{"id":"court_ctb_1797_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1797,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-05-16","title":"Exhibit 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit 1**\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 2 of 11\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT:                                  | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                                                             | PART                   | IAS MOTION 61EFM           |\n|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------|\n|                                           | Justice                                                                            |                        |                            |\n|                                           | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X |                        |                            |\n|                                           | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND                                             |                        |                            |\n| L.P.,                                     |                                                                                    | INDEX NO.              | 652077/2017                |\n|                                           | Plaintiff,                                                                         |                        |                            |\n|                                           | -<br>v -                                                                           | MOTION DATE            |                            |\n| KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN |                                                                                    |                        |                            |\n|                                           | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                                    | 019<br>MOTION SEQ. NO. |                            |\n| WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a   |                                                                                    |                        |                            |\n| HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and    |                                                                                    |                        | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n|                                           | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,                                                      |                        |                            |\n|                                           |                                                                                    |                        |                            |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 3 of 11\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 4 of 11\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.<sup>1</sup> This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 5 of 11\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n<sup>2</sup> \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 6 of 11\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 7 of 11\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 8 of 11\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 9 of 11\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 10 of 11\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 11 of 11\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**","body_zh":"证物 1\n归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 1797-1 归档日期 05/16/23 录入日期 05/16/23 23:52:24 第 2 页，共 11 页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席：BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官 主审法庭 IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n原告，\n索引编号 652077/2017\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（郭浩云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（热内弗控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（热内弗控股公司），\n被告。\n动议日期\n019 动议序号\n动议裁决及命令\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n在这起包含 1,180 项案卷记录的 2017 年案件中——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，下称“Kwok”）试图通过将其巨额个人资产存放在一系列公司、受信赖的心腹以及家族成员名下，来逃避并欺骗其债权人——本法院被要求裁定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，下称“PAX”）是否已承担起证明本法院应当对 Kwok 作出民事藐视法庭最终命令的举证责任。基于以下理由，本法院同时签发一份民事藐视法庭最终命令。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日取得了针对 Kwok 金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF 文件编号 716）。此后，PAX 开展了长达一年的判决执行工作，首先查明并进而试图扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在查明 Kwok 实际控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的 Kwok 已将自己的资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体和家族成员之中。该计划使得 Kwok 能够一方面声称自己毫无资产，另一方面却过着极其奢华的生活，原告已利用社交\n归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 1797-1 归档日期 05/16/23 录入日期 05/16/23 23:52:24 第 3 页，共 11 页\n\n媒体剪报、照片和录像资料对其进行了梳理，显示 Kwok 生活豪奢并炫耀其财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日的庭审笔录所指出的，该证据的证明力极低，因为提供这些证据的证人除了知道这些内容可在各个网站上获取外，对这些“证据”的真实性并无第一手了解。\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证言，并接受了交叉询问。