But you've agreed that your client's |\n| 13 | not going to oppose this.
Mr. Best:
I agree.\" |\n| 14 | And so that's all I would cover, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | There was never any discussion by Mr. Best saying, oh, we |\n| 16 | can't, we can't turn over anything to them, it has to come |\n| 17 | from the Department of Justice directly to the Trustee. |\n| 18 | The reason they're proposing that, Your Honor, I |\n| 19 | want to be very direct about this, is because that would |\n| 20 | never happen.
The DOJ is never going to produce anything to |\n| 21 | us.
We don't exist in their court. |\n| 22 | So they're proposing something that essentially |\n| 23 | defeats what we're trying to do, when, in fact, you know, |\n| 24 | they said, oh, we have no problems with getting you the |\n| 25 | documents.
You just need to get them from the DOJ.
But |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 16 they know what that means. Is that we will never get those documents. And the argument that was made by Mr. Baldiga last time was we don't know what is -- we don't know what's in that file. There could be horrible things. But by the same token he's saying it's okay if they get it all from the DOJ. I have no problems with that. But then he says I can't give it to them because there could be horrible things in there. Well, there's some -- there's a logical gap that's missing here, which is, if they're okay with us getting it from the Government, why is it not okay for them to give it to us? There's no act of production doctrine here. It comes from the Government. They get a computer chip. They get it from the Government. They copy it with a computer and they give it to us. There's no active production. There's no recognition by them that this information is valid, truthful or anything like that. It's a pure pass through. And we cannot -- you know, we have no standing to go and seek, to subpoena the DOJ. That may be what they intended. But at the end of the hearing, it was pretty clear as to what was agreed to. So they raised issues of act of production. There's no act of production here. This would be passing on what the DOJ gives them. Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 16 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 17 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 17 Then they raised the issue of, well, there's national secrets in there. I'm sure the DOJ will -- knows how to protect itself and they will put limitations on what we can see and not see. And by the way, the order that Your Honor would enter says that only the Trustee and his counsel can see the documents. Nobody else in the case can see the documents. But if that's not okay with the DOJ, they will raise their hand and say, no, no, we can't do that because they're -- like there's secret sauce information in there. We can't share that with the Trustee. They will do that. We are taking that risk. We've always made that clear. The order says, the proposed order we submitted says, that there's no guarantee that there's no consequence to the debtor if the criminal court and the DOJ says no. There's no -- there's no consequence to that. We're not holding them to a standard where they must deliver the documents. The only standard is they must make their request and file the motion with the Court and attach the order that Your Honor would enter. So on that basis, Your Honor, I would say that the agreement that was entered into at that hearing was that the debtor would seek permission from the criminal court and from the DOJ to give to the Trustee documents that they receive. And they have the ability to review it. The\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 18 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 18 debtor has the ability and its counsel has the ability to do that. And, again, to be clear, there's no obligation of result here. The obligation is to seek that permission from the criminal court and from the DOJ. And I believe that's what we left the April 20th hearing with and that's what we'd like the Court compel the debtor to do. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at this time. Thank you. Mr. Baldiga or Mr. Henzy, who is going to address the matter? MR. BALDIGA: I think I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, special criminal defense counsel to the debtor. Your Honor, we are here again to answer the question as to what did the debtor agree to do? And I don't know whether the Court had an opportunity to look at our submission yesterday by which we attached the transcript. It's Docket 1737 is the transcript. I think it's not a -- Given what I just heard, which I'm frankly astounded to have heard, it's not a coincidence that we chose to file the transcript so that everyone could see it.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 19 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 19 And Mr. Despins chose to wait until just now to select those parts of it. And so I'll have to go through each one. But at Docket 1737 is the debtor's supplemental submission for primary purposes to provide the transcript. And I agree with Mr. Despins. The issue is what did the debtor agree to do? Because we're here to try implement what the debtor agreed to do. And I don't know whether you have that in front of you, Your Honor, the transcript, but -- THE COURT: I do. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: You have to -- you'll direct me to the pages you want me to read though, please. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And it's in the supplemental submission by page and line. And there's four times in which the debtor's proposal was made crystal clear. And you didn't hear any of that from Mr. Despins. So unfortunately we're going to have to hit them right now. Page 84, lines 11 to 12. THE COURT: All right. Give me a second, please. It will take me a minute to get there. MR. BALDIGA: Of course. THE COURT: All right. I'm on page 84. MR. BALDIGA: Lines 11 to 12. This is Mr. Best.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 20 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
20 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And it's important who's speaking, right, because we're here |\n| 2 | to implement what the debtor proposed and Mr. Best spoke for |\n| 3 | the debtor.
Mr. Despins did not.
\"They might as well make |\n| 4 | the request of the Government.\" |\n| 5 | Second, page 93, lines 11 to 14. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
All right.
Give me a second again, |\n| 7 | please. |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
Of course. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
93 did you say? |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
The Court asked a very direct |\n| 11 | and very clear question.
\"So you're saying the only way -- |\n| 12 | the only way, the Trustee can proceed is to get the |\n| 13 | information from the Government?
Correct.\" |\n| 14 | Given the issue on the table, I am a little more |\n| 15 | than surprised that Mr. Despins didn't see that when he |\n| 16 | reviewed the transcript. |\n| 17 | But, again, page 94, the very next page, lines 1 |\n| 18 | through 11.
\"The Court:
The only way the Trustee can |\n| 19 | proceed is to get it from the Government?
No.
If the |\n| 20 | exercise was we as defense counsel received a discovery |\n| 21 | packet, we would have to go to the Government and get their |\n| 22 | consent.
We would also then have to go to the Court and get |\n| 23 | the Court's consent.\"
And so Mr. Best concludes exactly |\n| 24 | with the same words he used before, \"they can go directly to |\n| 25 | the Government and bypass all of that.\" |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 21 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 21 Page 113, lines 7 to 10. THE COURT: Hold on, please. MR. BALDIGA: Of course. THE COURT: Okay. I'm here. MR. BALDIGA: Starting at the top of the page, \"I tried to come in and craft a solution and so forth saying they can simply go to the Department of Justice.\" There's some confusion, which I tried to correct my colleague, who's not familiar with the differences between a Chapter 11 Trustee and a United States Trustee, but I think he's not the first one to have confused that. Ignore that. \"They can go to the Department of Justice Criminal Division U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District and ask for the discovery.\" Okay. Four times in a row, clear as crystal each of the four times. Now starting at page 113 is Mr. Best, also by way of being very forthcoming, brings up at line 10 the issue that then we need to discuss at length which is how to deal with the protective order. Okay. So we're now turning to the second part which is how do we deal with the protective order? The proposal has now been stated consistently, clearly, no doubt. Okay. Now, we need to figure out is -- the Southern District has a protective order over the use of that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 22 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
22 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | information.
I don't know how that could be worked out. |\n| 2 | Now, we have a lot of discussion as to that. |\n| 3 | So let's go through each of Mr. Despins' suggested |\n| 4 | pages having ignored the ones, where the proposal is |\n| 5 | actually made.
So I'll go in the same order that Mr. |\n| 6 | Despins did. |\n| 7 | Page 123, lines 7 to 9. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
Give me a second, please. |\n| 9 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
Now, importantly, this is no |\n| 10 | longer Mr. Best talking.
So the debtor has made its |\n| 11 | proposal which we're here trying to implement. |\n| 12 | This is Mr. Despins, not Mr. Best, who speaks for |\n| 13 | the debtor.
And Mr. Despins is saying, \"But, you know, |\n| 14 | judge, criminal judge, we would like a modification to the |\n| 15 | protective order.\"
This is the language that Mr. Despins |\n| 16 | just suggested to you to define what Mr. Best proposed. |\n| 17 | Well, obviously, it's neither Mr. Best, and not the |\n| 18 | proposal.
It's to talk again about the protective order |\n| 19 | that Mr. Best first brought up at page 113.
Okay.
So |\n| 20 | that's the Trustee's first language. |\n| 21 | Next, let's got to the next page the Trustee |\n| 22 | suggested, page 139. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Lines 7 to 19.
This is Mr. Best. |\n| 25 | Two paragraphs. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 23 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 23 \"One is agreeing, as we have agreed and the Court has now entered, that we -- that Mr. Kwok would invoke the Fifth or not on a subject matter specific question by question.\"\n\n Then second, the second paragraph, \"we won't stand in the way of it or of that. The discussion really is the best way to accomplish that.\" Again, it's about the protective order. Because that's what we're talking about, having already concluded 20 minutes before that what the proposal was, and we've been talking about now the protective order for the last 20 minutes. There's nothing there that refines the prior proposal, but that's the best language the Trustee has.\n\n Then he suggested we also look at the next page, 140. Okay? This is Mr. Best talking about how to solve the protective order. \"I don't care how we get home. There are multiple ways to do that. And he spoke about not wanting to have the obligation to go the Department of Justice themselves.\"\n\n Mr. Best says, \"I'm just transparent with the Court. They're going to end up in front of the U.S. District judge in the Southern District of New York because I'm sure he or she is going to want to hear from them on the issues regarding limitations of use and confidentiality and protective order.\" Okay. Still talking about the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 24 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 24 protective order. As Mr. Despins knows, page 141, again, I'm going through every time Mr. Despins said the Court should look at the transcript, page 141, lines 10 through 15. Now, this is not Mr. Best. He's done. This is Mr. Despins saying \"What I think should happen is that the Court should enter an order saying that the debtor is directed to seek a modification of the protective order,\" again, to talk about the protective order, \"To allow the Chapter 11 Trustee access to the documents produced by the Government.\" Okay. We agreed to do that. Again, a good discussion about the protective order, absolutely appropriate. Mr. Despins asked that we now look at the next page, 142. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Still Mr. Despins. So Mr. -- this cannot be Mr. Best changing his earlier proposal, because this is Mr. Despins talking, so that doesn't change the\n\ndebtor's proposal.\n\n And then finally -- no, it's not finally, page 146. Page 146 is entirely a colloquy between the Trustee and the Court. So that's not Mr. Best changing the debtor's proposal.\n\n And finally the Trustee suggests the Court look at page 149, at 9 to 11. This is after the -- PAX asked, and I Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 25 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 25 think someone else may have as well, access and the Court declined to expand the order accordingly. Well, this doesn't change anything. I think this, we're talking now about mechanics as to who's going to draft an order. And Mr. Best saying, \"Yyou know, our client, when we talk with our client, our client's not going to change what we've agreed to.\" Well, we're not saying he did. And, in fact, I'm confirming that he didn't. So, Your Honor, again, there is a reason we filed the transcript yesterday with our supplement and the Trustee did not. It's because it is so crystal clear exactly what the debtor proposed. And, again, it's -- it would be clear if Mr. Best said it once, but as set forth in our supplement, Mr. Best said the same thing and the Court repeated the words. And Mr. Best said correct. Again, at pages 84, 93, 94 and 113. They can go to the Department of Justice Criminal Division U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District and ask for the discovery. And, Your Honor, this makes all the sense in the world. Again, and not to repeat it all, but we're here to implement what's already been what the debtor has agreed to, and the Court seemed inclined to enter an order implementing\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 26 what the debtor proposed as a compromise of sorts on this. And it makes sense for many reasons, including we're talking about materials that no one at this hearing knows what they are. These would likely, almost certainly, include materials seized during the day of Mr. Kwok's arrest from him or from others. It almost certainly would include other materials that the Department of Justice has gathered over years or months. We don't know. No one, not the Trustee, not us, not Mr. Kwok, and not this court has any idea what the subject matter would be of what the Trustee suggests. So the Trustee is suggesting that the Court enter an order directing someone, and I'm not sure, and we'll talk about who it would be, but someone do something with things that no one knows what they are. Second, and these all tie together, this would almost certainly implicate Fifth Amendment rights or other constitutional rights. But given that we don't know what materials we're talking about, no one could really say. And, again, we point to the fact that there's a second Department of Justice investigation apparently that the Trustee alerted us to, because he received a subpoena. We do not represent Mr. Kwok in connection with that. We don't know whether he has counsel that's representing him as to that. I'm not sure he even needs counsel. Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 26 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 27 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 27 But if Mr. Kwok is directed to surrender anything, whoever that counsel would be would have to advise Mr. Kwok, if they can gain access to him in the penitentiary, to discuss with him his rights, constitutional and others in connection with that. We're a long ways away from doing that. And, again, I'm not even sure that other firm would ever have access to those materials to start that discussion with their client as to their client's constitutional rights, but the Trustee would have this court blow right through that, whatever those bundle of rights are as to those unknown documents. Third, these materials could be subject to attorney-client or product privileges. This court entered on September 14, at Docket 856, a consent order as to attorney-client or work product privileges assigning them to the Trustee, but as to three specific so-called investigation topics that are very tightly defined. One is assets of the estate or assets of the debtor. Two, the debtor's financial condition. And three, administration of the estate. I have no idea, and neither does the Trustee, and with all respect no one else, including this court, has any idea of what portion of the documents we're now talking about may concern any one of those investigation topics.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 28 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 28 Could be entirely outside of that universe. Almost certainly would contain documents outside the universe, but we're all just guessing. But what the Trustee is suggesting is that the Court's consent order entered at Docket 856 be expanded indefinitely to have effectively a privilege waiver as if this court never spent any time defining those. And I understand the parties spent a lot of time negotiating that order. Thankfully we did not have to have any part of that. But it would make a mockery of that order for the Court to enter the order the Trustee is now suggesting. Fourth, we have been told by the Department of Justice that the reason we don't have the materials yet is because we must obtain certain national security clearances under a federal law called CIPA to review the materials, or a great portion of them, and we're in the process of doing that. But we're told it's not a simple process. It requires background checks, fingerprinting, and so forth. Fifth, we've been told that some, maybe a significant portion of the materials will be for attorney's eyes only. Our eyes. Our client won't even get to see them, which raises the question if the Court is to enter an order as the Trustee suggests, are you ordering the client, Mr. Kwok, to turn over something that he can't have access to? Well, that, that can't happen because he won't ever\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 29 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 29 have it. THE COURT: Well, let me stop -- MR. BALDIGA: Or are you -- THE COURT: -- you right there, Mr. Baldiga MR. BALDIGA: -- would you -- THE COURT: -- on what you just said for a second. Regardless of everything both of you have just said about the transcript, there was never going to be an order requiring Mr. Kwok to turn things over that he can't have. It was -- the request, and what I thought was resolved, was that there was -- Mr. Kwok was going to ask the District Court judge and the United States Attorney's Office, whether simultaneously or in steps, whatever's produced to him would be produced to the Trustee. That was my understanding of what was supposed to happen. And when I took that into -- MR. BALDIGA: We agreed one hundred percent -- THE COURT: Wait. Hold on a second, please. And I took that into consideration because your colleague, Mr. Best, made substantial arguments to which the Trustee responded, and I think I questioned him about a case, a *Bouknight* case, that said doing so is not testamentary. It's turning over information that belongs to the estate. And there was a case, the *Bouknight* case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 30 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 30 I believe I even -- I'm looking at this transcript, having not read it all, but looking at what you pointed me to, and I even see that I talk about it. And I see that the majority of the -- and I'm not saying this changes your position. I'm just pointing out something for the record. The majority of the sections of the transcript you asked me to look at, actually all of them, pages 84, pages 93, pages 94 and 113, all occur before there was a recess that the Court took and came back at 2:00 p.m., at which Mr. Best and Mr. -- and Trustee Despins reported on their conversations. So to be -- to set the record straight, there was no agreement in place before there was a recess. I understand what your argument is is this is what you believe the agreement is. And I understand Mr. Despins says he believes this is what the agreement is. But before there was a recess at 2:00 p.m. there was no agreement. Part of the reason of taking the recess was to go have the discussion about this right? And it was clear that there was no problem with regard to the 200 and some odd questions that the Trustee wanted specific invocations of the Fifth Amendment to or not by your client, and you -- Mr. Best agreed to it and that order is entered.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 31 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 31 The only remaining issue is how, if at all, does the Trustee get discovery with regard to the information that's part of the criminal indictment? And the Trustee asked for your client to turn it over -- to turn over whatever the Government turns over to your client to the Trustee. And I just want to be clear. So your argument is the same argument it was before the recess, which is you can't do that because that's testamentary in nature? I don't know what the documents are either. Nobody does. But that's not the point. The point is there was supposed to be some kind of process by which the Trustee would seek to get that information, understanding, as it's said in different places in the transcript, including after the recess, that even if the debtor sought that information and didn't obtain it then the -- and the U.S. Attorney's Office and the District Court judge didn't agree with the -- Mr. Kwok, assuming Mr. Kwok asked for the information, then that's all Mr. Kwok could do. He asked. And he didn't get, right? That was -- that was the way it was presented to the Court. It was presented in that manner after the recess at 2:00 p.m. Yes, was there a discussion about the protective order? Without question there was a discussion about the protective order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 32 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
32 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And my assumption was that when a request was made |\n| 2 | to the United States Attorney's Office, maybe in the first |\n| 3 | place, and to the judge in the second place, or |\n| 4 | simultaneously, that the protective order would be part of |\n| 5 | that because whatever was going to be produced, if anything, |\n| 6 | by the Government to Mr. Kwok would obviously be subject to |\n| 7 | a protective order that's already in place.
Right? |\n| 8 | But the Trustee is not a party to that protective |\n| 9 | order.
And, and, what the Trustee, at least in my mind -- |\n| 10 | and I'm looking at everything you've read, you're pointing |\n| 11 | me to, the Trustee is saying I can't go into the Southern |\n| 12 | District of New York and ask for that because they're going |\n| 13 | to say I don't have standing.
Right?
