{"id":"court_ctb_179_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":179,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2021-02-01","title":"EXHIBIT A FRIEDMAN DECLARATION","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n## **FRIEDMAN DECLARATION**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHo Wan Kwok, [1](#page-1-0) Chapter 11 Case No.\n\nDebtor.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n## **DECLARATION OF PETER FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF INTERIM AND FINAL DIP ORDERS (I) AUTHORIZING THE DEBTOR TO OBTAIN UNSECURED, SUBORDINATED POSTPETITION FINANCING AND (II) SCHEDULING INTERIM AND FINAL HEARINGS, AND (III) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF**\n\nI, Peter Friedman, declare:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New York and Washington,\n\nD.C. and am a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036, counsel for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"). I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Objection to Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief*.\n\n2. Attached as **Exhibit 1** is a true and correct copy of the February 5, 2016 Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, filed in *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG,* Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 27.\n\n3. Attached as **Exhibit 2** is a true and correct copy of the May 19, 2021 Affidavit of Yanping Wang, filed in *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No.\n\n1 The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 806.\n\n4. Attached as **Exhibit 3** is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a transcript of the May 27, 2021 Hearing before Justice Ostrager in *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 833.\n\n5. Attached as **Exhibit 4** is a true and correct copy of a letter from M. Carvalho to E. Moss, dated February 1, 2021, filed as Exhibit 13 to *PAX's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Nonparty Movant Yvette Wang's Motion for Relief Pursuant to CPLR 5240* in *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 765.\n\n6. Attached as **Exhibit 5** is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a transcript of the December 18, 2020 341 Meeting in *In re Genever Holdings LLC,* Case No. 20-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).\n\n7. Attached as **Exhibit 6** is a true and correct copy of a letter from K. Kearney to E. Moss, dated April 7, 2021, filed as Exhibit 13 to *PAX's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Nonparty Movant Yvette Wang's Motion for Relief Pursuant to CPLR 5240* in *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 766.\n\n8. Attached as **Exhibit 7** is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a transcript of the February 2, 2022 Evidentiary Hearing before Justice Ostrager in *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n9. Attached as **Exhibit 8** is a true and correct copy of the February 9, 2022 Decision and Order on Motion, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYCEF Doc. No. 1181.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nDated: April 6, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Peter Friedman* Peter Friedman **O'MELVENY & MYERS** Time Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com\n\n*Attorneys for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 5 of 94\n\n## **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|\n| ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED, | | : |\n| | | : |\n| | Plaintiff, | : Index No. 653316/2015 (Bransten, J.) |\n| | | : |\n| -v.- | | : Motion Sequence No. 001 |\n| | | : |\n| UBS AG, | | : |\n| | | : |\n| | Defendant. | : |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n\n## **AFFIDAVIT OF KWOK HO WAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT**\n\nKWOK HO WAN being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:\n\n1. I am the employer of Yong Yu, the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade\n\nHoldings Limited (\"Ace Decade\").\n\n2. I make this Affidavit based upon my personal knowledge.\n\n3. I first began having discussions with UBS AG (\"UBS\") about potential\n\ninvestments in 2010. I have been a client of UBS since July 2012.\n\n4. My main contact person at UBS has been Stephen Wong, who is a Managing\n\nDirector of the Wealth Management and Swiss Bank Department at UBS.\n\n5. I met Mr. Wong in May 2010. Since that time, Mr. Wong has advised me on\n\nnumerous matters relating to investments and financing on projects such as aircraft acquisitions.\n\nOver the years, I have depended and relied upon Mr. Wong's and UBS's knowledge and\n\nexpertise in making investment and financing decisions.\n\n6. In addition, I have had an account at UBS since July 2012 for an investment vehicle that I control. Since then, I have opened other accounts at UBS for two other investment vehicles that I control and have obtained financing from UBS for two airplanes.\n\n7. In early to mid-2014, I began discussions with UBS regarding an investment opportunity (the \"Investment\") in an upcoming placement of H-shares (the \"Shares\") of Haitong Securities Co., Ltd. (\"Haitong\").\n\n8. From 2014, when I first began discussions with UBS, to May 13, 2015, when Ms. Yu and I authorized the final payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) to enter into this Investment, Mr. Wong and I communicated frequently through telephone calls, inperson meetings, and electronic messages. Throughout this period, including after January 9, 2015 when I moved to New York, Mr. Wong made numerous misrepresentations, which I relied upon in deciding to make this Investment.\n\n9. UBS was a joint global coordinator and placement agent for the Shares, and held itself out as knowledgeable and experienced in providing advice on this Investment.\n\n10. At the outset, Mr. Wong assured me that if UBS got my business, it would protect my interests and provide the best possible terms for a loan to finance part of the Investment. Mr. Wong told me that because of the size of the Investment that I was planning to make, senior executives from UBS globally would participate in structuring the deal. Mr. Wong told me that he would serve as my personal contact and as UBS's representative throughout the Investment but that he would be acting under the instructions of senior executives from UBS offices in the United States, Switzerland, England, and Hong Kong.\n\n11. Based on these representations that senior executives at UBS globally would be involved in structuring and overseeing this Investment and that UBS would act in my best interests, I entrusted UBS to act as my advisor for the Investment.\n\n12. I have read Mr. Wong's affirmation submitted in support of UBS's motion to dismiss Ace Decade's complaint. In it, he affirmed under penalty of perjury that \"[t]he first time I heard of Ace Decade was when I learned of this lawsuit in October 2015.\" (Affirmation of Stephen Wong ¶ 3.) I was astonished when I read this statement because it is false. To the contrary, Mr. Wong and UBS not only had previously heard of Ace Decade, but also they were the ones who advised me on which of my employees to appoint as sole shareholder and Director of Ace Decade, to utilize Ace Decade to enter into a side agreement with an intermediary entity that would hold legal title to the Shares, and how best to transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. In sum, Mr. Wong and UBS knew that the ultimate investor in the Investment was Ace Decade.\n\n13. UBS advised that because the planned Investment comprised greater than 5% of the outstanding H-shares of Haitong, if I invested through Ace Decade directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\n\n14. UBS advised that if I invested through an intermediary entity, with the intermediary entity holding legal title to the Shares, no such disclosure would be required.\n\n15. UBS recommended that I select Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd. (\"Haixia\") as the intermediary for the Investment. UBS said that it recommended Haixia because Haixia was best qualified to act for Ace Decade. UBS further stated that Haixia was independent of UBS and would protect my and Ace Decade's interests. Relying on these representations, I selected Haixia as the intermediary for the Investment.\n\n16. At no time did UBS disclose that Haixia was controlled by its joint venture partner, State Development & Investment Corp. (\"SDIC\"). Nor did UBS disclose that Lu Bo, who served as the principal contact between UBS and Haixia, was previously the CFO of the joint venture between UBS and SDIC. I did not become aware of Haixia's close relationship with UBS until July 21, 2015 (after Ace Decade had made the Investment and after UBS had liquidated the Shares), when Mr. Wong disclosed that relationship during a telephone call, which I took from my office in New York.\n\n17. Mr. Wong initially said that if we chose Haixia as the intermediary to make the Investment, we would not need to undergo Haixia's Know Your Customer (\"KYC\") process. However, he later said that we needed to prepare some paperwork to undergo a background examination for Haixia, but he did not explain if this paperwork was for Haixia's KYC process. Mr. Wong asked to review the resumes of some of my employees to assess whose background would most likely satisfy Haixia's requirements so that such employee could be appointed as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. He reviewed these resumes and advised that Ms. Yu's resume and background was best suited to satisfy Haixia's requirements and thus, that I should appoint Ms. Yu as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. Mr. Wong said that he would provide comments on Ms. Yu's resume and asked her to send it to him. (*See* Ace Decade Exhibits 3 and 4.)\n\n18. Mr. Wong subsequently gave comments on Ms. Yu's resume to make it more likely to satisfy Haixia's requirements.\n\n19. Mr. Wong and I also discussed on multiple occasions potential financing for the Investment. Mr. Wong stated that Ace Decade should obtain financing for part of the Investment\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 10 of 94\n\nthrough UBS rather than another bank because UBS would handle the financing on the most favorable terms to Ace Decade.\n\n20. During discussions about the loan financing, I told Mr. Wong that Ace Decade would not make the Investment unless the loan documents did not include any provisions that would permit UBS to demand repayment of the loan (a \"margin call\") based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and unless UBS represented that it would provide Ace Decade with adequate time (for example, five business days to pay the first 25%, 10 business days to pay the second 25%, and 20 business days to pay the remaining 50%) to meet any margin calls.\n\n21. Mr. Wong stated on more than one occasion in 2014 that the loan financing documents would be consistent with my requirements, specifically that there was no repayment or margin call trigger based on short term price fluctuations.\n\n22. Mr. Wong also stated on several occasions in 2014 and 2015 that UBS would work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls and UBS would not sell any of the Shares as a result of any margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time.\n\n23. Mr. Wong also stated numerous times in 2014 and 2015 that UBS had made a loan to a large shareholder of Ping An Insurance Group (\"Ping An\"). Mr. Wong explained that the Ping An shareholder's loan was substantially larger than Ace Decade's, but that UBS had never sold off any of the shares owned by that shareholder following a margin call. Mr. Wong stated that when a margin call had been triggered, UBS had worked with the Ping An shareholder to resolve the situation without selling any of his shares. Mr. Wong said repeatedly that UBS would give Ace Decade the same treatment as it gave to the Ping An shareholder and would work cooperatively to allow Ace Decade to meet any margin calls but in any event would not sell the Shares following a margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 11 of 94\n\n24. Throughout our discussions about the Investment, Mr. Wong repeatedly stated that I could trust him and UBS, and that he and UBS were always working in my best interests.\n\n25. On December 14, 2014, while discussing the Investment, Mr. Wong told me in a message on WhatsApp (a mobile messaging application for smart phones): \"Once I've promised General Manager Guo, I'll definitely make utmost efforts; I'm only hoping General Manager Guo will trust me.\" Later that day, he told me in another message: \"I have no reason not to strive for the best for General Manager Guo!\" (General Manager Guo is what Mr. Wong called me.)\n\n26. Also on December 14, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message, stating that during the negotiations over the Investment \"General Manager Guo's interests must be guaranteed,\" and that he had involved top UBS management from offices around the world to assist.\n\n27. On December 15, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message stating that he was working on the terms of the Investment in order to \"protect [me].\"\n\n28. On December 19, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message stating: \"General Manager Guo, you can rest absolutely assured, and I will completely protect your interests.\"\n\n29. As a result, I believed that Mr. Wong and UBS were acting in Ace Decade's best interests and I trusted that the representations Mr. Wong made about the loan financing documents were true and that UBS would not sell the Shares without working with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls.\n\n30. On January 9, 2015, while I was still negotiating the terms of the Investment with UBS, I moved to New York with Ms. Yu and other employees with the intention of expanding my business projects to New York and to find investors interested in investing in Ace Decade.\n\n31. I first discussed this plan to move to New York to find investors for Ace Decade with Mr. Wong in December 2014. I subsequently had multiple discussions with Mr. Wong about finding investors for Ace Decade by telephone from New York in March, May, and June 2015.\n\n32. On February 9, 2015, Ace Decade signed a Memorandum of Understanding (the \"MOU\"), governed by U.S. law, with China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited (\"Golden Spring Hong Kong\"). The MOU provided that Ace Decade would acquire Haitong Shares and Golden Spring Hong Kong would establish a branch in New York to find investors for projects relating to the Haitong Shares.\n\n33. In furtherance of the MOU, Golden Spring Hong Kong formed a company called Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring New York\"), which was incorporated in March 2015 in Delaware and registered to do business in New York. Golden Spring New York is wholly owned by Golden Spring Hong Kong.\n\n34. Shortly thereafter, Golden Spring New York signed a lease for part of the 46th Floor of the General Motors Building at 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153. Ms. Yu and I conduct business relating to Ace Decade from our offices at 767 Fifth Avenue.\n\n35. Not only had I discussed with UBS my plans to move to New York and to operate my business projects out of New York in December 2014, I also asked for UBS's help in setting up my operations in New York. In March 2015, Mr. Wong and others at UBS, including Agnes Fu and Liz Lam, arranged to transfer funds from one of my accounts at UBS to my personal JPMorgan Chase account in New York.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 13 of 94\n\n36. In April 2015, Mr. Wong, Ms. Fu, and Ms. Lam assisted me with setting up Golden Spring New York by transferring funds from one of my accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account in New York.\n\n37. UBS also submitted reference letters on my behalf in connection with my purchase of an apartment in a New York cooperative building. In a letter dated February 18, 2015 from Mr. Wong to the building's board of directors, Mr. Wong wrote, \"I have known Miles for about five years since he first began working with UBS AG.\" (Miles is my English name.) Mr. Wong also stated, \"Over the years, Miles has earned his credibility in our bank. He is very reliable and always fulfills his repayment obligations. For this reason, our bank is happy to have him as our long-term client.\" (Ace Decade Exhibit 1.)\n\n38. Mr. Wong and Tommy Cheung, also a UBS Managing Director, submitted another reference letter on my behalf to the board of the apartment building on February 23, 2015, stating: \"Kwok Ho Wan has been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012.\" (Ace Decade Exhibit 2.)\n\n39. On March 6, 2015, I purchased an apartment in this building. I, along with Ms. Yu and other employees and representatives of Ace Decade and Golden Spring New York, have lived in the apartment since the purchase.\n\n40. During this period of time after I had moved to New York, Mr. Wong and I communicated frequently through telephone calls and voice and instant messages. Mr. Wong spoke to me by telephone while I was in New York dozens of times and sent numerous electronic messages to me while I was in New York. Ms. Yu joined me on some of the calls with Mr. Wong. At a minimum, Mr. Wong spoke to me by telephone while I was in New York on the following dates:\n\n- January 26, 2015 (three calls)\n- January 28, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 2, 2015\n- March 4, 2015 (three calls)\n- March 5, 2015\n- March 13, 2015\n- March 15, 2015\n- March 16, 2015 (six calls)\n- March 17, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 18, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 24, 2015\n- March 31, 2015\n- April 28, 2015 (three calls)\n- April 30, 2015 (five calls)\n- May 6, 2015 (two calls)\n- May 11, 2015 (three calls)\n- June 23, 2015 (two calls)\n- July 21, 2015\n\n41. During these calls in 2015, which I participated in from New York, Mr. Wong and I discussed the Investment and the UBS loan on numerous occasions. On one or more of these calls, Mr. Wong and I also discussed my concerns about the loan, including a margin call trigger based upon the loan-to-value ratio (\"LTV ratio\"), the size of the loan, the interest rate on\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 15 of 94\n\nthe loan, and the issuance price of the Haitong shares. Mr. Wong and I also discussed the status of my efforts to seek investors in New York for Ace Decade.\n\n42. During this period of time in 2015, I did not raise with Mr. Wong again my concerns about repayment triggers conditioned on short term price fluctuations of the Shares because Mr. Wong had previously told me that there were no such triggers.\n\n43. However, during several of these calls in March, April, and May 2015, Mr. Wong and I discussed the topic of margin calls generally, and specifically the LTV ratio trigger. Mr. Wong said that I did not have to worry because UBS would act in my best interests, that UBS would give Ace Decade adequate time to meet any margin calls, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls. He also reminded me several times during this period that UBS had never sold the shares of the Ping An shareholder following a margin call on its loan, and stated that Ace Decade would receive the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder.\n\n44. While I was in New York, Mr. Wong also sent me numerous WhatsApp messages about the Investment and the UBS loan. For example, on March 21 and 22, 2015, Mr. Wong and I exchanged a series of WhatsApp messages in which we discussed the UBS loan for the Investment. I told Mr. Wong that some of UBS's proposed conditions, such as the margin call trigger based upon the LTV ratio for the UBS loan, were \"definitely not okay\" and \"we would rather not do it than agree to your clauses.\" Had I not been relying upon Mr. Wong's prior representations that the loan financing documents did not contain repayment triggers based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares, I would have raised that issue again with Mr. Wong and not focused our discussions solely on the margin call trigger based on the LTV ratio.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 16 of 94\n\n45. Mr. Wong replied that he understood my concerns about potential margin calls, and told me: \"You rest assured!. . . I'm working for General Manager Guo! Don't worry.\" I relied upon Mr. Wong's representations that he and UBS were looking out for my interests. All of these discussions occurred while I was in New York.\n\n46. On May 8, 2015, Haitong announced that it had obtained the shareholder and regulatory approvals necessary (in February and May, respectively) to issue the Shares, which was expected to occur on May 15. Haitong also announced that because the trading price of Haitong's shares during the 30 trading days prior had surpassed a pre-agreed threshold, the subscription price would be increased.\n\n47. After this announcement, I had several discussions with Mr. Wong, by telephone and WhatsApp messages, in order to finalize the terms of the Investment. Among the topics we discussed were the fact that the loan would have to be increased to reflect the increase in the per share price of Haitong's shares, the amount of the payment required, the LTV ratio, the interest rate, and the method by which we should exchange U.S. dollars for the Hong Kong dollars required for the payment.\n\n48. During one of our discussions after May 8, Mr. Wong stated yet again that Ace Decade would receive the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder with respect to any margin calls.\n\n49. Relying on these representations, I decided to make the Investment. I discussed with Mr. Wong during telephone conversations on May 11 how best to transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. Mr. Wong said that I first needed to exchange the funds from U.S. dollars to Hong Kong dollars in my UBS account. He also gave instructions not to transfer the funds from my UBS account\n\ndirectly to the Ace Decade account, but rather to transfer the funds from my UBS account to an account at another bank and then to transfer the funds from that account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n50. Relying upon Mr. Wong's advice, I decided to transfer the funds from my UBS account first to an account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch (\"China Minsheng Account\") and then to transfer the funds from the China Minsheng Account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n51. On May 11, 2015, Ms. Fu sent an e-mail to Ms. Yu, copying Mr. Wong and Ms. Lam, and asked Ms. Yu to obtain my signature on a payment instruction document that UBS had prepared. The document contained a request to transfer HK \\$860 million (approximately US \\$111 million) from my UBS account to the China Minsheng Account that Mr. Wong had instructed me to use.\n\n52. In reliance upon Mr. Wong's representations about the Investment and the UBS loan, I signed the document authorizing the wire transfer.\n\n53. Later that day, Ms. Lam sent an e-mail to Ms. Yu, copying Mr. Wong and Ms. Fu, attaching a confirmation of the outgoing transfer from my UBS account.\n\n54. Following Mr. Wong's instructions, I then authorized the transfer of the funds from the China Minsheng Account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n55. After the funds reached the Ace Decade account, on May 13, 2015, Ms. Yu and I authorized a payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) from Ace Decade's account to an account held by Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\"), a special purpose vehicle and wholly-owned subsidiary of a Haixia fund, to fund the Investment of the Shares to be issued on May 15. Prior to this, I had authorized an initial down payment of approximately US \\$250\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 18 of 94\n\nmillion from Ace Decade's account, through Dawn State, to a UBS security account. That payment would have been returned to Ace Decade had the Investment not been completed.\n\n56. All of the steps I took to make the Investment, including requesting the wire transfers of approximately HK \\$860 million (approximately US \\$111 million) from one of my UBS accounts to the China Minsheng Account and ultimately to the Ace Decade account and authorizing the payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) from the Ace Decade account to Dawn State's account on May 13, 2015, occurred from my office or my apartment in New York.\n\n57. I would not have made the Investment or authorized this payment in May 2015 had I known that UBS had lied that the loan financing documents did not contain repayment triggers based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and that UBS would refuse to work with Ace Decade to meet any margin calls and would sell off Ace Decade's Shares immediately if a margin call were made.\n\n58. Under the terms of an agreement between Ace Decade and Haixia, Haixia was required to transfer Dawn State (the entity that held legal title to the Shares) to Ace Decade after July 13, 2015 upon Ace Decade's request.\n\n59. However, on the morning of July 6, 2015 New York time—just a week before Haixia would have had to transfer Dawn State to Ace Decade—I learned that UBS was demanding that I repay approximately US \\$200 million in less than 24 hours due to short-term price fluctuation of the Shares.\n\n60. Had I known that it was possible for UBS to demand payment in such a short period of time and that UBS had lied about providing adequate time to meet any margin calls, I would have ensured that Ace Decade had sufficient funds available to make such payment.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 19 of 94\n\n61. Before UBS's deadline, Ace Decade informed UBS that we could obtain the necessary funds quickly, but not before UBS's deadline.\n\n62. However, on July 6, 2015, Mr. Wong stated that UBS would not give Ace Decade any additional time. Mr. Wong stated that UBS had already identified buyers for the Shares and would make a substantial profit by selling the Shares instead of allowing Ace Decade to make the payment.\n\n63. On July 7th, I sent Mr. Wong a WhatsApp message telling him that UBS's margin call was \"illegal.\" Mr. Wong did not disagree with me or deny that he had told me that there were no repayment triggers based upon short term price fluctuations of the Shares. Instead, he said that he had told senior management to cancel the sale of the Shares and said that he would ask UBS to return the Shares to me. Mr. Wong told me that the Shares were still under UBS's control and he promised to come up with a plan for their repurchase. Mr. Wong reassured me: \"I've always been standing by General Manager Guo.\"\n\n64. On July 9th, Mr. Wong stated that the decision to sell the shares was made by UBS executives outside of Hong Kong and China.\n\n65. On July 17th, I reminded Mr. Wong that he had said on numerous prior occasions that \"there would never be\" a margin call based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and the many times he had stated that UBS had not sold off the shares of a large Ping An shareholder following a margin call.\n\n66. In another message on July 17, I said to Mr. Wong: \"I told you, it was since last year that I've come to the U.S. for better opportunities, didn't I? All the information I sent you from the U.S., my requirements, you know them all. . . . Under these circumstances, all were\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 20 of 94\n\nhanded over to you, [I] all listened to you. It was you who introduced Haixia . . . . It turned out to be messed up like this now.\"\n\n67. Mr. Wong did not deny that he had made these misrepresentations and in fact replied that he understood.\n\n68. In another message on July 17, I said to Mr. Wong: \"You told me several times that you UBS would not liquidate assets like that; otherwise how I would trust you.\" I also told him: \"If it weren't for you to tell me that margin call was like Ping An, it would not be like that. There would be reasonable time to get some assets to deal with it.\"\n\n69. On July 17, I also said to Mr. Wong: \"You said UBS signed the agreement with them [Haixia] to permit UBS to sell all the shares within 24 hours of the margin call. How was that signed? How did they implement that? It's not fair. You told me back then that was not the case.\"\n\n70. Mr. Wong replied \"I've always been firmly opposing them, but they ignored me and told me it was an order by the Swiss CEO.\" He did not deny my assertion that he had previously stated that the loan agreement would not permit UBS to sell the Shares within 24 hours of the margin call.\n\n71. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that UBS would treat Ace Decade the same as the Ping An shareholder.\n\n72. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that the loan documents would not contain repayment triggers based on short-term price fluctuations of the Shares.\n\n73. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that UBS would work with Ace Decade and provide it adequate time to meet any margin call.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 21 of 94\n\n74. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that UBS had engaged in misconduct.\n\n75. Mr. Wong told me that on July 7, 2015, UBS sold all of the Shares belonging to Ace Decade at HK \\$11.12, a 20% discount off the closing price of Haitong stock on July 7.\n\n76. As a result of losing the Haitong shares, Ace Decade lost New York investors, whom I had met with after I had relocated to New York in 2015 and who had been interested in investing in Ace Decade. For example, on four occasions in New York in April through June 2015, my representatives and/or I met with a co-founder of a private investment firm based in New York. The firm expressed significant interest in investing in Ace Decade. However, following UBS's sale of the Haitong Shares belonging to Ace Decade, Ace Decade lost this potential investor.\n\nI swear that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n[Signature of Kwok Ho Wan on Chinese version] Kwok Ho Wan\n\n[Notarization on Chinese version]\n\n94\n\nCITY OF Meservey COUNTY OF Cerro Gordo ) ) ) ss.:\n\nI, Liming Pals , being duly sworn, depose and say that I am fluent in both the English and Chinese languages. I hereby certify that the attached document is an accurate translation of the Chinese version of\"Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan.\"\n\n-Sworn to before me this\n\n5\\_ day of Ma,4&} 5 *i:::'e\\_* lo *r* ..,,J...,r ;:J cGl *O* 1 *{p*\n\n~ b-J..\\_,c Notary Public\n\niii,\n\n![](_page_22_Picture_10.jpeg)\n\n## **EXHIBIT 2**\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017 Hon. Barry R Ostrager\n\n**AFFIDAVIT OF YANPING WANG**\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\n94\n\nV.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO,\n\nDefendant(s).\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK )\n\n) SS:\n\nCOUNTY OF NEW YORK )\n\nI, Yanping Wang, being duly sworn hereby depose and say:\n\n1. This affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge and is provided in opposition to the motion of plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") by order to show cause to: (1) compel nonparty Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"GSNY\") to comply with PAX's Article 52 Subpoena; and (2) modify the Court's October 15, 2020 Order.\n\n2. I am presently employed as President of GSNY and serve as a Director of the company.\n\n1 of 3\n\n3. GSNY is a wholly owned subsidiary of China Gol�en Spring (Hong Kong) Ltd., a company chartered in Hong Kong.\n\n94\n\ns e f ily ffi e fo th e G ofamily 4. GS Y serves as the family office f',..... th~ n.·10 fim·•v\n\nNY\n\nrt i\n\na w\n\nd y\n\nl\n\nax\n\nts d\n\ns\n\nd to s E hibit A i s a rue d ct historical list of GSNY's s d 5. Attached hereto as F \\_hihit Ai<; a true anc~ correct 1-;-:t\"ri,.~I r~t <'f'r\"\"\"'r-••\\_. Directors and Officers.\n\ntt a d to s Exhibit B e t rue dc o ect copies of GSNY's Delaware e f i n d C ifi t e of R ival. 6. Attached hereto as \\_Exhihit· ~ are true ancl correct ';'.oni~<: 0f' ,..,c,-,. \"' \\_ r ,1 ,,.,,,\\_.,. ertificate of lncorporation ancl ('Prtifi\"'atP. ofl?P:Vi\"~.I\n\ned h e o s Exhibit C i s a tru e d ec t c\\_op yof GSNY's registration to c o t s n e S e fN w Yo r k 7. Attached hereto as f.xhihit *('* ;~ a *tn•P* and ,;orrect ~onv ')-f r,n r-v• -pn;, h--•; ~ *'.<* - . ' conduct business in the St~te of NPw Ynrk\n\nd to s E hibit D i s a t e dcorrect cop yof GSNY's corporate by laws.\n\nt a d to as E hibit E e tr e an d ec t copies of corporate resolutions 9. Attached hereto as *.B* l]jhit \"'r tru and '\"orrect \"oniP-:: nf' ('lnv,r<>tP -?\"\"''' ~ - radopted by GSNY.\n\nd o as E hibit Fare true d co ct copie sof' GSNYs Delaware n u e R 10. Attached hereto as E...,lyhit <>re true and \"'0rrect roniP~ nf' 7 n,r,,, T) - ., \\_\\_ Annual Franchise Tax Reoorts.\n\n1 1. c h d o s E hibit G are e d co e ct copi es of GSNY's Bienni o e N w Y kState D artm ent of Sta 11. Attached hereto a Exhj\\_hi1 G\\_ <>re true and rorrect {'l)niP<' *nf* rn,Tn 'l\" .... ,,, tatements submitted to the NPW Y0rk tpt\\_e Df\"nartm~pt of *c,·:-•p*\n\nA t , S N Yem pl s 16 di te ploye es and seven independe n t c t r s . e d l s ff GSN Y' s dministr ative, financ e, legal , and securi 12. At present G Y nnp]ovs 16 r1;-.,,~t emoio\"P.P.<: s:1nrl r, ,.,.n in.,•,,. .. ~~ .. • departments.\n\n2 of 3\n\nd y*lj\\_* 0 2 Dated: May /!:' \"')21\n\n:\n\nY p ng Wan\n\nt y\n\nSworn to me this j*r* day of May, 2021\n\n3\n\nJAZMIN PARRA **Notary** Public, State of New York No. 01PA6087956 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires March 3, 20 **-13**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/19/2021 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n94\n\n3 of 3\n\n## **EXHIBIT 3**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n1\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 29 of\n\n| 1 | SUPREME
COURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
NEW
YORK
COUNTY
OF
NEW
YORK
:
CIVIL
TERM
:
PART
61 | | |\n|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | ------------------------------------------X
PACIFIC
ALLIANCE
ASIA
OPPORTUNITY
FUND
L.P., | | |\n| 3 | Plaintiff, | | |\n| 4 | INDEX
NO:
-against-
652077/2017 | | |\n| 5 | | | |\n| 6
7 | KWOK
HO
WAN,
a/k/a
KWOK
HO,
a/k/a
GWO
WEN
GUI,
a/k/a
GUO
WENGUI,
a/k/a
GUO
WENGUI,
a/k/a
WAN
GUE
HAOYUN,
a/k/a
MILES
KWOK,
a/k/a
HAOYUN
GUO,
GENEVER
HOLDINGS
CORPORATION,
and
GENEVER
HOLDINGS
LLC, | | |\n| 8 | Defendants. | | |\n| 9 | ------------------------------------------X
MICROSOFT
TEAMS | | |\n| 10 | May
27,
2021 | | |\n| | B
E
F
O
R
E: | | |\n| 11 | THE
HONORABLE
BARRY
OSTRAGER, | | |\n| 12 | J
U
S
T
I
C
E | | |\n| 13 | A
P
P
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
S: | | |\n| 14 | O'MELVENY
&
MYERS
LLP
Attorney
for
the
Plaintiff | | |\n| 15 | Times
Square
Tower | | |\n| 16 | New
York,
New
York
10036
BY:
EDWARD
MOSS,
ESQ. | | |\n| 17 | STUART
SARNOFF,
ESQ. | | |\n| 18 | BAKER
HOSTETLER,
LLP
Attorney
for
the
Defendant | | |\n| | 45
Rockefeller
Plaza | | |\n| 19 | New
York,
New
York
10111
BY:
MELISSA
CARVALHO,
ESQ. | | |\n| 20 | JOHN
SIEGAL,
ESQ. | | |\n| 21 | LAWALL
&
MITCHELL,
LLC
Attorney
for
the
Defendant
GENEVER | | |\n| 22 | 162
E.