该听证会是在 PAX 进行了旷日持久的寻找并扣押被告 Kwok 所有的资产程序之后举行的。除其他事项外，这些程序确定了 Kwok 对名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使了管领与控制权，并促使法院作出一系列限制命令，禁止 Kwok 及/或名为 Lady May 游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本法院的管辖范围。第一项此类命令于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发，详见下文，随后是 2020 年 10 月 15 日的命令，限制“Kwok 先生及/或……游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开管辖区域。（NYSCEF 文件编号 630）。详见下文，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在 Lady May 上度过。在导致 2020 年 9 月 30 日和 10 月 15 日限制命令的诉讼程序进行的同时，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，随后驶往巴哈马群岛。2021 年 3 月 16 日，法院签发了一项附条件的民事藐视法庭命令，责令若 Kwok 未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 送回本法院的管辖范围，则 Lady May 停留在本法院管辖范围之外的每一天，他都将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\n上诉部门第一分部维持了本法院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，裁定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强烈\n归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 1797-1 归档日期 05/16/23 录入日期 05/16/23 23:52:24 第 4 页，共 11 页\n\n督促被告清除其藐视法庭行为，尽管他被允许这样做，但他没有表现出任何履行的意愿……”NYSCEF 文件编号 953，199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉部门进一步认定：\n\n动议法院认定被告构成民事藐视法庭属于行使其自由裁量权，因为原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了法院合法、明确的命令，且被告对此知情，并且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（参见 El-Dehdan 诉 El-Dehdan，26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law（《司法法》）§ 753）。……责令动议法院继续进行证据听证会，以解决关于该游艇的所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉部门的命令，本法院定于 2022 年 2 月 2 日举行证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实质所有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未在 2022 年 2 月 2 日的听证会上作证，此前他曾援引美国宪法第五修正案的权利，在回应 PAX 的资产调查要求时拒绝作证或回应与 Lady May 相关的证据开示请求。原告证据 27、28、29、30。1 尽管援引了第五修正案，Kwok 仍是多个司法管辖区的活跃诉讼当事人，且他此前在本案及其他诉讼中均提供过证言。\n\nKwok 还在本法院提起过一项诉讼，案由为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng（郭文贵又名迈尔斯·郭诉曾宏），案号 157025/2020，其中引用了 Freebeacon.com 网站 2017 年 9 月 8 日的一篇博客文章，Kwok 在其中抱怨“涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的几起事件……”（起诉书第 8 段，NYSCEF 文件编号 001）（下称“《曾案起诉书》”）。《曾案起诉书》将 Kwok 描述为一名“直言不讳的中共批评者”，他“竭尽全力揭露中共及中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。《华盛顿邮报》报道称，特朗普总统的前顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业\n\n1 “PX”指原告庭审证据（Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits）。\n归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 1797-1 归档日期 05/16/23 录入日期 05/16/23 23:52:24 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n伙伴，Kwok 是“一名在网络上高调批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但目前因涉嫌诈骗、敲诈勒索和行贿罪被北京当局通缉”。其他新闻媒体亦报道称，Bannon 先生曾多次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n听证会上被告方证人口中提供的证词清楚而令人信服地证明，Kwok 实质所有并控制 Lady May，并且对本法院及司法程序表现出极度的蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，下称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提供的证词确定，Kwok 于 2014 年以无对价的方式将 HK International 100% 的权益转让给了一位名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。屈女士是郭氏家族受信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，2015 年 2 月 23 日，HK International 以 28,000,000 英镑的价格购买了 Lady May。听证会上没有任何证词能够证明购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）未经反驳的证词证实，屈女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。庭审笔录 44。2 因此，合理的推论是 Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，屈女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日左右以 $1 或无对价将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了 Kwok 的女儿郭美。庭审笔录 47。根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 文件编号 1162），郭女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了目前的所有权持有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，下称“HK USA”）。郭女士进一步声称她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 每年数百万美元的所有\n\n2 “Tr.”指证据听证会的笔录，电子归档于 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179。\n归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 1797-1 归档日期 05/16/23 录入日期 05/16/23 23:52:24 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\n开支，包括燃料、维护以及船长和船员的费用，均由据称是郭氏家族办公室的 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（源泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“Golden Spring”）支付。\n\n在听证会上，郭女士作证称是她哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。庭审笔录 46。法院无法采信这一证词，因为没有任何证据表明郭女士的哥哥参与了导致郭女士取得该游艇产权的公司交易。而且，事实上，在回应法院的提问时，郭女士承认在她取得游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她哥哥均未参与。庭审笔录 47。\n\n听证会上提供的其他证言证实，Kwok 每年夏天都频繁登上游艇，而郭女士则很少在游艇上。庭审笔录 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的相当大部分时间都在游艇上，这与他在夏天的惯常做法是一致的。庭审笔录 87:24-88:7。在本法院签发 2020 年 9 月 30 日限制命令之后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被送往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马群岛进行维修，并随后于 2021 年 10 月据称在 Golden Spring 的指示下被派往意大利。郭女士承认她知悉本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的限制命令以及本法院随后于 2021 年 3 月 16 日签发责令将 Lady May 送回法院管辖范围的命令。庭审笔录 55；57-60；62。\n\n郭女士作证称，一方面她负责指挥 Lady May 的行程，但另一方面她作证称 Kwok 的安保问题至关重要，以至于任何行程都不会留有文字记录。庭审笔录 52。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在没有她陪同的情况下在游艇上时，他有权自由选择任何他想去的地方。庭审笔录 50。然而，根本问题在于究竟是谁指示在 2020 年 10 月将该游艇移出本法院的管辖范围。郭女士声称在 2020 年 10 月初她不再希望\n归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 1797-1 归档日期 05/16/23 录入日期 05/16/23 23:52:24 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给了 Golden Spring，随后 Golden Spring 又将她的指示传达给了当时该船的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。