So he wanted your |\n| 14 | client's cooperation to get over the standing hurdle and |\n| 15 | then work with -- |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
But we agreed -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
-- then work with -- and then take the |\n| 18 | risk that the U.S. Attorney's Office and/or the Court, the |\n| 19 | District Court, the United States District Court, says no. |\n| 20 | I don't care what you think Trustee, we're not -- I'm not |\n| 21 | giving it -- you don't get it, you don't get it at this |\n| 22 | point or maybe ever. |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:
Your Honor, our proposed order at |\n| 24 | 1698 that we filed on April 24th does exactly what you just |\n| 25 | described. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 33 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 33 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me look at it. What's the number? MR. BALDIGA: 1698. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a second. It will just take me a minute to get there. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Of course. (Pause.) THE COURT: It will take me a minute. I'm sorry. It's just it's a large, as you know, it's a large docket so it takes a minute to load. MR. BALDIGA: Getting larger. THE COURT: Yes. I'm almost there. All right. I'm going to open it now. MR. BALDIGA: Everything except paragraph 1, I believe, is agreed, so it's only paragraph 1 that is at issue. I believe that. There may be slight differences otherwise, but -- and the only issue really is what the request is. We've agreed to request the Government, we agreed to request the Court and we agreed to seek to modify the protective order to allow the Government to produce whatever it wants to produce to the Trustee. Everything this court just said and everything Mr. Best volunteered to do. THE COURT: Well, I think I said a little more than that. And maybe it's a distinction you think doesn't\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 34 have a difference, but I'm not sure about that yet. But let's talk it through. I -- MR. BALDIGA: The distinction is, as the Trustee is arguing, is whether the materials must be produced by the debtor. And in every one of the cases the Trustee cites is a Section 551 case having to do with property of the estate, and the surrender obligation which is really not at issue here at all because we're not talking about the debtor surrendering anything of his. We're talking about discovery of materials produced by the Government. So the surrender cases, and, again, every single one of the Trustee's cases is a surrender case under Section 551 -- THE COURT: But isn't *Bouknight* or one of the other cases, it involved a criminal proceeding? It involved -- MR. BALDIGA: But they're still -- but they're 551 cases surrender of property of the estate. THE COURT: But how do you know -- just like you just said though, Attorney Baldiga -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: -- you said you don't know what's in those documents. Nobody does. So how do you know that they don't, those documents don't relate to surrender of property Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 34 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 35 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 35 of the estate? You don't know, none of us know that. We don't know. We don't. We have no idea. MR. BALDIGA: No. The trustee in those other cases, the debtor was resisting production, but it was production of papers of the estate. Here, you're right. We don't know what these papers are. Many of them almost certainly will not be papers of the estate because the file that the Government has to turn over is the *Brady* production, everything that it has uncovered from any witness or anyone over the course of an investigation that may go over months or years. So, yes, could there be something within the Court's earlier July consent order conceivably? Yes. But we're all guessing as to what portion. But the -- THE COURT: So let me just ask you another question. Let's assume -- MR. BALDIGA: Certainly. THE COURT: Let's assume that your -- let's just argue -- let's just say for sake of argument that they have to go to the Department of Justice to get this -- the Trustee has to go to the -- so why can't you just say, yeah, we have no problem with that? You should turn over to them everything you're going to turn over to us. What's the problem then? MR. BALDIGA: No problem whatsoever, done and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 36 done. We will do exactly that. And our order says exactly that. THE COURT: Well, I don't think it does say exactly that, but -- MR. BALDIGA: Then I'm happy to -- happy to make it even more clear. But what you just said, we've agreed to do. MR. DESPINS: They've agreed to do that, Your Honor, because it won't happen. The DOJ has no obligation to give us any documents. The only way we have access to that court is through the defendant. He's already said that he's okay with the DOJ giving us -- MR. BALDIGA: But we'll move the Court to do it. MR. DESPINS: Let me finish. THE COURT: Hold on a second. MR. DESPINS: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So he's already said that he's okay with the DOJ giving us all the documents. Once he's crossed that road, how does he say, oh, if I'm the one giving it to you, then there's a real problem with that? We all know that the act of production does not apply in that context because it's Government documents. The Government gave them the documents. So this argument that somehow it has to go through the DOJ, I know why Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 36 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 37 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 37 they're proposing that, because it's a fool's errand. We will never get an order from the criminal court saying the DOJ must produce to us. We don't exist in that court. The only way we can get that is through the debtor. And let's focus on what's the problem the debtor has? The debtor has already crossed the road and said it's okay for us to get all those documents through the DOJ. So now all of a sudden they say if we have to give it to you, there's a problem. Well, there's no act of production. These are the Government's documents so we know that's a red herring. And the other stuff about national security. I can be -- if Mr. Baldiga can be qualified to review those documents, I'm sure I can too. Now, my fingerprints have already been taken by the FBI to be a trustee, so I'm sure that I can pass that clearance. But, in any event, if the DOJ has a problem, they will raise their hand and say don't allow that. But this is -- you know, this structure they're proposing is a guarantee not to happen. The other structure they're proposing is, has a chance of happening, but not a guarantee. And I realize that. But for sure to seek an order saying that the DOJ must turn over to us documents, it's a non-starter. And the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 38 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
38 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | only reason they're proposing that is because they know |\n| 2 | that's the result. |\n| 3 | Thank you. |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
We don't know anything. |\n| 5 | But going back to what you just said, Your Honor, |\n| 6 | we're willing to do exactly what you just said. |\n| 7 | And nothing that the Trustee just said resolves |\n| 8 | any of the issues that we put on before about the other |\n| 9 | investigation, Mr. Kwok's Fifth Amendment rights, the fact |\n| 10 | that none of his cases that he has cited are anything but |\n| 11 | 551 turnover of property of the estate cases and not |\n| 12 | testamentary cases that are implicated by turning over |\n| 13 | testimonial documents, which is where the Fifth Amendment is |\n| 14 | implicated.
That's even before you get to the attorney |\n| 15 | client issues. |\n| 16 | And, Your Honor, what's instructive here is I |\n| 17 | agree with the Trustee with one thing, we're here because |\n| 18 | the Trustee is pressing. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
The Trustee is what? |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Is pressing to try to get an |\n| 21 | advantage by Mr. Kwok's being imprisoned and not being able |\n| 22 | to be able to actually defend himself without implicating |\n| 23 | his Fifth Amendment rights. |\n| 24 | So the Trustee wants to take advantage of a |\n| 25 | terrible situation for civil advantage.
Okay.
Well, our |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 39 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 39 motion, Your Honor, is as to a stay. And let's just take this SEC. At the same time Mr. Kwok was arrested, the SEC brought a typical SEC action for securities fraud against the same defendants, Mr. Kwok and the two co-defendants. The DOJ has already intervened in the SEC case saying, hey, SEC, we don't even care what you want, you're stayed. Just for these very same reasons. So if Mr. Despins is correct that in the middle of a very serious felony proceeding in which the defendant is incarcerated and it implicates all sorts of Fifth Amendment rights, and that's even before you get to a separate investigation, the reason why this is all so difficult is because almost always this is stayed entirely. We're coming before the Court trying to thread a needle to not ask for a general stay, to allow the estate to be administered as best we can, but consistent with the constitutional rights of the debtor, our client. And if Mr. Despins wants to admit that there's no way to reconcile the two, the constitutional rights win out. We're trying not to make it that dramatic and we'd like to find a way, just as we did with the order that the Court was able to enter yesterday, but it does have limits. And constitutional rights aren't going to be sacrificed because Mr. Despins thinks it's all going to be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 40 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 40 difficult. What you just suggested twice during this hearing is exactly what our proposed order at 1698 does. THE COURT: Well, it's not exactly. It's not exactly. But I see what -- you know, I mean, you don't -- it just says that you will, you, Brown Rudnick, will promptly request that the Assistant -- MR. BALDIGA: No. It says the debtor through counsel will request. THE COURT: Right. Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: All right. THE COURT: That the Assistant United States Attorney to -- but if necessary by filing a motion to modify the existing protective order, provide to the Trustee the documents and materials the Government produces to the debtor. You're just requesting that. You're not -- and -- MR. BALDIGA: But we can't force that. THE COURT: I understand that. I'm not -- that's not what I'm saying. MR. BALDIGA: Well, we're willing to put -- we'll use your words, not ours. THE COURT: I don't even recall what my words were at the moment, Mr. Baldiga, so we'd have to go back, honestly. MR. BALDIGA: As long as what we're filing a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 41 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 41 motion for, requesting, demanding, whatever, is that the Government produce to the Trustee what the Government produces to the debtor, we're okay. As long as -- THE COURT: Mr. Despins' argument -- MR. BALDIGA: -- it's from the Government. THE COURT: -- is that they'll never agree to that. Can you tell me why? MR. BALDIGA: I don't know that the Government's ever going to agree to anything. THE COURT: But -- MR. BALDIGA: We don't know. THE COURT: -- why would they -- MR. BALDIGA: That's why the Government -- THE COURT: This can't be the first time there was a Chapter or some form of trustee involved in some kind of proceeding in which the person is being charged with a crime. I mean, this can't be -- we can't be making this up. MR. BALDIGA: No. There's one that's, you know, that's very significant that we all read about. Sam Bankman-Fried is not even the debtor, but he is the principal of -- THE COURT: Well, that's part of the problem. He's not a debtor. We're talking -- I'm talking about a debtor who already has obligations under the Bankruptcy Code to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 42 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 42 Trustee -- MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. So those cases are stayed. THE COURT: -- who's been appointed to investigate his affairs. MR. BALDIGA: Right. Most civil proceedings are stayed because it is so difficult to protect constitutional rights in the course of civil litigation where the debtor is awaiting trial, not just having a fear that he might be indicted some day, but literally incarcerated, awaiting trial, there's a stay. THE COURT: But what's your point? Your point still is is that if he turns it over to the Trustee, your client, it's testamentary and it can be used against him? That's your argument? MR. BALDIGA: That's one of the arguments. But also he cannot agree to turn over what he doesn't -- isn't able to see or review first. THE COURT: Well, who said he wasn't going to see or review it first? Nobody said that. MR. BALDIGA: Because we don't know what it is, so how can we agree today to turn over something which we don't even know what we're talking about. MR. DESPINS: Judge, they've already crossed that bridge. MR. BALDIGA: We don't know what it is.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 43 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
43 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
They've said that if it comes from |\n| 2 | the DOJ I get it all. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
They've already said that. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I'm a little confused by -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
It makes no sense. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm a little confused by that part of |\n| 8 | the argument I have to say.
I'm a little confused by -- you |\n| 9 | get to -- |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
No one can say -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
-- you get to see it.
You get to see |\n| 12 | it before you turn it over to the Trustee, so what's the |\n| 13 | problem? |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Because -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
And then you can assert whatever |\n| 16 | privileges you assert.
You've already -- haven't you |\n| 17 | already done that with a bunch of pleadings anyway, a bunch |\n| 18 | of documents anyway?
I mean, things are marked highly |\n| 19 | confidential.
We have a protective order in place too.
I |\n| 20 | mean, I'm a little confused by that part of the argument. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
If the debtor has turned over things |\n| 22 | that he hasn't seen prior to our representation of him, |\n| 23 | shame on him.
I highly doubt that happened.
But if it did, |\n| 24 | it did.
I don't know that. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
No.
But that's not the point.
The |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 44 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 44 point is your client -- no one's suggesting that your client isn't going to get to see whatever is produced by the Government before it gets turned over to the Trustee. No one's suggesting that. MR. BALDIGA: Oh, yes. Well, yeah. He won't be able to see some of this. THE COURT: Why? Well, that's the Government. MR. BALDIGA: Because the protective order -- THE COURT: That has nothing to do with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. BALDIGA: -- the protective order doesn't allow the debtor to see some of it. THE COURT: But that's what I'm saying. That's not Trustee Despins' issue. That's the United States Government's issue. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. So our client -- THE COURT: He's not trying to get something from the United States Government that your client can't see. MR. BALDIGA: Yes, he -- yes, we are. THE COURT: No, he's not. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And that's what he's asking for. THE COURT: No, he's not. No. That's where I would disagree. MR. DESPINS: We can carve that out if that's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 45 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 45 necessary. That's not an issue, but -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know how he'd be entitled to get something from the United States Government that your client can't see. MR. BALDIGA: We can't agree to produce -- I'm not even sure who the we is here. But our client will -- doesn't know what materials we're even talking about today. Neither do we. We don't know what they are. And the appropriate time to -- for us to commit to do something with those is after they've been reviewed for attorney-client privilege, after they've been reviewed for Fifth Amendment privilege, after -- THE COURT: Well, attorney-client privilege you might have an issue with. Okay? We've gone through that before in this case. MR. BALDIGA: We absolutely do. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: So we've gone through that before, the attorney-client privilege. But with regard to other issues, your Fifth -- MR. BALDIGA: But what about the Fifth Amendment privilege in the other grand jury proceeding that none of us are parties to? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, that's the same issue.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 46 Is there an active production issue? THE COURT: What's the other -- MR. DESPINS: There's none. It comes from the Government. THE COURT: Yeah. What's the other grand jury? What are you talking about? Which one? I'm trying to keep up. MR. BASSETT: There is another grand jury. I mean, there is a second grand jury proceeding -- THE COURT: Oh, the one where you produced -- there was a subpoena served on Paul Hastings -- MR. BALDIGA: -- where the Trustee has been asked for -- THE COURT: -- is that what you mean? MR. BALDIGA: -- materials which -- in which we do not represent the debtor and neither does Zeisler. And to our knowledge, no one represents the debtor. And to the extent the debtor is called upon to deliver anything, he's going to have to have some law firm advise him as to his Fifth Amendment rights in connection with that other proceeding. THE COURT: Yeah. But we're not talking about the other proceeding. We're talking about a proceeding right now -- MR. BALDIGA: Oh, our client is.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 46 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 47 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 47 THE COURT: -- in which you represent the debtor. MR. BALDIGA: My client is absolutely talking about that other proceeding. THE COURT: No, we're not. I don't even know anything -- there's nothing in the record that establishes there was a subpoena served. So what? That doesn't stop -- MR. BALDIGA: That there's another grand jury proceeding and my client, it has to do with my client's bankruptcy case, and my client is not going to agree to turn over documents in possible derogation of his constitutional rights without having a lawyer take him through those documents and understand what they are. THE COURT: You're now talking about something that is unknown. No one knows what you're talking about. Because -- MR. BALDIGA: No. Based on what we know -- THE COURT: So what if there was a subpoena served, we don't know what a grand jury is going to do. We don't even know if a grand jury is going to indict. MR. BALDIGA: Of course, we don't need -- THE COURT: You know, just because somebody is investigating something -- MR. BALDIGA: -- an indictment to happen -- THE COURT: -- doesn't mean there's an indictment. MR. BALDIGA: No. But as all the cases that we've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 48 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
48 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | all been reviewing reflect you don't need an indictment -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Well, you -- but you don't represent |\n| 3 | -- |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- in order to implicate your Fifth |\n| 5 | Amendment rights. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- you don't represent Mr. Kwok in |\n| 7 | connection with that proceeding.
You've just said so.
And |\n| 8 | neither does Zeisler & Zeisler. |\n| 9 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's right. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So the only parties that represent him |\n| 11 | are here in the court, in this court, with regard to the |\n| 12 | Trustee's motion to compel compliance with subpoena. |\n| 13 | So the remaining issue is how, if at all, does the |\n| 14 | Trustee get the documents that are in the Government's |\n| 15 | control? |\n| 16 | His position is that you should have -- your |\n| 17 | client should have to turn over to him whatever -- your |\n| 18 | client should have to turn over to the Chapter 11 Trustee |\n| 19 | whatever is produced to your client. |\n| 20 | Your argument is it should all come from the |\n| 21 | Government.
Right?
That's where we are. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
We haven't changed the position that |\n| 24 | we originally had before we had the hearing on April 20th -- |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, that's right. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 49 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 49 THE COURT: -- because that was the position before April 20. MR. BALDIGA: That's right. Our client has Fifth Amendment rights that would be abrogated by a requirement that he turn over things especially given the other proceeding and especially given that he has not even been able to have a conversation with counsel or look at the subject matter of that order. THE COURT: Of what order? MR. BALDIGA: The extraordinary remedy that would certainly implicate his constitutional rights and abrogate them. THE COURT: What order? MR. BALDIGA: Any order entered along the lines suggested by the Trustee. THE COURT: Well, that's what Mr. Best said he was going to do. He was going to go back and show -- MR. BALDIGA: No. Mr. Best said that he would ask -- THE COURT: -- he said he had to talk to his client, that was the whole point. MR. BALDIGA: No. We went through what Mr. Best suggested. Mr. Best suggested that we would do whatever the Trustee wants by way of request to the Court and to the Department of Justice to say turn over whatever you want,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 50 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 50 whatever you can, whatever is consistent with your own processes. The debtor is not going to stand in the way. In fact, the debtor is fine with it. You do it. MR. DESPINS: That's not what was agreed to. THE COURT: Okay. I think you're forgetting that there was a recess that was taken and the parties went out to discuss those issues. MR. BALDIGA: But there's no point after the recess which the debtor's proposal changed. Zero. We went through every -- went through twice. One with Mr. Despins and once with me. Where did the debtor's proposal change after the recess? It was stated clearly before the recess what it was, precisely, concretely four times. It never changed. And Mr. Despins has had plenty of time to tell the Court where Mr. Best said his proposal had changed. Didn't happen. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, on page 141, after the recess, I stated very clearly what should happen. It said the Court should enter an order saying that the debtor is directed to seek a modification of any applicable protective order in the criminal case to allow the Chapter 11 Trustee access to the documents produced by the Government to the debtor. After that, the only time that Mr. Best is heard\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 51 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 51 is I'm fine with counsel proposing a draft order that we look at and get Your Honor if that's the easiest way of doing it. He had plenty of (indiscernible) to say, wait a minute, this doesn't work. We can only get documents -- he can only get documents from the District Attorney. There was none of that. That's the way the hearing ended. So there's just -- MR. BALDIGA: Can you go through your language again because we're talking about the protective order. So let's go. Mr. Despins' best language now. No pun intended. MR. DESPINS: Of course we're -- MR. BALDIGA: Is what he just pointed to at page 141. MR. DESPINS: -- talking about the protective order. That's the only way this would be implemented. There's a protective order -- MR. BALDIGA: All right. So agree. MR. DESPINS: -- in the criminal case, Your Honor, that says that the defendant is not allowed to share the documents produced by the Government other than to the following people. And we said, okay, what needs to be happen is that the debtor must go to the criminal court and to the DOJ to say we need to modify that protective order to allow me, the debtor, to give to the Trustee what --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 52 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
52 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. BALDIGA:
Whoa.
Wait. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
-- the DOJ gives me. |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Whoa.
Whoa.
Whoa.
That's not on |\n| 4 | page 141.
That, where is that, Mr. Despins? |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
That's on -- |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's not there. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
That's on -- that's on line 13 |\n| 8 | through 15.
It says in the criminal case to allow the |\n| 9 | Chapter 11 Trustee access to the documents produced by the |\n| 10 | Government to the debtor. |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
To the debtor. |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
But you said something else -- |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
To the debtor. |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- when you were talking. |\n| 16 | When you're reading it's -- it doesn't -- nowhere |\n| 17 | does it say, again, this is not even Mr. Best talking and |\n| 18 | you're trying to describe where Mr. Best changed after the |\n| 19 | recess, but we agreed to seek a modification to the |\n| 20 | protective order to allow the Trustee access to the |\n| 21 | documents produced by the Government.