64th
Street
New
York,
New
York
10065 | | |\n| 23 | BY:
AARON
A.
MITCHELL,
ESQ. | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 30 of\n\n| 1 | YANKWITT
LLP |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Attorney
for
the
Defendant
140
Grand
Street,
Suite
705 |\n| 3 | New
York,
New
York
NY
BY:
DANIEL
ALTER
ESQ. |\n| 4 | |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | Karen
Mangano,
CSR |\n| 22 | Senior
Court
Reporter |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 31 of 94\n\n1\n\n2\n\nmotion.\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\nSprings.\n\nProceedings THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moss, this is your MR. MOSS: Good afternoon, your Honor. We have two requests in our motion. One is compel discovery in response to a subpoena and the other is to modify the Court's restraining order. So I thought I would start with the subpoena. Your Honor, this might be the most straightforward issue that I've argued in front of this Court on this case. CPLR 5223 permits a broad range of discovery on any third party to request information that is relevant - relevant to enforcement of a judgment. As the Court knows, we've been forced -- my client has been forced to serve subpoenas on several third parties trying to find Mr. Kwok's assets because he doesn't hold them in his own name. Perhaps the most important subpoena Pacific Alliance served was a subpoena on an entity called Golden\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 Golden Springs is a so-called family office for Mr. Kwok's family, but in reality, it is just Mr. Kwok's principal front. It's an entity that he funded entirely with his own money. It's an entity that pays all of the expenses for his lavish lifestyle. Every single expense by their own admission. It pays legal fees for a host of\n\nKM\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM |\n|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Case 22-50073
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 | Doc 179-1
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 32 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021
94 |\n| | 4
Proceedings |\n| 1 | lawsuits
for
lawyers
to
represent
Mr.
Kwok
in
his
individual |\n| 2 | capacity
in
cases
in
which
Golden
Springs
is
not
even
a |\n| 3 | party. |\n| 4 | It
pays
the
legal
fees
of
a
lawyer
who
represents |\n| 5 | the
entity
that
owns
the
yacht
that's
stonewalling
me
in |\n| 6 | discovery
like
the
others. |\n| 7 | It
pays
the
maintenance
on
the
Sherry-Netherland |\n| 8 | apartment.
We
know
all
of
this
because
Mr.
Kwok
and
his |\n| 9 | lawyers
admitted
it
in
court
filings
and
in
discovery |\n| 10 | responses. |\n| 11 | I
just
want
to
put
a
fine
point
on
it,
your
Honor. |\n| 12 | Mr.
Kwok
has
no
money
or
assets
according
to
him,
but
he |\n| 13 | says
he
funded
this
entire
entity
and
he
uses
it
to
pay |\n| 14 | every
single
one
of
his
expenses,
his
living
expenses. |\n| 15 | What
are
we
talking
about
here,
Judge?
How
is
this |\n| 16 | discovery
possibly
not
permitted
under
the
CPLR?
How
is
it |\n| 17 | not
permitted
relevant
to
enforce
a
judgment? |\n| 18 | The
opposition
that
they
filed,
your
Honor,
it's
a |\n| 19 | frivolous
document,
and
I
want
to
start
with
what's
not
in |\n| 20 | here.
What's
not
in
it
is
a
dispute
about
any
one
of
the |\n| 21 | facts
that
I
just
covered
about
Golden
Springs.
They
ignore |\n| 22 | all
of
them.
They
can't
dispute
them
because
Mr.
Kwok
and |\n| 23 | his
lawyers
admitted
them
in
discovery
responses
and
in |\n| 24 | Court
filings.
So
Golden
Springs
--
one
of
their
arguments |\n\nKM\n\nis well, we have corporate documents. We respect the 4 of 19\n\n25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 33 of 94\n\nProceedings\n\n5\n\n| 1 | corporate
forum.
We
have
employees.
But
it
doesn't
dispute |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that
it
only
has
one
business
which
is
to
serve
Highness |\n| 3 | Kwok.
It
doesn't
even
say
what
the
business
is
besides
a |\n| 4 | family
office
for
his
business.
They
say
we
have
employees |\n| 5 | that
include
security.
That's
Mr.
Kwok's
bodyguard
who |\n| 6 | comes
to
--
who
comes
with
him
to
my
office
when
I
depose |\n| 7 | him
and
hands
him
bottled
water
because
he's
afraid
that |\n| 8 | we're
agents
of
the
communists
and
my
water
at
my
firm
is |\n| 9 | going
to
kill
him.
I
mean,
Judge,
this
is
not
a
real |\n| 10 | company.
They
pay
for
Mr.
Kwok's
people. |\n| 11 | If
Tim
Cook
got
sued
for
something
unrelating
to |\n| 12 | his
capacity
in
Apple,
Apple
doesn't
pay
those
fees.
Apple |\n| 13 | doesn't
pay
his
maintenance.
This
is
Mr.
Kwok's
piggy
bank |\n| 14 | that
he
set
up
with
his
own
money. |\n| 15 | The
principal
argument
that
is
in
Golden
Spring's |\n| 16 | papers
is
that
Golden
Springs
is
a
third
party
and
so
we |\n| 17 | should
only
be
entitled
to
information
about
assets
that
it |\n| 18 | holds
for
or
transactions
that
it
has
conducted
with
Miles |\n| 19 | Kwok. |\n| 20 | That's
basically
like
saying
it's
a
bank;
right. |\n| 21 | You
get
that
we
subpoena
the
bank
which
we've
done.
We
get |\n| 22 | Mr.
Kwok's
information,
but
we
don't
get
information
about |\n| 23 | the
bank
itself.
We
don't
get
information
about
the
bank's |\n| 24 | other
customers.
That's
a
nice
argument
for
a
bank,
but
it |\n\nKM\n\ncompletely ignores the context that Golden Springs is not a\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 34 of 94\n\n6\n\n| 1 | third
party.
It
is
the
entity
that
holds
Mr.
Kwok's
money, |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | and
it
is
the
entity
that
pays
his
legal
expenses.
So
it's |\n| 3 | assets
are
his
assets.
It's
transactions
are
his |\n| 4 | transactions.
And
it's
financial
information
is
his |\n| 5 | financial
information. |\n| 6 | The
suggestion
in
the
papers
that
Mr.
Kwok
and
Miss |\n| 7 | Wang
and
all
of
his
people
should
be
able
to
pick
and
choose |\n| 8 | and
determine
which
information
at
Golden
Springs
relates
to |\n| 9 | Mr.
Kwok
and
which
doesn't
is
a
recipe
for
disaster
here, |\n| 10 | Judge. |\n| 11 | Mr.
Kwok
denies
even
being
involved
with
Golden |\n| 12 | Springs.
He
denies
being
involved
with
the
entity
that
owns |\n| 13 | the
boat
that
we
all
know
he
owns
because
he
said
he
owns |\n| 14 | the
boat
on
YouTube,
the
boat
which,
by
the
way,
is
still |\n| 15 | out
of
the
jurisdiction
15
days
incurring
\\$500,000
a
day. |\n| 16 | Mr.
Kwok
is
the
same
guy
who
denies
owning
his |\n| 17 | apartment
that
Miss
Wang
says
--
told
the
Court
under
oath |\n| 18 | that
he
owns
it. |\n| 19 | So
the
limitation
that
they're
trying
to
put
in |\n| 20 | here,
only
things
relating
to
Mr.
Kwok,
that's
nonsense
in |\n| 21 | this
case,
and
it's
just
a
recipe
for
us
to
get
nothing. |\n| 22 | Golden
Springs
also
argues
on
the
subpoena
that
we |\n| 23 | have
to
prove
alterego
to
get
discovery
into
it's
assets. |\n| 24 | Well,
that's
just
made
up.
There
is
no
case
to
support |\n| 25 | that. |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 35 of 94\n\nProceedings\n\n7\n\n| 1 | 5223
is
a
broad
standard.
It's
a
generous |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | standard.
The
Court
ordered
Miss
Wang's
information
to
be |\n| 3 | produced
by
the
banks.
They're
not
alteregos.
She's
not
an |\n| 4 | alterego.
Of
course,
we
don't
have
to
prove
that
it's
an |\n| 5 | alterego
to
get
it's
information. |\n| 6 | The
Court
found
that
Miss
Wang
might
be
hiding
Mr. |\n| 7 | Kwok's
assets
and
gave
us
access
to
her
financial |\n| 8 | information.
This
is
much
easier.
He's
already
said
it's |\n| 9 | his
money,
and
he's
using
it
to
pay
all
of
his
expenses.
I |\n| 10 | mean,
there's
no
credible
opposition
to
this
motion. |\n| 11 | Finally,
there's
some
arguments
about
scope.
You |\n| 12 | know,
I
read
it
a
few
times.
My
subpoena
is
astounding. |\n| 13 | It's
blunderbuss.
It's
a
fishing
expedition.
It's |\n| 14 | flagrant.
A
lot
of
adjectives,
but
no
substance.
They |\n| 15 | don't
articulate
any
burden
arguments
at
all. |\n| 16 | Usually
you
say,
Judge,
well,
we
ran
some
search |\n| 17 | terms,
and
there
are
too
many
hits
or
this
is
going
to
be |\n| 18 | too
burdensome
to
get
because
it's
on
a
different
server. |\n| 19 | Nothing.
This
is
basically
just
a
relevance
argument
that |\n| 20 | we're
asking
for
too
much. |\n| 21 | If
they
want
to
have
a
discussion
about
search |\n| 22 | terms
and
custodian
and
which
laptops
to
collect,
we
welcome |\n| 23 | that
discussion.
We
welcome
an
actual
discussion
about |\n| 24 | burden
and
scope.
But
not
just
saying,
well,
we
think
it's |\n| 25 | too
much
without
any
showing
--
any
showing
at
all
that |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 36 of 94\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\nProceedings 8 there is an actual burden. I want to just end on one particular argument on the subpoena point because I expect Mr. Alter will focus on it. We ask -- we do. He's right. We ask for information about 60 people and entities, no one knowing to be associated with Kwok. Mr. Alter quips in the brief, well, known by whom? Known by whom? Known by us, Judge. Known by us based on spending a lot of money and lot of time to dig through\n\npublic records, court filings, social media accounts because that's the game Mr. Kwok has forced us to play.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The reason we have to ask for this information is because Golden Springs is the hub. We can't spend the rest of our lives chasing 100 entities. I mean, my grandkids would be doing this. Golden Springs is the entity that has the information. It's produced documents relating to Shiny Times, the entity that was involved in the underlying case. It has the documents. It is the hub of the empire. If it doesn't have information about a couple of these entities, if we're wrong about one or two, okay, fine. Then they should run the search and tell us they don't have it and not produce it. But run the search terms, collect the ESI and provide the documents.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Moss. I understand your argument. I also understand that Mr. Kwok is incurring\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 37 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 94\n\n| | 9
Proceedings |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | \\$500,000
a
day
in
contempt
penalties.
I
understand
that
Mr. |\n| 2 | Kwok
believes
that
these
court
proceedings
are
a
game
of |\n| 3 | evasion
that
he
--
that
he
wants
to
play. |\n| 4 | And
let
me
hear
from
counsel
for
Golden
Springs. |\n| 5 | MR.
ALTER:
Good
afternoon,
your
Honor.
It's |\n| 6 | Daniel
Alter,
and
we've
just
heard
a
lot
of
talk
but |\n| 7 | relatively
little
truth,
and
I'd
like
to
step
back
and |\n| 8 | clarify
some
issues
that
were
quite
muddied. |\n| 9 | First
of
all,
to
correct
two
specifically |\n| 10 | inaccurate
statements,
it's
my
understanding
that
Mr.
Kwok |\n| 11 | has
never
said
that
he
is
entirely
unrelated
or
has
no |\n| 12 | connection
to
Golden
Springs.
Quite
the
opposite.
He
said |\n| 13 | that
it
is
his
family
office.
So
let's
be
accurate
about |\n| 14 | that. |\n| 15 | The
second
thing
is
that,
you
know,
apparently
-- |\n| 16 | they
take
the
position
that
Mr.
Kwok
has
entirely
funded |\n| 17 | Golden
Springs.
Well,
I
don't
see
the
evidence
of
that. |\n| 18 | What
I
see
is
a
statement
in
the
record
that
he
initially |\n| 19 | provided
capital
to
Golden
Springs,
but
I
see
no
evidence |\n| 20 | that
he's
continued
to
do
so
or
that
the
capital
there
now |\n| 21 | is
his.
Let
me
step
back
a
moment
and
talk
about
this. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
Before
you
do
so,
Mr.
Alter,
because |\n| 23 | rightly
or
wrongly,
Mr.
Kwok
has
exhausted
the
Court's |\n| 24 | patience
with
his
antics. |\n| 25 | It's
quite
undisputed
that
Golden
Springs
has |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 38 of\n\n94\n\n10\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | funded
seven-figure
payments
to
facilitate
Mr.
Kwok's |\n| 2 | lifestyle,
and
Mr.
Kwok
leads
a
rather
extravagant |\n| 3 | lifestyle,
purports
to
have
zero
assets
whatsoever. |\n| 4 | So
the
plaintiff
is
a
judgment
creditor.
The |\n| 5 | plaintiff
knows
that
Golden
Springs
is
funding
expenses
for |\n| 6 | Mr.
Kwok.
Not
minor
inconsequential
expenses.
Major |\n| 7 | expenses.
And
the
judgment
creditor
is
entitled
to
have |\n| 8 | discovery
of
the
entity
that
is
funding
Mr.
Kwok's
expenses. |\n| 9 | The
judgment
creditor
is
also
entitled
to
an
order |\n| 10 | directing
Golden
Springs
not
to
transfer,
dispose
or |\n| 11 | otherwise
dissipate
whatever
assets
Golden
Springs
has |\n| 12 | because
the
best
evidence
that
has
been
made
available
to |\n| 13 | the
Court
compellingly
suggests
that
any
assets
that
Golden |\n| 14 | Springs
has
were
provided
to
Golden
Springs
by
Mr.
Kwok. |\n| 15 | Now
if
the
discovery
that
the
judgment
creditor
is |\n| 16 | seeking
from
Golden
Springs
disproves
that,
well,
then
we |\n| 17 | have
a
different
situation
than
the
situation
we
now
have. |\n| 18 | Under
the
CPLR,
a
judgment
creditor
is
entitled
to |\n| 19 | discovery
of
third
parties
of
which
in
this
case
may
well
be |\n| 20 | alteregos
of
Mr.
Kwok,
but
it's
not
necessary
for
the |\n| 21 | judgment
creditor
to
establish
that
Golden
Springs
is
an |\n| 22 | alterego
of
Mr.
Kwok. |\n| 23 | MR.
ALTER:
You
know,
your
Honor,
we
haven't
-- |\n| 24 | that's
not
our
position.
That's
the
straw
man
that
has
been |\n| 25 | presented. |\n\nKM\n\n#### 10 of 19\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n11\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 39 of\n\n94\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
Well,
be
that
as
it
may,
unless
you
can |\n| 2 | persuade
me
otherwise,
I
am
granting
the
judgment
creditor's |\n| 3 | motions
in
their
entirety. |\n| 4 | As
Mr.
Moss
outlined,
he
is
perfectly
prepared
to |\n| 5 | meet
and
confer
and
discuss
limitations
on
specific
requests |\n| 6 | that
he's
made
if
you
can
then
state
to
him
good
cause
for |\n| 7 | that.
But
we're
past
playing
games
here. |\n| 8 | MR.
ALTER:
Well,
your
Honor,
I'm
not
here
to
play |\n| 9 | games,
and
if
the
Court
has
made
it's
decision,
would
it |\n| 10 | allow
me
to
make
my
record. |\n| 11 | THE
COURT:
Yes.
Make
your
record. |\n| 12 | MR.
ALTER:
Okay.
Thank
you,
your
Honor. |\n| 13 | First
of
all,
our
argument
is
not
that
you
have
to |\n| 14 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
in
order
to
get
third-party |\n| 15 | discovery
under
the
CPLR
for
judgment
creditors.
It's
a |\n| 16 | relevance
argument,
and
we've
already
said
that
there
are |\n| 17 | aspects
such
as
discovery
as
between
Golden
Spring
and
the |\n| 18 | actual
judgment
debtor
is
relevant
and
appropriate.
So
we |\n| 19 | haven't
taken
a
position
that
is
all
out
of
line
with
what |\n| 20 | the
law
provides. |\n| 21 | What
we
have
said
and
what
Mr.
Moss
has
proven
in |\n| 22 | his
argument
is
they
take
the
position
that
Mr.
Kwok
is |\n| 23 | Golden
Spring
and
Golden
Spring
is
Mr.
Kwok;
and
therefore, |\n| 24 | they
are
entitled
to
go
through
the
entire
file
of
Golden |\n| 25 | Spring. |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 40 of 94\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n25\n\n### Proceedings\n\n12\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Well, you know, your Honor, that's called piercing the corporate veil, and it's our position that if they want documents independent of the judgment debtor where they make no connection or efforts to make a connection whatsoever, then, yes, they do have to pierce the corporate veil, but that isn't the sum total of our argument.\n\nOur argument is that the requests are exceedingly overbroad and that they are irrelevant. And in fact, let's go for a moment to the facts that Mr. Moss says are overwhelming in this case.\n\nIf you look at the submission that was actually presented on this motion, there is absolutely no facts presented with regard to the 64 nonparties for which they seek discovery having nothing to do with the judgment debtor. Just -- not even having anything to do with Golden Spring. They just want discovery to 64 nonparties.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Now your Honor, we heard Mr. Moss say that he knows there is a connection. Well, wouldn't it be enlightening for the Court to know what that connection is before there is a ruling that Golden Spring has to produce documents that otherwise are clearly irrelevant. So that's why we assert that those documents should not be discovered unless and until Mr. Moss and PAX comes forward with actual proof that there is a connection. We don't have that.\n\nAnd with regard to the proof, the overwhelming\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 41 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 94\n\n| | 13 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Proceedings |\n| 1 | proof
that
Golden
Spring
is
Mr.
Kwok
and
Mr.
Kwok
is
Golden |\n| 2 | Spring,
at
least
from
the
record
I've
seen,
your
Honor,
and |\n| 3 | I
do
not
call
your
Honor's
history
--
historical |\n| 4 | recollection
into
question,
but
what
has
been
presented
on |\n| 5 | this
record
is
Golden
Spring
initially
helped
to
capitalize |\n| 6 | a
company.
A
lot
of
folks
do
that. |\n| 7 | Secondly,
Golden
Spring
pays
for
attorneys
and
has |\n| 8 | contributed
to
paying
for
apartment
expenses.
Well,
okay. |\n| 9 | Three,
employees
of
Golden
Spring
have
attended |\n| 10 | family
interests
that
have
to
do
with
the
Guo
family.
Well, |\n| 11 | it's
a
family
company.
It's
a
family
office. |\n| 12 | And
Golden
Spring's
parent
has
apparently
produced |\n| 13 | documents
in
response
to
discovery
requests.
So
yes, |\n| 14 | there's
a
connection
as
Mr.
Kwok
has
said,
but
there
isn't |\n| 15 | an
identity
of
entity
between
Mr.
Kwok
and
Golden
Spring, |\n| 16 | and
that's
why
we
referred
in
our
papers
to
the
fact
that
if |\n| 17 | that
is
the
case,
the
law
is
very
clear
they
do
need
to |\n| 18 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
and
they
absolutely
would
need
to |\n| 19 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
to
get
injunction.