庭审笔录 53。\n\n在进一步追问下，郭女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将游艇移至更温暖的地方。庭审笔录 55。郭女士随后重复了她此前已收回的证词，即她哥哥把游艇送给了她，并且她声明她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。庭审笔录 56。鉴于法院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日作出了一项限制 Kwok 的临时限制令，该证词不可信\n\n. . . 进行或促成对任何其享有权益的财产的出售、转让、移转或干涉，或支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 中规定的例外情况以及在正常业务过程中的情形除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May（梅号游艇）的时任船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）作证称，在 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州前“几天”（且显然是在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日裁定作出之后），Kwok（郭文贵）先生告诉 Heaslop 船长，郭文贵将不再是 Lady May 上的客人。Tr. 89。Heaslop 船长亦反驳了 Guo（郭美）女士关于其曾就游艇航行向 Heaslop 船长发出指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认随后阅读了法院 2021 年 3 月 16 日要求 Lady May 于 2021 年 5 月 31 日前返回法院管辖范围内的裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与她的律师（其服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她无视了该裁定。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 公司的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil 作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签有日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，他与 HK USA 及 Golden Spring 进行沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov 的证词也是如此。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭女士关于其拥有并\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 8 of 11\n\n控制 Lady May 的证言在任何方面均不可信。郭女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使了支配和控制权，亦未提供任何确认其获得 Lady May 占有权的证据，这纯粹是为了防止 Lady May 被其父亲的债权人申请扣押执行而设下的骗局。\n\n与郭文贵就 Lady May 精心策划的皮包戏法相关的各种诡计，与郭文贵在该诉讼未决的五年期间所采取的所有其他逃避和蔑视法庭行为如出一辙，这也是本案有 1,180 项案卷记录的原因。\n\n法院有权根据《司法法》\n\n§ 753 认定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭——并“通过罚款和监禁对其进行惩处”——在此种情况下，正如本案所示，法院“明确认定[郭文贵]的行为蓄意要或实际上已经破坏、损害、阻碍或损害了民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济途径。”Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条提出了四项要件：\n\n要在特定案件中认定发生藐视法庭行为，必须确定[1]法院的一项明确表达毫不含糊指令的合法命令有效成立。[2] 必须以合理的确定性证明该命令已被违抗……[3] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的命令，尽管该命令并非必须实际送达该当事人……[4] 最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了损害。\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证言满足了该标准的每一个要件。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）也作出了此种暗示。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已经]通过清晰且有说服力的证据证明，[郭文贵]违反了\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 9 of 11\n\n法院合法的、明确的指令，且他知晓该指令，并且该违反行为导致原告的权利受到了损害……”）。\n\nPAX 持续遭受“损害”的程度取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终能够扣押 Lady May，以清偿其对郭文贵持有的现已达数亿美元的判决金额。根据 CPLR § 5225，在债务人持有必要“权益”的情况下，“金钱或其他动产”是可以被扣押执行的。为满足这一要求，“判决债务人无需对财产拥有法定所有权；享有实益权益即已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是‘在某事物中的权利或期待权……与该事物的法定所有权相对。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。郭文贵在 Lady May 中享有的远不止是实益权益。郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，而且看起来是由其提供了购买资金，且他正是主要享用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于“该财产是否像[实益所有人]直接收到该财产一样使其获益。”同上（援引 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持对判决债务人主张其因将权益转让给其女儿而不再享有财产权益的驳回）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（支持判决债权人的财产移交动议，尽管判决债务人坚称其已将财产转让给一家公司，因为即使属实，证据亦表明其“保留了对该财产的控制权和/或权益”））。\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 10 of 11\n\n证据清晰且有说服力地表明，郭文贵在 Lady May 中享有实益权益并控制该游艇。在后一方面，法院注意到了 Zeng 案的立案提起，并从全部案卷事实中得出推论：郭文贵采取了异乎寻常的手段来向其债权人隐匿该游艇。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”资助了该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n法院认定，郭女士的证词不仅内部自相矛盾、掩盖真相，而且被 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长和 Stockil 先生的证词严重推翻，后者声明在郭女士直接或间接持有该游艇产权的四年半时间里，他们从未接受过郭女士关于游艇方面的任何指示。\n\n此外，纽约州既定法律规定，当事人在民事诉讼中援引第五修正案“可构成作出不利事实推论的基础”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。只要需要或允许作出事实认定，即可适用不利推论，包括在藐视法庭动议的情境中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实审理者可依据相反证据，对未能出庭作证的证人作出该相反证据所允许的最强烈的推论。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（对未能出庭但“对证据所引起的实质性问题本应知情”的被告适用不利推论）。\n\nPAX 有权通过这两种途径获得不利推论。针对 PAX 的判决后证据开示（包括针对专门有关 Lady May 的开示请求），郭文贵援引了其反对自证其罪的第五修正案权利。尽管郭文贵\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 1797-1 Filed 05/16/23 Entered 05/16/23 23:52:24 Page 11 of 11\n\n辩称此处适用不利推论是不恰当的，因为“只有在初步证明某项证据具有真实性之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但这一主张不攻自破。PAX 已提出了实质性的可采信证据，证明郭文贵在 Lady May 中享有必要的实益权益并对其进行控制。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（阐释若证据“倾向于证明某实质事实（即本案中直接争议的事实）的存在或不存在”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 已脱离本院管辖范围长达 268 天。根据本院施加并经上诉法庭确认的每日 $500,000 的罚款，由此产生的罚款总额将达到 $134,000,000.00，这已超过了 PAX 未受偿的近 1.2 亿美元判决金额，并且是 Lady May 购买价格 2,800 万英镑（GBP £ 28 million）的数倍。然而，如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人一方面可以在纽约及美国其他地方寻求利用法院程序，另一方面却明知且故意地违反法院命令，法治将荡然无存。郭文贵必须在本院带有附入卷宗通知的裁定送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000.00。若罚款未及时支付，法院准备根据《司法法》§ 753 行使其全部法定权力。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n请勾选一项： 案件结案 [ ] X 非终局处置\nX 批准 驳回 部分批准 其他\n申请： 拟定裁定 提交裁定\n如适用请勾选： 包含移送/重新分派 受托人指定 提交处理","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3664,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-05-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-05-16","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:49:59"}