Get them from the |\n| 22 | Government. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
But if you continue to read on |\n| 24 | here, and on page 141, I say on line 19, \"If they get shot |\n| 25 | down, they get shot down, that's the risk we take.\" |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 53 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 53 1 They cannot oppose that relief because there's nothing with act of production. That's totally out of the door then. That's the point I was making, which is when they're producing to us Government documents, there's no active production. These are not their documents. They're not the debtor's documents. They're documents from the Government. And that's why -- that's the whole point of -- that's consistent with the structure that has been -- that was proposed, which was that they need to produce to us because we have no standing in that court. It needs to come from the debtor to us, Your Honor. That's very clear from the transcript. MR. BALDIGA: The request has to come from us. Well, you need to subpoena them. But then the request needs to be from us. But we agree. But nothing you just described -- I'll address the Court. Nothing described by the Trustee is Mr. Best suggesting that he has changed a crystal clear, four-time repeated -- THE COURT: The only thing I would say about that, Mr. Baldiga, if it was crystal clear, then we wouldn't have needed a recess for the parties to talk about it. And I say that before the recess. The whole point of taking the recess was to go out and talk about it.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 54 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 54 And when Mr. Best comes back after Mr. Despins says what he says on pages 141 and 142, and after we get over the fact that -- and understandably that Mr. Best was conflating the U.S. Trustee's Office with the U.S. Attorney's Office -- Mr. Best says, \"I'm fine with counsel proposing a draft order that we look at and get it to Your Honor if that's the easiest way of doing it. I just want to make sure everyone knows that there will be -- the protective order has limitations of use of the information.\" And I think I see Mr. Despins shaking his head in acknowledgment. \"So that I think there's an agreement to be abide by if the Southern District of New York so allows to use the information subject to the protective them being part of the protective order.\" That's what he says. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor -- MR. BALDIGA: We all agree. Couldn't agree more. MR. DESPINS: -- that language, that language that says there are limitations in the protective order, they're not limitations on the Government. They're the limitations on the -- on what the defendant can do with the information they get from the Government. So that goes to the issue of limitations of what they can do to give it to us. That's why the protective order needs to be modified. MR. BALDIGA: That's just false. The protective order is a mutual and, in fact, multi-party protective\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 55 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 55 order. That's actually what Mr. Despins said and it's -- MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. We're talking -- MR. BALDIGA: -- it's okay -- MR. DESPINS: We're talking about documents that the Government has. The Government is not limiting itself to the use of those documents. They're giving the documents to the debtor, or to the defendant, I'm sorry, and are limiting the defendant's use of those documents. That's what the protective order achieves with respect to those documents. There are other aspects of the order, but that's -- MR. BALDIGA: No one doubts that we've agreed to seek modification to the protective order to allow the Trustee to get what he wants to the extent that the Government wants to give it to him. That's what we talked about. That's what we've agreed to do. If the Government wants to give it to him, they will. But never did we agree, and we would not agree, for this debtor to waive his constitutional rights to directly produce. THE COURT: It's not a waiver of his constitutional rights. It's the -- MR. BALDIGA: It absolutely would be. THE COURT: How is it a waiver of his rights if the Government produces the documents to him and he shares\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 56 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 56 them with the Trustee, who is his legal representative in this bankruptcy estate? MR. BALDIGA: The act of sharing documents is itself testimonial. THE COURT: No. It's not, according to -- and that's why I raised that issue in the last hearing. MR. BALDIGA: It's not -- THE COURT: The *Bouknight* case says that it's not testimonial. And there's other cases that say it's not testimonial -- MR. BALDIGA: It does, in fact, as to -- THE COURT: -- including the *Harris* case, back from 1911 of the Supreme Court, that says the question is not one of testimony but of surrender -- MR. BALDIGA: To surrender -- THE COURT: -- not of compelling the bankrupt to be a witness against himself in a criminal case past or future but of compelling him to yield possession of property that he no longer is entitled to keep. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: That's what -- MR. BALDIGA: So can we just stop -- THE COURT: -- that's what the United States Supreme Court said in 1911. MR. BALDIGA: Right. Can we just stay with that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 57 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
57 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | language, Your Honor, because that -- you're right.
That's |\n| 2 | a
-- it's a turnover, no longer entitled to keep, its |\n| 3 | property that the debtor doesn't own.
That is not the |\n| 4 | subject of any of this motion practice.
That is property of |\n| 5 | the estate.
We're not talking about property of the estate. |\n| 6 | We're talking about discovery in a criminal case. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
You don't know that though. |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
That is not property -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's the problem, Mr. Baldiga. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
But, Your Honor -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
You don't know that. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
-- the property can include |\n| 13 | documents, commercial documents clearly can be property of |\n| 14 | the estate.
So there could be property of the estate in |\n| 15 | those documents that are produced. |\n| 16 | Remember, let's go back to the fundamentals here. |\n| 17 | They're okay if the Government gives it all to us.
At that |\n| 18 | point, once they've agreed to that, then the rest becomes |\n| 19 | just subterfuge really. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
There's no subterfuge. |\n| 21 | Your Honor, every one of the Trustee's cases is a |\n| 22 | surrender of ownership where the trustee owns something |\n| 23 | already and the cases hold uniformly to every one of the |\n| 24 | cases cited by the Trustee, it's absolutely consistent, |\n| 25 | which is, if something is owned by the trustee, it's not |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 58 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 58 testimonial for the debtor to surrender possession of what he has no entitlement to. That is a completely different situation from which we are. The case law is clear. And there's not a single case the Trustee has which deals with the testimonial aspects of property that every one of the Trustee's cases centers on the debtor when a trustee has been appointed no longer has legal entitlement to that property and so must surrender it. And if so doing, it's not testimonial. That is -- and the Trustee knows that's the case. Those are not cases that deal with the present situation. THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure you're right. But, in any event, we obviously don't have an agreement here which the parties, you know, stated on the record, including Mr. Best, that he did have an agreement, and that he was only going to show the order to Mr. Kwok and that there wasn't going to be -- as I said, I don't want to hear that there isn't an agreement. Well, there isn't agreement. So then I guess I'll have to go back and rule -- MR. BALDIGA: That's not how to do it. THE COURT: -- on whether the debtor is -- whether I should hold the -- the fact that the debtor hasn't complied and hasn't purged himself of his obligation to comply under the subpoena that was issued in this court with regard to the debtor's obligations to cooperate with the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 59 Trustee, which at this point there's still a controversy over. And so you're answering my question, which was, so your argument is that it's testimonial in nature? That's the only argument you have. MR. BALDIGA: No. THE COURT: Because in one case you're saying the Government can turn over everything to the Trustee, but the Trustee said the Government's never going to do that. And then -- and you're saying, well, we're not going to turn it over even if -- but we'll ask the Government to do that. So then that's -- you think by asking the Government to do that that is in compliance with your obligations under the subpoena issued in this case? MR. BALDIGA: Well, the debtor -- the answer is clearly yes. The debtor is in a fairly small prison cell. He clearly has -- he's agreed to answer the Trustee's questions question by question. That was yesterday's order. Now the question is must the debtor deliver up everything he has? Well, he has. He has nothing in his cell, and there's only -- and we've gone through this, there's only two categories of things left. Things that have been seized by the Government and things that the Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 59 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 60 Trustee would have the debtor direct others to deliver, which I think has been now conceded to be testimonial in nature, because -- THE COURT: I don't think anyone's conceded that point yet, but go ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Oh. All right. Well, it hasn't been seriously argued that that would not be testimonial and it clearly would be. So that's why we come back to the debtor has emptied his jail cell, unfortunately, literally, so he can't deliver anything he has. He doesn't have anything. So the Trustee then latched onto, well, he might get some stuff from the Government. And we've said, hey, if the Government's willing to give it to you, we have no idea, no idea, but we won't stand in the way. In fact, we'll pursue it and we'll even request it. But we can't produce it if we haven't seen it. It implicates attorney-client privilege. And most importantly implicates constitutional privileges to do so. And that would be testimonial. THE COURT: The only party that's going to argue it's testimonial if you turn it over is the Government? That's your fear? I'm trying to understand. On the one hand, you say if they get it from the Government, which Mr. Despins says is never going to happen, Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 60 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 61 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 61 there's no problem. But if they get it from you, it is. So where's the problem? The problem is because then the Government can use that information and say he waived his Fifth Amendment privilege because he turned over a document that says something in it that could be self- incriminating? MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. Exactly. That's why -- we represent Mr. Kwok in a criminal proceeding in which the Government is trying to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life. We need to do everything we can so that Mr. Kwok goes into that trial with his constitutional protections intact. He can't waive them. And the Trustee is trying to put the screws to him using the contempt power of this court to get him to waive that because the Trustee, as the Court has already heard, threatened that, you know, he would work with the Government to have Mr. Kwok incarcerated if he didn't cooperate. Now that's happened. THE COURT: I don't think that's fair, Mr. Baldiga. MR. BALDIGA: Well, we don't know. THE COURT: I don't think that's fair. I really don't. No matter what's going on in this case, I don't think that's a fair statement. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. We weren't party to those\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 62 discussions, but Mr. -- I'll withdraw that. Fair enough. Mr. Kwok needs to go into his criminal proceeding with his Fifth Amendment rights intact -- MR. DESPINS: So, the argument, Your Honor, the argument is -- MR. BALDIGA: -- and use the powers of this court -- THE COURT: Hold on a second. Just let him finish. Let Mr. Baldiga finish, please. MR. BALDIGA: -- using the powers of this court to try to force a waiver of those constitutional protections when his literal life and liberty are at risk is exactly what the Constitution is designed to prohibit. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the concept that the Government could -- has a bundle of documents, gives them to the debtor, and then the debtor gives it to the Trustee, and the Government says, aha, the documents I gave to you, because you gave them to the Trustee, you've admitted that they're valid and that act showed that you're guilty of a crime. I mean, sorry to say, that's legal insanity, meaning that that can't be. And, if we can, put some provision in the order saying that the debtor is acting as a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 62 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 63 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
63 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | mere conduit and is not producing it, not acknowledging the |\n| 2 | truth of any of what's in the documents. |\n| 3 | But I know one thing, those documents are going to |\n| 4 | be a treasure trove of information about transfers, bank |\n| 5 | transfers, et cetera, that would cost us millions of dollars |\n| 6 | to trace and that's why we need access to that because our |\n| 7 | job is to get assets into this estate. |\n| 8 | And the argument that somehow the act of |\n| 9 | production isn't involved in this -- in this current |\n| 10 | structure, which is the documents come from the Government |\n| 11 | to the debtor, the debtor to us, and somehow the debtor is |\n| 12 | waiving his Fifth Amendment rights by doing so, I'm sorry, |\n| 13 | but that just, that doesn't hold -- you know, I'm sorry, |\n| 14 | that just doesn't make sense. |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
I wish we could bind the Government |\n| 16 | to not do what we fear, that would be a great result.
We |\n| 17 | could have the Government come in and answer the question I |\n| 18 | guess and be bound by it. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Anything further from anyone? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, may I be heard briefly? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | Since you may be circling back on what's actually |\n| 24 | before you, the two things before you are the motion for |\n| 25 | stay filed by criminal counsel and the order -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 64 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 64 THE COURT: Well, the motion for stay is not before me because Mr. Best already agreed that he wasn't seeking a stay, so I don't agree with you on that. What's the second thing that's before me? MR. HENZY: The thing before you then, Your Honor, is the order to show cause at why Mr. Kwok should not be held in contempt. THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: And I actually signed and filed the objection to that order to show cause. I don't think you need to do this now, Your Honor. And in thinking about that, I want to point to a case that no one has cited. It's *McCarthy v. Arndstein*, A-R-N-D-S-T- E-I-N. It followed the *Harris* case. THE COURT: What's the cite, please? MR. HENZY: The cite is 266 U.S. 34. It actually followed the *Harris* case and distinguished the *Harris* case. So this is a Supreme Court case. And it dealt with the predecessor to Rule 2004. It was Section 21(a) of the Act. And it -- I'll just read some of the -- briefly some of the language. \"The cases which hold that a bankrupt must surrender books and papers, although they contain incriminating evidence, rest upon a principle different from that here involved.\" And it cites *Matter of Harris* with the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 65 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 65 citation. Skipping down a little bit, \"Section 21(a), which is the predecessor to 2004, on the other hand, deals specifically and solely with the adjective law with evidence and witnesses. When the bankrupt appears before a commissioner under this section, he comes like any other person, merely to testify. In that connection, he may, like any other witness, assert the constitutional privilege.\" So there is a distinction, Your Honor, between testimonial and surrender under 521(a)(4). I'd also point out, Your Honor, a case that Mr. Bassett's quoted from heavily, that again was not cited by anyone in any papers, *In re Ross*, which is the Idaho case, 156 B.R. 272. The Court there -- and I don't, maybe no one's disagreeing with this, expressly said the statute, the bankruptcy statutes, must give way before the constitutional rights if those rights are infringed. That was a lengthy case and I think illustrative of this. It's a very, very fact-sensitive analysis. And the Court there did discuss the foregone conclusion analysis that Mr. Best talked about. But I want to circle back, Your Honor. What's before you is the order to show cause as to why Mr. Kwok should not be held in contempt. As you know, you need to conclude there's no fair\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 66 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 66 ground of doubt. I think this discussion has underscored that there is, in fact, a fair ground of doubt, including because there's a great deal of speculation. And maybe because mostly I've been sitting and listening, there's a great deal of speculation about what the Government will or won't do. And I don't think anyone in this courtroom knows that, Your Honor. There's a great deal of speculation. And Mr. Despins can say that there's a trove of information about transfers by the debtor. He doesn't -- he doesn't know that. No one knows. Mr. Baldiga has pointed this out over and over and over. No one knows what the Government actually is going to hand over to the debtor. No one knows when, I think right now, when the Government is going to hand documents over to actually not even the debtor but to debtor's counsel. Again, we don't know what's going to be debtor's counsel's eyes only. We don't know what is going to be actually available to the debtor. We don't know what conditions documents are going to be handed over on. So I don't want to go back over all the arguments that have been made. They've been made very well and at great length, Your Honor. But I guess, again, I'm going to come back to I don't think you need to do this right now. For you to hold\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 67 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 67 -- for you to rule today that Mr. Kwok should be held in contempt, you have to find there's no fair ground of doubt. Given all the uncertainty here, I'm going to argue, Your Honor, that I don't think you can do that. 5 And I don't know if it's two weeks from now. I don't know if it's a month from now. I don't know when the Government's going to hand over documents here. I don't know that's happening any time in the next -- in the next week or two weeks or anything like that. It would make sense I think to I guess temporarily stay this until we know what the Government is going to hand over, when the Government's going to hand it over, and potentially what the Government is going to do. I think you risk, Your Honor, by entering an order now, you risk interfering with the process that is going on down there. If you enter an order that says Mr. Kwok has to hand over any documents that he gets, does that -- does that somehow impact then what the Government is going to do in terms of handing over documents? I think -- THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a second. The *McCarthy-Arndstein* case I'm looking at. And it was all about whether or not the privilege against self- incrimination applied in a bankruptcy case. It wasn't -- it didn't distinguish *Harris* and what *Harris* held. It said the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 68 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 68 cases which hold that a bankrupt must surrender books and papers, although they contain incriminating evidence, rest upon a different principle from that here involved. And the principle that here involved in *McCarthy vs. Arndstein* was whether or not the privilege against self- incrimination extends to an examination of the bankruptcy -- of the bankrupt made for the purpose of obtaining possession of property belonging to his estate. So that was an examination. It was not a turnover of documents. So I just want to be clear, although you pointed out that case, it's not distinguishing *Harris* in saying there's something wrong with *Harris*. *Harris* dealt with the turnover of books and records and the surrender of books and records, not a direct examination of a witness for purposes of self-incrimination. MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, this is a -- this is a 2004 subpoena, so this is -- this is not a turnover. Mr. Baldiga's made this point. This is not a turnover. THE COURT: So what if -- what if the Trustee then filed a motion under 541 and 542, are you going to make the same argument now that he -- now that he's couched it as a turnover motion? He's now -- now he'll say, okay. So you're going to argue that under -- because it's a 2004 examination I can't get this information.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 69 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 69 But if I file a motion under -- let's see, what would we file it under? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: No. I'd like to finish my thought. So if you -- if he files a motion under 542, then what's your argument then? Because it's turnover of property to the estate. So it says, except as provided, an entity other than a custodian, custodian or custody or control during the case, the property that the trustee may use, so lease, under Section 363, or that the debtor may exempt, shall deliver to the trustee and account for such property or the value of such property unless such property is of inconsequential value. So this is the whole -- so you're saying -- MR. DESPINS: But also, Your Honor, Subsection (e). THE COURT: I hadn't gotten there yet. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: But I started with (a). So then it says -- and there's a lot in Section 542, including (e), which says subject to any applicable privilege that -- the Court may enter -- may order an attorney, accountant or other person that holds recorded information, including books, documents, records and papers\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 70 relating to the debtor's property or financial affairs to turn over or disclose such recorded information to the trustee. So how does your argument change then? You're saying, okay, Trustee, we're not going to -- you can't do this under 2004, but how are you going to make that argument under 542? MR. HENZY: I don't need to make that argument today, Your Honor, because right now there's no turnover order. THE COURT: I understand that. MR. HENZY: And so -- THE COURT: But maybe I'm going to convert it into one. MR. HENZY: I don't -- THE COURT: So we don't spend the next three months arguing about something that is something that has been on the table since July 8th, 2022. And it's March [sic] 2nd, 2022. THE COURT: I don't believe you have the authority to do that, Your Honor. But if that -- THE COURT: You may -- MR. HENZY: -- if that -- THE COURT: -- you may -- MR. HENZY: -- but if that --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 70 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 71 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 71 THE COURT: -- you may be right, but -- MR. HENZY: The only thing -- THE COURT: -- you may be wrong too. MR. HENZY: I might be, Your Honor. The only thing before you is on contempt and the only order is an order compelling Mr. Kwok to comply with the 2004 subpoena. So I don't -- I don't think there's such a thing as anticipatory contempt. So I -- THE COURT: It's not anticipatory contempt, Attorney Henzy. Okay? Number one. Number two, your client has been on notice since January and earlier that the Trustee has been seeking contempt. So how you can say that's anticipatory contempt, I don't -- that, I don't even begin to understand. But, in addition to that, there's already an -- you know, the one thing that keeps getting lost, your client voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this court as a debtor in possession. And with that he voluntarily submitted himself to all the obligations of a debtor under this, under the Bankruptcy Code, which includes obligations under 542 of the estate. Now, I understand what you're saying. But all I'm saying is to continue to come in and act as if -- I hear Mr. Baldiga saying the Trustee's threatening this, threatening\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 72 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 72 that, doing this, doing that. The Trustee's trying to do his job. You may not agree with it and that's fine. You have every right to not agree with it. Everybody can disagree on whether he has a right to do his job, but he's trying to do his job, a job that -- by the way, the debtor came in and said he was going to do all these things and then withdrew them all and then said, yeah, I think I'll just agree to let my case get dismissed. Well, that's not what happened. Sorry, but that's not what happened. What happened was a Chapter 11 Trustee was appointed and a Chapter 11 Trustee is trying to do his job. And there was an agreement reached on the record. What's before me right now is what was that agreement, that's what's before me. Because there was an agreement that resolved everything. Okay. And now -- and I said on the record to Mr. Best, when he said I just need some time to go to my client, understood. I said understandably. He said I can't. I don't have easy access to him. I need until Monday. That's what he said. I said okay, but I don't want -- I don't want to hear that there isn't an agreement. And then look where we are. There's no agreement. So the point that we're all missing here, and I understand that you have to do whatever you have to do that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 73 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 73 you believe is appropriate to protect your client, but it doesn't make sense to me at this point in time, subject to - - and going back and reviewing what everyone has said, both in pleadings and on the record, and on a record where we already had an agreement and now we don't have an agreement, that if you have no problem with the Government turning over everything, but you do have a problem with your client turning it over to the Trustee, there does seem to be a disconnect there. And the problem is either you know -- you could make an argument, you could make an argument -- you know the Government's not going to turn over anything to the Trustee or you -- or that you are going to not cooperate -- and let me use the word carefully, you're not going to turn over because you're going to then assert, oh, but if I do that, the Government can use that against me. Well, if the Government already has all the information, why can't they use it against you already? How do they not -- how can they not use it against you? MR. BALDIGA: That's a totally different point, Your Honor. The Government -- THE COURT: No. I don't think it is. How is that a totally different point? MR. BALDIGA: The debtor has Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate himself.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 74 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 74 First, I want to go back to the 542 (e) point you make. I agree with Your Honor on that. I think -- I think if we were here on 542(e) the arguments would be exactly the same. And that's why 542(e) starts with subject to all applicable privileges. We'd be having the same exact argument because one of those privileges would be attorney-client. And more importantly one of those privileges here would be Fifth Amendment rights. So the arguments aren't the same. But I also agree with Mr. Henzy. You can't be in contempt of a motion that hasn't been filed. But, in any event, we do have an agreement. The record is pretty clear what that agreement was, because in each of the places where Mr. Best made a proposed agreement, his statements are clear and it never changed. And to cast aspersions on us, it takes two to implement an agreement and we haven't changed. We haven't changed a bit. But to your point as to what the Government can and cannot do, boy, that's a -- I wish I could tell them. I wish I could tell you what the Government can and cannot do. None of us can. But our client has important rights against self- incrimination. If he doesn't waive those rights, for example, he'd need not testify at his own criminal defense\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 75 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 75 trial. To the extent that you force him here to waive those rights, he would then perhaps have to testify against himself in that criminal proceeding. I would love to have faith in our government that they would not take advantage of that. I think that's wishful thinking on all of our parts that the Government would not take advantage of a waiver of a Fifth Amendment right. I would love that to be correct. We don't know. And it's a hell of a bet, which is why we can't rely on the Government to not take advantage of a waiver. So it is a difference for the Government to produce something to the Trustee, that does not implicate my client's Fifth Amendment rights. THE COURT: Right. So it is what I've been saying now. I think four times this will be the time I've said it now. So your argument is that it's testimonial. That's your argument. This is -- your argument is -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes, it is. THE COURT: -- you can't turn it over because it's testimonial. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: And the Trustee -- MR. BALDIGA: I think our answer is saying -- THE COURT: -- has cited case law to the contrary.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 76 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 76 So the issue then is I have to either figure out whether or not -- I have to figure out whether or not I'm going to enter any kind of order and -- and/or -- you know, as Mr. Best said, I didn't have to rule, but now I have to rule. Mr. Best specifically said that in the -- in the transcript. He said, no, you don't have to rule. You just have to enter an order. But now I have to rule. Now I possibly have to rule because I'd have to find -- MR. BALDIGA: Well -- THE COURT: If I were to enter an order different from the one that you submitted, then I would have to find that the production of the -- by the Government to the debtor and then the debtor giving access to that production to the Trustee would not be testimonial. So it would just be another issue on appeal, right? Because that's what will happen. MR. BALDIGA: You will absolutely -- THE COURT: You'll appeal it. And so it will be another issue on appeal. MR. BALDIGA: You would absolutely have to make that finding. THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: I agree. THE COURT: Which Mr. Best said I didn't have to do when he agreed to the agreement --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 77 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 77 MR. BALDIGA: Well, if the Trustee followed through with the agreement we had, you wouldn't have to. But now the Trustee is putting you in the position where you would have to. Yes. THE COURT: Well, I have -- I'm not sure about that. If you listened to what the Trustee said after the recess and Mr. Best didn't -- and he said the production of the Government to the debtor, that's what -- that's what they said, that's what he said, maybe Mr. Best didn't hear. MR. BALDIGA: He said access -- THE COURT: Maybe. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying -- MR. BALDIGA: -- would allow us -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Maybe he didn't hear, but those are the words after the recess. And nowhere does Mr. Best say, no, no, wait a minute. I didn't agree to that. I didn't agree to that. I never agreed to that. And I specifically said we have an agreement. And we went through this whole thing because PAX and the Committee wanted to see the documents and I said no. The only people that are going to see the documents are the debtor, the debtor's counsel and the Trustee. That's what I said. I mean, we went through that whole thing.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 78 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 78 So it's not as if this -- you know, Mr. Best had plenty of opportunity to say that's not what I agreed to. MR. BALDIGA: Your Honor, that's not what the Trustee said. I have to -- honestly, it's frustrating, but at page 141, the best language that the Trustee cites, after 20 pages of discussion about the protective order, the -- you did not actually say the words that the -- that the transcript has. Even though Mr. Despins used different words, it doesn't mean you should adopt them. The words in the transcript are the debtor directed to seek a modification of any applicable protective order in the criminal case to allow the Chapter 11 Trustee access to the documents produced by the Government to the debtor. It does not say that the debtor must produce to the Trustee. It just doesn't do that. And no matter how many times Mr. Despins wishes it would say that, it isn't. With as many times as Mr. Best was crystal clear, if that's the best the Trustee can argue -- to characterize this as somehow the debtor going back on the agreement is just wrong. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, why would there be an need -- MR. BALDIGA: No matter how many attempts --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 79 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 79 MR. DESPINS: -- to talk about the act of production? Right after that it says, if that's the way it's struck, they cannot oppose that relief because the active production, that's totally out the door. MR. BALDIGA: Agreed. There's no active production problem if the Trustee gets it from the Government. MR. DESPINS: No. No. Because -- MR. BALDIGA: We completely agree. THE COURT: No. But you just said two different things. Honestly, Mr. Baldiga. Right there, you did. I was with you for a long time until right there. You said what's the problem if we provide access to the documents? And then you just said it's for the Trustee to get it from the Government. Those are two different things. MR. BALDIGA: No. It doesn't say we provide access. THE COURT: Those are two absolutely different things. MR. BALDIGA: No. It doesn't say -- THE COURT: That's an obligation on the debtor to provide access to the documents provided to the debtor by the Government.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 80 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
80 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. BALDIGA:
No.