Because
as
we |\n| 20 | stated,
as
much
as
the
Court
has
lost
patience,
and
I |\n| 21 | understand
your
Honor's
position,
the
law
is
clear
that
an |\n| 22 | entity
as
a
matter
of
due
process
can
not
be
enjoined |\n| 23 | without
actually
being
a
party. |\n| 24 | And
even
if
an
entity
were
brought
into
a |\n| 25 | litigation
as
a
party,
the
Courts
are
constrained.
They
can |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 42 of 94\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Proceedings not grant prejudgment asset freezes, and that is exactly what PAX is trying to do now. They are trying to enjoin Golden Spring from expending any of it's own assets for any purpose, and that is contrary to the law. Now, they argue that your Honor has a power to enforce restraining orders. Of course you do. And Golden Spring was served with a restraining order, and Golden Spring acts at it's peril if it transfers any property with which Mr. Kwok -- in which Mr. Kwok has an interest, but a Court's enforcement of a restraining notice is not the tantamount to an injunction. It's an after-the-fact litigation based upon allegations that there had been a violation of the notice. They're two entirely separate things. So your Honor, respectfully, there isn't either a\n\n14\n\njurisdictional basis for the injunction nor is there a compelling factual basis for one because they have the relief that the CPLR has provided for.\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nNow, if the Court is going to go ahead and enter certain orders as your Honor has described, I request a few things, a few clarification points.\n\n22 23 24 25 First of all, we would request the Court post a bond. Order that PAX post a bond. They are seeking an injunction against Golden Spring from using any of it's assets. And pursuant to the CPLR 6312(b), a bond is\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 43 of 94\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Proceedings 15 necessary. It's a necessary element for preliminary relief. So we would ask the Court direct that a bond be posted. We would also ask whether under this jurisdiction, Golden Spring is able to pay lawyers. Is it able to pay it's employees? Mr. Moss dismisses the fact that the company actually employs 16 employees and seven independent contractors. Are they not entitled to continue that? Do they need -- is this injunction going to close Golden Spring? We need that clarification because Golden Spring does not want to be in violation of your Honor's order. And finally, you know, your Honor, I would request respectfully a stay of the Court's order for a week so that we may seek appellate relief and seek a stay pending appeal. But given that this is, you know, a holiday weekend, we request that the Court stay because again, as I said, Golden Spring does not want to be in violation of this Court's order; but for all the reasons I've stated, honestly, your Honor, the relief requested is a function of facts that Mr. Moss has asserted as judge, jury and executioner. They haven't been presented. They haven't been adjudicated. They haven't been formally determined, all of which are necessary for the kind of relief for reaching into\n\nGolden Spring and setting aside it's individual identity and\n\nKM\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 44 of\n\n| | 94
16 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Proceedings |\n| 1 | just
securing
whatever
documents
it
wants
and
enjoining
all |\n| 2 | of
it's
assets.
That's
necessary
under
the
law. |\n| 3 | Thank
you,
your
Honor. |\n| 4 | THE
COURT:
All
right.
I
take
your
points. |\n| 5 | Nothing
that
you've
said
suggests
that
Golden |\n| 6 | Springs
hasn't
paid
seven
figures
worth
of
Mr.
Kwok's |\n| 7 | expenses
in
the
immediate
recent
past.
Nothing
that
you |\n| 8 | said
alters
the
fact
that
Mr.
Kwok
flaunts
the
Court's |\n| 9 | orders
at
will. |\n| 10 | You're
correct
that
PAX
needs
to
post
a
\\$500,000 |\n| 11 | bond.
You're
correct
that
I
should
stay
these
orders
until |\n| 12 | June
1st
at
five
p.m.
to
enable
you
to
seek
appellate |\n| 13 | relief,
and
you're
correct
that
Golden
Spring
may
pay
it's |\n| 14 | employees
in
accordance
with
a
schedule
listing
the
identity |\n| 15 | of
the
employees
and
the
amount
of
their
compensation
which |\n| 16 | you'll
provide
to
Mr.
Moss.
And
I
think
that
addresses
your |\n| 17 | concerns. |\n| 18 | MR.
ALTER:
With
one
exception,
your
Honor,
and
I |\n| 19 | appreciate
the
Court's
response
to
those
concerns.
The |\n| 20 | attorneys.
The
attorneys
that
Golden
Springs
has
been |\n| 21 | permitted
here
today
to
pay. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
There's
no
issue.
Just
need
to |\n| 23 | identify
the
attorneys
and
the
fees
that
you're
paying
to |\n| 24 | them. |\n| 25 | MR.
ALTER:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 45 of 94\n\n17\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
And,
you
know,
I
note
that
Mr.
Kwok
has |\n| 2 | apparently
no
concern
for
the
\\$500,000
a
day
sanction
for |\n| 3 | flagrantly
violating
prior
orders
of
the
Court
with
respect |\n| 4 | to
the
boat
that
Golden
Spring's
is
paying
to
maintain
and |\n| 5 | transport.
And
if
my
calculation
is
correct,
the
total
of |\n| 6 | the
contempt
sanctions
to
date
is
\\$7.5
million. |\n| 7 | Mr.
Kwok
is
just
not
free
to
live
in
New
York
at
an |\n| 8 | ultra-luxurious
condominium,
the
cost
of
which
he's
paid
for |\n| 9 | by
Golden
Springs
and
ignore
the
processes
of
the
New
York |\n| 10 | courts. |\n| 11 | Now
does
anybody
else
wish
to
be
heard? |\n| 12 | MR.
MITCHELL:
Your
Honor,
Aaron
Mitchell.
I |\n| 13 | represent
the
Genever
defendants.
Just
one
point
of |\n| 14 | clarification. |\n| 15 | As
you're
well
aware,
your
Honor,
the
Genever |\n| 16 | New
York
which
owns
the
co-op
is
in
bankruptcy
so
Golden |\n| 17 | Spring
is
not
paying
the
maintenance
for
that
apartment. |\n| 18 | I
believe
Mr.
Moss
is
aware
as
well
there
was
a |\n| 19 | security
deposit
paid
which
the
surety
is
drawing
down
on |\n| 20 | which
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
for
the
record. |\n| 21 | THE
COURT:
That
is
a
fair
and
appropriate |\n| 22 | clarification. |\n| 23 | It
doesn't
alter
the
fact
that
prior
to
the
fact |\n| 24 | that
Genever
which
is
another
one
of
Mr.
Kwok's
many |\n| 25 | companies
was
paying
for
Mr.
Kwok's
luxury
apartment. |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 46 of 94\n\n18\n\n### Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Moss has been pursuing enforcement of a judgment for years now, and it's been my misfortune to have to have presided over these many, many, many motions and hearings, none of which are producing the results that the Court has ordered because Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly through his companies ignores Court orders.\n\nBut Golden Springs presumably will comply with the Court's order, and Golden Springs, you know, may seek a stay in the Appellate Division either tomorrow or today or on June 1. And if the Appellate Division stays the Court's order, then the Court's order will be stayed.\n\nOtherwise, the Court expects Golden Springs to comply with the Court's orders subject to PAX's posting of \\$500,000 bond in the event it's determined that there's any overreach here and subject to Golden Springs being able to pay identified lawyers and identified employees in accordance with the schedule.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I just ask one clarification?\n\nTHE COURT: Yes.\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n25\n\n21 22 23 24 MR. SARNOFF: The obligation of PAX to post a bond, is that specifically in respect of the restraining order part of the -- of your decision today?\n\nTHE COURT: Yes.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: And separate -- so there is no --\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n19\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 47 of\n\n94\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
With respect to the restraining order. |\n| 2 | MR. SARNOFF: So there is no -- there is no stay |\n| 3 | with respect to the obligation of Golden Spring to comply |\n| 4 | with the subpoena.
Is that correct? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
That's correct. |\n| 6 | MR. SARNOFF:
Thank you, sir. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Anything else from anybody else? |\n| 8 | All right.
The Court will enter a memorandum order |\n| 9 | consistent with the transcript of the proceedings of today. |\n| 10 | I would strongly urge counsel to order an expedited copy of |\n| 11 | the transcript of proceedings of today so that in the event |\n| 12 | Golden Springs seeks a stay from the the Appellate Division, |\n| 13 | there is a clear record reflecting what the Court has |\n| 14 | ordered. |\n| 15 | Have a nice day and a nice weekend.
Everybody stay |\n| 16 | safe and thank you. |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
ORIGINAL MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING. |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | ______________________________ |\n| 22 | KAREN MANGANO, CSR |\n| | |\n| 23 | Senior Court Reporter |\n| 24 | |\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n**Baker&Hostetler LLP**\n\n45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111\n\nT 2 12 .589.4200 F 212 .589.4201 www.bakerlaw.com\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho direct dial: 212.589.4289 mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n## **VIA E-MAIL (EMOSS@OMM.COM)**\n\nEdward Moss O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nFebruary 1, 2021\n\n*Re: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al., Index no. 652077/2017*\n\nDear Eddie:\n\nIn furtherance of our conversations relating to Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Fourth Set of Requests for the Production of Documents, dated November 6, 2020 (\"Document Requests\"), and Mr. Kwok's responses and objections thereto, please allow the following to memorialize the state of our discussions to date as well as to supplement and/or amend Mr. Kwok's responses where necessary.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 49 of 94\n\n- 1. Mr. Kwok continues to stand by his objection to the definition of \"Family Member\" used throughout Plaintiff's Document Requests. Specifically, Mr. Kwok objects to the definition of \"Family Member\" as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of CPLR §5229 disclosure, and exceeds the scope of this Court's October 15, 2020 Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 630) (\"Order\"), which authorizes discovery on the Sherry-Netherland residence, the Lady May yacht, and \"other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\" Mr. Kwok further objects to the definition of \"Family Member\" to the extent it seeks to bring into its definition individual third parties whom he does not control.\n- 2. Mr. Kwok continues to stand by his objection to the defined Time Period used throughout Plaintiff's Document Requests. Specifically, Plaintiff has defined the relevant time period as follows: \"Unless otherwise specified, the applicable time period for each Interrogatory is January 1, 2008, up to and including the date of production (the \"Time Period\").\" Mr. Kwok objects to the \"Time Period\" as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of CPLR §5229 disclosure, and exceeds the scope of this\n\nEdward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 2 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 50 of\n\n> Court's Order, which authorizes discovery on the Sherry-Netherland residence, the Lady May yacht, and \"other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\" The relevant Time Period for purposes of this disclosure is October 15, 2020 (the date of the CPLR §5229 proceedings on the record) through the present date in order to identify any assets that Mr. Kwok \"may own, whether directly or indirectly\" to satisfy a judgment.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n- 3. Document Requests 8: As we have reported to you, Mr. Kwok responds that there are no documents or communications in his possession, custody, or control with Stephenson Wong, Kingdom Rich, or a Registered BVI Agent. It is our understanding that in response to this disclosure, PAX has revised Document Request 8 to seek *documents and communications with William Je regarding any of Mr. Kwok's assets, investments, bank accounts, equities, stakes, or holdings*. Mr. Kwok is checking to see whether he has documents or communications responsive to your revised request.\n- 4. Document Request 10: We believe that there are no further issues to discuss or address as PAX has been unable to provide a basis for its belief that Mr. Kwok has an ownership interest in the accounts listed in (c) through (i).\n- 5. Document Request 12: Without waiving Mr. Kwok's objection to the Time Period defined by Plaintiff in its Document Requests, Mr. Kwok will produce his 2019 tax returns to Plaintiff.\n- 6. Document Request 13: Without waiving Mr. Kwok's objection to the Time Period defined by Plaintiff in its Document Requests, Mr. Kwok will produce the Genever entity 2019 tax returns to Plaintiff.\n- 7. Document Request 15: It is our understanding that PAX is seeking any assets/financial disclosures that would have been made in connection with Mr. Kwok's application for asylum. We have previously referred you to Form I-589, the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, which does not request any information relating to an applicant's assets. Please also see www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-gchapter-3, which, as has been explained to us by immigration counsel, specifically excludes asylum applicants from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Mr. Kwok responds that no asset/financial information has been provided by him in connection with his application for asylum.\n- 8. Document Request 16: It is our understanding that PAX would accept the \"*source of all payments*\" made by Mr. Kwok in lieu of a document production. Mr. Kwok responds that his expenses during the relevant time period have been paid for by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\n- 9. Document Requests 17: We will await a list of proposed electronic search terms from PAX.\n\nEdward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 3\n\n> 10. Document Request 18: We are confirming that Mr. Kwok does not have responsive Bravo Luck and/or Genever documents in his possession, custody, or control. If he does have responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, then they will be produced to the extent that they are not duplicative of the documents already produced in this action.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 51 of 94\n\n- 11. Document Requests 19-22: We are confirming that Mr. Kwok does not have responsive Bravo Luck and/or Genever documents in his possession, custody, or control. If he does have responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, then they will be produced to the extent that they are not duplicative of the documents already produced in this action.\n- 12. With respect to Document Request 21, could you please provide copies of the trust agreement(s) referenced in that request? We are told that Mr. Kwok only has a copy of the trust agreement and it is our understanding that it has already been produced to PAX.\n- 13. Document Request 31: We hereby amend the response to this request in accordance with Mr. Kwok's response to PAX's interrogatory number 29 seeking this same disclosure.1 As discussed, documents responsive to this request have been previously produced in this litigation by The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and any further information would need to be sought directly from Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and/or Bravo Luck. Mr. Kwok has located the loan agreement with Itakura Nan Nan and he will produce it.\n- 14. Document Request 35: Mr. Kwok responds that this information is not in his possession, custody, or control, and will need to be obtained directly from the Genever entities. We note that at least one Genever entity has disclosed its debts in its bankruptcy petition. The documents previously produced in this action by The Sherry-Netherland also provide relevant and responsive documents.\n- 15. Document Request 36: Mr. Kwok responds that he does not have responsive documents in his custody, possession, or control, and maintains, as we have discussed, that the only entities listed in this request which he has an interest in are: Genever Holdings Corporation; Genever Holdings LLC; and Shiny Times Holdings, Ltd.2\n\nI will be in touch when I have additional information.\n\nSincerely,\n\n*/s/ Melissa M. Carvalho*\n\n 1 Mr. Kwok owes Itakura Nan Nan \\$27,000.00. The following are creditors of Genever Holdings, LLC: The Sherry-Netherland - \\$891,262.06; Bravo Luck Limited - \\$67,5000,000.00; Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. - \\$1,800,000.00; and Qiang Guo - \\$5,000,000.00.\n\n2 Shiny Times was seized by the Chinese government in 2017.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 52 of 94\n\n> Edward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 4\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho\n\n## **EXHIBIT 5**\n\n| | OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| IN RE: | Case No. 20-12411-JLG |\n| GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, | 201 Varick Street
New York, NY 10014 |\n| Debtor.
| December 18, 2020
2:30 p.m. |\n| | TRANSCRIPT OF 341 MEETING OF CREDITORS
BEFORE RICHARD C. MORRISSEY, ESQ.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE |\n| TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES: | |\n| For the Debtor: | Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP
By:
KEVIN J. NASH, ESQ.
1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10036 |\n| | Lawall & Mitchell LLC
By:
AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.
55 Madison Avenue, #400
Morristown, NJ 07960 |\n| For Pacific Alliance
Asia Opportunity Fund
L.P.: | Foley & Lardner LLP
By:
ALISSA M. NANN, ESQ.
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016 |\n| | O'Melveny & Meyers LLP
By:
EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036 |\n| | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript
produced by transcription service. |\n| | ______________________________________________________________
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
268 Evergreen Avenue
Hamilton, New Jersey 08619 |\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 | Case 22-50073
Doc 179-1 | Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 55 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021
94 | |\n|---------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| | | | 2 |\n| | TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES (Cont'd): | | |\n| | For the Sherry-
Netherland Hotel: | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
By:
GABRIELLE SASSON, ESQ.
CURTIS C. MECHLING, ESQ.
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038 | |\n| | | - - - | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | WWW.JJCOURT.COM | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 56 of\n\n| | 94 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Wang - Morrissey
17 |\n| 1 | or as opposed to the individuals who live there who pay, or is |\n| 2 | it just that Bravo happens to be the one doing the paying? |\n| 3 | A
Bravo Luck and Mr. Qiang Guo in the very beginning |\n| 4 | purchased these apartments.
So they are looking at them as |\n| 5 | their assets and liability.
So along the way they have been |\n| 6 | paying all of those maintenance.
Not by individual.
By Bravo |\n| 7 | Luck, this company. |\n| 8 | Q
Okay.
And do you know what the monthly maintenance is? |\n| 9 | A
From this year, it raised a little bit, it's about I think |\n| 10 | roughly 73,000 per month as a maintenance fee, and plus with |\n| 11 | assessments every month also. |\n| 12 | Q
Okay.
What do you mean assessments? |\n| 13 | A
Assessments as far as Sherry explained that is a |\n| 14 | assessment every month occurred about like less than 10,000, |\n| 15 | like this year is 8,000, every month, instead of before, I |\n| 16 | believe that was quarterly, to improve the entire condition and |\n| 17 | pay anything which Sherry want to improve, the entire building, |\n| 18 | maintenance or condition of facility. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
So, in other words, in addition to the 73,000 a |\n| 20 | month, the Sherry will impose assessments for whatever |\n| 21 | improvements they're making? |\n| 22 | A
Yes, sir. |\n\n23 Q Okay. And is the debtor or Bravo if it's doing the 24 paying, is the debtor current with respect to those maintenance 25 payments?\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM
Case 22-50073
Doc 179-1
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 57 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 |\n|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 94 |\n| | Wang - Morrissey
18 |\n| 1 | A
From this year because of the litigation, the debtor was |\n| 2 | expecting, but Bravo Luck did not pay from the beginning of |\n| 3 | this year because of the litigation and ownership. |\n| 4 | Q
Okay.
So from the beginning of 2020, so from January, is |\n| 5 | that what you're saying? |\n| 6 | A
Correct, from January of 2020. |\n| 7 | MR. NASH:
Richard, just for informational purposes. |\n| 8 | The Stroock firm represents the Sherry-Netherland.
We listed |\n| 9 | the Sherry-Netherland for approximately a million dollars on |\n| 10 | arrears. |\n| 11 | We also listed, there was a lawsuit, |\n| 12 | Sherry-Netherland is holding a \\$3.5 million security deposit. |\n| 13 | There was a litigation that's listed there where the security |\n| 14 | deposit, an issue whether it's too much of a security deposit, |\n| 15 | how it would be applied, and so forth.
So that's listed. |\n| 16 | It's about a million dollars in arrears that are I |\n| 17 | think listed on the petition with three or four, maybe even |\n| 18 | five lawsuits involving the Sherry-Netherland, if I'm not |\n| 19 | mistaken. |\n| 20 | MR. MORRISSEY:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. -- |\n| 21 | A
Yes, the litigation with the Sherry actually affected the |\n| 22 | payments from this year, yes. |\n| 23 | Q
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MR. MORRISSEY:
And thank you, Mr. Nash, for adding |\n| 25 | that color. |\n| | |\n| | WWW.JJCOURT.COM |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM
Case 22-50073
Doc 179-1
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 58 of |\n|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021
94 |\n| | Wang - Morrissey
19 |\n| 1 | Q
Now since the petition was filed, has the debtor made any |\n| 2 | maintenance payments? |\n| 3 | A
No.
No, the debtor didn't, sir. |\n| 4 | Q
Okay, understood. |\n| 5 | A
Yeah. |\n| 6 | Q
Okay. |\n| 7 | A
Sorry. |\n| 8 | Q
Okay.
I'm going to turn now to the Pacific Alliance issue |\n| 9 | and try to understand what that is about and how the debtor |\n| 10 | itself is connected to that. |\n| 11 | And I'm going to ask a question in sort of a leading |\n| 12 | way, but my understanding is that there's an entity called |\n| 13 | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund that sued Mr. Kwok and |\n| 14 | the debtor in 2017.
And this was in connection with a personal |\n| 15 | guaranty of a loan obligation. |\n| 16 | And I guess my question, Ms. Wang, is did that loan |\n| 17 | obligation relate to the debtor itself or the premises at the |\n| 18 | Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 19 | A
This litigation related to Mr. Kwok, K-w-o-k, himself, |\n| 20 | personally, not related to Genever Holdings LLC, this company. |\n| 21 | Q
Okay.
And not to the apartment, correct? |\n| 22 | A
Not to Genever Holdings LLC.
Actually, that was Mr. Kwok |\n| 23 | himself.
He signed a personal guaranty by himself.
So by then |\n| 24 | Genever Holdings LLC did not exist.
There was no Sherry |\n| 25 | property either. |\n| | |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM
Case 22-50073
Doc 179-1
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 59 of |\n|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021
94 |\n| | Wang - Morrissey
20 |\n| 1 | Q
Okay.
The loan obligation you mentioned.
The debtor |\n| 2 | itself, Genever Holdings, is not a party to that loan |\n| 3 | obligation, is that correct? |\n| 4 | A
Correct, sir. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
You listed in the schedules, I believe, a \\$67.5 |\n| 6 | million claim of Bravo Luck Limited, and I believe you |\n| 7 | mentioned it before, and said it was an unsecured claim, is |\n| 8 | that correct? |\n| 9 | A
Yes.
Bravo Luck Limited is listed as non-priority |\n| 10 | unsecured claim, yes, sir. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
I'd like to interject a comment now, Ms. Wang.
I |\n| 12 | just wanted to make sure you understand that neither Mr. Kwok |\n| 13 | or any other individuals or Bravo Luck is represented by Mr. |\n| 14 | Nash and his firm in this case.
In fact, they can't be |\n| 15 | represented by Mr. Nash and his firm. |\n| 16 | To the extent that Bravo Luck or anyone else wishes |\n| 17 | to assert its or his interest in the debtor, or with respect to |\n| 18 | the debtor, those entities or individuals would have to retain |\n| 19 | their own separate counsel.
I just want to make sure you |\n| 20 | understand that? |\n| 21 | A
Yes, understood.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | Q
Okay, thank -- |\n| 23 | MR. NASH:
And, Richard, I think they have their own |\n| 24 | counsel.
I think it's Pepper Hamilton. |\n| 25 | MR. MORRISSEY:
You're talking about the individuals |\n| | |\n| | WWW.JJCOURT.COM |\n\nWang - Morrissey 21 1 or Bravo Luck? 2 MR. NASH: I'm talking about Bravo Luck. 3 A Bravo Luck. 4 MR. NASH: I don't know Bravo Luck, Pepper Hamilton. 5 I know I've copied them on e-mails when I did propose bidding 6 procedures which I sent out to everybody. But I do think they 7 represent, it's definitely Bravo Luck, and maybe the son as 8 well. 9 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay, thank you. 10 Q Now there's another claimant called Golden Spring New York 11 Limited with a \\$1.8 million claim. Could you explain, Ms. 12 Wang, what that is? 13 A This claim is -- Golden Spring New York is the family 14 office located in Manhattan here, paid some of expenses for 15 this apartment also. 16 Q Could you repeat that last sentence please? 17 A This family office pays some of the expenses related to 18 the Sherry apartment also, which is about like 1.8 million in 19 total so far. 20 Q Now when you said paid expenses, is that related to the 21 purchase or is that related to the maintenance or something 22 else? 23 A That related to some maintenance and like some repair and 24 like the terrace work, et cetera. 25 Q Okay. Are they still making such -- paying expenses for **WWW.JJCOURT.COM FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 60 of 94\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM
Case 22-50073
Doc 179-1
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 61 of |\n|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021
94 |\n| | Wang - Morrissey
22 |\n| 1 | the debtor? |\n| 2 | A
I believe so. |\n| 3 | Q
Okay.
I was going to say a word about operating reports a |\n| 4 | little later, but for right now, any payments that the debtor |\n| 5 | is receiving from another entity should be reflected in the |\n| | |\n| 6 | operating reports.
And you can discuss with Mr. Nash exactly |\n| 7 | how to do that.
But we want to know if the debtor is getting |\n| 8 | contributions from somebody, whether it's a related entity or |\n| 9 | someone controlled by one of the individuals that controls |\n| 10 | Genever itself.
So if you could please make sure that happens |\n| 11 | when the operating reports are filed, okay? |\n| 12 | A
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q
And once again, Mr. Nash cannot represent Golden Spring |\n| 14 | New York. |\n| 15 | A
Okay. |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
And also Mr. Guo, G-u-o, I apologize if I'm |\n| 17 | mispronouncing that, and Bravo Luck, slash Bravo Luck Limited, |\n| 18 | has a \\$5 million claim.
Is that separate from the 65, \\$67.5 |\n| 19 | million claim listed or is that -- is there a difference or is |\n| 20 | that the same? |\n| 21 | A
It's separate.
It's separate from the 67.5 Bravo Luck |\n| 22 | Limited. |\n| 23 | Q
Okay.