That's not what -- that's not |\n| 2 | what this says.
It's even the Trustee's language.
It |\n| 3 | doesn't say we provide access. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
No. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
It doesn't -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
You just said that.
You just said |\n| 7 | there wouldn't be a problem -- |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
If we provide access. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
-- to provide access.
That's what you |\n| 10 | said.
So you can't provide access to something you don't |\n| 11 | have.
So you'd have to have them in order to provide access |\n| 12 | to the Trustee.
Why can't that be the solution?
I don't |\n| 13 | understand. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
But, Judge, the transcript doesn't |\n| 15 | say -- and, again, this isn't even Mr. Best's words, it's |\n| 16 | the Trustee's -- it's to seek a modification of the |\n| 17 | protective order to allow the Trustee access to the |\n| 18 | documents.
It doesn't -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Produced by the Government to the |\n| 20 | debtor.
That's what it says.
That's the end of that |\n| 21 | sentence. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Right.
It's the same documents. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
So what's the problem? |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
It's the -- it defines the |\n| 25 | documents. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 81 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 81 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. But stop. Let's please be realistic here. What's the problem if your client gets documents and then provides that access to the Trustee? What's the problem? He's not turning over anything. How is that testamentary? MR. BALDIGA: It is. We are -- THE COURT: All right. MR. BALDIGA: Just so -- THE COURT: So we're back to the same place. Okay. Forget it. I got it. That's your argument. You're sticking to it. I got it. Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Absolutely. THE COURT: And I'm not saying you're wrong. I asked five times now is that your argument and that's your argument no matter what. No matter what. As long as the debtor's in possession, if a trustee sees what the debtor's in possession of, then it's testamentary. That's your argument. MR. BALDIGA: As to the material subject, before the Court today, yes. THE COURT: I don't know what that means, but that's okay. MR. BALDIGA: Well, I don't want to be answering the question hypothetically as to some other turnover motion or whatever. But on the -- on what we're arguing about\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 82 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 82 today, yes. It would be testamentary -- testimonial for the debtor to produce. And it would abrogate his Fifth Amendment rights. And we have been I think entirely consistent in saying that from the first paper we filed and through the conclusion of this hearing. Absolutely. THE COURT: I know I said testamentary. I apologize. I did mean testimonial. MR. BALDIGA: Well, it could be -- yeah, the way we're going, it could end up being that way too. THE COURT: All right. Anything further from anyone? MR. BALDIGA: Not by me, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No response) THE COURT: I have no idea what I'm going to do given what we've just spent the last two hours talking about. And looking at the transcript, I think there is a problem because -- and there was a recess for a reason. Every cite that you cited to, Attorney Baldiga, and I'm not ruling right now, I'm just telling you, every cite that you cited to this afternoon were statements made before the recess was taken. Every one of them. There's a -- I state why we're going to take a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 83 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 83 recess. MR. BALDIGA: There's two possibilities that -- right. There's two possibilities. One is there's an agreement. And if there was an agreement, it's clearly our order. Or there was no agreement, and just a misunderstanding, in which case, we're back to arguing the motions on the merits to stay and the contempt order. Because if there's no agreement, then the merits of the two motions aren't before the Court. THE COURT: The merits of the two -- say that last sentence again. It came out -- I couldn't hear it well. MR. BALDIGA: Sure. So there were two motions before the Court when we started these arguments on April 20. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I can tell you that -- MR. BALDIGA: Because one -- there were two agreements we thought. One agreement actually got put to bed with the order entered yesterday. So all well and good. We thought that we had an agreement as to the second part. Now, everyone's acting in good faith. Maybe there just was a -- not a meeting of the minds. I think there was, but maybe there wasn't. And if there's no agreement that obviates a ruling on the merits of the motion, then the Court is left with the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 84 of 86\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023
84 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | merits of the motion.
And that's fine.
I mean, obviously |\n| 2 | that's what happens when there's no agreement.
Courts are |\n| 3 | there to make rulings on the merits of what's before it. |\n| 4 | And we've asked for a stay, a limited stay.
And |\n| 5 | Mr. Henzy has asked for a ruling that there has been no |\n| 6 | contempt.
And those are before the Court. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
All right.
Anything further? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, very briefly, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | Just I was rereading, again after the break, page |\n| 10 | 123, lines 7 to 14, this is, of course it's me talking, but |\n| 11 | before that on line 1.
So he's saying, I'm referring to Mr. |\n| 12 | Best, let's have the U.S. Trustee call the DOJ, dah, dah, |\n| 13 | dah.
That's not the way that works.
We don't exist in the |\n| 14 | criminal court.
We don't exist in the Southern District of |\n| 15 | New York. |\n| 16 | And then I say, \"But the defendant,\" this is on |\n| 17 | line 7, \"He has standing in that court to say you know what, |\n| 18 | judge, the criminal judge,\" this is the defendant saying |\n| 19 | this to the criminal judge, \"We would like a modification of |\n| 20 | the protective order and that modification would be that we |\n| 21 | can,\" we, the debtor, \"can provide to the Trustee, Chapter |\n| 22 | 11 Trustee, copies of the documents that the Government |\n| 23 | gives us.\"
Couldn't be clearer than that. |\n| 24 | So at that point he had to stand up and say, no, |\n| 25 | we cannot do that.
There was -- there's not a word from Mr. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 85 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 85 Best about that. If 141 is not clear, this 123 is crystal clear. MR. BALDIGA: Well, it's not Mr. Best speaking obviously. But, anyway, we've argued this, Your Honor, I think round and round and round. And, again, I'll give the Trustee the benefit of the doubt that he's not, you know, rethinking the agreement that he made and that there was just not a meeting of the minds. And if so, we're comfortable with the merits of our motion and we'll accept that. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to reflect and I will let you know what I'm going to do when I determine what I'm going to do. Okay? All right. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you very much for -- THE COURT: That's all that's on the calendar for this afternoon, so court is adjourned. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 3:57 p.m.)\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 86 I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 10 May 9, 2023 11 Christine Fiore, CERT","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 * 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n *\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及GENEVER *\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），*\n *\n债务人。 *\n *\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）等，*\n 原告，* 对抗程序案号：23-05002\n *\n诉 * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n * May 2, 2023\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， *\n 被告。*\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n *\n关于以下事项的庭审记录：\n#1362 要求UBS AG遵守《破产规则》2004传票的强制履行动议\n#1495 第11章受托人及其律师Paul Hastings, LLP就2022年7月8日至2022年10月期间的报酬及费用偿还提出的临时申请\n#1669 聘用ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC作为专家/顾问的申请\n#1674 NEUBERT, PEPE AND MONTEITH关于报酬/核准及费用偿还的临时申请\n#1704 设定状态会议及审前会议的修正命令\n#1 起诉状91（确认判决）\n\n于尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING法官\n美国联邦破产法官面前\n\n庭审程序以电子录音方式记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n康涅狄格州谢尔顿 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\n美国受托人办公室\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.\nJAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, PC\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n郭先生的特别刑事辩护律师：\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.\nBrown Rudnick\n601 13th Street NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n\n代表无担保债权人正式委员会：\nKRISTIN MAYHEW, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley, LLC\nP.O. Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表被告Hing Chi Ngok：\nCHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ.\nMeister Seelig & Fein LLP\n125 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第3页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 3\n\n（庭审于下午2时06分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok，以及对抗程序23-5002，Genever Holdings, LLC诉Kwok。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各方为记录出庭，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY先生：再次您好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，代表受托人。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew，Pullman & Comley，代表委员会，但仅就主案，不就对抗程序出庭。\n\n法官：谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：Eric Henzy，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人。\n\nMORIARTY先生：James Moriarty，Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人。\n\nMAJOR先生：法官阁下，就对抗程序而言，Chris Major，Meister Seelig & Fein，代表被告Hing Chi Ngok。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第4页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 4\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nMAJOR先生：下午好。\n\n法官：Baldiga先生？\n\nBALDIGA先生：下午好，法官阁下。William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick，债务人郭先生的特别刑事辩护律师。\n\n法官：下午好。谢谢。好的。下午2时有两项事项待审。Despins受托人，我不知道您预期我们会按什么顺序处理这些事项，但请开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果法官阁下对此没有异议，我认为处理对抗程序事项会比较合理——\n\n法官：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：——因为它实际上不会在实体基础上继续进行。我们只是将其延期。长话短说——如果可以的话，法官阁下，我可以简要说明为何应当延期——\n\n法官：请讲。\n\nDESPINS先生：——我们收到了Zeisler提出的一项解决对抗程序的建议。我们——我们已予以考虑。并且我们已将其转交给Sherry-Netherland，因为Sherry-Netherland并非该对抗程序的一方，但实际上他们是一些需要修改的协议的一方，因此我们需要他们参与或者获得他们的同意。