And now those are the two numbers you mentioned |\n| 24 | before in connection with the purchase of the apartment, |\n| 25 | correct? |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM
Case 22-50073
Doc 179-1
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03
Page 62 of |\n|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021
94 |\n| | Wang - Morrissey
23 |\n| 1 | A
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
So that was -- was that in the form -- that was in |\n| 3 | the form of a loan? |\n| 4 | A
I believe they have a trust agreement. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
But in other words, did Bravo Luck forward that |\n| 6 | money in connection with the purchase with an expectation of |\n| 7 | being repaid as if it were a loan? |\n| 8 | A
Yes, that's right. |\n| 9 | Q
Okay.
And same with Mr. Guo with respect to the \\$5 |\n| 10 | million, is that correct? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
Okay.
Do you have documents reflecting that as a loan? |\n| 13 | A
I believe so.
I have to find out. |\n| 14 | Q
Okay. |\n| 15 | A
It's not in front of me right now. |\n| 16 | Q
Yeah, if you could provide that to Mr. Nash and I would |\n| 17 | ask Mr. Nash to provide that to me? |\n| 18 | A
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay, thank you. |\n| 20 | MR. NASH:
We will do that.
I think if I -- there |\n| 21 | was a, if I'm not mistaken, I did review the closing statement. |\n| 22 | So I will go back into my e-mails and dig that out. |\n| 23 | MR. MORRISSEY:
Okay, yes.
And if you could just |\n| 24 | forward the e-mail to me, that would be the easiest thing. |\n| 25 | MR. NASH:
Yes.
I forwarded you the insurance as we |\n| | |\n\n## Wang - Morrissey 24 1 were speaking as well. 2 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay, thank you. 3 Q Mr. Nash mentioned something, Ms. Wang, earlier about 4 bidding procedures. Does the debtor intend to sell the co-op? **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 63 of 94\n\n5 A Yes, the debtor decided to sell the apartment. 6 Q Okay. And are you handling the sale for the debtor? In 7 other words, are you the principal person handling the sale or 8 is someone else doing that?\n\n9 A Yes, I'm the person handling this also. We literally 10 scheduled a meeting with our realtor broker a month ago so. 11 Q Okay. That was going to be my next question, whether you 12 had hired a broker. Who is the broker?\n\n13 MR. NASH: We have, Richard, let me just help you 14 with this. We've designated a proposed broker, Harris Stevens, 15 a woman by the name of Kathy Sloane. She has, as I understand 16 it, a good relationship with the Sherry-Netherland.\n\n17 We setup a call with all parties, I think on Monday, 18 for everybody to speak to the broker and to get her feeling on 19 how this would proceed on a sale.\n\n20 I'm looking to get a consent of all the parties as to 21 the broker, as to possible bidding procedures, and be in a 22 position to file papers with the Court on a consensual basis if 23 we can get it. And that's why I circulated the papers in 24 advance. I should send you a copy as well. But all the 25 counsel have them.\n\n## Wang - Morrissey 25 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 767 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 64 of 94\n\n1 And one of my calls with -- I called Pacific 2 Alliance. They wanted to speak to the broker. And so I 3 reached out to the broker and I think from the last e-mails 4 we're looking at a call sometime on the day on Monday. 5 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay, thank you. 6 Q And, Ms. Wang, I just want to make clear to you that the 7 broker would have to be retained by the debtor, and that 8 retention has to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. I just 9 want to make sure you understand that? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Thank you, sir. 13 Q Do you know if the broker has conducted an appraisal? 14 A Yeah. This is the same broker when Genever Holdings LLC 15 purchased this apartment. So she knows this apartment very 16 well, including the facility, the condition and like terrace, 17 you know, all the details. And then she has a very good 18 relationship with Sherry also, as far as I know. 19 Q Okay. But do you know if the debtor has actually done, 20 conducted an appraisal now for 2020? 21 A No, we didn't. I think. 22 MR. NASH: It's a difficult thing to appraise in a 23 sense. Just to give you a little history. The apartment was 24 purchased for \\$70 million. We do believe it has lost value 25 from that purchase price over the years, as I understand it\n\n# **EXHIBIT 6**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 766 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 66 of 94\n\n![](_page_65_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n**Kevin M. Kearney** Partner, General Counsel Direct Dial: 716.848.1385 Direct Facsimile: 716. 819 .4610 *kkearney@hodgsonruss.com*\n\nApril 7, 2021\n\nEdward Moss, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036\n\nDear Mr. Moss:\n\nRe: Subpoena Duces Tecum served on Hodgson Russ Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P., vs. Guo Wengui, et al. Index No.: 652077/2017\n\nIn response to the subpoena received by Hodgson Russ in this matter, please find below the information appropriate for production under CPLR §§ 5223 and 5224. The firm objects to the subpoena to the extent it seeks information beyond the proper scope of discovery under these sections, and to the extent it seeks confidential information about clients other than the defendants in the underlying action, information protected by the attorney-client privilege.\n\nThe firm has represented Mr. Wengui in the following matters. In each instance, our engagement letter was addressed to Mr. Wengui, with a signature block for him.\n\n- 1. *Soho China, Ltd., et al. v. Guo Wengui,* Index No. 155066/2017, Supreme Court of New York, New York County;\n- 2. *Fan Bingbing v. Guo Wengui,* Index No. 156619/2017, Supreme Court of New York, New York County;\n- 3. *Yan Huang v. Guo Wengui,* Index No. 156552/2017, Supreme Court of New York, New York County;\n- 4. *Caixin Media Company, Ltd.,* et al. v. Guo Wengui, Index No. 652154/2017, Supreme Court ofNew York, New York County;\n- 5. *Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,* Index No. 652077/2017, Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court ofNewYork;\n- 6. *Rui Ma v. Guo Wengui, et al.,* Index No. 158140/2017, Supreme Court of New York, New York County;\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 766 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 67 of\n\n![](_page_66_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nEdward Moss, Esq. April 7, 2021 Page 2\n\n> 7. *Weincan (\"Watson\") Meng and Boxun Inc., v. Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok,* Index No. 159636/2017, Supreme Court ofNew York, County of New York;\n\n94\n\n- 8. *Eastern Profit Corporation v. Strategic Vision US LLC, Civil Action No. 18-CV-2185,* United States District Court Southern District of New York;\n- 9. *Zheng Wu a/k/a Bruno Wu and Yang Lan v. Guo Wengui* Index No. 152123/2018, Supreme Court ofNew York, County of New York; and\n- 10. *Baiqiao Tang a/k/a Tang Baiqiao and Jing Geng v. Wengui, Guo, alk/a Miles Kwok, alk/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Ho Wan Kwok, Golden Spring (New York), Ltd., Rule of Law Foundation III Inc., Rule of Law Society IV Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc.,* Supreme Court of New York, County of New York.\n\nYork) Ltd. Payments received by the firm for its services were made by Golden Spring (New\n\nIn addition, single payments were received from the following senders:\n\n- 1. ZIBA Limited; and\n- 2. ACA Capital Group Limited.\n\nVery truly yours, *L0*\n\nKevin M. Kearney General Counsel\n\nKMK/cat\n\n## **EXHIBIT 7**\n\n**1**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 69 of 94\n\n> **1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : PART 61 2 -------------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP, 3 Plaintiff(s), 4 - against - 5 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, 6 a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, 7 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 8 Defendant(s). 9 -----------------------------------------------------X Index No. 652077/2017 10 11 February 2, 2022 - Via Microsoft Teams 12 13 B E F O R E: HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, JSC 14 15 A P P E A R A N C E S: 16 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 18 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. DAVID HARBACH, ESQ. 19 LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. 20 21 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan 22 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 23 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. TRACY COLE, ESQ. 24 ERICA BARROW, ESQ. 25**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 70 of\n\n| | | 2 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES CONTINUED: | |\n| 2 | | |\n| 3 | CHIESA SHAHINIAN GIANTOMASI PC | |\n| 4 | Attorneys for HK International
11 Times Square, 34th Floor | |\n| 5 | New York, New York 10036
BY:
LEE VARTAN, ESQ. | |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | - 0 - | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 71 of 94\n\n> **1 understood you to say that whenever your father took the yacht 2 out, number one, he had to get authorization from you which, I 3 suppose, all guests would; and, number two, I believe you said 4 every time he went out he gave you a detailed itinerary. So it's 5 no answer to my -- sorry, Madam Interpreter. Go ahead. Excuse 6 me.**\n\n**53**\n\n **7 A I will give you an example, sir.**\n\n **8 If the yacht is in New York, my father boarded it 9 New York and he told me he is going to Long Island, then I would 10 agree to it. But if he wants to stop half way, it is his freedom 11 as long as it is within the New York area. But if he is taking 12 the yacht to Palm Beach, then he would need to give me a very 13 detailed itinerary.**\n\n**14 Q Did your father ever take the yacht out without your 15 permission or knowledge?**\n\n**16 A Never.**\n\n**17 Q Let's look at -- well, we are still on Paragraph 14. 18 Excuse me.**\n\n**19 You talk about in early October of 2020 no longer 20 wishing to use the boat and relating that to Golden Spring.**\n\n**21 A Yes.**\n\n**22 Q And then the remainder of the sentence says -- the 23 paragraph says that Golden Spring relayed your directive to 24 Captain Heaslop.**\n\n**25 A Yes.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 72 of 94\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**54**\n\n **1 Q Do you remember this?**\n\n **2 A Yes, I remember.**\n\n **3 Q What exactly was your directive?**\n\n **4 A Because my yacht in every October the winter season, 5 due to the reason of the weather, it needs to be parked in 6 Florida, a warmer place. So to me this is a very ordinary 7 request. Golden Spring asked me if I still need to use the yacht 8 because my understanding is that a yacht needs to be moved to a 9 warmer place.**\n\n**10 Q I want to make sure I understand the last part of that 11 answer before I ask another question.**\n\n**12 Did you say that Golden Spring asked you if you 13 wanted to continue to use the yacht?**\n\n**14 A It wasn't a request or inquiry, actually, because I 15 already know that the yacht is no longer suitable to be used in 16 New York under the weather conditions. They were just informing 17 me that the yacht needs to move to a warmer place.**\n\n**18 Q So Golden Spring was informing you of that decision? 19 A It is not informing. It is more like reporting. 20 Q I see.**\n\n**21 So in your affidavit when you say you no longer 22 wish to use the boat for the season due to the weather; was that 23 the reason you relayed the directive, or is it because you heard 24 from Golden Spring that the boat needed to go to Florida? 25 A Okay. Let me reiterate my answer, sir.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n#### **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 73 of 94\n\n**55**\n\n **1 Every year in the past few years in October, that 2 would be the time to arrange for the yacht to be moved to a 3 warmer place. So this year, that particular year before they 4 moved the yacht to warmer place, they informed me, they told 5 me -- rather, they report to me that the yacht needs to be moved 6 to the warmer place. So it was more like a routine activity. 7 Q I understand. 8 So is it true, then, that your directive in 9 response to that information was, Take the yacht to Florida? 10 A Yes, I agreed to the request sent by the captain. 11 Q Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what your affidavit 12 says. Your affidavit refers to a directive, so that's what I am 13 trying to understand. That was my original question. What 14 exactly was your directive? 15 A My communication with the captain is through a 16 representative of the company. The representative of the company 17 came to me and told me it is about time to move the yacht to a 18 warmer place, so my instruction to the representative is that 19 yes, all right, the yacht needs to move to Florida. That was my 20 directive. 21 THE COURT: What is your relationship with Golden 22 Spring? 23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, Golden Spring helps me 24 to pay all the expenses for my yacht, including the**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**25 management fees.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 74 of 94\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**56 1 THE COURT: Do you have an ownership interest in 2 Golden Spring? 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 THE COURT: Why would Golden Spring help you pay 5 all of the expenses associated with operating and 6 maintaining the yacht? 7 THE WITNESS: Golden Spring belongs to my brother. 8 It is my brother's company. When the yacht was gifted to me 9 as a gift, I find it very troublesome to form another bank 10 account just to try to manage the yacht; so I requested my 11 brother if he can continue to manage the yacht using his 12 company. He and I came to an agreement with that. 13 THE COURT: So it is your testimony that your 14 brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: And it was part of your brother's gift 17 to you that he would incur the costs of maintaining and 18 operating the yacht? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Do you know how much it costs to 21 maintain and operate the yacht for a year? 22 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, between \\$2 million to 23 \\$3 million US dollars. 24 THE COURT: All right. We are going to give the 25 court reporter a ten-minute break. She has been trying to Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 75 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | Doc 179-1 | Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 | Page 75 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | |\n|---------------------------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | 94 | | | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**57 1 follow the testimony all morning. We will resume at 12:15 2 and go to 1:00 and break for lunch. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 4 (Short recess taken) 5 THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. 6 BY MR. HARBACH: 7 Q Ms. Guo, at the time you directed that the yacht go to 8 Florida, were you aware that a temporary restraining order had 9 been entered against your father on September 30? 10 THE INTERPRETER: September 30, right, sir? 11 MR. HARBACH: Yes, of 2020. 12 A I do not know about it at that time. 13 MR. HARBACH: Could I ask the interpreter to 14 please clarify? She did not know about it at the time? 15 THE INTERPRETER: She did not know about it at the 16 time, sir. 17 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I will interpose an 18 objection. I understand that the Court's order was entered 19 in October and not in September. 20 THE COURT: (To the witness) At any time in 2020 21 were you aware that a temporary restraining order was 22 entered against your father prohibiting him from removing 23 the vessel from the territorial United States? 24 THE WITNESS: I learned about this matter around 25 the end of 2020. I can't remember the exact date. It was Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 76 of 94\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**58**\n\n **1 sometime in winter. It possibly is the beginning of 2021. 2 I came to know about it through my lawyer's telephone call. 3 BY MR. HARBACH:**\n\n **4 Q So when the yacht sailed south for Florida in early 5 October of 2020, your testimony is that you did not know about 6 any restraining order that had been entered on September 30?**\n\n **7 MR. VARTAN: Same objection, your Honor, with 8 respect to the date. Certainly if Mr. Harbach has a 9 document he wants to show the witness, I am sure she would 10 be happy to look at it; but I understand the date to be 11 October 15 and not September 30.**\n\n**12 MR. HARBACH: To clarify for counsel and the 13 Court, there is a temporary restraining order issued on 14 September 30 of 2020. It is Document 591 on the Court's 15 docket. My only question about this is whether the witness 16 was aware that that temporary restraining order had been 17 entered.**\n\n**18 MR. VARTAN: Again, your Honor, my understanding 19 is that the September order, not to belabor the point, has 20 nothing at all to do with the Lady May. Granted, I wasn't 21 part of the proceedings at that point, but my understanding 22 is the Lady May is first made mention before your Honor in 23 October, not September 30. So, again, I'd invite 24 Mr. Harbach to show the document to the witness if he has 25 something before him.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 77 of 94\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**62 1 signature. It is dated March 16 of 2021. 2 A Okay. 3 Q And this is the order of the Court that specifically 4 requires that it be returned to New York? 5 A Okay. Okay. 6 Q So my question for you is: Have you ever seen this 7 order before? 8 A Can you please go back to the top of the document and 9 show me again because I want to reconfirm. At this point of time 10 I am not able to confirm it. 11 Q Okay. I will give you a little while longer, but then 12 I will move on because it is not crucial. 13 THE COURT: Can you show her the next page? 14 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 15 A I really truly do not recall if I have seen this 16 document before, but I do know the content of this document. 17 Q Okay. Thank you. 18 Returning to your affidavit, you said in 19 Paragraph 20 that you were aware of the Court's order requiring 20 the Lady May to return to New York in May of '21 and that you 21 learned of that through your counsel? 22 A Yes. 23 Q So what I want to make sure I understand is when you 24 learned of the Court's order. I understood you to say to 25 Justice Ostrager a few minutes ago that you thought you learned Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 78 of 94\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**63**\n\n **1 of a restraining order at the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2 2021, is that correct? 3 A What I remember now is that at the end of 2020 my 4 lawyer called me and informed me that there would be a possible 5 issue as such with Lady May, but I don't remember exactly when I 6 learned about this order, this Court order. It is probably 7 around 2021, beginning of 2021 between the month of March and 8 April. 9 Q Okay. Let me -- 10 MR. HARBACH: I really appreciate your Honor being 11 patient. I am moving as quickly as I can. 12 Q Let me add one more piece to the puzzle. And, again, I 13 am not trying to confuse you. 14 There was a restraining order issued by the Court 15 on October 15 of 2020. I am going to represent that to you, 16 okay? 17 A Okay. 18 Q Do you think that is the order that you learned about 19 toward the end of 2020 from your counsel? 20 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I would object. I think 21 the question has been asked and answered now a number of 22 times. Also, we are beginning to conflate dates. We are 23 looking at Paragraph 20 that talks about a different court 24 order from March. Mr. Harbach is talking now about an order 25 from October. I think he is confusing the witness here.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 79 of 94\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**64 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 2 THE COURT: Just rephrase your question. This 3 isn't that hard. 4 Q Ms. Guo, when was the first time you learned about any 5 restraining order from the Court through your counsel? 6 MR. VARTAN: Same objection. Asked and answered 7 multiple times. 8 THE COURT: Overruled. 9 THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question? 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 A I really do not remember the specific date, but it was 12 somewhere around the beginning of 2021. It was somewhere around 13 the beginning of 2021. I really do not remember the specific 14 date. 15 Q After you learned about the order from your counsel, 16 did you discuss it with your father? 17 MR. VARTAN: I'd just ask Mr. Harbach to clarify, 18 your Honor, which order he is talking about. He's mentioned 19 a September order, an October order, a March order? 20 THE COURT: Let's make this easy. 21 Ms. Guo, did you discuss any Court orders relating 22 to the Lady May with your father? 23 THE WITNESS: I did not. I have only discussed it 24 with my lawyers. 25 Q The lawyer representing you today, Mr. Vartan, is that Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n**65**\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n **1 the same lawyer who alerted you about the existence of a court 2 order relating to the Lady May? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Who is paying for his services? 5 A Golden Spring. 6 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, did you say you wanted 7 to break at 1:00 for lunch? 8 THE COURT: Yes. And I wanted to speak with you 9 and Mr. Siegal in the same manner that we did at the 10 beginning of this hearing. 11 MR. HARBACH: May I suggest that we break now and 12 do that? The last bit of questioning I have that has to do 13 with this witness involves publication of exhibits and may 14 be a little cumbersome. I would suggest doing that right 15 after lunch. 16 THE COURT: All right. We can do that. 17 For the record, Ms. Guo, I have excluded the press 18 from your testimony because I understand that you were 19 detained and tortured by the CCP and your whereabouts are 20 potentially a matter of interest to the CCP while you seek 21 asylum in the United States. If there is no disclosure in 22 your examination about your whereabouts, the transcript of 23 your examination will be made public. And I should add that 24 the plaintiff has consented to this arrangement, which is 25 highly unusual.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 81 of 94\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**66**\n\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, your Honor, for my | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | protection over my safety and not allow the media's | | | | |\n| 3 | involvement in this proceeding.
Thank you, your Honor. | | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
We will break for lunch | | | | |\n| 5 | now.
I would like counsel to call me at the same number | | | | |\n| 6 | that I gave you before. | | | | |\n| 7 | MR. VARTAN:
Your Honor, could I first be heard on | | | | |\n| 8 | one issue? | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yes. | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. VARTAN:
With respect to the remainder of | | | | |\n| 11 | Mr. Harbach's cross-examination, can he give me a rough | | | | |\n| 12 | approximation of how much more time he has so that I can | | | | |\n| 13 | plan for other witnesses? | | | | |\n| 14 | MR. HARBACH:
I am happy to do that.
I have a | | | | |\n| 15 | couple small factual questions to ask, and then I have three | | | | |\n| 16 | of the videotapes that we proffered to the Court that I want | | | | |\n| 17 | to show some tiny portions of to the witness.
My guess is | | | | |\n| 18 | 30, 40 minutes. | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. VARTAN:
Thank you, Mr. Harbach. | | | | |\n| 20 | Thank you, your Honor. | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
We will resume at 2:00. | | | | |\n| 22 | MR. SIEGAL:
Your Honor, may we call you towards | | | | |\n| 23 | the end of the lunch break or would you like to hear from us | | | | |\n| 24 | now? | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I would like to hear from you now. | | | | |\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo 67 1 MR. SIEGAL: All right. I will reach out to 2 O'Melveny and we will call you. 3 THE COURT: Great. 4 (L U N C H E O N R E C E S S) 5 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, can I continue my 6 questioning? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 BY MR. HARBACH: 9 Q Ms. Guo, before lunch we talked about all sorts of 10 things, but you mentioned something in one of your answers that I 11 just would like to clarify. 12 A Okay. 13 Q I believe you said in one of your answers that if you 14 needed to use the yacht with some friends, for example, you would 15 just contact the captain directly? 16 A Sometimes I contacted the captain directly. Sometimes 17 I would contact the captain through Golden Spring. 18 Q Do you recall the names of any of the captains you 19 contacted directly? 20 A I communicated mostly with captain that I used earlier, 21 Mr. Craig. Then I also have contacted Momchil, the current 22 captain of the yacht. 23 Q You have contacted each of them directly, is that 24 right? 25 A Yes. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 82 of 94\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n#### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 83 of 94\n\n| | 98 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | me tomorrow by conference call at noon.
If you don't have |\n| 2 | anything to tell me by conference call at noon, I will just |\n| 3 | proceed to have the transcript fully transcribed and |\n| 4 | uploaded on the Court's electronic filing system.