\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第5页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 5\n\n我不想说同意，因为我不想处于被该说法约束的处境，但如果我们能够获得他们的同意，那会更好。因此，由于我们未能获得他们的同意，将此事延期是合理的，以便我们可以看看能否获得他们的同意，从而根本无需就此进行诉讼。因此，我们请求法院将此事延期两周，或者您认为合理的任何期间。\n\n法官：我想问一下，以确保我理解您刚才所说的话。您从Zeisler & Zeisler收到了有关解决该程序的一项要约？\n\nDESPINS先生：基本上，这是终止——郭先生和——\n\n法官：是的。\n\nDESPINS先生：——郭家成员的程序。请记得，他的家人可以进入Sherry-Netherland，而我们收到了一项建议，可以使就该问题进行诉讼的必要性不复存在。\n\n法官：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：但涉及Sherry-Netherland的问题需要他们参与，并且\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第6页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 6\n\n这就是为什么我们今天无法就此继续进行。\n\n法官：好的。可以，可以。但是，律师，您是否也参与了这项和解，即这项拟议和解，从而无需就该事项进行诉讼？\n\nMAJOR先生：法官阁下，我们——我们一直参与就该约定书进行来回磋商。我们尚未签署同意，但正与律师就约定书草案开展工作。\n\n法官：我只是想确保所有人都在一起沟通，对吗？这没有任何意义——而且您是单独代理——\n\nMAJOR先生：Ngok女士。\n\n法官：Ngok女士。是的。那么还有——好的，请给我一点时间，我的意思是，顺便说一下，这没问题。一切都没问题。我只是试图了解全局。\n\nDESPINS先生：我们唯一需要而尚缺的是儿子。但是，再次说明，目前我们只是延期举行听证。\n\n法官：好的。所以Zeisler和——我只是——我同意这不是问题。Zeisler & Zeisler代表郭先生和Mei Guo提交这项建议，试图在无需诉讼的情况下解决此事，是否正确？\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第7页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023\n\n1 MORIARTY先生：\n并不完全是。\n\n2 法官：\n那么，好吧。\n\n3 MORIARTY先生：\n代表债务人——\n\n4 法官：\n我之所以问，是因为——这里有——\n\n5 有四名被告，对吗——\n\n6 MORIARTY先生：\n正确。\n\n7 法官：\n——在该对抗程序中。因此，我\n\n8 需要了解，无论如何，\n\n9 这四名被告是否都参与该\n\n10 程序。\n\n11 MORIARTY先生：\n因此，代表债务人，\n\n12 Zeisler & Zeisler在该对抗程序中仅代表债务人，\n\n13 一直试图达成一项和解，\n\n14 其中将包括债务人的妻子Ngok女士和他的\n\n15 女儿Guo女士。我们一直与\n\n16 代表Guo女士的Vartan律师进行沟通。\n\n17 现在，Guo女士尚未通过\n\n18 律师在本案中出庭，但如您所知，Vartan律师与她存在律师\n\n19 委托关系。\n\n20 因此，按照我们目前拟定的\n\n21 这份约定书，唯一不会成为其一部分的人将是\n\n22 儿子Mileson Guo。他不在美国境内，且未由\n\n23 律师代理，未在本案中出庭，并且\n\n24 没有人可供我就将他纳入其中一事进行沟通。\n\n25 DESPINS先生：\n法官阁下，我——\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第8页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023\n\n1 法官：\n这不就是关于谁能够在何时\n\n2 进入该公寓吗？\n\n3 DESPINS先生：\n是。\n\n4 法官：\n这不就是本案所涉事项吗？\n\n5 DESPINS先生：\n基本上，这是为了永久\n\n6 切断进入该公寓的权限。\n\n7 法官：\n是。\n\n8 DESPINS先生：\n但就儿子而言，已经有\n\n9 多次尝试送达。您知道。\n\n10 基本上，他在确保我们无法向他送达，因此我们实际上会\n\n11 就此申请缺席判决。\n\n12 我们现在不需要解决这个问题，但我不认为\n\n13 这会妨碍与其他\n\n14 家庭成员达成合意和解。\n\n15 法官：\n好的。那么，显然，如果\n\n16 有能力解决全部或部分对抗\n\n17 程序，法院将欢迎如此。\n\n18 但是，我们仍须弄清楚，关于未由\n\n19 律师代理或尚未提交出庭声明的被告，\n\n20 这一切将如何进行。我\n\n21 想您可以对其申请缺席判决。我的意思是，您可以采用不同\n\n22 方式继续进行，对吗？\n\n23 但是，如果我们要达到实际上存在\n\n24 某种具有约束力的判决的程度，无论是通过\n\n25 约定书还是其他方式，所有被告都必须\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第9页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023\n\n1 以某种方式、形式或途径得到处理。这就是我\n\n2 要说的全部。我的意思是，这——这将是\n\n3 必须发生的事。因此，我想你们都会解决它。\n\n4 因此，就时间安排而言，Despins受托人，\n\n5 您希望最早两周后安排，是这个意思吗？\n\n6 \n\n7 DESPINS先生：\n是。因为我——您知道，\n\n8 Sherry-Netherland昨天收到了草案，所以他们有充足\n\n9 时间作出回应，并了解我们是否达成\n\n10 协议。如果没有，我们可能必须\n\n11 继续进行该程序。但两周应当有充足\n\n12 时间。\n\n13 法官：\n我正在查看法院的\n\n14 日程。5月17日上午10时安排了一场听证，\n\n15 涉及Despins诉Greenwich Land对抗程序中\n\n16 一项初步禁令动议。您想将该事项\n\n17 安排在同一天，还是想安排在\n\n18 另一天？我的意思是，我完全不知道该\n\n19 事项的情况，就其是否将——是否会是一场\n\n20 冗长的证据听证而言？\n\n21 DESPINS先生：\n不会。\n\n22 法官：\n我确实完全不知道。您必须\n\n23 向我说明该事项。\n\n24 DESPINS先生：\n而且我们一贯努力避免那些，\n\n25 法官阁下。但谨慎起见，应当将其安排在——安排在——\n\n案件22-50073 文件1775 提交日期05/09/23 录入日期05/09/23 20:02:10 第10页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023 10 不同日期，因为我——法院：不同日期。好的。嗯，前一天是星期二，我们已经安排了其他案件的听证会。我们在16日2点钟已经安排了一项事项。但是我——我这么说，是因为我认为我应该——我应该确认一下，但我看那项事项可能不会超过半小时左右。不过让我花一点时间看一下。（暂停）法院：嗯，我不确定16日2点钟安排的事项实际上是否会继续进行，但我目前无法这么说。因此，我可以安排你们在16日2:30或3:00，或者安排在2:00，并认识到你们可能需要听取某项事项——你们不必听取，但2点钟可能会有另一项事项。那么，Despins受托人（Trustee Despins），您希望如何处理？DESPINS先生：2:30可以，法官阁下。法院：好的。那么我们将延期开庭前会议。DESPINS先生：是在May 16th，法官阁下？法院：May 16th，是的。我只需要一点时间。我只是——有这么多不同的事情，我必须确保自己在正确的位置。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 11 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023 11 那么，是的。因此，我们将把本对抗程序23-5002中的开庭前会议延期至May 16th下午2:30。好吗？这样就处理了日程上的该事项。现在，我们有一项续延听证会，涉及与取证以及遵守向Kwok先生送达的传票有关的问题。我此刻不记得了，但我们是否已经就那200个问题作出了该命令？DESPINS先生：您已经作出了。因此，只剩下一个尚未解决的问题。法院：好的。那好。DESPINS先生：那么，如果我可以，法官阁下？法院：但该命令是否已作出，关于——DESPINS先生：是的。法院：好的。好的。DESPINS先生：是的，您已经作出了。法院：我以为作出了，但有时很难跟上。DESPINS先生：明白。法院：好的。那么请继续。DESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，我们在上次听证会结束时未能解决这个问题，因为我们没有庭审记录。但现在我们有了庭审记录，而且该庭审记录非常清楚地说明了发生了什么以及协议是什么。我，您知道，不想这么做——您知道，占用法院太多时间，但从庭审记录第113页第10至15行开始。Best先生——法院：请给我一点时间翻到那里。DESPINS先生：好的。抱歉。法院：113？DESPINS先生：是的。113。法院：第几行？DESPINS先生：第10至15行。法院：好的。请继续。DESPINS先生：这是Best先生向法院陈述：“他们——我们需要弄清楚的问题是，Southern District（纽约南区）有一项关于该信息使用的保护令。我不知道这如何能与法官阁下及律师解决，但无论是直接向Department of Justice（司法部）提出，还是通过我们提出，这个问题都会出现；这意味着他们，即被告人，将向我们提供文件。”因此，这就是提出该问题。接着我转到第123页第7至14行。所以，第123页第17至14行。这是我向法院陈述之处，我说：“但是，被告人，他在该法院具有资格说，您知道，法官——刑事法官，我们”\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 12 页，共 86 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 13 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023\n1 希望修改保护令，而该\n2 修改将是我们，”这里再次指被告人，\n3 “可以向受托人，即Chapter 11受托人，提供\n4 政府已经向我们提供或将向我们提供的文件副本。\n5 本法院，法官阁下，可以指示债务人寻求对该\n6 保护令作出此种修改。这就是我的提议。”\n7 然后是第139页第7至19行。因此，第139页\n8 第7至19行。再次，是Best先生向法院陈述。\n9 更准确地说是第13至19行。“但是，我们原则上同意，\n10 但须经U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n11 同意，而且实际上最重要的是，经District Court Judge（地区法院法官）\n12 同意披露该信息。我确信会有许多\n13 限制或条件，而我们不会阻碍\n14 该等安排。真正的讨论是，什么是最佳方式？\n15 如何以最佳方式实现这一点？”\n16 然后是第140页第4至6行。再次，是Best先生\n17 向法院陈述。“U.S.\n18 Trustee（美国受托人）的律师，”我想这是误称，原本是——\n19 实际上是受托人的律师，担心他们在\n20 Southern District（纽约南区）没有就该传票提出请求的资格。我不在乎我们\n21 如何到达目的地。实现这一点有多种方式。”\n22 然后在该页下方，仍是第140页，\n23 第20至23行。再次，是Best先生。“因此，我想要协助——\n24 协助法院探究此事，然后协助法院\n25 制定一项命令，或者一项裁定，或者您不——或者\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 14 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023\n1 您不——我的意思是，我甚至不知道您是否需要作出\n2 裁定，但我希望明确今后的推进方式。”\n3 然后是第141页第10至15行。这是\n4 我向法院陈述之处，我说：“因此，应当\n5 发生的是，我认为法院，”即法官阁下，\n6 “应当作出一项命令，说明债务人被指示\n7 寻求修改刑事案件中任何适用的保护令，\n8 以允许Chapter 11受托人查阅\n9 政府向债务人提供的文件。”\n10 再清楚不过了。\n11 然后在第143页，或者抱歉，第142页底部，\n12 第25行，以及第143页顶部第1和2行。Best先生：“我\n13 不反对由律师提出一份命令草案供我们审阅，\n14 并提交给法官阁下，如果这是最容易的做法。”\n15 然后在同页第143页第7至\n16 9行。“因此，我认为有一项应当遵守的协议。\n17 如果Southern District（纽约南区）允许使用受保护令约束的\n18 信息，\n19 他们作为保护令的一方。没有提到\n20 必须由Department of Justice（司法部）直接向我们提供。”\n21\n22 然后，甚至法院，尽管那部分被截断，\n23 这是在第146页，我当时试图纠正已经作出的陈述，\n24 但在第146页顶部，记载法院说，\n25 “债务人将寻求，但随后与您分享，”即\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 15 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023\n1 与受托人分享，一旦他们的——一旦他们的——并不是——\n2 它被截断了，因为法官阁下的——我说了“纠正”。但是\n3 基本上，您所说的是，一旦他们从DOJ获得\n4 文件，他们就会与您，即受托人，分享。\n5 第149页第9至11行。我相信这是\n6 法院，不，嗯，是的，是法院。“有一项\n7 协议。我们将依照该协议推进。我\n8 将要求Best先生和Despins先生遵守该协议。”\n9 然后我转到第149页第14至18行。“法院：\n10 对于您刚才所说的，我只想说，当您\n11 说去见您的当事人时，我理解——我理解您必须\n12 去见您的当事人。但您已经同意，您的当事人\n13 不会反对此事。Best先生：我同意。”\n14 这就是我所要陈述的全部内容，法官阁下。\n15 Best先生从未讨论过说，哦，我们不能，我们不能向他们\n16 交出任何东西，必须由Department of Justice（司法部）直接向受托人提供。\n17\n18 法官阁下，他们提出该建议的原因，我\n19 想对此非常直接地说，是因为那永远不会发生。\n20 DOJ绝不会向我们提供任何东西。\n21 我们在他们的法院中并不存在。\n22 因此，他们提出的方案实质上\n23 挫败了我们试图做的事情，而事实上，您知道，\n24 他们说，哦，我们让你们获得文件没有问题。\n25 你们只需要从DOJ获得它们。但是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023 16 他们知道这意味着什么。那就是我们永远不会获得那些文件。Baldiga先生上次提出的论点是，我们不知道——我们不知道那个档案中有什么。里面可能有可怕的东西。但与此同时，他又说，如果他们从DOJ获得全部材料，那就可以。我对此没有问题。但随后他说，我不能把它交给他们，因为里面可能有可怕的东西。嗯，这里存在——缺少一个逻辑环节，即，如果他们同意我们从政府获得这些材料，为什么他们向我们提供就不可以？这里不存在交付行为原则。这些材料来自政府。他们获得一个计算机芯片。他们从政府获得它。他们用计算机复制它，然后交给我们。不存在积极的交付行为。他们并未承认该信息有效、真实或诸如此类的任何事情。这只是纯粹的转交。我们不能——您知道，我们没有资格去寻求、去传唤DOJ。这可能是他们的本意。但在听证会结束时，对于达成了什么协议是相当清楚的。因此，他们提出了交付行为的问题。这里不存在交付行为。这将只是转交DOJ向他们提供的材料。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 16 页，共 86 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1775，Filed 05/09/23，Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 17 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - May 2, 2023 17 然后他们提出了这样的问题：嗯，里面有国家秘密。我确信DOJ知道如何保护自身，并且会对我们可以看和不可以看的内容施加限制。顺便说一下，法官阁下将作出的命令规定，只有受托人及其律师可以查看该等文件。案件中的其他任何人都不能查看该等文件。但如果DOJ不接受这一点，他们会举手并说，不，不，我们不能这么做，因为——比如说，里面有秘方信息。我们不能与受托人分享。他们会这么做。我们正在承担这种风险。我们一直都明确说明了这一点。该命令，即我们提交的拟议命令规定，如果刑事法院和DOJ说不，对债务人不会有任何后果。对此不会有任何后果。我们并未要求他们达到必须交付文件的标准。唯一的标准是，他们必须提出请求，并向法院提交动议，附上法官阁下将作出的命令。因此，基于这一点，法官阁下，我会说，在那次听证会上达成的协议是，债务人将向刑事法院及DOJ寻求许可，以向受托人提供他们收到的文件。他们有能力审阅该等文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 18 债务人有能力，其律师也有能力这样做。再重申一次，为明确起见，这里并无结果义务。其义务是向刑事法院及 DOJ（美国司法部）寻求该许可。我认为，这正是我们在 4月20日听证会结束时所达成的共识，也是我们希望法院命令债务人去做的事情。我愿意回答您可能提出的任何问题。法庭：目前我没有任何问题。谢谢。Baldiga先生（鲍尔迪加）或 Henzy先生（亨齐），谁将就此事发言？BALDIGA先生：我想是我，法官阁下。法庭：好的。请讲。BALDIGA先生：William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加），Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），债务人的特别刑事辩护律师。法官阁下，我们再次来到这里，是为了回答债务人同意做什么这一问题。我不知道法院是否有机会查看我们昨天提交的文件，文件中附上了庭审记录。卷宗第1737号是该庭审记录。我认为这并不是——鉴于我刚才听到的内容，说实话，我对此感到震惊——我们选择提交庭审记录并非巧合，以便每个人都能看到它。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 19 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 19 而 Despins先生（德斯平斯）选择直到刚才才摘取其中的那些部分。因此，我必须逐一说明。但卷宗第1737号是债务人的补充陈述，其主要目的在于提供庭审记录。我同意 Despins先生的意见。问题是债务人同意做什么？因为我们在这里是要落实债务人同意做的事情。我不知道您是否把庭审记录放在面前，法官阁下，但是——法庭：我有。BALDIGA先生：好的。法庭：不过，请您指引我阅读您希望我阅读的页码。BALDIGA先生：好的。补充陈述中按页码和行号列明。有四次，债务人的提议被表述得极为明确。您没有从 Despins先生那里听到其中任何一项。因此，很遗憾，我们现在必须逐一说明。第84页，第11至12行。法庭：好的。请稍等一下。我需要一点时间找到那里。BALDIGA先生：当然。法庭：好的。我在第84页。BALDIGA先生：第11至12行。这是 Best先生（贝斯特）所说的。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 20 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\n1 而且谁在发言很重要，对吗，因为我们在这里\n2 是要落实债务人提出的内容，而 Best先生代表\n3 债务人发言。Despins先生并非如此。“他们不妨\n4 向政府提出请求。”\n5 第二，第93页，第11至14行。\n6 法庭：好的。请再稍等一下，\n7 拜托。\n8 BALDIGA先生：当然。\n9 法庭：您说是第93页？\n10 BALDIGA先生：是的。法院提出了一个非常直接\n11 且非常明确的问题。“所以你是说，唯一的方式——\n12 唯一的方式，受托人能够继续进行，就是从\n13 政府处取得该信息？正确。”\n14 鉴于当前摆在桌面上的问题，我对\n15 Despins先生在审阅庭审记录时没有看到这一点，\n16 感到不只是有些惊讶。\n17 但是，再看第94页，即紧接着的下一页，第1\n18 至11行。“法庭：受托人能够\n19 继续进行的唯一方式是从政府处取得吗？不是。\n20 如果情形是我们作为辩护律师收到了证据开示\n21 材料包，我们将必须向政府取得其\n22 同意。随后我们还必须向法院取得\n23 法院的同意。”于是 Best先生以\n24 与其先前所用完全相同的措辞作出结论：“他们可以直接前往\n25 政府那里，并绕过所有这些程序。”\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 21 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 21 第113页，第7至10行。法庭：请稍等。BALDIGA先生：当然。法庭：好的。我找到了。BALDIGA先生：从本页顶部开始：“我试图提出并制定一个解决方案等等，即他们可以直接前往 Department of Justice（司法部）。”这里存在一些混淆，我曾试图纠正我的同事；他并不熟悉 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）与 United States Trustee（美国受托人）之间的区别，但我认为他并不是第一个对此混淆的人。忽略这一点。“他们可以前往 Department of Justice Criminal Division（司法部刑事司）U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District（美国检察官办公室纽约南区），并要求获得证据开示材料。”好的。连续四次，每一次都清楚得不能再清楚。现在从第113页开始，Best先生也非常坦率地在第10行提出了我们随后需要详细讨论的问题，即如何处理保护令。好的。因此，我们现在转向第二部分，即如何处理保护令？该提议现在已被一贯、明确且毫无疑问地陈述。好的。现在，我们需要弄清的是——纽约南区对于使用该\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 22 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\n1 信息设有保护令。我不知道这该如何解决。\n2 现在，我们对此进行了大量讨论。\n3 因此，让我们逐页审阅 Despins先生所建议的\n4 页面；他忽略了那些实际提出该提议的\n5 页面。因此，我将按照 Despins先生\n6 的同一顺序进行。\n7 第123页，第7至9行。\n8 法庭：好的。请稍等一下。\n9 BALDIGA先生：好的。现在，重要的是，这已不再是\n10 Best先生在发言。因此，债务人已作出了其\n11 提议，而我们正在这里努力落实该提议。\n12 现在发言的是 Despins先生，而非代表\n13 债务人发言的 Best先生。Despins先生说：“但是，您知道，\n14 法官，刑事法官，我们希望对\n15 保护令作出修改。”这正是 Despins先生\n16 刚才向您建议用以界定 Best先生提议的措辞。\n17 但显然，这既不是 Best先生所说的，也不是\n18 该提议。这是在再次讨论保护令，\n19 Best先生首次在第113页提出了这一问题。好的。因此，\n20 这是受托人的第一段措辞。\n21 接下来，让我们看受托人\n22 建议的下一页，第139页。\n23 法庭：好的。\n24 BALDIGA先生：第7至19行。这是 Best先生所说的。\n25 两段。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 23 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 23 “第一是同意，正如我们已经同意且法院现已作出命令的那样，Kwok先生将就按具体主题逐项提出的问题，决定是否援引 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）。”\n\n第二，第二段，“我们不会阻挠此事或阻挠那样做。讨论真正涉及的是实现该目标的最佳方式。”再一次，这是关于保护令。因为我们所谈论的正是保护令；在20分钟前已经得出该提议为何之后，我们现在已就保护令讨论了过去20分钟。