I will |\n| 5 | rule, certainly, no later than Wednesday of next week. |\n| 6 | MR. SIEGAL:
Judge, we will call at noon tomorrow, |\n| 7 | a joint call of counsel. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Have a nice day. |\n| 9 | *
*
* |\n| 10 | The foregoing is hereby certified to be a true and |\n| 11 | accurate transcript of the proceedings. |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | _________________________ |\n| 15 | Rachel C. Simone-Ivanac |\n| 16 | Senior Court Reporter |\n| 17 | SO ORDERED February 7, 2022 |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n## **EXHIBIT 8**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|--|\n| | Justice | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | Plaintiff, | | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | | | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | 019
MOTION SEQ. NO. | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | | | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n#### **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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 86 of 94\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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 87 of 94\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n1 \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 88 of 94\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n2 \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 89 of 94\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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 90 of 94\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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 91 of 94\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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 92 of 94\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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 93 of 94\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 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 94 of 94\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":"附件A\n\nFRIEDMAN（弗里德曼）声明\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），　　第11章案件编号\n\n债务人。\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n彼得·弗里德曼关于支持太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业就债务人请求作出临时及最终DIP命令之动议提出异议的声明；该命令将：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时及最终听证；以及 (III) 准予相关救济\n\n本人，彼得·弗里德曼，声明如下：\n\n1. 本人是在纽约州及华盛顿哥伦比亚特区获准执业的律师，并为 O'Melveny & Myers（奥迈瑞律师事务所）（地址：7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036）的合伙人；该所担任 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，下称“PAX”）的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持《Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）就债务人请求作出临时及最终DIP命令之动议提出的异议；该命令将：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时及最终听证；以及 (III) 准予相关救济》。\n\n2. 随附作为附件1的是 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）于 February 5, 2016 作出的宣誓书的真实、准确副本，该宣誓书提交于 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）诉 UBS AG（瑞银集团）案，Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 27。\n\n3. 随附作为附件2的是 Yanping Wang（王燕平）于 May 19, 2021 作出的宣誓书的真实、准确副本，该宣誓书提交于 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，Index No.\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数为 9595。\n\n652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 806。\n\n4. 随附作为附件3的是 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 833 中，于 May 27, 2021 在 Ostrager 法官面前举行的听证会记录节选的真实、准确副本。\n\n5. 随附作为附件4的是 M. Carvalho 致 E. Moss、日期为 February 1, 2021 的信函的真实、准确副本；该信函作为附件13提交于 PAX 就非当事动议人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）依据 CPLR 5240 提出救济动议所作的反对法律备忘录，案件为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 765。\n\n6. 随附作为附件5的是 In re Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司案），Case No. 20-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020) 中于 December 18, 2020 举行的 341 会议记录节选的真实、准确副本。\n\n7. 随附作为附件6的是 K. Kearney 致 E. Moss、日期为 April 7, 2021 的信函的真实、准确副本；该信函作为附件13提交于 PAX 就非当事动议人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）依据 CPLR 5240 提出救济动议所作的反对法律备忘录，案件为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 766。\n\n8. 随附作为附件7的是 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYCEF Doc. No. 1179 中，于 February 2, 2022 在 Ostrager 法官面前举行的证据听证会记录节选的真实、准确副本。\n\n9. 随附作为附件8的是 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，Index No. 65077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYCEF Doc. No. 1181 的 February 9, 2022 动议裁决及命令的真实、准确副本。\n\n本人在伪证罪处罚下声明，上述内容真实、准确。\n\n日期：April 6, 2022　纽约州纽约市　谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Peter Friedman　Peter Friedman　O'MELVENY & MYERS　Time Square Tower　7 Times Square　New York, NY 10036　电话：(212) 326-2000　传真：(212) 326-2061　电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 179-1　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03　Page 5 of 94\n\n附件1\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\nACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED（艾斯十年控股有限公司），　：\n\n原告，　：Index No. 653316/2015 (Bransten, J.)\n\n-v.-　：Motion Sequence No. 001\n\nUBS AG（瑞银集团），　：\n\n被告。　：\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）支持原告反对被告请求驳回起诉状之动议的宣誓书\n\nKWOK HO WAN 经依法宣誓，特此陈述如下：\n\n1. 本人是 Yong Yu（俞勇）的雇主，俞勇系 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司，下称“Ace Decade”）的董事及唯一股东。\n\n2. 本人基于个人所知作出本宣誓书。\n\n3. 本人于 2010 年首次开始与 UBS AG（瑞银集团，下称“UBS”）讨论潜在投资事宜。自 July 2012 起，本人一直是 UBS 的客户。\n\n4. 本人在 UBS 的主要联系人一直是 Stephen Wong（黄斯蒂芬），其为 UBS 财富管理及瑞士银行部门的董事总经理。\n\n5. 本人于 May 2010 与 Wong 先生相识。自此以后，Wong 先生就诸如飞机收购等项目的投资及融资相关众多事项向本人提供建议。多年来，本人在作出投资和融资决定时，倚重并依赖 Wong 先生及 UBS 的知识和专业能力。\n\n6. 此外，自 July 2012 起，本人为本人控制的一项投资工具在 UBS 持有账户。此后，本人为本人控制的另外两项投资工具在 UBS 开立了其他账户，并从 UBS 获得了两架飞机的融资。\n\n7. 于 2014 年初至年中，本人开始与 UBS 就海通证券股份有限公司（Haitong Securities Co., Ltd.，下称“Haitong”）即将进行的 H 股（下称“股份”）配售中的一项投资机会（下称“投资”）进行讨论。\n\n8. 自 2014 年本人首次开始与 UBS 讨论起，至 May 13, 2015 本人与 Yu 女士授权支付最终的 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）以进行该项投资时止，Wong 先生与本人通过电话、面对面会晤及电子信息频繁沟通。在此期间，包括本人于 January 9, 2015 搬至纽约之后，Wong 先生作出了众多虚假陈述，本人在决定进行该项投资时依赖了这些陈述。\n\n9. UBS 是该等股份的联席全球协调人及配售代理人，并自称在就该项投资提供建议方面具备知识和经验。\n\n10. 起初，Wong 先生向本人保证，若 UBS 获得本人的业务，其将保护本人的利益，并就为该项投资部分融资的贷款提供尽可能最佳的条款。Wong 先生告诉本人，由于本人拟作出的投资规模，UBS 的全球高级管理人员将参与该交易的架构安排。Wong 先生告诉本人，在整个投资过程中，他将担任本人的个人联系人及 UBS 的代表，但其将按照 UBS 位于美国、瑞士、英国及香港办事处的高级管理人员的指示行事。\n\n11. 基于 UBS 全球高级管理人员将参与该项投资的架构安排及监督，以及 UBS 将以本人的最佳利益行事的这些陈述，本人委托 UBS 作为该项投资的顾问。\n\n12. 本人已阅读 Wong 先生为支持 UBS 请求驳回 Ace Decade 起诉状之动议而提交的确认书。其中，他在伪证罪处罚下确认：“[t]he first time I heard of Ace Decade was when I learned of this lawsuit in October 2015.”（Stephen Wong 确认书第 3 段。）本人读到该陈述时感到震惊，因为该陈述不实。相反，Wong 先生和 UBS 不仅此前已知悉 Ace Decade，而且正是他们建议本人应指定哪一名雇员担任 Ace Decade 的唯一股东及董事，利用 Ace Decade 与将持有该等股份法定所有权的中介实体订立附属协议，以及如何最妥当地将该项投资所需资金从本人的一个 UBS 账户转入 Ace Decade 账户。总而言之，Wong 先生和 UBS 知道该项投资的最终投资者是 Ace Decade。\n\n13. UBS 建议，由于拟议投资占 Haitong 已发行 H 股的 5% 以上，若本人通过 Ace Decade 直接投资，适用的披露要求将要求提交若干文件。\n\n14. UBS 建议，若本人通过中介实体投资，并由中介实体持有该等股份的法定所有权，则无需进行此类披露。\n\n15. UBS 建议本人选择 Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.（海峡汇富资产投资及基金管理有限公司，下称“Haixia”）作为该项投资的中介机构。UBS 表示，其推荐 Haixia 是因为 Haixia 最有资格代表 Ace Decade 行事。UBS 进一步表示，Haixia 独立于 UBS，并将保护本人及 Ace Decade 的利益。本人依赖这些陈述，选择 Haixia 作为该项投资的中介机构。\n\n16. UBS 从未披露 Haixia 受其合资伙伴 State Development & Investment Corp.（国家开发投资集团有限公司，下称“SDIC”）控制。UBS 亦未披露，担任 UBS 与 Haixia 之间主要联系人的 Lu Bo（卢波）此前曾担任 UBS 与 SDIC 合资企业的首席财务官。直至 July 21, 2015，本人才知悉 Haixia 与 UBS 的密切关系；当时 Ace Decade 已作出该项投资，且 UBS 已清算该等股份，Wong 先生在一次电话中披露了该关系，本人是在纽约办公室接听该电话。\n\n17. Wong 先生最初表示，若我们选择 Haixia 作为作出该项投资的中介机构，我们无需接受 Haixia 的“了解你的客户”（Know Your Customer，下称“KYC”）程序。然而，他后来表示，我们需要准备一些文件，以接受 Haixia 的背景审查，但他没有说明这些文件是否用于 Haixia 的 KYC 程序。Wong 先生要求审阅本人的一些雇员的简历，以评估谁的背景最有可能满足 Haixia 的要求，从而可任命该雇员为 Ace Decade 的董事及唯一股东。他审阅了这些简历，并建议 Yu 女士的简历和背景最适合满足 Haixia 的要求，因此本人应任命 Yu 女士为 Ace Decade 的董事及唯一股东。Wong 先生表示，他会对 Yu 女士的简历提出意见，并要求她发送给他。（见 Ace Decade 附件 3 和 4。）\n\n18. Wong 先生随后对 Yu 女士的简历提出意见，以使其更有可能满足 Haixia 的要求。\n\n19. Wong 先生与本人还曾多次讨论该项投资可能获得的融资。Wong 先生表示，Ace Decade 应通过 UBS 而非另一家银行为该项投资的一部分获得融资，因为 UBS 将以对 Ace Decade 最有利的条款办理该融资。\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 179-1　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03　Page 10 of 94\n\n20. 在讨论贷款融资期间，本人告诉 Wong 先生，除非贷款文件未包含任何允许 UBS 基于该等股份的短期价格波动要求偿还贷款（“追加保证金通知”）的条款，且除非 UBS 表示其将给予 Ace Decade 充足时间（例如，支付首个 25% 为五个营业日，支付第二个 25% 为十个营业日，支付其余 50% 为二十个营业日）以应对任何追加保证金通知，否则 Ace Decade 不会作出该项投资。\n\n21. Wong 先生于 2014 年不止一次表示，贷款融资文件将符合本人的要求，具体而言，不存在基于短期价格波动的还款或追加保证金通知触发条件。\n\n22. Wong 先生还于 2014 年和 2015 年数次表示，UBS 将与 Ace Decade 合作，使其能够应对任何追加保证金通知，并且 UBS 不会因任何追加保证金通知而出售任何股份，除非给予 Ace Decade 充足时间。\n\n23. Mr. Wong还于2014年和2015年多次表示，UBS（瑞银）曾向Ping An Insurance Group（中国平安保险集团，以下简称“Ping An”）的一名大股东提供贷款。Mr. Wong解释称，Ping An该股东的贷款金额远大于Ace Decade的贷款金额，但在发生追加保证金通知后，UBS从未出售该股东所持有的任何股份。Mr. Wong表示，在触发追加保证金通知时，UBS会与Ping An该股东合作解决该情况，而不会出售其任何股份。Mr. Wong反复表示，UBS将给予Ace Decade与给予Ping An该股东相同的待遇，并将合作使Ace Decade能够满足任何追加保证金通知，但无论如何，UBS不会在发生追加保证金通知后出售该等股份，除非给予Ace Decade充足时间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 179-1 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 11 页，共 94 页\n\n24. 在我们就该项投资进行讨论的整个过程中，Mr. Wong反复表示，我可以信任他和UBS，并且他和UBS始终在为我的最大利益行事。\n\n25. 2014年12月14日，在讨论该项投资时，Mr. Wong通过WhatsApp（一款智能手机移动通信应用程序）向我发送消息称：“一旦我向郭总作出承诺，我一定会竭尽全力；我只希望郭总会信任我。”当日稍后，他在另一条消息中对我说：“我没有理由不为郭总争取最好的结果！”（“郭总”是Mr. Wong对我的称呼。）\n\n26. 同于2014年12月14日，Mr. Wong给我留下一条语音消息，称在就该项投资进行谈判期间，“必须保障郭总的利益”，并称他已让来自全球各地办公室的UBS最高管理层参与协助。\n\n27. 2014年12月15日，Mr. Wong给我留下一条语音消息，称他正在拟定该项投资的条款，以“保护[我]”。\n\n28. 2014年12月19日，Mr. Wong给我留下一条语音消息，称：“郭总，您完全可以放心，我将完全保护您的利益。”\n\n29. 因此，我相信Mr. Wong和UBS是在为Ace Decade的最大利益行事，并且我相信Mr. Wong就贷款融资文件所作的陈述属实，以及UBS不会在未与Ace Decade合作、使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知的情况下出售该等股份。\n\n30. 2015年1月9日，在我仍与UBS就该项投资的条款进行谈判期间，我与Yu女士及其他员工搬迁至纽约，意图将我的业务项目扩展至纽约，并寻找有意投资Ace Decade的投资者。\n\n31. 我于2014年12月首次与Mr. Wong讨论了搬迁至纽约以为Ace Decade寻找投资者的该计划。其后，我于2015年3月、5月和6月从纽约通过电话多次与Mr. Wong讨论为Ace Decade寻找投资者。\n\n32. 2015年2月9日，Ace Decade与China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited（中国金泉集团（香港）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring Hong Kong”）签署了一份受美国法律管辖的谅解备忘录（以下简称“MOU”）。MOU规定，Ace Decade将收购Haitong Shares（海通股份），而Golden Spring Hong Kong将在纽约设立分支机构，为与海通股份有关的项目寻找投资者。\n\n33. 为推进MOU，Golden Spring Hong Kong成立了一家名为Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring New York”）的公司，该公司于2015年3月在Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，并获准在纽约开展业务。Golden Spring New York由Golden Spring Hong Kong全资拥有。\n\n34. 此后不久，Golden Spring New York就位于767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153的General Motors Building（通用汽车大厦）第46层的部分区域签订了租约。Yu女士和我在位于767 Fifth Avenue的办公室开展与Ace Decade有关的业务。\n\n35. 我不仅于2014年12月与UBS讨论了我搬迁至纽约并从纽约经营我的业务项目的计划，我还请求UBS协助我在纽约设立业务运营。2015年3月，Mr. Wong以及UBS的其他人员，包括Agnes Fu女士和Liz Lam女士，安排将资金从我在UBS的一个账户转入我在纽约的个人JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）账户。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 179-1 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 13 页，共 94 页\n\n36. 2015年4月，Mr. Wong、Fu女士和Lam女士通过将资金从我在UBS的一个账户转入Golden Spring New York在纽约的JPMorgan Chase银行账户，协助我设立Golden Spring New York。\n\n37. UBS还就我购买纽约一栋合作公寓楼中的一套公寓一事，代表我提交了推荐信。在一封日期为2015年2月18日、由Mr. Wong致该楼董事会的信中，Mr. Wong写道：“自Miles首次开始与UBS AG合作以来，我已认识Miles约五年。”（Miles是我的英文名字。）Mr. Wong还表示：“多年来，Miles已在我行赢得信誉。他非常可靠，并且始终履行其还款义务。因此，我行很高兴拥有他作为我们的长期客户。”（Ace Decade Exhibit 1。）\n\n38. Mr. Wong和同为UBS董事总经理的Tommy Cheung先生，于2015年2月23日代表我向该公寓楼董事会提交了另一封推荐信，其中称：“自2012年7月起，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）一直通过一家个人投资公司成为我们的客户。”（Ace Decade Exhibit 2。）\n\n39. 2015年3月6日，我购买了该楼中的一套公寓。自购买以来，我与Yu女士以及Ace Decade和Golden Spring New York的其他员工和代表一直居住在该公寓内。\n\n40. 在我搬迁至纽约后的该段期间，Mr. Wong和我经常通过电话、语音消息及即时消息沟通。在我位于纽约期间，Mr. Wong数十次通过电话与我交谈，并向我发送大量电子消息。Yu女士参加了我与Mr. Wong之间的部分通话。至少，Mr. Wong在我位于纽约期间于下列日期通过电话与我交谈：\n\n— January 26, 2015（三次通话）\n— January 28, 2015（两次通话）\n— March 2, 2015\n— March 4, 2015（三次通话）\n— March 5, 2015\n— March 13, 2015\n— March 15, 2015\n— March 16, 2015（六次通话）\n— March 17, 2015（两次通话）\n— March 18, 2015（两次通话）\n— March 24, 2015\n— March 31, 2015\n— April 28, 2015（三次通话）\n— April 30, 2015（五次通话）\n— May 6, 2015（两次通话）\n— May 11, 2015（三次通话）\n— June 23, 2015（两次通话）\n— July 21, 2015\n\n41. 在我于2015年从纽约参与的这些通话中，Mr. Wong和我多次讨论了该项投资及UBS贷款。在其中一次或多次通话中，Mr. Wong和我还讨论了我对该贷款的担忧，包括基于贷款价值比率（“LTV ratio”）的追加保证金通知触发条件、贷款金额、贷款利率以及海通股份的发行价格。Mr. Wong和我还讨论了我为Ace Decade在纽约寻找投资者所作努力的进展情况。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 179-1 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 15 页，共 94 页\n\n42. 在2015年的该段期间，我没有再次向Mr. Wong提出我对以该等股份短期价格波动为条件的还款触发条件的担忧，因为Mr. Wong此前已告诉我不存在此类触发条件。\n\n43. 然而，在2015年3月、4月和5月期间的数次通话中，Mr. Wong和我一般性地讨论了追加保证金通知这一议题，具体讨论了LTV ratio触发条件。Mr. Wong表示，我无需担心，因为UBS会为我的最大利益行事，UBS将给予Ace Decade充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知，并且UBS将尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知。他还在该期间数次提醒我，UBS在Ping An该股东的贷款发生追加保证金通知后从未出售其股份，并表示Ace Decade将获得与Ping An该股东相同的待遇。\n\n44. 在我位于纽约期间，Mr. Wong还向我发送了大量有关该项投资及UBS贷款的WhatsApp消息。例如，2015年3月21日和22日，Mr. Wong和我交换了一系列WhatsApp消息，我们在其中讨论了用于该项投资的UBS贷款。我告诉Mr. Wong，UBS提出的某些条件，例如基于UBS贷款LTV ratio的追加保证金通知触发条件，“绝对不可接受”，并且“我们宁可不做，也不会同意你们的条款。”如果我没有依赖Mr. Wong此前所作的、贷款融资文件不含基于该等股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件的陈述，我本会再次向Mr. Wong提出该问题，而不会将我们的讨论仅聚焦于基于LTV ratio的追加保证金通知触发条件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 179-1 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 16 页，共 94 页\n\n45. Mr. Wong答复称，他理解我对潜在追加保证金通知的担忧，并告诉我：“您放心！……我是在为郭总办事！别担心。”我依赖Mr. Wong所作的、他和UBS正在维护我利益的陈述。所有这些讨论均发生在我位于纽约期间。\n\n46. 2015年5月8日，Haitong宣布，其已获得发行该等股份所需的股东批准和监管批准（分别于2月和5月取得），预计将于5月15日发行。Haitong还宣布，由于此前30个交易日期间海通股份的交易价格已超过预先约定的门槛，认购价格将提高。\n\n47. 在该公告后，我通过电话和WhatsApp消息与Mr. Wong进行了数次讨论，以最终确定该项投资的条款。我们讨论的议题包括：贷款须提高以反映海通股份每股价格的提高、所需付款金额、LTV ratio、利率，以及我们应如何将美元兑换为付款所需港元的方法。\n\n48. 在5月8日后我们的一次讨论中，Mr. Wong再次表示，就任何追加保证金通知而言，Ace Decade将获得与Ping An该股东相同的待遇。\n\n49. 依赖这些陈述，我决定进行该项投资。我在5月11日的电话交谈中与Mr. Wong讨论了如何最好地将该项投资所需资金从我的一个UBS账户转入Ace Decade账户。Mr. Wong称，我首先需要在我的UBS账户中将资金从美元兑换为港元。他还指示，不要将资金从我的UBS账户直接转入Ace Decade账户，而是先将资金从我的UBS账户转入另一家银行的账户，再将资金从该账户转入Ace Decade账户。\n\n50. 依赖Mr. Wong的建议，我决定先将资金从我的UBS账户转入China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行，以下简称“China Minsheng Account”）的账户，然后将资金从China Minsheng Account转入Ace Decade账户。\n\n51. 2015年5月11日，Fu女士向Yu女士发送电子邮件，并抄送Mr. Wong和Lam女士，要求Yu女士取得我在UBS准备的一份付款指示文件上的签字。该文件包含一项请求，即将HK $860 million（approximately US $111 million）从我的UBS账户转入Mr. Wong指示我使用的China Minsheng Account。\n\n52. 基于对Mr. Wong就该项投资和UBS贷款所作陈述的依赖，我签署了授权该笔电汇的文件。\n\n53. 当日稍后，Lam女士向Yu女士发送电子邮件，并抄送Mr. Wong和Fu女士，随附一份从我的UBS账户汇出的转账确认书。\n\n54. 根据Wong先生（黄先生）的指示，我随后授权将资金从China Minsheng Account（中国民生账户）转入Ace Decade账户。\n\n55. 在资金到达Ace Decade账户后，于May 13, 2015，Yu女士（余女士）和我授权从Ace Decade的账户向Dawn State Limited（“Dawn State”，曙光州有限公司）的账户支付HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）；Dawn State是一只Haixia fund（海峡基金）的特殊目的实体及全资子公司，该笔款项用于为将于May 15发行的股份投资提供资金。在此之前，我曾授权从Ace Decade的账户经由Dawn State向一个UBS证券账户支付approximately US $250 million的初始首付款。若该投资未完成，该笔款项本应返还给Ace Decade。\n\n案号22-50073 文书179-1 提交于04/06/22 登记于04/06/22 16:09:03 第18页，共94页\n\n56. 我为进行该投资而采取的所有步骤，包括请求将approximately HK $860 million（approximately US $111 million）从我的一个UBS账户电汇至China Minsheng Account，并最终转至Ace Decade账户，以及授权于May 13, 2015从Ace Decade账户向Dawn State账户支付HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million），均是在我位于纽约的办公室或公寓内进行的。\n\n57. 如果我知道UBS曾谎称贷款融资文件并不包含基于该等股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件，并且UBS会拒绝与Ace Decade合作以满足任何追加保证金通知，且一旦发出追加保证金通知，UBS将立即出售Ace Decade的股份，我就不会进行该投资，也不会于May 2015授权该笔付款。\n\n58. 根据Ace Decade与Haixia之间协议的条款，Haixia须在July 13, 2015之后，依Ace Decade的请求，将Dawn State（持有该等股份法定所有权的实体）转让给Ace Decade。\n\n59. 然而，在July 6, 2015纽约时间上午——即Haixia本应须将Dawn State转让给Ace Decade之前仅一周——我得知，由于该等股份的短期价格波动，UBS要求我在不足24小时内偿还approximately US $200 million。\n\n60. 如果我知道UBS可能在如此短的期限内要求付款，并且UBS曾就提供足够时间以满足任何追加保证金通知一事撒谎，我本会确保Ace Decade有足够可用资金作出该等付款。\n\n案号22-50073 文书179-1 提交于04/06/22 登记于04/06/22 16:09:03 第19页，共94页\n\n61. 在UBS设定的期限之前，Ace Decade告知UBS，我们可以迅速取得所需资金，但无法在UBS设定的期限之前取得。\n\n62. 然而，于July 6, 2015，Wong先生表示，UBS不会给予Ace Decade任何额外时间。Wong先生表示，UBS已为该等股份找到买家，并且通过出售该等股份而非允许Ace Decade付款，UBS将获得巨额利润。\n\n63. 于July 7th，我向Wong先生发送了一条WhatsApp消息，告诉他UBS的追加保证金通知是“非法的”。Wong先生没有不同意我的看法，也没有否认他曾告诉我，该等股份的短期价格波动不会触发还款义务。相反，他说他已告诉高级管理层取消出售该等股份，并表示他会要求UBS将该等股份返还给我。Wong先生告诉我，该等股份仍处于UBS的控制之下，并承诺制定一项回购该等股份的计划。Wong先生向我保证：“我一直站在郭总经理一边。”\n\n64. 于July 9th，Wong先生表示，出售该等股份的决定是由位于香港和中国以外的UBS高管作出的。\n\n65. 于July 17th，我提醒Wong先生，他此前曾多次表示，绝“不会有”基于该等股份短期价格波动的追加保证金通知，并且他曾多次表示，UBS在发出追加保证金通知后并未出售一名平安大型股东的股份。\n\n66. 在July 17的另一条消息中，我对Wong先生说：“我告诉过你，我自去年起就来到美国寻求更好的机会，不是吗？我从美国发给你的所有信息、我的要求，你都知道。……在这种情况下，一切都交给你了，[我]全都听你的。是你介绍了Haixia……结果现在弄得一团糟。”\n\n案号22-50073 文书179-1 提交于04/06/22 登记于04/06/22 16:09:03 第20页，共94页\n\n67. Wong先生并未否认他作出过这些虚假陈述，事实上还答复说他理解。\n\n68. 在July 17的另一条消息中，我对Wong先生说：“你多次告诉我，UBS不会那样清算资产；否则我怎么会信任你。”我还告诉他：“如果不是你告诉我追加保证金通知会像平安那样，事情就不会变成这样。会有合理的时间筹措一些资产来处理这件事。”\n\n69. 于July 17，我还对Wong先生说：“你说UBS与他们[Haixia]签了协议，允许UBS在发出追加保证金通知后24小时内出售全部股份。那是怎么签的？他们是如何执行的？这不公平。你当时告诉我不是这样。”\n\n70. Wong先生答复说：“我一直坚决反对他们，但他们不理会我，并告诉我这是瑞士CEO的命令。”他没有否认我的主张，即他此前曾表示贷款协议不会允许UBS在发出追加保证金通知后24小时内出售该等股份。\n\n71. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示UBS会以与对待该平安股东相同的方式对待Ace Decade。\n\n72. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示贷款文件不会包含基于该等股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件。\n\n73. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示UBS会与Ace Decade合作，并给予其充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知。\n\n案号22-50073 文书179-1 提交于04/06/22 登记于04/06/22 16:09:03 第21页，共94页\n\n74. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认UBS曾有不当行为。\n\n75. Wong先生告诉我，于July 7, 2015，UBS以HK $11.12出售了属于Ace Decade的全部股份，该价格较July 7海通股票的收盘价折让20%。\n\n76. 由于失去海通股份，Ace Decade失去了纽约投资者；我在2015年搬迁至纽约后曾与这些投资者会面，而他们一直有意投资Ace Decade。