其中没有任何内容细化先前的提议，但这是受托人所能提出的最佳措辞。\n\n随后他建议我们也看下一页，第140页。好的？这是 Best先生在谈论如何解决保护令问题。“我不在乎我们如何达成目的。有多种方式可以做到。而且他谈到不希望由他们自己承担前往司法部的义务。”\n\nBest先生说：“我只是向法院坦诚说明。他们最终将出现在纽约南区的 U.S. District judge（美国地区法官）面前，因为我确信他或她将希望听取他们就使用限制、保密性和保护令问题所作的陈述。”好的。仍然是在谈论\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 24 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 24 保护令。正如 Despins先生所知，第141页，我再次逐一审阅 Despins先生说法院应当查看庭审记录的每一处，第141页，第10至15行。现在，这不是 Best先生。他已经说完了。现在是 Despins先生说：“我认为应当发生的是，法院应当作出一项命令，规定债务人被指示寻求修改保护令”，再次，这是在谈论保护令，“以允许第11章受托人查阅政府提供的文件。”好的。我们同意这样做。再一次，这是关于保护令的一次良好讨论，绝对适当。Despins先生要求我们现在看下一页，第142页。法庭：好的。BALDIGA先生：仍然是 Despins先生。因此，这不可能是 Best先生改变其早先提议，因为现在是 Despins先生在发言，所以这不会改变\n\n债务人的提议。\n\n然后最后——不，不是最后，第146页。第146页完全是受托人与法院之间的对话。因此，这不是 Best先生改变债务人的提议。\n\n最后，受托人建议法院查看第149页，第9至11行。这是在——PAX（帕克斯）提出请求后，而且我\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 25 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 25 认为可能还有其他人也提出过——查阅请求之后，法院拒绝相应扩大该命令。好吧，这并未改变任何事情。我认为，我们现在讨论的是由谁起草命令这一程序性问题。Best先生说：“你知道，当我们与我们的客户交谈时，我们的客户不会改变我们已经同意的内容。”好吧，我们并没有说他改变了。事实上，我确认他没有改变。因此，法官阁下，再一次，我们昨天随补充陈述提交庭审记录而受托人没有这样做，是有原因的。这是因为债务人究竟提出了什么，实在是清楚得不能再清楚。再一次，如果 Best先生只说过一次，这一点也会很清楚，但如我们的补充陈述所载，Best先生说了同样的话，法院也重复了这些话。Best先生说，正确。再一次，见第84、93、94及113页。他们可以前往 Department of Justice Criminal Division U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District，并要求获得证据开示材料。而且，法官阁下，这完全合情合理。再一次，并非要重复所有内容，但我们在这里是要落实债务人已经同意的内容，而法院似乎倾向于作出一项命令，落实\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 26 债务人所提出的、作为对此某种折中的内容。这有许多合理理由，包括我们所谈论的是本次听证会上没有任何人知道其为何物的材料。这些材料很可能，几乎肯定，会包括在 Kwok先生被逮捕当天从他本人或他人处扣押的材料。它几乎肯定还会包括司法部数年或数月间收集的其他材料。我们不知道。没有人，受托人、我们、Kwok先生及本法院，都完全不知道受托人所建议内容的主题事项会是什么。因此，受托人建议法院作出一项命令，指示某人——我不确定是谁，我们将讨论应当是谁——但指示某人对没有人知道其为何物的东西采取某种行动。第二，而且这些问题都相互关联，这几乎肯定会涉及第五修正案权利或其他宪法权利。但鉴于我们不知道所谈论的是什么材料，没有人能够真正说明。再一次，我们指出，显然存在第二项司法部调查，受托人因收到传票而向我们告知了这一点。我们不在该事项中代理 Kwok先生。我们不知道他是否有律师就该事项代理他。我甚至不确定他是否需要律师。案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 26 页，共 86 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1775，提交日期 05/09/23，录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10，第 27 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第27页 但如果指示Kwok先生交出任何东西，无论该律师是谁，如果他们能够在监狱中接触到Kwok先生，就必须向Kwok先生提供意见，与其讨论其就此享有的宪法权利及其他权利。我们距离这样做还很遥远。而且，再说一遍，我甚至不确定那家其他律师事务所是否能接触到那些材料，以便开始与其当事人讨论该当事人的宪法权利；但受托人却会让本院径直跨越这一点，无论就那些未知文件而言那一揽子权利是什么。第三，这些材料可能受律师—客户保密特权或工作成果特权保护。本院于September 14在案卷条目856作出了一项同意命令，就律师—客户保密特权或工作成果特权将其授予受托人，但仅涉及三个界定得非常严格的所谓调查主题。其一，遗产资产或债务人资产。其二，债务人的财务状况。其三，遗产的管理。我不知道，受托人也不知道，而且恕我直言，其他任何人都不知道，包括本院在内，都不知道我们现在所谈文件中有多少部分可能涉及上述任何一个调查主题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第28页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第28页 可能完全处于该范围之外。几乎肯定会包含该范围之外的文件，但我们都只是在猜测。然而，受托人所建议的是，将本院在案卷条目856作出的同意命令无限期扩大，从而实际上构成一项特权放弃，仿佛本院从未花费任何时间界定这些事项。我理解各方花了大量时间协商该命令。幸好我们不必参与其中。但如果本院作出受托人目前建议的命令，那将使该命令沦为笑柄。第四，司法部告知我们，我们尚未获得这些材料的原因是，根据一项名为CIPA的联邦法律，我们必须取得某些国家安全许可，才能审阅这些材料或其中很大一部分，而我们正在办理此事。但我们被告知，这不是一个简单的过程。它需要背景调查、指纹采集等等。第五，我们被告知，部分材料，也许是相当大一部分材料，将仅供律师阅览。仅供我们阅览。我们的当事人甚至无法看到它们。这就引发一个问题：如果本院作出受托人建议的命令，您是否是在命令当事人Kwok先生交出他无法接触到的东西？嗯，那，那不可能发生，因为他永远也不会\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第29页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第29页 拥有它。法庭：好的，让我打断一下——BALDIGA先生：或者您是否——法庭：——就在这里打断您一下，Baldiga先生。BALDIGA先生：——您是否——法庭：——就您刚才所说的内容暂停一下。无论你们二人刚才就笔录所说的一切如何，从来都不会有命令要求Kwok先生交出他无法拥有的东西。原本——所提出的请求，以及我以为已经解决的事项，是——Kwok先生将向地区法院法官和美国检察官办公室请求，无论是同时还是分步骤，请求将向他提供的任何材料交给受托人。这是我对本应发生之事的理解。而且，当我将此纳入考量时——BALDIGA先生：我们百分之百同意——法庭：请等一下。请稍候。而且我将此纳入考量，是因为您的同事Best先生提出了重要论点，受托人对此作出了回应，而且我想我曾就一个案件询问过他，即Bouknight案，该案认为这样做不具有证言性质。这是在交出属于遗产的信息。并且有一个案件，即Bouknight案。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第30页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第30页 我想我甚至——我正在查看这份笔录，虽然尚未全部读完，但正在查看您向我指出的内容，而且我甚至看到我谈到了这一点。我看到，大部分——我并不是说这会改变您的立场。我只是为记录指出一点。您要求我查看的笔录部分中的大部分，实际上是全部，即第84页、第93页、第94页和第113页，均发生在本院休庭并于下午2:00回来之前；届时Best先生和——以及受托人Despins报告了他们的谈话情况。因此，为——为了澄清记录，在休庭之前并无达成协议。我理解您的论点是，这就是您认为的协议内容。而且我理解Despins先生说，他认为这就是协议内容。但在下午2:00休庭之前，并无协议。休庭的部分原因正是为了就此进行讨论，对吗？而且很清楚，对于受托人希望您的当事人就二百多个问题具体援引第五修正案或不援引第五修正案一事，并不存在问题；您——Best先生同意了，且该命令已经作出。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第31页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第31页 唯一剩余的问题是，受托人如何——如果可以——就作为刑事起诉书一部分的信息取得证据开示？受托人请求您的当事人交出——将政府向您的当事人提供的任何材料交给受托人。而且我只是想澄清。因此，您的论点与休庭前的论点相同，即您不能那样做，因为那具有证言性质？我也不知道那些文件是什么。没有人知道。但这不是重点。重点是，本应存在某种程序，使受托人寻求获取该信息；正如笔录不同部分所说的那样，包括休庭之后，即使债务人寻求该信息却未获得，那么——而且美国检察官办公室和地区法院法官不同意——假定Kwok先生请求了该信息，那么这就是Kwok先生所能做的一切。他提出了请求。但他没有得到，对吗？——这就是向本院陈述的方式。在下午2:00休庭之后，也是以该方式陈述的。是的，是否讨论过保护令？毫无疑问，讨论过保护令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第32页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\n1 而且我的假设是，当向\n2 美国检察官办公室提出请求时，也许首先向其提出，\n3 其次向法官提出，或者\n4 同时提出，保护令将成为\n5 该请求的一部分，因为政府将向Kwok先生提供的任何材料，\n6 如果有，显然都将受已生效的\n7 保护令约束。对吗？\n8 但受托人不是该保护令的当事方。\n9 而且，而且，至少在我看来，受托人——\n10 而且我正在查看您读过的一切、您向我指出的一切——受托人是在说，我不能前往\n11 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）请求该材料，因为他们会\n12 说我没有诉讼资格。对吗？因此，他希望获得您的\n13 当事人的合作，以克服诉讼资格的障碍，\n14 然后与——\n15 BALDIGA先生：但我们同意——\n16 法庭：——然后与——然后承担这样的\n17 风险，即美国检察官办公室和/或法庭，即\n18 地区法院、美国地区法院，说不。\n19 我不在乎你怎么想，受托人，我们不会——我不会\n20 给你——你得不到，你现在得不到，\n21 也许永远得不到。\n22 BALDIGA先生：法官阁下，我们于April 24th提交的\n23 1698号拟议命令，完全就是您刚才\n24 所描述的内容。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第33页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第33页 法庭：好的。那么让我看看。编号是多少？BALDIGA先生：1698。法庭：好的。请稍等。这只需要我一点时间找到。好吗？BALDIGA先生：当然。（暂停。）法庭：这需要我一点时间。抱歉。只是，如您所知，案卷很大，所以加载需要一点时间。BALDIGA先生：越来越大了。法庭：是的。我快找到了。好了。我现在要打开它。BALDIGA先生：我相信，除了第1段外，其他所有内容均已达成一致，因此只有第1段存在争议。我相信如此。除此之外可能有细微差异，但是——而唯一真正的问题是该请求的内容。我们已同意请求政府，我们已同意请求法庭，并且我们已同意寻求修改保护令，以允许政府将其希望向受托人提供的任何材料提供给受托人。这是本院刚才所说的一切，也是Best先生主动提出要做的一切。法庭：嗯，我认为我说的比这多一点。也许您认为这种区分没有\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第34页 区别，但我尚不能确定。不过我们来讨论一下。我——BALDIGA先生：这种区别在于，如受托人所主张，材料是否必须由债务人提供。而受托人所援引的每一个案件都是涉及遗产财产的第551条案件，并且交出义务实际上在此根本没有争议，因为我们并不是在谈论债务人交出任何属于他自己的东西。我们谈论的是对政府提供材料的证据开示。因此，交出案件，而且，再说一遍，受托人的每一个案件都是第551条下关于交出财产的案件——法庭：但Bouknight案或其他案件之一，是否涉及刑事程序？它涉及——BALDIGA先生：但它们仍然是——仍然是第551条案件，即交出遗产财产。法庭：但您怎么知道——正如您刚才所说的，Baldiga律师——BALDIGA先生：是的。法庭：——您说您不知道那些文件中有什么。没有人知道。那么，您怎么知道它们，那些文件不涉及交出财产\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第34页，共86页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第35页，共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 第35页 遗产财产？您不知道，我们谁都不知道。我们不知道。我们不知道。我们毫无头绪。BALDIGA先生：不。在那些其他案件中，受托人面对的是债务人抵制提供材料，但所提供的是遗产文件。在这里，您是对的。我们不知道这些文件是什么。其中许多几乎肯定不会是遗产文件，因为政府必须交出的档案是Brady材料，即其在可能历经数月或数年的调查过程中，从任何证人或任何人处发现的一切材料。因此，是的，可以设想其中是否可能存在属于本院先前July同意命令范围内的内容？是的。但我们都在猜测其中所占比例。但是——法庭：那么我再问您一个问题。假定——BALDIGA先生：当然。法庭：假定您的——我们姑且——我们就为了论证而假定，他们必须前往司法部取得这些材料——受托人必须前往——那么您为什么不能直接说，是的，我们对此没有问题？您应当将您将向我们提供的一切都提供给他们。那又有什么问题？BALDIGA先生：完全没有问题，已经做了，并且\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 36 完成。我们将完全照此办理。我们的命令也明确如此规定。法庭：嗯，我认为它并没有明确如此规定，但是——BALDIGA先生：那么我很乐意——很乐意把它表述得更加明确。但您刚才所说的，我们已同意照办。DESPINS先生：他们同意这样做，法官阁下，是因为这不会发生。司法部（DOJ）没有义务向我们提供任何文件。我们能够接触该法院的唯一途径是通过被告。他已经表示，他同意 DOJ 向我们提供——BALDIGA先生：但我们会申请法庭命令其这样做。DESPINS先生：请让我说完。法庭：请等一下。DESPINS先生：好的。BALDIGA先生：好的。DESPINS先生：因此，他已经表示，他同意 DOJ 向我们提供所有文件。一旦他已经走到这一步，他怎么能说，哦，如果由我向你们提供，那就存在真正的问题？我们都知道，交付行为在该语境下不适用，因为这些是政府文件。政府已向他们提供了这些文件。因此，这种认为必须通过 DOJ 的论点，我知道为什么——Case 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 36 of 86\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 37 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 37 他们提出这一点，因为这是一项徒劳无功的尝试。我们永远无法从刑事法院获得一项命令，要求 DOJ 向我们提供文件。我们在该法院并不存在。我们能够获得这些文件的唯一方式是通过债务人。让我们集中讨论债务人面临的问题是什么？债务人已经走到这一步，并表示我们可以通过 DOJ 获得所有那些文件。现在他们突然说，如果必须由我们向你们提供，就存在问题。可是，不存在交付行为。这些是政府的文件，因此我们知道这是一个烟雾弹。还有关于国家安全的其他问题。如果 Baldiga 先生能够获准审阅那些文件，我确信我也能。现在，为担任受托人，联邦调查局（FBI）已经采集了我的指纹，因此我确信我能够通过该项审查。但无论如何，如果 DOJ 有问题，他们会提出异议并说不应允许这样做。但他们提出的这一结构——您知道——保证不会发生。他们提出的另一种结构有可能发生，但并无保证。我明白这一点。但肯定的是，寻求一项命令，要求 DOJ 必须向我们交付文件，这根本行不通。而且——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 38 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\n他们提出这一点的唯一原因，是因为他们知道结果会是那样。\n\n谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我们什么都不知道。但回到您刚才所说的，法官阁下，我们愿意完全按照您刚才所说的去做。\n\n而受托人刚才所说的，没有解决我们此前提出的任何问题，即另一项调查、Kwok 先生的《第五修正案》权利，以及他所引用的案件均不过是 551 移交破产财产案件，而非因交付具有证言性质的文件所涉及的证言性案件；而这正是《第五修正案》受到牵涉之处。这甚至还未涉及律师—当事人特权问题。\n\n而且，法官阁下，此处具有启示意义的是，我同意受托人一点：我们在这里是因为受托人正在施压。\n\n法庭：受托人在什么？\n\nBALDIGA先生：正在施压，试图利用 Kwok 先生被监禁且无法在不牵涉其《第五修正案》权利的情况下实际进行辩护这一情况获得优势。\n\n因此，受托人希望利用这一糟糕局面取得民事上的优势。好的。那么，我们的——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 39 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 39 动议，法官阁下，是关于中止。我们就以证券交易委员会（SEC）为例。在 Kwok 先生被逮捕的同时，SEC 针对同一批被告，即 Kwok 先生及两名共同被告，提起了一宗典型的 SEC 证券欺诈诉讼。DOJ 已经介入 SEC 案件并表示，嘿，SEC，我们根本不在乎你们想要什么，你们的案件被中止。理由正是这些相同的原因。因此，如果 Despins 先生是正确的，即在一项非常严重的重罪程序进行期间，被告被羁押，并且牵涉各种《第五修正案》权利，而这甚至还未涉及另一项独立调查，那么这一切如此困难的原因在于，几乎总是会完全中止。我们到法庭面前，试图在不请求全面中止的情况下找到一条出路，尽可能允许对破产财团进行管理，但须与债务人、即我们客户的宪法权利相一致。如果 Despins 先生想承认二者无法调和，那么宪法权利优先。我们正努力不把事情弄得如此严重，并希望找到一种办法，就像法庭昨天能够作出的命令一样，但这确有界限。宪法权利不会因为 Despins 先生认为这一切都会——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 40 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 40 困难而被牺牲。您在本次听证中两次刚刚提出的建议，正是我们在 1698 号文件中所提议命令的内容。法庭：嗯，并不完全是。并不完全是。但我明白——您知道，我是说，你们不是——它只是说，你们，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），将立即请求助理——BALDIGA先生：不。它说债务人将通过律师提出请求。法庭：对。是。BALDIGA先生：好的。法庭：请求助理联邦检察官——但如有必要，可通过提交动议修改现有保护令，向受托人提供政府向债务人提供的文件和材料。你们只是提出请求。你们并没有——而且——BALDIGA先生：但我们不能强迫其这样做。法庭：我明白。我不是——我不是那个意思。BALDIGA先生：嗯，我们愿意采用——我们会使用您的措辞，而不是我们的。法庭：我此刻甚至不记得我的措辞是什么，Baldiga 先生，所以坦率地说，我们必须回去查看。BALDIGA先生：只要我们提出——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 41 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 41 动议、请求、要求，无论怎么说，是要求政府向受托人提供政府向债务人提供的材料，我们就没有问题。只要——法庭：Despins 先生的论点——BALDIGA先生：——是由政府提供。法庭：——是他们永远不会同意这样做。你能告诉我为什么吗？BALDIGA先生：我不知道政府是否会同意任何事情。法庭：但是——BALDIGA先生：我们不知道。法庭：——他们为什么会——BALDIGA先生：这就是为什么政府——法庭：这不可能是第一次，在某种程序中存在某一章或某种形式的受托人，而当事人正被指控犯罪。我是说，这不可能是——我们不能是在凭空杜撰。BALDIGA先生：不。有一个——您知道——非常重要的案件，我们都读过。Sam Bankman-Fried（萨姆·班克曼-弗里德）甚至不是债务人，但他是……的主要负责人——法庭：嗯，这正是问题的一部分。他不是债务人。我们谈论的是——我谈论的是一名债务人，他根据《破产法典》已对——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 42 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 42 受托人负有义务——BALDIGA先生：是。因此，那些案件被中止。法庭：——而受托人已被指定调查其事务。BALDIGA先生：对。大多数民事程序都会被中止，因为在民事诉讼过程中保护宪法权利极为困难，而债务人正在等待审判，并非仅仅担心他某天可能被起诉，而是确实被羁押、等待审判，案件会被中止。法庭：但你的要点是什么？你的要点仍然是，如果他把它交给受托人，你的客户所作的是证言性的，且可以被用来对付他？这就是你的论点？BALDIGA先生：这是论点之一。但此外，他不能同意交付他不能先看到或审阅的东西。法庭：嗯，谁说他不能先看到或审阅？没有人这么说。BALDIGA先生：因为我们不知道那是什么，所以我们今天怎么能同意交付某种我们甚至不知道在谈论什么的东西。DESPINS先生：法官，他们已经跨过那座桥了。BALDIGA先生：我们不知道那是什么。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 43 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\nDESPINS先生：他们已经说过，如果它来自 DOJ，我就得到全部。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nDESPINS先生：他们已经说过这一点。\n\n法庭：我对——有些困惑。\n\nDESPINS先生：这毫无道理。\n\n法庭：我必须说，我对论点的这一部分有些困惑。我对——你可以——\n\nBALDIGA先生：没有人能说——\n\n法庭：——你可以看到它。你可以在将其交给受托人之前看到它，那么问题是什么？\n\nBALDIGA先生：因为——\n\n法庭：然后你可以主张你所主张的任何特权。无论如何，你不是已经就一大批诉状、一大批文件这样做了吗？我的意思是，文件被标注为高度保密。我们也已有一项保护令。我是说，我对论点的这一部分有些困惑。\n\nBALDIGA先生：如果债务人在我们代理他之前，已经交出了他未曾看过的东西，那是他的错。我非常怀疑发生过这种情况。但如果发生了，就发生了。我不知道。\n\n法庭：不。但这不是重点。重点是你的客户——没有人主张你的客户将无法在政府提供的任何东西交给受托人之前先看到它。没有人这么主张。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 44 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 44 BALDIGA先生：哦，是的。嗯，是。他将无法看到其中一些内容。法庭：为什么？嗯，那是政府的问题。BALDIGA先生：因为保护令——法庭：这与第 11 章受托人无关。BALDIGA先生：——保护令不允许债务人看到其中一些内容。法庭：但这正是我所说的。这不是 Despins 受托人的问题。这是美国政府的问题。BALDIGA先生：好的。所以我们的客户——法庭：他并未试图从美国政府取得你的客户不能看到的东西。BALDIGA先生：是，他——是，我们正在试图取得。法庭：不，他没有。BALDIGA先生：是。而且这就是他所请求的。法庭：不，他没有。不。这一点上我不同意。DESPINS先生：如果那是——我们可以将其排除在外。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 Page 45 of 86\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 45 有必要。这不是问题，但是——法院：嗯，我不知道他如何有权从美国政府获得您当事人不能查看的东西。BALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加先生）：我们不能同意交付——我甚至不确定这里的“我们”是谁。但我们的当事人——甚至不知道我们今天谈论的是什么材料。我们也不知道。我们不知道它们是什么。我们承诺就那些材料采取某种行动的适当时机，是在它们经过律师—委托人保密特权审查之后，在它们经过第五修正案特权审查之后，在——法院：嗯，律师—委托人保密特权方面你们可能会有问题。明白吗？本案之前我们已经讨论过这个问题。BALDIGA先生：我们绝对有。法院：好的。BALDIGA先生：是。法院：因此，我们之前已经讨论过律师—委托人保密特权。但关于其他问题，您的第五——BALDIGA先生：但是，关于我们都不是当事人的另一大陪审团程序中的第五修正案特权呢？DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：法官阁下，那是同一个问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 46 是否存在正在进行的交付问题？法院：另一个是什么——DESPINS先生：没有。这来自政府。法院：是。另一个大陪审团是什么？你在说什么？是哪一个？我正在努力跟上。BASSETT先生（巴塞特先生）：还有另一个大陪审团。我的意思是，还有第二个大陪审团程序——法院：哦，就是你们曾经交付材料的那个——Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）收到传票的那个——BALDIGA先生：——其中受托人被要求提供——法院：——你是指那个吗？BALDIGA先生：——有关材料，我们在该事项中不代表债务人，Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）也不代表债务人。据我们所知，没有人代表债务人。在债务人被要求交付任何材料的范围内，他将必须有某家律师事务所就其在该另一程序中享有的第五修正案权利向其提供意见。法院：是。但我们现在谈的不是另一程序。我们现在谈的是一个程序——BALDIGA先生：哦，我们的当事人正在谈。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 46 页，共 86 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 47 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 47 法院：——在该程序中，你们代表债务人。BALDIGA先生：我的当事人绝对正在谈那个另一程序。法院：不，我们不是。我甚至不知道任何事情——案卷中没有任何内容证明曾送达传票。那又怎样？那并不妨碍——BALDIGA先生：存在另一个大陪审团程序，而我的当事人，其与我当事人的破产案件有关，我的当事人不会同意交出可能有损其宪法权利的文件，除非先由律师带着他审阅那些文件并了解它们是什么。法院：你现在谈的是未知的事。没有人知道你在说什么。因为——BALDIGA先生：不。基于我们所知——法院：即使送达过传票，我们也不知道大陪审团会做什么。我们甚至不知道大陪审团是否会提出起诉。BALDIGA先生：当然，我们不需要——法院：你知道，仅仅因为有人正在调查某事——BALDIGA先生：——发生起诉——法院：——并不意味着存在起诉书。BALDIGA先生：不。但是，正如我们一直审阅的所有判例所反映的那样，你不需要起诉书——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 48 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 1 我们一直审阅的所有判例都表明，你不需要起诉书——2 法院：嗯，你——但你并不代表——3 ——4 BALDIGA先生：——以触及你的第五——5 修正案权利。6 法院：——你并不在该程序中代表Kwok先生。你刚才已经这样说了。而且7 Zeisler & Zeisler也不代表他。9 BALDIGA先生：没错。10 法院：因此，唯一代表他的人是在本法庭，在本法庭就受托人要求遵守传票的强制执行动议而言。13 因此，剩余的问题是，受托人如何——如果能的话——取得由政府控制的文件？16 他的立场是，你们应当——你们的当事人应当向其交出任何——你们的当事人应当向Chapter 11受托人交出向你们当事人提供的任何材料。20 你们的论点是，所有材料都应当来自政府。对吗？这就是我们目前所处的阶段。22 BALDIGA先生：是。23 法院：我们没有改变在4月20日举行听证会之前原有的立场——25 BALDIGA先生：是，没错。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 49 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 49 法院：——因为那就是4月20日之前的立场。BALDIGA先生：没错。我们的当事人享有第五修正案权利，要求他交出物品将剥夺该等权利，尤其鉴于另一程序，尤其鉴于他甚至未能与律师交谈或查看该命令的事项。法院：什么命令？BALDIGA先生：该非常救济措施当然会触及并剥夺其宪法权利。法院：什么命令？BALDIGA先生：任何按照受托人所建议的路线作出的命令。法院：嗯，这就是Best先生所说他将要做的。他将回去并表明——BALDIGA先生：不。Best先生说他会请求——法院：——他说他必须与其当事人谈谈，这才是重点。BALDIGA先生：不。我们讨论过Best先生所建议的内容。Best先生建议，我们将按照受托人希望通过向法院和司法部提出请求的任何方式行事，即交出你们希望交出的任何材料，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 50 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 50 你们能够交出的任何材料，以及符合你们自身程序的任何材料。债务人不会阻挠。事实上，债务人对此没有异议。你们去做。DESPINS先生：这不是达成一致的内容。法院：好的。我认为你忘记了曾经休庭，各方出去讨论了那些问题。BALDIGA先生：但是，休庭之后债务人的提议没有发生任何变化。完全没有。我们逐一讨论过——讨论过两次。一次是与Despins先生，另一次是与我。休庭之后，债务人的提议在哪里发生了变化？休庭之前已明确说明其具体内容，精确、明确地重复了四次。它从未改变。Despins先生有充足时间告诉法院，Best先生说他的提议在哪里发生了变化。并没有发生。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，在第141页，休庭之后，我非常明确地说明了应当发生什么。其称，法院应作出命令，指示债务人请求修改刑事案件中任何适用的保护令，以允许Chapter 11受托人查阅政府向债务人提供的文件。此后，唯一一次听到Best先生发言是，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 51 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 51 即“我同意由律师提出一份命令草案，我们审阅后提交给法官阁下，如果这是最容易的做法。”他有充分的（无法辨识）机会说，等一下，这行不通。我们只能取得文件——他只能从地方检察机关取得文件。完全没有这种说法。这就是听证会结束的方式。因此，这只是——BALDIGA先生：您能再说一遍您的措辞吗，因为我们谈的是保护令。那么，继续吧。Despins先生现在最好的措辞。并非双关语。DESPINS先生：当然我们——BALDIGA先生：就是他刚才在第141页所指的内容。DESPINS先生：——谈的是保护令。这是实施此事的唯一方式。有一项保护令——BALDIGA先生：好的。因此同意。DESPINS先生：——在刑事案件中，法官阁下，该保护令规定，被告不得将政府提供的文件与下列人员以外的人共享。我们说，好，必须发生的是，债务人必须向刑事法院和司法部提出，我们需要修改该保护令，以允许我，即债务人，向受托人提供——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 52 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 1 BALDIGA先生：等等。等一下。2 DESPINS先生：——司法部向我提供的材料。3 BALDIGA先生：等等。等等。等等。这不在第141页。4 那个，那在哪里，Despins先生？5 DESPINS先生：那在——6 BALDIGA先生：那不在那里。7 DESPINS先生：那在——那在第13行至第15行。其称，在刑事案件中，允许8 Chapter 11受托人查阅政府向债务人提供的文件。11 BALDIGA先生：好的。12 DESPINS先生：向债务人提供的。13 BALDIGA先生：但你说了别的——14 DESPINS先生：向债务人提供的。15 BALDIGA先生：——当你在说的时候。当你在读的时候，其——并没有——任何地方再次说，这甚至不是Best先生在说话，而你正在试图描述Best先生在休庭之后在哪里改变了主张，但我们同意请求修改保护令，以允许受托人查阅政府提供的文件。从政府那里取得这些文件。23 DESPINS先生：不。但是如果你继续读下去，在第141页，我在第19行说：“如果他们被驳回，他们就被驳回，这是我们承担的风险。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 53 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023 53 1 他们不能反对该救济，因为不存在交付行为。这一点就完全被排除了。这就是我所说的重点，即当他们向我们交付政府文件时，不存在实际交付行为。这些不是他们的文件。它们不是债务人的文件。它们是政府的文件。因此——这就是全部要点——这与已被——曾被提出的架构相一致，即他们需要向我们交付，因为我们在那个法院没有诉讼地位。它必须从债务人到我们，法官阁下。这从庭审记录中非常清楚。BALDIGA先生：请求必须由我们提出。嗯，你们需要向他们发出传票。但请求必须由我们提出。不过我们同意。但是你刚才描述的内容，没有任何一点是Best先生在建议他改变了一个清晰明确、重复四次的——法院：关于这一点，我唯一想说的是，Baldiga先生，如果它清晰明确，那么各方就不需要休庭出去讨论。这是我在休庭之前所说的。休庭的全部目的就是出去讨论此事。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 提交于 05/09/23 登记于 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 54 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 54 当贝斯特先生在德斯平斯先生就第141页和第142页所述内容发言之后回来说话时，并且在我们澄清了——可以理解的是，贝斯特先生将美国受托人办公室与美国检察官办公室混为一谈——这一事实之后，贝斯特先生说：“如果最简便的做法是由律师提出一份裁定草案，我们审阅后提交给法官阁下，我对此没有异议。我只是想确保大家都知道，保护令对信息的使用存在限制。”我想我看到德斯平斯先生点头表示确认。“因此，我认为，如果纽约南区（Southern District of New York）允许在该等信息受保护令约束、且该等信息构成保护令一部分的前提下使用该等信息，那么有一项应当遵守的协议。”这就是他说的。德斯平斯先生：而且，法官阁下——巴尔迪加先生：我们都同意。再同意不过了。德斯平斯先生：——该措辞，即称保护令中存在限制的该措辞，并非对政府的限制。它们是对——对被告人可以如何使用其从政府获得的信息的限制。因此，这涉及他们能够如何将该等信息交给我们的限制问题。这就是为什么保护令需要修改。巴尔迪加先生：这完全不实。该保护令是一项相互的，实际上是多方当事人的保护\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第55页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 55 令。这实际上正是德斯平斯先生所说的，而且它——德斯平斯先生：不，法官阁下。我们在说——巴尔迪加先生：——没关系——德斯平斯先生：我们在说的是政府持有的文件。政府并未限制自身对这些文件的使用。政府将这些文件交给债务人，或者说被告人，抱歉，并限制被告人对这些文件的使用。这就是保护令就这些文件所实现的效果。该命令还有其他方面，但那——巴尔迪加先生：没有人质疑我们已经同意寻求修改保护令，以便在政府希望向受托人提供其想要获得的内容的范围内，允许受托人取得该等内容。这就是我们所讨论的。这就是我们同意要做的。如果政府想把它交给他，政府就会交给他。但我们从未同意，而且我们也不会同意，让该债务人放弃其直接提交文件的宪法权利。法庭：这并非放弃他的宪法权利。这是——巴尔迪加先生：这绝对会是。法庭：如果政府将文件交给他，而他与其在本破产财产中的法定代表人，即受托人，分享这些文件，这怎么会是放弃其权利？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第56页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 56 巴尔迪加先生：分享文件这一行为本身就具有证言性质。法庭：不。根据——这就是我在上次听证会上提出该问题的原因——它不具有证言性质。巴尔迪加先生：它不——法庭：Bouknight 案称其不具有证言性质。其他案件也称其不具有证言性质——巴尔迪加先生：事实上，就——法庭：——包括美国最高法院1911年的 Harris 案，该案称，问题并非证言问题，而是交付问题——巴尔迪加先生：交付——法庭：——并非强迫破产人在过去或未来的刑事案件中成为不利于自己的证人，而是强迫其交出其已无权继续占有的财产。巴尔迪加先生：好的。法庭：这就是——巴尔迪加先生：那么我们能否停止——法庭：——这就是美国最高法院在1911年所说的。巴尔迪加先生：对。我们能否就此\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第57页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\n1 措辞继续谈下去，法官阁下，因为那——您说得对。这\n2 是\n3 ——这是一项交付，是不再有权继续占有的、债务人并不拥有的财产。\n4 这不是本次任何动议程序的标的。\n5 那是破产财产的财产。我们谈的不是破产财产的财产。\n6 我们谈的是刑事案件中的证据开示。\n7 法庭：不过你并不知道这一点。\n8 巴尔迪加先生：那不是财产——\n9 法庭：这正是问题所在，巴尔迪加先生。\n10 德斯平斯先生：但是，法官阁下——\n11 法庭：你并不知道。\n12 德斯平斯先生：——财产可以包括\n13 文件，商业文件显然可以是\n14 破产财产的财产。因此，在所提交的那些文件中可能存在\n15 破产财产的财产。\n16 请记住，让我们回到基本问题。\n17 如果政府把所有文件都交给我们，他们就没有异议。在\n18 他们同意这样做之后，其余的事情\n19 实际上就只是托词。\n20 巴尔迪加先生：没有托词。\n21 法官阁下，受托人引用的每一个案件都是关于交出所有权，亦即\n22 受托人已经拥有某物，而这些案件一致认为，受托人引用的每一个\n23 案件均绝对一致，\n24 即如果某物由受托人所有，它就不\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第58页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 58 具有证言性质，即债务人交出其无权占有之物的占有。那与我们当前所处的情形完全不同。判例法很明确。受托人没有任何一个案件涉及财产的证言性质；受托人的每一个案件都围绕着这样一点，即在受托人被指定后，债务人不再对该财产享有法定权利，因此必须交出该财产。即使这样做，也不具有证言性质。那就是——而且受托人知道事实如此。这些案件并不涉及目前的情形。法庭：嗯，我不确定你是对的。但无论如何，我们显然不存在一项协议，而各方都已在记录中陈述——包括贝斯特先生，他说他确实有一项协议，并且他只会将该裁定给郭先生看，而且不会有——正如我所说，我不想听到说不存在协议。嗯，不存在协议。那么我想我将不得不回去裁定——巴尔迪加先生：这不是处理方式。法庭：——债务人是否——我是否应当认定，债务人未遵守且未通过履行本院就债务人配合受托人义务所发传票项下的义务而消除其不遵守状态；目前对此仍存在争议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 59 因此你正在回答我的问题，也就是，你的论点是其具有证言性质？这是你唯一的论点。巴尔迪加先生：不。法庭：因为一方面你说，政府可以把一切都交给受托人，但受托人说政府永远不会这么做。然后——你又说，嗯，即使——我们也不会交出，但我们会要求政府这样做。那么，你认为通过要求政府这样做，就已遵守本案发出的传票项下的义务了吗？巴尔迪加先生：嗯，债务人——答案显然是肯定的。债务人被关在一个相当小的牢房里。他显然已经——他同意逐一回答受托人的问题。那是昨天的命令。现在的问题是，债务人是否必须交出他拥有的一切？嗯，他已经交出了。他的牢房里什么也没有，而且只有——我们已经讨论过了——只剩下两类物品。政府已扣押的物品，以及\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第59页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 60 受托人会要求债务人指示他人交付的物品；我认为现在已经承认，这在性质上具有证言性质，因为——法庭：我认为尚无人承认这一点，但请继续。巴尔迪加先生：哦。好吧。并未有人认真主张那不具有证言性质，而它显然会具有证言性质。因此，这就是为什么我们回到债务人已经清空了他的牢房，不幸的是，是字面意义上的清空，所以他无法交付任何他拥有的东西。他什么也没有。因此，受托人随后抓住了这样一点，即他可能会从政府那里得到一些东西。我们已经说过，嘿，如果政府愿意交给你，我们毫不知情，毫不知情，但我们不会阻挠。事实上，我们会推进此事，甚至会提出请求。但如果我们没有见过它，我们就无法提交它。这涉及律师—当事人保密特权。最重要的是，这涉及为此而行使宪法特权。而那将具有证言性质。法庭：如果你交出它，唯一会主张其具有证言性质的一方将是政府？那是你的担忧？我想了解。你一方面说，如果他们从政府那里取得它——德斯平斯先生说那永远不会发生——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第60页/共86页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第61页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 61 就没有问题。但如果他们从你那里取得它，就有问题。那么问题在哪里？问题在于，因为届时政府可以使用该信息，并称他放弃了第五修正案特权，因为他交出了一份其中载有可能自我归罪内容的文件？巴尔迪加先生：是。正是如此。这就是为什么——我们在一项刑事程序中代理郭先生，政府正试图让他在余生中一直被监禁。我们需要尽一切努力，以使郭先生在其审判中仍保有完整的宪法保护。他不能放弃这些保护。受托人正试图利用本院的藐视法庭权力向他施压，迫使他放弃这些保护，因为正如法庭已经听到的，受托人威胁说，呃，如果他不配合，受托人将与政府合作使郭先生被监禁。现在这已经发生了。法庭：我认为这不公平，巴尔迪加先生。巴尔迪加先生：嗯，我们不知道。法庭：我认为这不公平。我确实不这么认为。无论本案中发生什么，我认为那都不是公平的陈述。巴尔迪加先生：好的。我们并非那些\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 62 讨论的参与方，但郭先生——我撤回那一点。可以。郭先生需要在其刑事程序中仍保有完整的第五修正案权利——德斯平斯先生：因此，该论点，法官阁下，该论点是——巴尔迪加先生：——并利用本院的权力——法庭：等一下。请让他说完。请让巴尔迪加先生说完。巴尔迪加先生：——利用本院的权力，在他的生命和人身自由确实面临风险时，试图强迫其放弃那些宪法保护，正是宪法旨在禁止的事情。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，政府可能——持有一批文件，将其交给债务人，然后债务人再将其交给受托人，而政府说，啊哈，我交给你的文件，因为你将其交给了受托人，你已经承认它们有效，而且该行为显示你犯有罪行。我的意思是，很抱歉这样说，那是法律上的荒谬，也就是说，那不可能成立。而且，如果我们能够在该命令中加入某项规定，说明债务人是作为一名\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第62页/共86页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1775 Filed 05/09/23 Entered 05/09/23 20:02:10 第63页/共86页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023\n\n仅仅是一个传递渠道，并未制作这些文件，也不承认文件中任何内容的真实性。\n\n但我知道一件事，这些文件将成为有关转移、银行转账等信息的宝库；若要追查这些信息，将花费我们数百万美元。这正是我们需要获取这些文件的原因，因为我们的职责是将资产纳入该破产财产。\n\n而认为在目前这种结构中——即文件从政府转给债务人，债务人再转给我们——提交文件这一行为并不涉及其中，并且债务人因此放弃了其第五修正案权利的论点，抱歉，但那根本不成立——您知道，抱歉，这根本说不通。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我希望我们能够约束政府不得实施我们所担心的行为，那将是一个极好的结果。我们可以让政府出庭回答这个问题，我想，并受其回答的约束。\n\n法院：还有其他人要补充吗？\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，我可以简要陈述吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nHENZY 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n由于您可能正在重新审视实际摆在您面前的事项，您面前的两项事项是刑事辩护律师提出的中止动议，以及该命令——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 64 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 64\n\n法院：好的，中止动议不在我面前，因为 Best 先生已经同意他并未寻求中止，所以我不同意你的说法。摆在我面前的第二项事项是什么？\n\nHENZY 律师：那么，法官阁下，摆在您面前的事项是说明理由命令，即为何不应认定 Kwok 先生藐视法庭。\n\n法院：对。\n\nHENZY 律师：而且，我实际上已经签署并提交了对该说明理由命令的异议。我认为您现在不需要这样做，法官阁下。就此进行思考时，我想指出一个没有人引用过的案件，即 McCarthy v. Arndstein（麦卡锡诉阿恩斯坦案），A-R-N-D-S-T-E-I-N。该案在 Harris 案之后作出。\n\n法院：请问引注是什么？\n\nHENZY 律师：引注是 266 U.S. 34。该案实际上是在 Harris 案之后作出，并区别了 Harris 案。因此，这是一个最高法院案件。该案涉及 Rule 2004（规则 2004）的前身，即该法案第 21(a) 条。而且，它——我只简要读一下其中的一些措辞：“认定破产人必须交出账簿和文件，即使其中载有可能使其负罪的证据的案件，所依据的原则不同于本案所涉及的原则。”该案并引述了 Matter of Harris（哈里斯案）及其引注。略过一些内容：“第 21(a) 条，即 2004 的前身，另一方面，专门且仅涉及有关证据和证人的程序法。当破产人根据本条在专员面前出庭时，他与任何其他人一样，仅仅是为作证而来。在此方面，他可以像任何其他证人一样主张宪法特权。”因此，法官阁下，证言与依据 521(a)(4) 交付之间存在区别。我还想指出，法官阁下，Bassett 先生大量引述的一个案件，同样未被任何人在任何书面材料中引用，即 In re Ross（罗斯案），即 Idaho（爱达荷州）案件，156 B.R. 272。该法院——而且我不知道，也许没有人不同意这一点——明确表示，如果破产法规定侵害宪法权利，则该等规定必须让位于宪法权利。这是一个篇幅很长的案件，我认为对此具有说明意义。这是一个极其、极其依赖具体事实的分析。该法院确实讨论了 Best 先生所谈到的既定结论分析。但是我想回到这一点，法官阁下。