例如，在April至June 2015期间，我的代表和／或我曾四次在纽约与一家总部位于纽约的私人投资公司的联合创始人会面。该公司对投资Ace Decade表示了浓厚兴趣。然而，在UBS出售属于Ace Decade的海通股份后，Ace Decade失去了这名潜在投资者。\n\n我宣誓，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n[Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）中文版本上的签名] Kwok Ho Wan\n\n[中文版本上的公证]\n\nMeservey市　Cerro Gordo县）））ss.:\n\n本人，Liming Pals，经依法宣誓后陈述并声明：本人精通英语和中文。本人特此证明，所附文件是《Kwok Ho Wan宣誓书》中文版本的准确译文。\n\n于本月\n\n5\\_日，在本人面前宣誓　Ma,4&} 5 i:::'e\\_ lo r ..,,J...,r ;:J cGl O 1 {p\n\n~ b-J..\\_,c 公证人\n\niii，\n\n证据附件2\n\n索引号652077/2017　Barry R Ostrager法官\n\nYANPING WANG（王艳萍）宣誓书\n\n纽约州最高法院　纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，\n\n被告。\n\n纽约州）\n\n）ss:\n\n纽约县）\n\n本人，Yanping Wang，经依法宣誓后，特此陈述并声明：\n\n1. 本宣誓书基于本人亲身知悉的事实，并作为对原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出的说明理由令动议的反对意见而提交；该动议旨在：(1) 强制非当事人Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“GSNY”，金春〈纽约〉有限公司）遵守PAX根据Article 52发出的传票；及(2) 修改法院于October 15, 2020作出的命令。\n\n2. 本人现受雇担任GSNY总裁，并担任该公司董事。\n\n3. GSNY是China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Ltd.（中国金春〈香港〉有限公司）的全资子公司，该公司根据香港法律注册成立。\n\n4. GSNY担任郭氏家族的家族办公室。\n\n5. 随附的证据附件A是GSNY董事和高级管理人员历史名单的真实、准确副本。\n\n6. 随附的证据附件B是GSNY的Delaware（特拉华州）公司注册证书和恢复资格证书的真实、准确副本。\n\n7. 随附的证据附件C是GSNY在纽约州注册经营业务文件的真实、准确副本。\n\n8. 随附的证据附件D是GSNY公司章程细则的真实、准确副本。\n\n9. 随附的证据附件E是GSNY通过的公司决议的真实、准确副本。\n\n10. 随附的证据附件F是GSNY的Delaware年度特许经营税报告的真实、准确副本。\n\n11. 随附的证据附件G是GSNY向纽约州务院提交的两年期申报表的真实、准确副本。\n\n12. 目前，GSNY雇用16名直接雇员和7名独立承包商。其雇员包括GSNY行政、财务、法律和安保部门的人员。\n\n日期：May /!:' \"')21\n\nYanping Wang\n\n于2021年5月j*r*日，在本人面前宣誓\n\nJAZMIN PARRA　纽约州公证人　编号01PA6087956　于Queens County具备资格　任期届满日：March 3, 2023\n\n提交：纽约县书记员　05/19/2021 04:33 PM　索引号652077/2017\n\n证据附件3\n\n提交：纽约县书记员　06/01/2021 04:48 PM　索引号652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF文书编号833　NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021　案号22-50073 文书179-1 提交于04/06/22 登记于04/06/22 16:09:03 第29页，共\n\n1　纽约州最高法院\n\n纽约县\n\n：\n\n民事审判庭\n\n：\n\n第2部分　------------------------------------------X\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n3　原告，\n\n4　索引号：\n\n诉\n\n652077/2017\n\n7　KWOK HO WAN，又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER控股公司）及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER控股有限责任公司），\n\n8　被告。\n\n9　------------------------------------------X\n\nMICROSOFT TEAMS\n\n10　May 27，\n\n审判长：\n\n11　尊敬的BARRY OSTRAGER，\n\n12　法官\n\n13　出庭人员：\n\n14　O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\n原告代理律师\n\n15　Times Square Tower\n\n16　New York, New York\n\n代理律师：\n\nEDWARD MOSS，ESQ.\n\n17　STUART SARNOFF，ESQ.\n\n18　BAKER HOSTETLER，LLP\n\n被告代理律师\n\nRockefeller Plaza\n\n19　New York, New York\n\n代理律师：\n\nMELISSA CARVALHO，ESQ.\n\n20　JOHN SIEGAL，ESQ.\n\n21　LAWALL & MITCHELL，LLC\n\n被告GENEVER代理律师\n\n22　162 E. 64th Street\n\nNew York, New York\n\n23　代理律师：\n\nAARON A. MITCHELL，ESQ.\n\n提交：纽约县书记员　06/01/2021 04:48 PM　索引号652077/2017　NYSCEF文书编号833　NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021　案号22-50073 文书179-1 提交于04/06/22 登记于04/06/22 16:09:03 第30页，共\n\n1　YANKWITT LLP　英文\n\n2　被告代理律师\n\nGrand Street，Suite\n\n3　New York，New York\nNY\n代理人：\nDANIEL ALTER（丹尼尔·奥尔特）律师\n\n21　Karen Mangano（凯伦·曼加诺），CSR\n22　高级法庭记录员\n\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021　案件 22-50073　文件 179-1　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 31 页，共 94 页\n\n庭审记录　法庭：好的。Moss 先生，这是你的动议。MOSS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我们的动议提出两项请求。一是强制就传票作出证据开示，另一项是修改法院的限制令。因此，我想先从传票开始。法官阁下，这可能是我在本案中向本院陈述过的最直接明了的问题。CPLR 5223 允许对任何第三方进行广泛的证据开示，以请求与判决执行相关的信息——与判决执行相关的信息。如法院所知，我们被迫——我的当事人被迫向数名第三方送达传票，以试图查找 Kwok 先生的资产，因为他并不以自己的名义持有这些资产。Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）送达的传票中，或许最重要的一份，是向一个名为 Golden Springs（金泉）的实体送达的传票。\n\n20　21　22　23　24　25　Golden Springs 是所谓的 Kwok 家族家族办公室，但实际上，它只是 Kwok 先生的主要幌子。该实体完全由他自己的资金出资。该实体支付其奢靡生活方式的所有费用。根据其自身承认，每一笔费用均由其支付。其为众多诉讼中代表 Kwok 先生以个人身份出庭的律师支付律师费。\n\nKM\n\n案号 652077/2017\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM\n\n案件 22-50073\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833　文件 179-1\n提交日期 04/06/22\n录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第 32 页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　即使 Golden Springs 在这些案件中根本不是当事方。\n\n4　其支付一名律师的律师费，该律师代表拥有该游艇、且像其他人一样在证据开示中对我方百般阻挠的实体。\n\n7　其支付 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）公寓的维护费用。我们知道这一切，是因为 Kwok 先生及其律师在法庭文件和证据开示答复中承认了这一点。\n\n11　法官阁下，我只想把这一点说得更明确些。\n\n12　按 Kwok 先生自己的说法，他没有钱或资产，但他说他为整个实体提供了资金，并利用该实体支付他的每一笔费用、他的生活费用。\n\n15　法官阁下，我们在这里讨论的是什么？这种证据开示怎么可能不获 CPLR 允许？它怎么会与执行判决无关而不获允许？\n\n18　法官阁下，他们提交的反对意见是一份毫无根据的文件，我想先说说其中没有什么。其中没有对我刚才所述有关 Golden Springs 的任何一项事实提出争议。他们对所有这些事实均置之不理。他们无法对此提出争议，因为 Kwok 先生及其律师已在证据开示答复和法庭文件中承认这些事实。因此，Golden Springs——他们的一个论点是，\n\nKM\n\n案号 652077/2017\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 179-1\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833\n提交日期 04/06/22\n录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第 33 页，共 94 页\nNYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　嗯，我们有公司文件。我们尊重公司形式。我们有雇员。但其并未否认，\n\n2　其唯一业务就是为 Kwok 阁下服务。除作为其业务的家族办公室外，其甚至没有说明该业务是什么。他们说我们有包括安保人员在内的雇员。那就是 Kwok 先生的保镖，他在我对 Kwok 先生进行宣誓询问时，会随他来到我的办公室，并递给他瓶装水，因为他害怕我们是共产党的特工，害怕我律所里的水会杀死他。我的意思是，法官阁下，这不是一家真正的公司。他们为 Kwok 先生的人支付费用。\n\n11　如果 Tim Cook（蒂姆·库克）因与其在 Apple（苹果公司）的职务无关的事项被起诉，Apple 不会支付那些费用。Apple 不会支付他的维护费用。这是 Kwok 先生用自己的钱设立的储蓄罐。\n\n15　Golden Springs 的书面材料中的主要论点是，Golden Springs 是第三方，因此我们只应有权获得其为 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）持有的资产或其与 Miles Kwok 进行的交易的信息。\n\n20　这基本上就像说它是一家银行；对吧。你们明白，我们向银行发出传票——我们已经这样做过。我们获得 Kwok 先生的信息，但不会获得有关银行本身的信息。我们不会获得有关银行其他客户的信息。对于一家银行而言，这是一个不错的论点，但它\n\nKM\n\n完全忽略了这样一个背景，即 Golden Springs 并非第三方。\n\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 833　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021　案件 22-50073　文件 179-1　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 34 页，共 94 页\n\n1　它是持有 Kwok 先生资金的实体，\n\n2　也是支付其法律费用的实体。因此，其资产就是他的资产。其交易就是他的交易。其财务信息就是他的财务信息。\n\n6　书面材料中提出的建议，即 Kwok 先生、Wang 女士及其所有人员应能够挑选并决定 Golden Springs 中哪些信息与 Kwok 先生有关、哪些无关，在本案中是酿成灾难的做法，法官阁下。\n\n11　Kwok 先生甚至否认参与 Golden Springs。他否认参与拥有该船只的实体，而我们都知道他拥有该船只，因为他在 YouTube 上说过他拥有该船只。顺便说一句，该船只仍在管辖范围之外，\n\n15　每日产生 \\$500,000 的费用。\n\n16　Kwok 先生也是同一个否认拥有其公寓的人，而 Wang 女士——曾在宣誓后告诉法庭——称他拥有该公寓。\n\n19　因此，他们试图在此施加的限制，即只限于与 Kwok 先生有关的事项，在本案中毫无意义，而且只会导致我们一无所获。\n\n22　Golden Springs 还就传票主张，我们必须证明其为另一个自我，才能对其资产进行证据开示。嗯，这完全是杜撰的。没有任何判例支持这一点。\n\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 833　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021　案件 22-50073　文件 179-1　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 35 页，共 94 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　5223 是一项宽泛标准。这是一项宽松\n\n2　标准。法院命令银行提供 Wang 女士的信息。它们并非另一个自我。她也不是另一个自我。当然，我们无需证明其为另一个自我，才能获得其信息。\n\n6　法院认定 Wang 女士可能隐藏 Kwok 先生的资产，并允许我们获取其财务信息。这容易得多。他已经说过这是他的钱，而且他正用这些钱支付他的全部费用。我的意思是，对于本动议，没有可信的反对理由。\n\n11　最后，还有一些关于范围的论点。你知道，我读了几遍。我的传票令人震惊。它是大而无当的。它是在进行钓鱼式取证。它是明目张胆的。许多形容词，但没有实质内容。他们根本没有提出任何负担方面的论点。\n\n16　通常你会说，法官，我们运行了一些搜索词，结果命中太多，或者由于这在不同的服务器上，获取这些资料负担过重。什么都没有。这基本上只是一个关联性论点，即我们要求得太多。\n\n21　如果他们想讨论搜索词、文件保管人以及应收集哪些笔记本电脑，我们欢迎这种讨论。我们欢迎就负担和范围进行实际讨论。但不能只是在毫无任何证明——完全没有证明——的情况下说，我们认为这太多了，\n\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 833　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021　案件 22-50073　文件 179-1　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 36 页，共 94 页\n\n庭审记录　8　存在实际负担。我只想就传票问题以一个特别论点结束，因为我预计 Alter 先生会着重讨论这一点。我们请求——确实请求。他说得对。我们请求有关 60 名人员和实体的信息，没有任何人已知与 Kwok 有关联。Alter 先生在书面意见中讥讽道，嗯，谁知道？谁知道？我们知道，法官阁下。我们是基于花费大量金钱和时间查阅公共记录、法庭文件、社交媒体账户而知道的，因为这是 Kwok 先生迫使我们参与的游戏。\n\n12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　我们必须请求这些信息的原因，是因为 Golden Springs 是枢纽。我们不能把余生都花在追查 100 个实体上。我的意思是，届时将由我的孙辈来做这件事。Golden Springs 是掌握信息的实体。它已出示与涉案基础案件有关的实体 Shiny Times（闪耀时代）的文件。它拥有这些文件。它是该帝国的枢纽。如果它没有其中几个实体的信息，如果我们对其中一两个判断有误，好的，没问题。那么他们应当运行搜索并告诉我们他们没有这些信息，而不予提供。但请运行搜索词，收集 ESI，并提供文件。\n\n24　25　法庭：好的，Moss 先生。我明白你的论点。我也明白 Kwok 先生正在产生\n\n归档：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017　案件 22-50073　文件 179-1　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 37 页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833　NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021　94\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　每日 \\$500,000 的藐视法庭罚金。我明白 Kwok 先生认为这些法庭程序是一场他——他想玩的逃避游戏。\n\n4　让我听取 Golden Springs 代理律师的陈述。\n\n5　ALTER 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Daniel Alter，我们刚刚听到了很多说法，但相对而言事实很少。我想退一步，澄清一些被严重混淆的问题。\n\n9　首先，为纠正两项具体不准确的陈述，据我了解，Kwok 先生从未说过他与 Golden Springs 完全无关或没有任何联系。恰恰相反。他说这是他的家族办公室。因此，让我们对此准确表述。\n\n15　第二点是，你知道，显然他们的立场是 Kwok 先生为 Golden Springs 提供了全部资金。嗯，我没有看到这方面的证据。我看到的是记录中的一项陈述，即他最初向 Golden Springs 提供了资本，但我没有看到任何证据表明他继续这样做，或目前其中的资本属于他。让我退一步谈谈这个问题。\n\n22　法庭：在你这样做之前，Alter 先生，因为无论对错，Kwok 先生的种种行为已经耗尽了本院的耐心。\n\n25　Golden Springs 已经毫无争议地——\n\n曾为便利Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的生活方式提供七位数的款项资助，而郭先生过着相当奢侈的生活，却声称自己毫无任何资产。\n\n因此，原告是判决债权人。原告知道Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）正在资助郭先生的开支。这些并非微不足道、无关紧要的开支，而是重大开支。判决债权人有权对资助郭先生开支的实体进行证据开示。判决债权人还有权获得一项命令，指示Golden Spring不得转让、处分或以其他方式耗散其拥有的任何资产，因为目前向法院提供的最佳证据有力地表明，Golden Spring拥有的任何资产均由郭先生提供给Golden Spring。\n\n现在，如果判决债权人正在向Golden Spring寻求的证据开示推翻了这一点，那么，我们面临的情况就会与目前的情况不同。根据CPLR（《纽约民事诉讼法与规则》），判决债权人有权向第三方进行证据开示，而在本案中，这些第三方很可能是郭先生的另我，但判决债权人无需证明Golden Spring是郭先生的另我。\n\n奥尔特先生：您知道，法官阁下，我们并未——那不是我们的立场。那是被提出的稻草人论证。\n\nKM\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）06/01/2021 04:48 PM 索引号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 833 NYSCEF 收悉：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文书 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第39页，共\n\n庭审记录\n\n法院：好吧，不管怎样，除非你能说服我作出不同决定，我将全数准许判决债权人的动议。正如Moss先生所概述的那样，如果你能够向他说明对其所提出的具体请求加以限制的正当理由，他完全准备好进行会谈和协商，并讨论该等限制。但我们已经过了在这里玩花样的阶段。\n\n奥尔特先生：法官阁下，我不是来玩花样的；如果法院已经作出决定，能否允许我作出记录。\n\n法院：可以。作出记录吧。\n\n奥尔特先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。首先，我们的论点并不是，判决债权人为根据CPLR获得第三方证据开示，就必须刺破公司面纱。这是一个关联性论点，而且我们已经表示，诸如Golden Spring与实际判决债务人之间的证据开示等方面，是相关且适当的。因此，我们并未采取任何完全违背法律规定的立场。\n\n我们所说的，以及Moss先生在其论证中所证明的，是他们采取的立场为：郭先生就是Golden Spring，Golden Spring就是郭先生；因此，他们有权查阅Golden Spring的全部档案。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 833 NYSCEF 收悉：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文书 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第40页，共94页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法官阁下，您知道，这就叫作刺破公司面纱；我们的立场是，如果他们想要取得独立于判决债务人的文件，而他们完全没有建立关联、也没有努力建立任何关联，那么，是的，他们确实必须刺破公司面纱，但这并非我们论点的全部。\n\n我们的论点是，这些请求极其宽泛且不具关联性。事实上，让我们暂且看看Moss先生所称的本案压倒性事实。\n\n如果您看看实际就本动议提交的材料，其中绝对没有提出任何事实，表明他们所寻求证据开示的64个非当事人与判决债务人有任何关系。甚至——连与Golden Spring有任何关系都没有。他们只是想向64个非当事人进行证据开示。\n\n法官阁下，我们听到Moss先生说他知道存在关联。那么，在裁定Golden Spring必须出示原本显然无关的文件之前，让法院知道该关联究竟是什么，难道不会有所助益吗？这就是为何我们主张，除非且直到Moss先生和PAX（PAX）提出存在关联的实际证据，否则不应对这些文件进行证据开示。我们没有这样的证据。\n\n至于证据，即证明Golden Spring就是郭先生、郭先生就是Golden Spring的压倒性证据，至少根据我所见的记录，法官阁下，我并不质疑您阁下的经历——历史性记忆，但本记录中所呈现的是，Golden Spring最初帮助一家公司注资。许多人都会这么做。\n\n第二，Golden Spring支付律师费用，并曾分担支付公寓开支。好吧。\n\n第三，Golden Spring的雇员曾照料与Guo family（郭氏家族）有关的家庭事务。好吧，这是一家家族公司。这是一家家族办公室。\n\n而且，Golden Spring的母公司显然已就证据开示请求出示了文件。因此，正如郭先生所说，确实存在关联，但郭先生与Golden Spring之间并非实体同一，这就是我们在书面材料中提及以下事实的原因：如果情况确实如此，法律非常明确，他们确实需要刺破公司面纱，而且他们绝对需要刺破公司面纱才能获得禁令。因为如我们所述，尽管法院已失去耐心，而我理解您阁下的立场，法律明确规定，一个实体基于正当程序，未经实际成为当事人，不得被禁令约束。\n\n即使一个实体作为当事人被纳入诉讼，法院仍受到限制。法院不得准许审前资产冻结，而这正是PAX现在试图做的事情。他们试图禁止Golden Spring为任何目的支出其自身任何资产，这违反法律。现在，他们主张您阁下有权执行限制令。当然您有。Golden Spring已被送达一项限制令，如果其转让郭先生拥有权益的任何财产，Golden Spring将自行承担风险；但法院对限制通知的执行并不等同于禁令。这是在事后基于指称违反通知而进行的诉讼。两者是完全不同的事情。因此，法官阁下，恭敬地说，禁令既没有管辖权基础，也没有令人信服的事实基础，因为他们已经获得CPLR所规定的救济。\n\n现在，如果法院将按您阁下所述继续作出某些命令，我请求几项事项，几个澄清点。\n\n首先，我们请求法院要求提供保证金。命令PAX提供保证金。他们寻求禁止Golden Spring为任何目的使用其任何资产。根据CPLR 6312(b)，保证金是必要的。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 833 NYSCEF 收悉：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文书 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第43页，共94页\n\n庭审记录\n\n这是初步救济的必要要件。因此，我们请求法院指示提供保证金。我们还请求澄清，在本辖区内，Golden Spring是否能够支付律师费用？是否能够支付其雇员工资？Moss先生轻视该公司实际雇用了16名雇员和7名独立承包人的事实。他们无权继续这样做吗？他们是否需要——这项禁令是否将关闭Golden Spring？我们需要该澄清，因为Golden Spring不希望违反您阁下的命令。最后，法官阁下，我恭敬地请求法院命令暂停执行一周，以便我们寻求上诉救济并寻求上诉期间暂停执行。但鉴于这是一个假日周末，我们请求法院暂停执行，因为再次如我所说，Golden Spring不希望违反本法院的命令；但基于我所陈述的所有理由，坦率地说，法官阁下，所请求的救济是基于Moss先生以法官、陪审团和执行人身份所主张的事实。他们并未被提出。他们并未被裁判。他们并未被正式认定，而这些对于深入Golden Spring、否定其独立身份、\n\nKM\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 索引号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文书编号 833 NYSCEF 收悉：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文书 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第44页，共\n\n庭审记录\n\n并仅仅获取其想要的任何文件、禁止其全部资产，都是法律所必需的。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我理解你的观点。你所说的没有任何一点表明Golden Spring在刚刚过去的近期内没有支付郭先生价值七位数的开支。你所说的没有任何一点改变郭先生随意蔑视法院命令这一事实。你说得对，PAX需要提供$500,000保证金。你说得对，我应当暂停执行这些命令至June 1st下午五点，以便你寻求上诉救济；你还说得对，Golden Spring可以按照一份列明雇员身份及其报酬数额的清单支付其雇员，而你将把该清单提供给Moss先生。我认为这解决了你的关切。\n\n奥尔特先生：有一个例外，法官阁下，我感谢法院对这些关切的回应。律师。Golden Spring今天获准支付的律师费用。\n\n法院：没有问题。只需要确认律师及你们向他们支付的费用。\n\n奥尔特先生：好的。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 833 NYSCEF 收悉：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文书 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第45页，共94页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法院：而且，您知道，我注意到 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生显然毫不在意因公然违反法院先前就 Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司支付维护和运输费用的船只所作命令而被处以每日 $500,000 的制裁。若我的计算无误，截至目前藐视法庭制裁金总额为 $7.5 million。Kwok 先生不能自由地居住在纽约一套由 Golden Springs 支付费用的极端豪华公寓内，同时无视纽约法院的程序。\n\n现在，还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nMITCHELL 律师：法官大人，我是 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）。我代理 Genever（杰尼弗）被告。仅作一点澄清。\n\n如您所充分知悉，法官大人，拥有该合作公寓的 Genever New York（杰尼弗纽约）正在破产程序中，因此 Golden Spring 并未支付该公寓的维护费。我相信 Moss 律师也知悉，已经支付了一笔保证金，担保人正在从该保证金中支取；我只是希望为记录明确这一点。\n\n法院：这是公平且适当的澄清。\n\n这并不改变以下事实：在 Genever——即 Kwok 先生众多公司中的另一家——破产之前，Genever 一直在为 Kwok 先生的豪华公寓支付费用。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 46 of 94\n\n庭审记录\n\nMoss 律师多年来一直在寻求执行一项判决书，而我不幸不得不主持如此多、如此多、如此多的动议和听证会；这些程序均未产生法院所命令的结果，因为 Kwok 先生直接或间接通过其公司无视法院命令。\n\n但是，Golden Springs 推定将遵守法院命令；而且，您知道，Golden Springs 可在明日、今日或 6 月 1 日向上诉分庭申请中止执行。若上诉分庭中止法院命令，则法院命令将被中止执行。\n\n否则，法院预计 Golden Springs 将遵守法院命令，但须以 PAX（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）缴纳 $500,000 保证金为条件，以防最终认定此处存在任何越权行为；并以 Golden Springs 能够按照该时间表向已确定的律师和已确定的雇员付款为条件。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：法官大人，我是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我能否仅作一项澄清询问？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：PAX 缴纳保证金的义务，是否具体涉及您今日裁决中限制令的部分？\n\n法院：是。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：并且是单独的——因此并不存在——\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 47 of\n\n庭审记录\n\n法院：就限制令而言。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：那么，对于 Golden Spring 遵守传票的义务，并不存在中止执行。对吗？\n\n法院：正确。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：谢谢您，法官。\n\n法院：还有其他任何人要说什么吗？\n\n好的。法院将作出与今日庭审记录一致的备忘录命令。我强烈敦促律师订购今日庭审记录的加急副本，以便在 Golden Springs 向上诉分庭申请中止执行时，留有清楚反映法院所作命令的记录。祝各位今日愉快、周末愉快。请各位注意安全，谢谢。\n\n兹证明，此为本程序所记录原始笔录的真实、准确副本。\n\n______________________________\n\nKAREN MANGANO（凯伦·曼加诺），CSR\n\n高级法庭记录员\n\n附件 4\n\nBaker&Hostetler LLP（贝克与霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n\n45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111\n\n电话 212 .589.4200 传真 212 .589.4201 www.bakerlaw.com\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho（梅丽莎·M·卡瓦略）直线电话：212.589.4289 mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n通过电子邮件（EMOSS@OMM.COM）\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯） O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦利文与迈尔斯律师事务所） Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nFebruary 1, 2021\n\n事由：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al., Index no. 652077/2017\n\nEddie：\n\n为进一步落实我们就原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 于 November 6, 2020 提出的第四套文件出示请求（“文件请求”）以及 Kwok 先生对此的答复和异议所进行的讨论，请允许以下内容记载我们迄今讨论的情况，并在必要时补充和/或修改 Kwok 先生的答复。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 765 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 49 of 94\n\n- 1. Kwok 先生继续坚持其对原告文件请求中通篇使用的“家庭成员”定义提出的异议。具体而言，Kwok 先生反对“家庭成员”的定义，因为该定义范围过宽、造成不适当负担、超出 CPLR §5229 披露范围，并超出本法院 October 15, 2020 的裁决和命令（Dkt. No. 630）（“命令”）的范围；该命令授权对 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）住所、Lady May（梅夫人号）游艇，以及“Kwok 先生可能直接或间接拥有的其他资产”进行证据开示。Kwok 先生还反对“家庭成员”的定义，凡该定义试图将其无控制权的个别第三方纳入其中的范围内。\n\n- 2. Kwok 先生继续坚持其对原告文件请求中通篇使用的已定义时间期间提出的异议。具体而言，原告将相关时间期间定义如下：“除非另有说明，每项书面质询的适用时间期间为 January 1, 2008，直至并包括出示之日（‘时间期间’）。”Kwok 先生反对该“时间期间”，因为其范围过宽、造成不适当负担、超出 CPLR §5229 披露范围，并超出本法院的\n\nEdward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 2 NYSCEF 文件编号 765 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 50 of\n\n法院命令的范围；该命令授权对 Sherry-Netherland 住所、Lady May 游艇，以及“Kwok 先生可能直接或间接拥有的其他资产”进行证据开示。为本次披露之目的，相关时间期间为 October 15, 2020（CPLR §5229 程序载入记录之日）至今，以确定 Kwok 先生“可能直接或间接拥有”的、可用于满足判决书的任何资产。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\n- 3. 文件请求 8：如我们已向您报告，Kwok 先生答复称，其并未持有、保管或控制与 Stephenson Wong（黄凯） 、Kingdom Rich（富裕王国）或英属维尔京群岛注册代理人之间的任何文件或通信。我们理解，针对本次披露，PAX 已修改文件请求 8，以请求与 William Je（叶威廉）就 Kwok 先生任何资产、投资、银行账户、股权、权益或持有物有关的文件和通信。Kwok 先生正在核查其是否持有对您修改后的请求作出回应的文件或通信。\n\n- 4. 文件请求 10：我们认为无需再讨论或处理任何问题，因为 PAX 未能为其认为 Kwok 先生在 (c) 至 (i) 所列账户中拥有所有权权益的信念提供依据。\n\n- 5. 文件请求 12：在不放弃 Kwok 先生对原告在其文件请求中定义的时间期间所提出异议的前提下，Kwok 先生将向原告出示其 2019 年纳税申报表。\n\n- 6. 文件请求 13：在不放弃 Kwok 先生对原告在其文件请求中定义的时间期间所提出异议的前提下，Kwok 先生将向原告出示 Genever 实体的 2019 年纳税申报表。\n\n- 7. 文件请求 15：我们理解，PAX 正在寻求任何与 Kwok 先生申请庇护有关而作出的资产/财务披露。我们此前已向您提及 Form I-589，即庇护申请及暂缓递解申请表，该表格并未要求与申请人资产有关的任何信息。另请参见 www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-gchapter-3；据移民律师向我们解释，该规定明确将庇护申请人排除在基于可能成为公共负担而不准入境的理由之外。Kwok 先生答复称，其未曾就其庇护申请提供任何资产/财务信息。\n\n- 8. 文件请求 16：我们理解，PAX 愿接受 Kwok 先生作出的“全部付款来源”，以替代文件出示。Kwok 先生答复称，其在相关时间期间的费用由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 支付。