摆在您面前的是关于为何不应认定 Kwok 先生藐视法庭的说明理由命令。如您所知，您需要得出不存在合理疑义的结论。我认为，这一讨论强调了事实上存在合理疑义，其中包括因为存在大量推测。而且可能是因为我主要一直坐在这里聆听，对于政府会或不会做什么，存在大量推测。我认为本法庭内没有人知道这一点，法官阁下。存在大量推测。Despins 先生可以说存在有关债务人转移的海量信息。他并不——他并不知道这一点。没有人知道。Baldiga 先生一再、一再、一再指出这一点。没有人知道政府实际上将向债务人交付什么。我认为，目前没有人知道政府何时会将文件交付给实际上甚至不是债务人，而是债务人的律师。再次强调，我们不知道哪些内容仅供债务人律师阅览。我们不知道实际会向债务人提供什么。我们不知道文件将附带何种条件交付。因此，我不想重述已经提出的所有论点。它们已经得到很好的、详尽的陈述，法官阁下。但我想，还是要回到一点：我认为您现在不需要这样做。若要您认定——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 65 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 65\n\n若要您今天裁定 Kwok 先生应被认定藐视法庭，您必须认定不存在合理疑义。鉴于此处所有的不确定性，我会主张，法官阁下，我认为您不能作出该认定。5\n\n而且我不知道是不是两周以后。我不知道是不是一个月以后。我不知道政府何时会在此交付文件。我不知道这会在接下来——接下来一周或两周或类似期间的任何时候发生。我认为，暂时中止此事是合理的，直至我们知道政府将交付什么、政府何时交付，以及政府可能会采取什么行动。我认为，法官阁下，您现在作出命令会带来风险，您有干扰那边正在进行的程序的风险。如果您作出命令，要求 Kwok 先生必须交出他收到的任何文件，那么，这是否——这是否会进而影响政府在交付文件方面将采取的行动？我认为——\n\n法院：请让我先打断你一下。我正在看的 McCarthy-Arndstein 案，完全是关于反对自证其罪特权是否适用于破产案件。它并没有——它没有区别 Harris 案及 Harris 案的裁判内容。它说，认定破产人必须交出账簿和文件，即使其中载有可能使其负罪的证据的案件，所依据的原则不同于本案所涉及的原则。而 McCarthy v. Arndstein（麦卡锡诉阿恩斯坦案）所涉及的原则，是反对自证其罪特权是否延伸至为取得属于其破产财产的财产而对破产人进行的讯问。因此，那是一场讯问，并非交付文件。所以我只是想明确一点，尽管你指出了该案，它并没有通过称 Harris 案存在问题来区别 Harris 案。Harris 案处理的是账簿和记录的交付以及账簿和记录的移交，而不是为自证其罪目的直接讯问证人。\n\nHENZY 律师：但是，法官阁下，这是——这是一个 2004 传票，所以这——这不是交付。Baldiga 先生已经提出过这一点。这不是交付。\n\n法院：那么，如果——如果受托人随后根据 541 和 542 提出动议，你现在是否会提出同样的论点，即他——既然他将其表述为交付动议？他现在——现在会说，好吧。那么你会主张，根据——因为这是一次 2004 讯问，我不能取得这些信息。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 69 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 69\n\n但如果我根据——让我看看，我们会依据什么提出动议？\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，我可以——\n\n法院：不。我想先把我的想法说完。所以，如果你——如果他根据 542 提出动议，那么你的论点是什么？因为这是向破产财产交付财产。因此，该条规定，除非另有规定，除保管人以外的实体，在案件期间保管、持有或控制受托人可以使用、出售或租赁的财产，依据第 363 条，或者债务人可以豁免的财产，应向受托人交付该财产并就其进行说明，或者交付该财产的价值，除非该财产价值微不足道。所以，这就是全部——所以你是说——\n\nDESPINS 律师：但是，法官阁下，还有第 (e) 款。\n\n法院：我还没有讲到那里。\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。\n\n法院：但我是从 (a) 款开始的。因此，接着它规定——第 542 条中有很多内容，包括 (e) 款，其规定，在不影响任何适用特权的前提下，法院可以下令——可以命令持有记录信息的律师、会计师或其他人，包括与债务人财产或财务事务有关的账簿、文件、记录和文书，向受托人交付或披露该等记录信息。那么你的论点届时如何改变？你是说，好吧，受托人，我们不会——你不能依据 2004 这样做，但你要如何依据 542 提出该论点？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 70\n\nHENZY 律师：我今天不需要提出该论点，法官阁下，因为目前没有交付命令。\n\n法院：我明白。\n\nHENZY 律师：所以——\n\n法院：但或许我会将其转为一项。\n\nHENZY 律师：我不——\n\n法院：这样我们就不会在接下来的三个月里争论自 2022 年 7 月 8 日以来一直摆在桌面上的事情。而现在是 2022 年 3 月 [原文如此] 2 日。\n\n法院：我不认为您有权这样做，法官阁下。但是如果那——\n\n法院：你可以——\n\nHENZY 律师：——如果那——\n\n法院：——你可以——\n\nHENZY 律师：——但如果那——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 70 页，共 86 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 71 页，共 86 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- May 2, 2023 71\n\n法院：——你可能是对的，但是——\n\nHENZY 律师：唯一的事情——\n\n法院：——你也可能是错的。\n\nHENZY 律师：我可能是错的，法官阁下。摆在您面前的唯一事项是关于藐视法庭，唯一命令是要求 Kwok 先生遵守 2004 传票的命令。因此，我不——我不认为存在预先藐视法庭这种事情。所以我——\n\n法院：这不是预先藐视法庭，Henzy 律师。好吗？第一。第二，你的当事人自一月以及更早之前就已知悉受托人一直在寻求以藐视法庭处理。因此，你怎么能说这是预先藐视法庭，我不——对此，我甚至完全无法理解。但是，除此以外，已经有一项——你知道，不断被忽略的一件事是，你的当事人作为占有中的债务人，自愿服从本法院的管辖。并且随之，他自愿服从其作为本法项下债务人的所有义务，即包括破产财产在 542 条下的义务。现在，我理解你的意思。但我只是说，继续到这里来并表现得仿佛——我听到 Baldiga 先生说受托人在威胁这个、威胁——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 72 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 72 做这个，做那个。受托人正试图履行其职责。你们可能不同意，这没关系。你们完全有权不同意。每个人都可以不同意他是否有权履行其职责，但他正试图履行其职责，而这项职责——顺便说一句，债务人曾到庭表示他将做所有这些事情，随后又全部撤回，然后说，是的，我想我就同意让我的案件被驳回吧。嗯，事情不是这样的。抱歉，但事情不是这样的。实际情况是，法院指定了一名第11章受托人，而该第11章受托人正试图履行其职责。并且，记录中已达成一项协议。目前摆在我面前的是，那项协议是什么，这才是目前摆在我面前的问题。因为曾有一项解决所有问题的协议。好。现在——而且，我在记录中对 Best 先生（Mr. Best）说过，当他说我只是需要一些时间去找我的当事人时，我明白。我说，这可以理解。他说，我无法轻易接触到他。我需要到星期一。这是他所说的。我说，好，但我不想——我不想听到不存在协议的说法。然后看看我们现在的处境。没有协议。因此，我们所有人在这里遗漏的要点是，我理解你必须做你认为适当的一切来保护你的当事人，但这\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 73 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 73 在目前这个时间点对我来说没有意义，但须以——并回过头审阅每个人在书面陈述和记录中所说的内容，以及我们原本已有一项协议、如今却没有协议的记录——如果你对政府移交一切毫无异议，但你却反对你的当事人将其移交给受托人，那么其中似乎存在脱节。问题在于，要么你知道——你可以提出一种论点，你可以提出一种论点——你知道政府不会向受托人移交任何东西，或者你——或者你将不予合作——让我谨慎地使用这个词，你不会移交，因为届时你会主张，哦，但如果我这么做，政府可以将其用来对付我。嗯，如果政府已经掌握所有信息，他们为什么不能已经将其用来对付你？他们怎么会不能——他们怎么会不能将其用来对付你？BALDIGA 先生（MR. BALDIGA）：那完全是不同的问题，法官阁下。政府——法院：不，我不认为是。那怎么会是完全不同的问题？BALDIGA 先生：债务人享有第五修正案规定的不自证其罪权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 74 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 74 首先，我想回到你提出的 542(e) 问题。我在这一点上同意法官阁下。我认为——我认为，如果我们现在讨论的是 542(e)，论点将完全相同。这就是为什么 542(e) 开头写的是受制于所有适用的特权。我们会提出完全相同的论点，因为其中一项特权将是律师—当事人特权。更重要的是，此处其中一项特权将是第五修正案权利。因此，这些论点并不相同。但我也同意 Henzy 先生（Mr. Henzy）的意见。你不可能因一项尚未提交的动议而构成藐视法庭。但无论如何，我们确实有一项协议。记录非常清楚地表明该协议是什么，因为在 Best 先生提出拟议协议的每一处，他的陈述都很清楚，而且从未改变。至于对我们进行诋毁，要实施一项协议需要双方参与，而我们没有改变。我们丝毫没有改变。但就你所说政府能做和不能做什么而言，天啊，那是——我希望我能告诉他们。我希望我能告诉您政府能做和不能做什么。我们谁都不能。但我们的当事人享有重要的不自证其罪权利。例如，如果他不放弃这些权利，他无需在其自身的刑事辩护\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 75 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 75 审判中作证。在你迫使他在此放弃这些权利的范围内，他届时或许必须在该刑事程序中作证指控自己。我很希望能相信我们的政府不会利用这一点。我认为，我们所有人期待政府不会利用对第五修正案权利的放弃，这都是一厢情愿。我很希望这能是正确的。我们不知道。而这是一场极大的赌博，这就是为什么我们不能依赖政府不利用这种放弃。因此，由政府向受托人提交某物，与由政府向债务人提交某物，后者再向受托人提供对该提交物的查阅权限，是不同的；这不会触及我当事人的第五修正案权利。法院：对。因此，这正是我现在一直在说的。我想这将是我第四次这么说了。所以，你的论点是这是证言性的。这就是你的论点。这是——你的论点是——BALDIGA 先生：是的，确实如此。法院：——你不能将其移交，因为它是证言性的。BALDIGA 先生：是。法院：而受托人——BALDIGA 先生：我认为我们的答复是在说——法院：——援引了相反的判例法。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 76 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 76 那么，问题就是我必须确定是否——我必须确定我是否将作出任何种类的命令，以及——和/或——如 Best 先生所说，我不必作出裁决，但现在我必须作出裁决。Best 先生在——在庭审记录中明确这么说过。他说，不，您不必作出裁决。您只需要作出一项命令。但现在我必须作出裁决。现在我可能必须作出裁决，因为我必须认定——BALDIGA 先生：嗯——法院：如果我要作出一项不同于你所提交命令的命令，那么我就必须认定，政府向债务人提交材料，然后债务人向受托人提供对该提交材料的查阅权限，并非证言性行为。因此，这只会成为上诉中的另一个问题，对吧？因为这就是将会发生的事。BALDIGA 先生：您绝对——法院：你们会对此上诉。因此，这将成为上诉中的另一个问题。BALDIGA 先生：您绝对必须作出该项认定。法院：对。BALDIGA 先生：我同意。法院：Best 先生在他同意该协议时说，我不必这样做——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 77 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 77 BALDIGA 先生：嗯，如果受托人履行我们所达成的协议，您就不必这样做。但现在受托人使您处于必须这样做的境地。是的。法院：嗯，我有——我对此不太确定。如果你听了受托人在休庭后所说的话，而 Best 先生没有——他说政府向债务人提交材料，那就是——那就是他们所说的，也是他所说的，也许 Best 先生没有听到。BALDIGA 先生：他说查阅权限——法院：也许。我不是说——我不是说——BALDIGA 先生：——会允许我们——法院：等一下。等一下。也许他没有听到，但那是休庭后的原话。Best 先生没有在任何地方说，不，不，等一下。我不同意那一点。我不同意那一点。我从未同意那一点。而且我明确说过我们有一项协议。我们经历了整件事，因为 PAX（PAX）和委员会想看这些文件，而我说不。唯一会看到这些文件的人是债务人、债务人的律师和受托人。这是我所说的。我的意思是，我们经历了整件事。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 78 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 78 因此，并不是说这——你知道，Best 先生有充分机会说那不是我同意的内容。BALDIGA 先生：法官阁下，那不是受托人所说的。我必须——坦率地说，这令人沮丧，但在第 141 页，受托人援引的最佳措辞是在就保护令讨论了 20 页之后，您——您实际上并没有说庭审记录中所载的那些话。即使 Despins 先生（Mr. Despins）使用了不同的措辞，也不意味着您应当采纳这些措辞。庭审记录中的措辞是，债务人被指示寻求修改刑事案件中任何适用的保护令，以允许第11章受托人查阅政府向债务人提交的文件。它并没有说债务人必须向受托人提交。它根本没有这么说。无论 Despins 先生多么希望它这么说，它也没有这么说。鉴于 Best 先生多次作出极其明确的陈述，如果这是受托人能够提出的最佳论点——将此描述为债务人以某种方式背弃协议，完全错误。DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，为什么会有必要——BALDIGA 先生：无论作出多少次尝试——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 79 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023 79 DESPINS 先生：——讨论提交行为？紧接着其后写道，如果协议是如此达成的，他们就不能反对该项救济，因为提交行为，这完全不复存在。BALDIGA 先生：同意。如果受托人从政府处取得，便不存在提交行为问题。DESPINS 先生：不。不。因为——BALDIGA 先生：我们完全同意。法院：不。但你刚才说了两件不同的事。坦率地说，Baldiga 先生。就在那一点，你确实如此。我在那之前很长时间都认同你的观点，直到那一点。你说，如果我们提供对文件的查阅权限，有什么问题。然后你又说，这是由受托人从政府处取得。这是两件不同的事。BALDIGA 先生：不，它没有说我们提供查阅权限。法院：那是两件完全不同的事。BALDIGA 先生：不，它没有说——法院：那是债务人有义务提供对政府向债务人提交的文件的查阅权限。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 80 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- May 2, 2023\n\nBALDIGA 先生：不。那不是——那不是这里所说的。那甚至是受托人的措辞。它没有说我们提供查阅权限。\n\n法院：不。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：它没有——\n\n法院：你刚才就是这么说的。你刚才说不会有问题——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：如果我们提供查阅权限。\n\n法院：——提供查阅权限。这就是你所说的。因此，你不能向受托人提供你并不拥有之物的查阅权限。所以，为了向受托人提供查阅权限，你必须拥有这些文件。为什么这不能成为解决办法？我不理解。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：但是，法官，庭审记录并没有说——而且，再说一次，这甚至不是 Best 先生的话，而是受托人的话——是寻求修改保护令，以允许受托人查阅这些文件。它没有——\n\n法院：政府向债务人提交的文件。这就是它所说的。那句话到此为止。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：对。是同一批文件。\n\n法院：那么有什么问题？\n\nBALDIGA 先生：它只是——它界定了这些文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 于 05/09/23 提交 于 05/09/23 20:02:10 录入 第 81 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年5月2日 81 法院：不，不，不，不。先停一下。请让我们面对现实。你的当事人取得文件后，再向受托人提供查阅权限，这有什么问题？有什么问题？他并没有交出任何东西。这怎么会具有遗嘱性质？巴尔迪加律师（MR. BALDIGA）：它是。我们——法院：好。巴尔迪加律师：只是为了——法院：所以我们又回到了同一个问题。好。算了。我明白了。这就是你的论点。你坚持这一点。我明白了。好。巴尔迪加律师：绝对如此。法院：我并不是说你错了。我现在已经问了五次这是否就是你的论点，而无论如何这都是你的论点。无论如何。只要债务人占有该等文件，如果受托人看到债务人所占有的东西，那就是具有遗嘱性质。这就是你的论点。巴尔迪加律师：就今日提交法院审理的事项而言，是的。法院：我不知道那是什么意思，但没关系。巴尔迪加律师：嗯，我不想就其他任何交付动议或其他事项假设性地回答问题。但就——就我们正在争辩的事项而言\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 82 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年5月2日 82 今天，是的。债务人作出交付将具有证言性质——证词性质。并且这将剥夺其第五修正案权利。我们认为，自我们提交第一份文件起直至本次听证结束，始终一致地持此立场。绝对如此。法院：我知道我说的是“具有遗嘱性质”。我道歉。我本意是“具有证词性质”。巴尔迪加律师：嗯，这可能会——是的，照我们现在的走向，它最终也可能变成那样。法院：好。还有任何人要进一步陈述吗？巴尔迪加律师：我没有，法官阁下。谢谢。法院：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？（无人回应）法院：鉴于我们刚刚花了过去两个小时讨论的内容，我不知道我要如何处理。查看庭审记录后，我认为存在一个问题，因为——休庭是有原因的。巴尔迪加律师，你援引的每一处引文——我现在并不作出裁定，我只是告诉你——你今天下午援引的每一处引文，都是在休庭之前作出的陈述。每一处都是。这里有一处——我说明了我们为何要\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 83 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年5月2日 83 休庭。巴尔迪加律师：有两种可能——对。有两种可能。其一是存在协议。如果存在协议，那显然就是我们的命令。或者不存在协议，只是存在误解，在这种情况下，我们就回到就中止动议和藐视法庭命令的实体问题进行辩论。因为如果不存在协议，那么两项动议的实体问题就不在法院面前。法院：这两项动议的实体问题——请再说一遍最后那句话。刚才听起来——我没听清。巴尔迪加律师：当然。因此，在我们于4月20日开始这些辩论时，法院面前有两项动议。法院：好，我可以告诉你——巴尔迪加律师：因为有一项——我们认为有两项协议。其中一项协议实际上已由昨天录入的命令处理完毕。因此一切都好。我们认为，就第二部分我们已达成协议。现在，每个人都是善意行事。也许只是——未达成意思一致。我认为达成了，但也许没有。如果不存在使得无需就该动议实体问题作出裁定的协议，那么法院就只能审理该动议的\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 84 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年5月2日\n1 实体问题。\n这没有问题。\n我的意思是，显然\n2 没有协议时就是如此。\n法院\n3 存在的目的，就是对其面前事项的实体问题作出裁定。\n4 我们请求中止，有限中止。\n而\n5 亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）请求裁定不存在\n6 藐视法庭。\n这些事项均在法院面前。\n7 法院：\n好。\n还有其他要陈述的吗？\n8 德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：\n有，非常简短，法官阁下。\n9 我刚才又重新阅读了，休庭后， 第\n10 123页第7至14行，这当然是我在说话，但\n11 在此之前的第1行。他说，我指的是贝斯特先生（Mr.\n12 Best），让美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）给美国司法部（DOJ）打电话，诸如此类。\n13 这不是运作方式。我们不存在于\n14 刑事法院。我们不存在于纽约南区（Southern District of\n15 New York）。\n16 然后我说：“但是被告，”这是在\n17 第7行，“他有资格在该法院说，您知道吗，\n18 法官，刑事法官，”这是被告对\n19 刑事法官所说的，“我们希望修改\n20 保护令，而该修改将是\n21 我们可以，”我们，即债务人，“可以向受托人、\n22 第11章受托人提供政府\n23 交给我们的文件副本。”再清楚不过了。\n24 所以在那一点上，他必须站起来说，不，\n25 我们不能这样做。贝斯特先生没有——没有一个字\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1775 提交日期 05/09/23 录入日期 05/09/23 20:02:10 第 85 页，共 86 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年5月2日 85 谈及此事。如果141不清楚，这份123清楚得毫无疑问。巴尔迪加律师：嗯，显然不是贝斯特先生在说话。但无论如何，法官阁下，我们已经反复反复地争辩过这一点。再者，我愿意相信受托人并非，您知道的，重新考虑他所达成的协议，而只是未达成意思一致。如果是这样，我们对本方动议的实体问题有信心，并将接受这一点。法院：好。那么，我将予以考虑，并将在我决定如何处理时告知你们我要如何处理。好吗？好。巴尔迪加律师：非常感谢您——法院：今天下午日程上就这些事项，现休庭。谢谢。德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。（程序于下午3:57结束）\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年5月2日 86 本人，克里斯廷·菲奥雷（CHRISTINE FIORE），经法院批准的速记员及经认证的电子记录员和速记员，特此证明：上述内容系从上述案件程序的官方电子录音中制作的正确庭审记录。10 2023年5月9日 11 Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CIPA","Guo","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Brady"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":21233,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-05-09 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-05-09","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:55:37"}