\n\n- 9. 文件请求 17：我们将等待 PAX 提出电子检索词清单。\n\nEdward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 3\n\n- 10. 文件请求 18：我们正在确认 Kwok 先生未持有、保管或控制对请求作出回应的 Bravo Luck（好运）和/或 Genever 文件。若其持有、保管或控制对请求作出回应的文件，则将在其并非本案已出示文件的重复件范围内予以出示。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 765 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 179-1 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 16:09:03 Page 51 of 94\n\n- 11. 文件请求 19-22：我们正在确认 Kwok 先生未持有、保管或控制对请求作出回应的 Bravo Luck 和/或 Genever 文件。若其持有、保管或控制对请求作出回应的文件，则将在其并非本案已出示文件的重复件范围内予以出示。\n\n- 12. 关于文件请求 21，您能否提供该请求中提及的信托协议副本？我们获告知 Kwok 先生仅持有该信托协议的一份副本，而且我们理解该副本已向 PAX 出示。\n\n- 13. 文件请求 31：我们特此根据 Kwok 先生对 PAX 第 29 号书面质询、要求作出同一披露的答复，对本请求的答复作出修改。1 如已讨论，对本请求作出回应的文件此前已由 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（雪莉-内瑟兰公司）在本诉讼中出示，任何进一步信息均须直接向 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 和/或 Bravo Luck 寻求。Kwok 先生已找到其与 Itakura Nan Nan（板仓楠楠）签订的贷款协议，并将予以出示。\n\n- 14. 文件请求 35：Kwok 先生答复称，该信息不在其持有、保管或控制之中，须直接从 Genever 实体处取得。我们注意到，至少一家 Genever 实体已在其破产申请中披露其债务。The Sherry-Netherland 先前在本案中出示的文件也提供了相关且对请求作出回应的文件。\n\n- 15. 文件请求 36：Kwok 先生答复称，其未持有、保管或控制对请求作出回应的文件；并坚持认为，正如我们已讨论，其在本请求列明的实体中拥有权益的仅有：Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）；Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）；以及 Shiny Times Holdings, Ltd.（闪耀时代控股有限公司）。2\n\n在获得进一步信息后，我将与您联系。\n\n谨此，\n\n/s/ Melissa M. Carvalho\n\n1 Kwok 先生欠 Itakura Nan Nan $27,000.00。Genever Holdings, LLC 的债权人为：The Sherry-Netherland - $891,262.06；Bravo Luck Limited - $67,5000,000.00；Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. - $1,800,000.00；以及 Qiang Guo（郭强） - $5,000,000.00。\n\n2 Shiny Times 于 2017 年被中国政府查封。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 765 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 52 页，共 94 页\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯） 2021年2月1日 第4页\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho（梅丽莎·M·卡瓦略）\n证据5\n\n美国受托人办公室\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n关于：　案件编号 20-12411-JLG\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（杰纳弗控股有限责任公司），　201 Varick Street\nNew York, NY 10014\n债务人。\n2020年12月18日\n下午2:30\n债权人会议第341条会议记录副本\n在 RICHARD C. MORRISSEY, ESQ.（理查德·C·莫里西律师）面前\n美国受托人办公室\n电话出庭：\n代表债务人：　Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP（戈德堡·韦普林·芬克尔·戈德斯坦律师事务所）\n代理人：\nKEVIN J. NASH, ESQ.（凯文·J·纳什律师）\n1501 Broadway, 22nd Floor\nNew York, NY 10036\nLawall & Mitchell LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n代理人：\nAARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.（亚伦·A·米切尔律师）\n55 Madison Avenue, #400\nMorristown, NJ 07960\n代表 Pacific Alliance\nAsia Opportunity Fund\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：　Foley & Lardner LLP（福利与拉德纳律师事务所）\n代理人：\nALISSA M. NANN, ESQ.（阿莉萨·M·南律师）\n90 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10016\nO'Melveny & Meyers LLP（欧麦文律师事务所）\n代理人：\nEDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（爱德华·莫斯律师）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n程序通过电子录音记录，记录副本\n由速记服务机构制作。\n\nJ&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.（J&J法院记录服务公司）\n268 Evergreen Avenue\nHamilton, New Jersey 08619\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 767　案件 22-50073\n文件 179-1　提交日期 04/06/22\n登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第55页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\n电话出庭（续）：\n代表 Sherry-\nNetherland Hotel（雪莉-尼德兰酒店）：　Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克与拉万律师事务所）\n代理人：\nGABRIELLE SASSON, ESQ.（加布里埃尔·萨松律师）\nCURTIS C. MECHLING, ESQ.（柯蒂斯·C·梅克林律师）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY 10038\n\nWWW.JJCOURT.COM\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 767 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第56页，共\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西）\n\n1　或者说，与居住在那里并付款的个人相对，是否\n2　仅仅是 Bravo 恰好在付款？\n3　答\n最初是 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）和 Qiang Guo（郭强）先生\n4　购买了这些公寓。因此，他们将其视为\n5　自己的资产和负债。因此，一直以来他们\n6　都在支付所有这些维护费。不是由个人支付，而是由 Bravo\n7　Luck，即这家公司支付。\n8　问\n好的。您知道每月维护费是多少吗？\n9　答\n自今年起，费用略有上涨，我认为\n10　维护费大约为每月 73,000，此外还有\n11　每月的特别征费。\n12　问\n好的。特别征费是什么意思？\n13　答\n据 Sherry 解释，特别征费是指\n14　每月发生的特别征费，大约低于 10,000，\n15　例如今年每月为 8,000；此前我\n16　相信是按季度收取，用于改善整体状况并\n17　支付 Sherry 希望改善整个大楼、\n18　维护或设施状况的任何费用。\n19　问\n好的。换言之，除了每月 73,000 之外，\n20　Sherry 还会针对其进行的任何\n21　改善征收特别费用？\n22　答\n是的，先生。\n\n23　问　好的。如果是债务人或 Bravo 在进行付款，债务人是否按时支付了\n24　该等维护费\n25　？\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 767　案号 652077/2017\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM\n案件 22-50073\n文件 179-1\n提交日期 04/06/22\n登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第57页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西）\n\n1　答\n自今年起，由于诉讼，债务人原本预计会付款，但\n2　由于诉讼和所有权问题，Bravo Luck 自\n3　今年年初起未付款。\n4　问\n好的。所以是自2020年年初起，即自1月起，\n5　您是这个意思吗？\n6　答\n正确，自2020年1月起。\n7　NASH律师：\nRichard，仅供说明。\n8　Stroock 律师事务所代理 Sherry-Netherland。我们将\n9　拖欠 Sherry-Netherland 的款项列为约一百万美元。\n10　即拖欠款项。\n11　我们还列明存在一宗诉讼，\n12　Sherry-Netherland 持有一笔 $3.5 million 保证金。\n13　已列明一宗涉及该保证金的诉讼，\n14　争议包括保证金是否过高、\n15　其应如何适用，等等。因此已列明该事项。\n16　我认为申请书中列明的拖欠款项约为一百万美元，\n17　并有三或四宗、甚至可能\n18　五宗涉及 Sherry-Netherland 的诉讼，如我没有\n19　弄错的话。\n20　MORRISSEY律师：\n好的。谢谢您，先生——\n21　答\n是的，与 Sherry 的诉讼确实影响了\n22　今年起的付款，是的。\n23　问\n好的。谢谢。\n24　MORRISSEY律师：\n也感谢您，Nash律师，补充\n25　这些情况。\n\nWWW.JJCOURT.COM\n\n案号 652077/2017\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM\n案件 22-50073\n文件 179-1\n提交日期 04/06/22\n登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第58页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 767　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西）\n\n1　问\n自提交申请书以来，债务人是否支付过任何\n2　维护费？\n3　答\n没有。没有，债务人没有支付，先生。\n4　问\n好的，明白。\n5　答\n是。\n6　问\n好的。\n7　答\n抱歉。\n8　问\n好的。我现在转向 Pacific Alliance 的问题，\n9　并试图了解其内容以及债务人本身\n10　与其如何关联。\n11　我将以某种诱导性的方式提问，\n12　但据我了解，有一个名为\n13　Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 的实体于2017年起诉 Kwok先生和\n14　债务人。这与一项贷款义务的\n15　个人保证有关。\n16　我想问的是，Wang女士，该项贷款\n17　义务是否与债务人本身或与 Sherry-Netherland 的\n18　房产有关？\n19　答\n该诉讼涉及 Kwok，K-w-o-k，先生本人，\n20　与 Genever Holdings LLC，即本公司无关。\n21　问\n好的。也与该公寓无关，对吗？\n22　答\n与 Genever Holdings LLC 无关。实际上，那是 Kwok先生\n23　本人。他本人签署了一项个人保证。因此，当时\n24　Genever Holdings LLC 尚不存在。也没有\n25　Sherry 房产。\n\n案号 652077/2017\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM\n案件 22-50073\n文件 179-1\n提交日期 04/06/22\n登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第59页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 767　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西）\n\n1　问\n您提到的该项贷款义务。债务人\n2　本身，即 Genever Holdings，并非该贷款\n3　义务的一方，对吗？\n4　答\n正确，先生。\n5　问\n好的。我相信，您在清单中列有 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·拉克有限公司）的一项 $67.5\n6　million 债权，我相信您此前\n7　提到过，并称其为无担保债权，对吗？\n8　答\n是的。Bravo Luck Limited 被列为非优先\n9　无担保债权，是的，先生。\n10　问\n好的。Wang女士，我现在想插入一项说明。我\n11　只是想确保您明白，在本案中，Kwok先生、\n12　任何其他个人或 Bravo Luck 均不由\n13　Nash律师及其律师事务所代理。事实上，他们不能由\n14　Nash律师及其律师事务所代理。\n15　如果 Bravo Luck 或其他任何人希望\n16　就债务人主张其或他的权益，或就\n17　债务人主张权益，\n18　该等实体或个人必须聘请各自独立的律师。我只是想确保您\n19　明白这一点？\n20　答\n是的，明白。谢谢。\n21　问\n好的，谢谢——\n22　NASH律师：\nRichard，我认为他们有自己的\n23　律师。我认为是 Pepper Hamilton（佩珀·汉密尔顿律师事务所）。\n24　MORRISSEY律师：\n您说的是个人\n\nWWW.JJCOURT.COM\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西） 21\n1　还是 Bravo Luck？\n2　NASH律师：\n我说的是 Bravo Luck。\n3　答\nBravo Luck。\n4　NASH律师：\n我不知道 Bravo Luck，Pepper Hamilton。\n5　我知道，当我提出竞价程序\n6　并向所有人发出时，我曾在电子邮件中抄送他们。但我确实认为\n7　他们代理的肯定是 Bravo Luck，也可能代理\n8　其儿子。\n9　MORRISSEY律师：\n好的，谢谢。\n10　问\n现在还有另一名债权人，名为 Golden Spring New York\n11　Limited（纽约金泉有限公司），其债权为 $1.8 million。您能解释一下，Wang\n12　女士，这是什么吗？\n13　答\n该债权是——Golden Spring New York 是位于此处曼哈顿的\n14　家族办公室，也支付了该公寓的部分\n15　费用。\n16　问\n请您重复最后一句话好吗？\n17　答\n该家族办公室也支付了与\n18　Sherry 公寓有关的部分费用，截至目前总计约为 1.8 million。\n19　问\n您说支付费用时，是指与购买有关，还是与\n20　维护有关，或是其他\n21　事项？\n22　答\n与部分维护费、部分维修费以及\n23　露台工程等有关。\n24　问\n好的。他们是否仍在为\n25　债务人支付此类——费用？\n\nWWW.JJCOURT.COM\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 767 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第60页，共94页\n\n案号 652077/2017\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM\n案件 22-50073\n文件 179-1\n提交日期 04/06/22\n登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第61页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 767　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西）\n\n1　债务人？\n2　答\n我相信是。\n3　问\n好的。我本打算稍后谈一谈经营报告，\n4　但目前，债务人从另一实体收到的任何付款\n5　均应反映在\n6　经营报告中。您可以与 Nash律师具体讨论\n7　应如何处理。但我们希望知道债务人是否从某人处获得\n8　出资，无论是关联实体，还是由控制\n9　Genever 本身的个人之一控制的某人。\n10　因此，请您确保在提交经营报告时\n11　反映该事项，好吗？\n12　答\n是。\n13　问\n再次说明，Nash律师不能代理 Golden Spring\n14　New York。\n15　答\n好的。\n16　问\n好的。此外，Guo，G-u-o，先生，如我\n17　发音不正确，请见谅，以及 Bravo Luck，即 Bravo Luck Limited，\n18　有一项 $5 million 债权。该债权是否与所列的 65、$67.5\n19　million 债权不同，还是——是否存在差异，还是\n20　相同？\n21　答\n不同。其与 67.5 的 Bravo Luck\n22　Limited 债权不同。\n23　问\n好的。现在，这就是您此前提到的与购买\n24　该公寓有关的两笔金额，对吗？\n\n案号 652077/2017\n提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM\n案件 22-50073\n文件 179-1\n提交日期 04/06/22\n登记日期 04/06/22 16:09:03\n第62页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 767　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西）\n\n1　答\n是。\n2　问\n好的。那么，那是——是否以——那是以\n3　贷款形式提供的？\n4　答\n我相信他们有一份信托协议。\n5　问\n好的。但换言之，Bravo Luck 是否就购买事项提供该笔\n6　资金，并预期如同贷款一样获得\n7　偿还？\n8　答\n是的，正确。\n9　问\n好的。对于 Guo先生的 $5\n10　million 也是如此，对吗？\n11　答\n是。\n12　问\n好的。您是否有文件表明那是一笔贷款？\n13　答\n我相信有。我必须查找。\n14　问\n好的。\n15　答\n目前不在我面前。\n16　问\n是的，如果您能将其提供给 Nash律师，我将\n17　请 Nash律师将其提供给我，可以吗？\n18　答\n是。\n19　问\n好的，谢谢。\n20　NASH律师：\n我们会这样做。我想，如果我没有\n21　弄错，我确实审阅过交割结算单。\n22　所以我会回查我的电子邮件并找出该文件。\n23　MORRISSEY律师：\n好的，是的。如果您能将\n24　该电子邮件转发给我，那将是最方便的。\n25　NASH律师：\n是的。我们谈话时，我也已将保险文件转发给您。\n\nWang（王）- Morrissey（莫里西） 24\n1　。\n2　MORRISSEY律师：\n好的，谢谢。\n3　问\nNash律师先前提到了一些事情，Wang女士，\n4　关于竞价程序。债务人是否打算出售该合作公寓？\n5　答\n是，债务人决定出售该公寓。\n6　问\n好的。您是否为债务人处理出售事宜？换言之，\n7　您是否是处理出售事宜的主要负责人，还是\n8　由其他人负责？\n\n9　答：是的，我也是负责处理此事的人。我们实际上一个月前就安排了与我们房地产经纪人的会议，所以。\n\n11　问：好的。那正是我的下一个问题，即你们是否已经聘请了经纪人。经纪人是谁？\n\n13　NASH 先生：Richard，让我就此帮你说明一下。我们已指定了一名拟议经纪人，即 Harris Stevens（哈里斯·史蒂文斯）的一位名叫 Kathy Sloane（凯西·斯隆）的女士。据我了解，她与 Sherry-Netherland（谢里—内瑟兰大厦）关系良好。\n\n17　我们安排了各方参加的电话会议，我想是在周一，让每个人都与该经纪人交谈，并了解她认为出售将如何进行。\n\n20　我希望就经纪人、可能的竞标程序取得各方同意，并在我们能够取得同意的情况下，以协商一致为基础向法院提交文件。这就是我提前分发文件的原因。我也应当向你发送一份副本。但所有律师都已收到。\n\nWang（王）—Morrissey（莫里西）\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：767　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 64 页，共 94 页\n\n1　而且，在我打的一个电话中——我给 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）打了电话。他们想与该经纪人交谈。因此，我联系了该经纪人，我想根据最近的电子邮件，我们预计在周一当天某个时候通话。\n\n5　MORRISSEY 先生：好的，谢谢。\n\n6　问：还有，Wang 女士，我只是想向你明确说明，经纪人必须由债务人聘用，而该聘用必须经破产法院批准。我只是想确认你明白这一点？\n\n10　答：是。\n\n11　问：好的。\n\n12　答：谢谢您，先生。\n\n13　问：你是否知道该经纪人是否进行过估价？\n\n14　答：是的。在 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）购买这套公寓时，就是这位经纪人。所以她非常了解这套公寓，包括设施、状况，以及露台之类的，你知道，所有细节。而且，据我所知，她与 Sherry 的关系也很好。\n\n19　问：好的。但你是否知道债务人现在实际上是否已经为 2020 年作过估价？\n\n21　答：没有，我想我们没有。\n\n22　NASH 先生：从某种意义上说，这是很难估价的事情。仅向你介绍一些情况。这套公寓购入时的价格为 \\$70 million。据我了解，我们确实认为，多年来它的价值已低于该购入价格。\n\n证物 6\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：766　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 66 页，共 94 页\n\nKevin M. Kearney（凯文·M·卡尼）\n合伙人、总法律顾问\n直拨电话：716.848.1385\n直拨传真：716.819.4610\nkkearney@hodgsonruss.com\n\nApril 7, 2021\n\nEdward Moss, Esq.（爱德华·莫斯律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n\n尊敬的 Moss 先生：\n\n事由：向 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）送达的调取文件传票；Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）等，案号：652077/2017\n\n就 Hodgson Russ 在本案中收到的传票，现请查收以下根据 CPLR §§ 5223 和 5224 适宜提交的信息。本所对该传票提出异议，异议范围包括：该传票寻求超出上述条款规定的适当证据开示范围的信息，以及该传票寻求有关基础诉讼中被告以外客户的保密信息、受律师—当事人保密特权保护的信息。\n\n本所曾在下列事项中代理 Wengui 先生。在每一事项中，我们的聘用函均寄送给 Wengui 先生，并附有供其签署的签名栏。\n\n- 1. Soho China, Ltd.（SOHO 中国有限公司）等诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），案号：155066/2017，Supreme Court of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；\n- 2. Fan Bingbing（范冰冰）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），案号：156619/2017，Supreme Court of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；\n- 3. Yan Huang（黄艳）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），案号：156552/2017，Supreme Court of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；\n- 4. Caixin Media Company, Ltd.（财新传媒有限公司）等诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），案号：652154/2017，Supreme Court of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；\n- 5. Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），案号：652077/2017，Appellate Division, First Department of the Supreme Court of New York（纽约州最高法院上诉庭第一部门）；\n- 6. Rui Ma（马蕊）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）等，案号：158140/2017，Supreme Court of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：766　NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 67 页，共\n\nEdward Moss, Esq.（爱德华·莫斯律师）\nApril 7, 2021\n第 2 页\n\n7. Weincan (“Watson”) Meng（孟维参〔“沃森”〕）和 Boxun Inc.（博讯公司）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），亦称 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），案号：159636/2017，Supreme Court of New York, County of New York（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；\n- 8. Eastern Profit Corporation（东方利润公司）诉 Strategic Vision US LLC（美国战略愿景有限责任公司），民事诉讼案号：18-CV-2185，United States District Court Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）；\n- 9. Zheng Wu（吴征），亦称 Bruno Wu（布鲁诺·吴），和 Yang Lan（杨澜）诉 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），案号：152123/2018，Supreme Court of New York, County of New York（纽约州纽约县最高法院）；以及\n- 10. Baiqiao Tang（唐柏桥），亦称 Tang Baiqiao（唐柏桥），和 Jing Geng（耿晶）诉 Wengui, Guo（郭文贵），亦称 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），亦称 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），亦称 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），Golden Spring (New York), Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）、Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（法治基金会 III 公司）、Rule of Law Society IV Inc.（法治协会 IV 公司）及 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司），Supreme Court of New York, County of New York（纽约州纽约县最高法院）。\n\n本所因提供服务收到的付款由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）支付。\n\n此外，本所还收到下列付款人支付的一次性款项：\n\n- 1. ZIBA Limited（ZIBA 有限公司）；以及\n- 2. ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司）。\n\n谨此致意，L0\n\nKevin M. Kearney（凯文·M·卡尼）\n总法律顾问\n\nKMK/cat\n\n证物 7\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：1179　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 69 页，共 94 页\n\n1　SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州纽约县最高法院）：第 61 庭\n2　-------------------------------------------------X\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n3　原告，\n4　- 诉 -\n5　KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），亦称 KWOK HO，亦称 GWO WEN GUI，\n6　亦称 GUO WENGUI，亦称 GUO WEN GUI，亦称 WAN GUE HAOYUN，亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 HAOYUN GUO，\n7　GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）\n8　被告。\n9　-----------------------------------------------------X　案号：652077/2017\n\n11　February 2, 2022 — 通过 Microsoft Teams（微软 Teams）\n\n13　出庭法官：尊敬的 BARRY OSTRAGER（巴里·奥斯特拉格），JSC\n\n15　出庭人员：\n\n16　O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n17　7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n18　代理律师：\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫律师）\nDAVID HARBACH, ESQ.（大卫·哈尔巴赫律师）\n19　LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦森律师）\n\n21　BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克与霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）代理律师\n22　45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n23　代理律师：\nJOHN SIEGAL, ESQ.（约翰·西格尔律师）\nTRACY COLE, ESQ.（特蕾西·科尔律师）\n24　ERICA BARROW, ESQ.（埃丽卡·巴罗律师）\n\nRachel C. Simone（蕾切尔·C·西蒙尼），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：1179　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 70 页，共\n\n1　出庭人员续：\n\n3　CHIESA SHAHINIAN GIANTOMASI PC（Chiesa Shahinian Giantomasi 专业公司）\n4　HK International（HK 国际公司）代理律师\n11 Times Square，34th Floor\n5　New York, New York 10036\n代理律师：\nLEE VARTAN, ESQ.（李·瓦尔坦律师）\n\n8　- 0 -\n\nRachel C. Simone（蕾切尔·C·西蒙尼），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告交叉询问／Harbach（哈尔巴赫）\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：1179　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 71 页，共 94 页\n\n1　我理解你说的是，每当你父亲使用游艇时，第一，他必须获得你的授权，我想所有客人都必须如此；第二，我相信你说过，他每次出海都会向你提供详细行程。因此，这并不是对我的——抱歉，女翻译员。请继续。请原谅。\n\n7　答：我给您举一个例子，先生。\n\n8　如果游艇在纽约，我父亲在纽约登船并告诉我他要去长岛，那么我会同意。但如果他想在半途停靠，只要仍在纽约地区范围内，那是他的自由。但如果他要把游艇开到棕榈滩，那么他就需要向我提供非常详细的行程。\n\n14　问：你父亲是否曾未经你的许可或在你不知情的情况下使用游艇？\n\n16　答：从未。\n\n17　问：让我们看看——嗯，我们仍在第 14 段。请原谅。\n\n19　你谈到在 2020 年 10 月初不再希望使用该船，并将此事告知 Golden Spring（金泉公司）。\n\n21　答：是。\n\n22　问：然后该句的其余部分写道——该段写道，Golden Spring 将你的指示转达给 Heaslop 船长。\n\n25　答：是。\n\nRachel C. Simone（蕾切尔·C·西蒙尼），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：1179　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 72 页，共 94 页\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告交叉询问／Harbach（哈尔巴赫）\n\n1　问：你记得这个吗？\n\n2　答：是，我记得。\n\n3　问：你的指示具体是什么？\n\n4　答：因为我的游艇每年在 10 月的冬季，由于天气原因，需要停泊在佛罗里达这样较温暖的地方。所以对我来说，这是一个非常普通的请求。Golden Spring 问我是否仍需要使用游艇，因为我的理解是，游艇需要被移至较温暖的地方。\n\n10　问：在我提出另一个问题前，我想确保我理解你回答的最后一部分。\n\n12　你是说 Golden Spring 问你是否想继续使用游艇吗？\n\n14　答：实际上这不是请求或询问，因为我已经知道，在这种天气条件下，该游艇已不适合在纽约使用。他们只是在通知我，游艇需要移至较温暖的地方。\n\n18　问：那么 Golden Spring 是在向你告知该决定？\n\n19　答：不是告知。更像是汇报。\n\n20　问：我明白了。\n\n21　那么，在你的宣誓书中，当你说由于天气原因你不再希望在该季节使用该船时；那是你作出该指示所传达的理由，还是因为你从 Golden Spring 听说该船需要前往佛罗里达？\n\n25　答：好的。让我重申一下我的回答，先生。\n\nRachel C. Simone（蕾切尔·C·西蒙尼），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告交叉询问／Harbach（哈尔巴赫）\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：1179　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 73 页，共 94 页\n\n1　在过去几年中，每年 10 月都是安排将游艇移至较温暖地方的时间。因此，在那一年，他们将游艇移至较温暖地方之前，他们通知我，他们告诉我——不如说，他们向我汇报说游艇需要移至较温暖的地方。所以这更像是一项例行活动。\n\n7　问：我明白。\n\n8　那么，你针对该信息作出的指示是否是：将游艇开到佛罗里达？\n\n10　答：是，我同意了船长提出的请求。\n\n11　问：嗯，我很抱歉，但这不是你的宣誓书所述。你的宣誓书提到了一项指示，所以这正是我试图了解的。这是我原来的问题。你的指示具体是什么？\n\n15　答：我与船长的沟通是通过公司的一名代表进行的。公司代表来到我这里，告诉我现在是将游艇移至较温暖地方的时候了，所以我向该代表发出的指示是，是的，好吧，游艇需要移至佛罗里达。那就是我的指示。\n\n21　法庭：你与 Golden Spring 的关系是什么？\n\n23　证人：法官阁下，Golden Spring 帮我支付游艇的所有费用，包括管理费。\n\nRachel C. Simone（蕾切尔·C·西蒙尼），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文书编号：1179　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022　案件 22-50073　文书 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　已录入 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 74 页，共 94 页\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告交叉询问／Harbach（哈尔巴赫）\n\n56 1 法庭：您在 Golden Spring（黄金泉）中拥有所有权权益吗？2 证人：没有。3 法庭：为什么 Golden Spring 会帮助您支付与运营和维护该游艇有关的全部费用？7 证人：Golden Spring 属于我哥哥。8 它是我哥哥的公司。当该游艇作为礼物赠与我时，9 我觉得仅为了管理该游艇而另设一个银行账户非常麻烦；因此，我请求我哥哥是否可以继续使用他的公司管理该游艇。12 他和我就此达成了一致。13 法庭：那么，您的证词是，您哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人？15 证人：是的，法官阁下。16 法庭：而您哥哥赠与您的礼物的一部分，是由他承担维护和运营该游艇的费用？19 证人：是的。20 法庭：您知道维护和运营该游艇一年需要多少费用吗？22 证人：法官阁下，约为 \\$2 million 至 \\$3 million 美元。24 法庭：好的。我们将给法庭记录员十分钟休息时间。她整个上午一直在努力跟上证词记录。Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017 案号 22-50073 文件 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 75 页，共 94 页\n\n案号 22-50073\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179　文件 179-1　已提交 04/06/22　登记 04/06/22 16:09:03　第 75 页，共 94 页\nNYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n57 1 继续进行至 12:15，然后进行至 1:00，并休庭午餐。3 证人：好的。谢谢。4 （短暂休庭）5 法庭：好的。继续进行。6 由 HARBACH 先生：7 问：Guo 女士，在您指示该游艇前往 Florida（佛罗里达州）时，您是否知悉 9 月 30 日已对您父亲作出临时限制令？10 口译员：9 月 30 日，对吗，先生？11 HARBACH 先生：是的，2020 年。12 答：当时我不知道。13 HARBACH 先生：我能否请口译员澄清一下？她是说她当时不知道吗？15 口译员：她当时不知道，先生。17 VARTAN（瓦尔坦）先生：法官阁下，我提出异议。我理解法院的命令是在 10 月作出的，而不是在 9 月。20 法庭：（对证人）在 2020 年的任何时候，您是否知悉已对您父亲作出临时限制令，禁止他将该船舶移出美国领土范围？24 证人：我大约在 2020 年年底得知此事。我不记得确切日期。那是 Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案号 22-50073 文件 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 76 页，共 94 页\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n1 冬季的某个时候。也可能是 2021 年初。2 我是通过我的律师打来的电话得知此事的。3 由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n4 问：那么，当该游艇于 2020 年 10 月初向南驶往 Florida 时，您的证词是您并不知道已于 9 月 30 日作出的任何限制令？\n\n7 VARTAN 先生：同样的异议，法官阁下，关于日期。当然，如果 Harbach 先生有文件想向证人出示，我相信她会很乐意查看；但我理解日期是 10 月 15 日，而不是 9 月 30 日。\n\n12 HARBACH 先生：为向代理律师和法庭澄清，2020 年 9 月 30 日作出了一项临时限制令。它是法院案卷上的第 591 号文件。我唯一的问题是，证人是否知悉该临时限制令已经作出。\n\n18 VARTAN 先生：再次，法官阁下，我理解 9 月的命令——并非要赘述——与 Lady May（“五月女士”号）完全无关。诚然，当时我并未参与该程序，但我理解 Lady May 首次在法官阁下面前被提及是在 10 月，而不是 9 月 30 日。因此，我再次建议 Harbach 先生如有面前的任何文件，可向证人出示。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案号 22-50073 文件 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 77 页，共 94 页\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n62 1 签名。日期为 2021 年 3 月 16 日。2 答：好的。3 问：而这是法院的命令，明确要求将其返还纽约？5 答：好的。好的。6 问：所以我想问您的是：您以前见过这项命令吗？8 答：您能否回到文件顶部，再向我出示一次，因为我想重新确认。就目前而言，我无法确认。11 问：好的。我会再给您一点时间，但之后我会继续，因为这并不关键。13 法庭：您能向她出示下一页吗？14 HARBACH 先生：可以，法官阁下。15 答：我确实不记得以前是否见过该文件，但我确实知道该文件的内容。17 问：好的。谢谢。18 回到您的宣誓书，您在第 20 段中说，您知悉法院于 2021 年 5 月作出的、要求 Lady May 返回纽约的命令，并且您是通过您的代理律师得知此事的？22 答：是。23 问：因此，我想确认我所理解的是，您是在何时得知该法院命令的。我理解您几分钟前对 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官说，您认为您得知 Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案号 22-50073 文件 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 78 页，共 94 页\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n1 限制令是在 2020 年年底或 2021 年初，对吗？3 答：我现在记得的是，2020 年年底，我的律师给我打电话，告知我 Lady May 可能会有这样的问题，但我不记得我究竟是在何时得知这项命令、这项法院命令的。大概是在 2021 年初，即 3 月和 4 月之间。9 问：好的。让我——10 HARBACH 先生：我非常感谢法官阁下的耐心。我正在尽可能快地进行。12 问：让我再补充一项信息。而且，再次说明，我并非试图令您困惑。14 法院于 2020 年 10 月 15 日作出了一项限制令。我向您陈述这一点，好吗？17 答：好的。18 问：您认为那是您在 2020 年年底从您的代理律师处得知的命令吗？20 VARTAN 先生：法官阁下，我提出异议。我认为这个问题已经被多次问过并回答过。此外，我们开始混淆日期。我们正在看第 20 段，其中谈及的是 3 月的一项不同法院命令。Harbach 先生现在谈的是 10 月的一项命令。我认为他在这里令证人感到困惑。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案号 22-50073 文件 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 79 页，共 94 页\n\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n64 1 证人：谢谢。2 法庭：请重新表述您的问题。这并不难。4 问：Guo 女士，您首次通过您的代理律师得知法院任何限制令是在什么时候？6 VARTAN 先生：同样的异议。已多次问过并回答。8 法庭：异议驳回。9 证人：我可以回答这个问题吗？10 法庭：可以。11 答：我确实不记得具体日期，但大约是在 2021 年初。是在 2021 年初的某个时候。我确实不记得具体日期。15 问：您从您的代理律师处得知该命令后，是否与您父亲讨论过？17 VARTAN 先生：我只想请 Harbach 先生澄清，法官阁下，他所说的是哪项命令。他提到过 9 月的命令、10 月的命令、3 月的命令？20 法庭：让我们简化一下。21 Guo 女士，您是否与您父亲讨论过任何与 Lady May 有关的法院命令？23 证人：没有。我只与我的律师讨论过。25 问：今天代理您的律师 Vartan 先生，是不是 Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 曾向您提醒存在与 Lady May 有关法院命令的同一位律师？3 答：是。4 问：谁在支付他的服务费用？5 答：Golden Spring。6 HARBACH 先生：法官阁下，您是否说您想在 1:00 休庭午餐？8 法庭：是。而且我想以我们本次听证会开始时相同的方式，与您和 Siegal（西格尔）先生谈一谈。11 HARBACH 先生：我能否建议我们现在休庭并进行那件事？我所余下的与该证人有关的询问，涉及证物的正式出示，可能会有些繁琐。我建议午餐后立即进行。16 法庭：好的。我们可以这样做。17 为记录在案，Guo 女士，我已将媒体排除在您的证词之外，因为我了解到您曾被 CCP（中国共产党）拘禁和酷刑虐待，并且在您寻求在美国获得庇护期间，您的下落可能是 CCP 感兴趣的事项。如在对您的询问中未披露您的下落，您的询问笔录将予公开。我还应补充，原告已同意这一安排，而这极不寻常。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案号 22-50073 文件 179-1 已提交 04/06/22 登记 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 81 页，共 94 页\nGuo（郭）—由被告方交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n1 证人：法官阁下，感谢您为保护我的安全并不允许媒体参与本程序。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n4 法庭：好的。我们现在休庭午餐。我希望代理律师拨打我先前给你们的同一号码。\n7 VARTAN 先生：法官阁下，我能否先就一个问题发言？\n9 法庭：可以。\n10 VARTAN 先生：关于 Harbach 先生余下的交叉询问，他能否大致估计一下还需要多少时间，以便我安排其他证人？\n14 HARBACH 先生：我很乐意这样做。我有几个简短的事实问题要问，之后，我有三段先前向法庭提出的录像，我想向证人播放其中一些很短的片段。我估计是 30 至 40 分钟。\n19 VARTAN 先生：谢谢您，Harbach 先生。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n21 法庭：好的。我们将在 2:00 继续。\n22 SIEGAL 先生：法官阁下，我们可以在午休快结束时给您打电话，还是您现在想听我们发言？\n25 法庭：我现在想听你们发言。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n郭文贵（Guo）—被告—交叉询问 / 郭文贵 67\n1 SIEGAL 律师：好的。我将联系 2 O'Melveny（奥美律师事务所），然后我们会给您打电话。\n3 法院：很好。\n4 （午餐休庭）\n5 HARBACH 律师：法官阁下，我可以继续 6 提问吗？\n7 法院：可以。\n8 HARBACH 律师提问：\n9 问：郭女士，午餐前我们谈了各种 10 事情，但您在其中一个回答中提到了一件事，我 11 只是想澄清一下。\n12 答：好的。\n13 问：我相信您在其中一个回答中说过，如果您 14 例如需要与一些朋友使用游艇，您会 15 直接联系船长？\n16 答：有时我会直接联系船长。有时 17 我会通过 Golden Spring（黄金泉）联系船长。\n18 问：您是否记得您曾直接 19 联系过的任何船长的姓名？\n20 答：我主要与我以前使用过的船长 21 Craig 先生沟通。之后我也联系过 Momchil，即该游艇现任 22 船长。\n23 问：您曾直接联系过他们每一个人，对吗？\n24 答：是的。\n\nRachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022\n案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 16:09:03 录入，第 82 页，共 94 页\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n庭审记录\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM\n索引号 652077/2017\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022\n案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 16:09:03 录入，第 83 页，共 94 页\n\n1 明天中午通过电话会议给我。如果你们在\n2 中午的电话会议上没有任何事情要告诉我，我将\n3 继续安排将庭审记录完整誊写并\n4 上传至法院电子提交系统。我将\n5 至迟于下周三作出裁定。\n6 SIEGAL 律师：法官阁下，我们将在明天中午致电，\n7 由各方律师共同通话。\n8 法院：好的。谢谢。祝您愉快。\n9 *\n*\n*\n10 特此证明，前述内容为真实且\n11 准确的庭审记录。\n\n14 _________________________\n15 Rachel C. Simone-Ivanac\n16 高级法庭书记员\n17 据此命令 2022 年 2 月 7 日\n\nRachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n证据附件 8\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席：BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官（HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER） 部门 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 L.P.）， 索引号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议日期\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 019\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER：控股有限责任公司），以及 动议序号\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司），\n\n被告。---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n在这宗始于 2017 年、已有 1,180 份案卷记录的案件中——其中几乎所有记录均涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）通过将其大量个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的密友和家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为——本院须裁定，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）是否已履行其举证责任，以证明本院应对 Kwok 作出民事藐视法庭最终命令。基于下述理由，本院同时作出民事藐视法庭最终命令。\n\nPAX 于 February 3, 2021 就 Kwok 获得金额为 \\$116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）。此后，PAX 进行了长达一年的努力以执行其判决书，首先识别、继而试图扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在识别由 Kwok 行使控制权的资产时遇到困难，因为自称为亿万富翁的 Kwok 将其资产藏匿于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员名下。该安排使 Kwok 得以声称其没有资产，尽管其生活奢华；原告通过社交媒体剪报、照片和录像，对 Kwok 挥霍生活并炫耀其财富、昂贵住宅、私人飞机和游艇的情况进行了罗列。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM\n索引号 652077/2017\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1181\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022\n案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 16:09:03 录入，第 86 页，共 94 页\n\n如 February 2, 2022 庭审记录所述，该等证据的证明价值甚微，因为提出该等证据的证人除知道该“证据”可在各类网站获取外，对其真实性并无第一手了解。\n\n在 February 2, 2022，本院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交直接证词，并可供交叉询问。该听证会之前，PAX 为查找并扣押被告 Kwok 所有的资产进行了旷日持久的程序。该等程序尤其确定，Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）的游艇行使支配和控制，并导致作出一系列命令，限制 Kwok 和/或该艘名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。如下文详述，首份该等命令于 September 30, 2020 作出；随后于 October 15, 2020 作出的命令限制“Kwok 先生和/或……该游艇，即‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开本管辖范围。（NYSCEF Doc. No. 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间均在 Lady May 上度过。在导致作出 September 30 和 October 15, 2020 限制命令的程序进行期间，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，之后驶往巴哈马。于 March 16, 2021，本院作出有条件民事藐视法庭命令，指示如 Kwok 未能于 May 31, 2021 前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围，则 Lady May 每在本院管辖范围外停留一天，Kwok 即须缴纳 \\$500,000.00 罚款。\n\n上诉分庭第一部门（Appellate Division, First Department）维持本院认定 Kwok 构成有条件民事藐视法庭的命令，认定“每日 \\$500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM\n索引号 652077/2017\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1181\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022\n案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 16:09:03 录入，第 87 页，共 94 页\n\n鼓励被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管其获准这样做，但其未表现出任何这样做的兴趣……”NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时行使了其自由裁量权，因为原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。……现指示动议法院举行证据听证会，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分庭的命令，本院安排于 February 2, 2022 举行证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实际拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未在 February 2, 2022 的听证会上作证；此前，针对 PAX 为查找资产而提出的与 Lady May 有关的证据开示请求，Kwok 曾援引美国宪法第五修正案赋予的拒绝作证或答复权利。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引第五修正案，Kwok 仍是多个法庭中的积极诉讼当事人，并且曾在本案及其他程序中作证。\n\nKwok 还在本院提起了一项题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng, 157025/2020 的诉讼，其中提及 Freebeacon.com 于 September 8, 2017 发布的一篇博客文章；该文中 Kwok 抱怨“涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……”（起诉书第 8 段，NYSCEF Doc. No. 001）（“Zeng 起诉书”）。Zeng 起诉书将 Kwok 描述为“一名直言不讳的中国共产党批评者”，其不遗余力地“揭露中国共产党和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，前特朗普总统顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业\n\n1 “PX”指原告的审判证据附件。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM\n索引号 652077/2017\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1181\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022\n案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 16:09:03 录入，第 88 页，共 94 页\n\n伙伴，“一名直言不讳的中国政府网络批评者，其曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但现因欺诈、勒索和贿赂指控而被北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往政治集会。\n\n听证会上从被告方证人之口取得的证词，以明确且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实际拥有并控制 Lady May，且其对本院及司法程序持有彻底蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上取得的证词表明，于 2014 年，Kwok 无偿将 HK International 的 100% 权益转让给 Qu Guo Jiao。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，并于 February 23, 2015，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP 购买 Lady May。听证会上取得的任何证词均未确定购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo 的无争议证词确定，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44.2 因此，可以合理推断，Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无争议的是，Qu 女士于 June 17, 2017 前后以 \\$1 或无偿将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。Tr. 47。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给现时权利持有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）。Guo 女士进一步宣称其为 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 的所有数百万美元年度开支，包括燃料、维护以及船长和船员费用，均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring.”）支付；据称该公司为 Kwok 家族办公室。\n\n2 “Tr.”指于 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179 以电子方式提交的证据听证会记录。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM\n索引号 652077/2017\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1181\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022\n案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 16:09:03 录入，第 89 页，共 94 页\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士作证称，她的兄长为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46。本院不能采信该证词，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的兄长参与了导致 Guo 女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且，事实上，在回答本院的问题时，Guo 女士承认，在其取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，其兄长均未参与。Tr. 47。\n\n其他在听证会上提交的证言表明，Kwok（郭文贵）每年夏天都会多次登上 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇），而 Guo 女士（郭女士）则很少登上该游艇。Trial Tr. 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，郭文贵在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与其夏季通常的做法一致。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7。在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日发布限制令之后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被送往佛罗里达州，随后送往巴哈马进行维修，并于 2021 年 10 月据称按照 Golden Spring 的指示被派往意大利。郭女士承认，她知悉本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的限制令，以及本院随后于 2021 年 3 月 16 日作出的命令，要求将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62。\n\n郭女士作证称，一方面，她指挥 Lady May 的航行安排；但另一方面，她又作证称，对郭文贵的安保如此担忧，以至于不会留下任何航行安排的记录。Tr. 52。她进一步作证称，当其父亲未由她陪同而在游艇上时，他可以自由选择前往任何想去的地方。Tr. 50。然而，根本问题在于，2020 年 10 月是谁指示将游艇移出本院管辖范围。郭女士声称，2020 年 10 月初，她不再希望\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 90 页，共 94 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示转达给 Golden Spring，后者继而将其指示转达给当时的船长 Heaslop 船长。Tr. 53。\n\n经进一步询问，郭女士承认，是 Golden Spring 告知她该游艇需要被移往较温暖的地方。Tr. 55。郭女士随后重复了其已撤回的证言，即她的兄弟将游艇赠与她，并称其兄弟是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56。鉴于本院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日作出临时限制令，限制郭文贵\n\n……不得进行或促成任何出售、让与、转移或干扰其拥有权益的任何财产，亦不得交付或以其他方式处置目前到期或此后到期应向其支付的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 所规定的例外以及正常业务过程中进行的行为除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，当时担任 Lady May 船长的 Heaslop 船长作证称，在 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州的“数日前”（且显然是在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日命令作出之后），郭文贵告诉 Heaslop 船长，郭文贵将不再作为 Lady May 的宾客。Tr. 89。Heaslop 船长还反驳了郭女士关于郭女士曾就游艇移动向 Heaslop 船长作出指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认，其后来阅读了本院 2021 年 3 月 16 日的命令，该命令要求在 2021 年 5 月 31 日前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖范围（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与其律师讨论该命令（该律师的服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付），且她无视了该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了一份日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，并且他曾与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）也作出了同样证言。Tr. 82。简言之，郭女士关于其拥有并\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 91 页，共 94 页\n\n控制 Lady May 的证言，在任何方面均不可信。郭女士看来是一名二十多岁的女性，未提交任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使支配和控制，亦未提供任何证明其取得 Lady May 占有的材料，除非将其视为使 Lady May 免遭其父亲债权人扣押的幌子。\n\n郭文贵就 Lady May 所策划的障眼法相关种种伎俩，与其在本诉讼待决五年期间采取的所有其他逃避及藐视行为如出一辙，这也正是本案共有 1,180 项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权依据 Judiciary Law（《司法法》）§ 753 认定郭文贵构成民事藐视——并“以罚款和监禁”予以惩处——在本案中，本院“明确认定，[郭文贵]的行为旨在或事实上确已挫败、损害、阻碍或妨害民事诉讼一方当事人的权利或救济”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753)。第 753 条规定四项要求：\n\n“[为]认定某一案件中发生藐视，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令当时有效；[2] 必须以合理确定性表明，该命令已被违反……[3] 此外，被认定构成藐视的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管并不要求该命令实际送达该方……[4] 最后，必须证明诉讼一方的权利受到损害。”\n\nFleetwood 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))。本案中提交的证言满足该标准的每一项要件。事实上，上诉庭已暗示如此。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已]以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[郭文贵]违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反导致原告权利受到损害……”）。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 92 页，共 94 页\n\nPAX 所持续遭受“损害”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明其最终可扣押 Lady May，以清偿其针对郭文贵现已达数亿美元的判决。根据 CPLR § 5225，债务人拥有必要“权益”的，“金钱或其他动产”可以被扣押执行。为满足该要求，“判决债务人不必拥有该财产的法定所有权；受益权益已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“受益权益是‘对某物的权利或期待……而非对该物的法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009))。郭文贵对 Lady May 所拥有的远不止受益权益。郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，看来还是其购置资金的提供者，并且是主要享用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于，该“财产是否使[受益所有人]受益，如同其直接获得了该财产一般。”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)（维持驳回判决债务人关于其已将自己在财产中的权益转让给女儿、因而不再拥有该财产权益的主张）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（尽管判决债务人主张其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因为即使该主张属实，证据仍显示其“保留了对该财产的控制和/或权益”）。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 93 页，共 94 页\n\n证据清楚且令人信服地表明，郭文贵对 Lady May 持有受益权益并控制该游艇。就后一点而言，本院对 Zeng 案的提交予以司法认知，并根据全部案卷事实推定，郭文贵已采取非同寻常的步骤，以使游艇免受其债权人的追索。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”为游艇的日常运营和维护提供资金。\n\n本院认定，郭女士的证言不仅前后矛盾且虚饰欺瞒，而且受到 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长和 Stockil 先生证言的显著削弱；三人称，在郭女士直接或间接持有游艇所有权的四年半期间，他们从未接受过郭女士就游艇相关事项作出的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律已确立，当事人在民事诉讼中援引第五修正案“可以构成作出不利事实推定的基础”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。凡有必要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视动议的情形下。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，“事实裁判者可以就未作证的证人作出对方证据所允许的最强推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“会知悉证据提出的一项重大争议问题”时适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权依据上述两项途径作出不利推定。郭文贵在回应 PAX 的判决后证据开示时援引了其第五修正案禁止自证其罪的权利，包括在回应专门涉及 Lady May 的请求时。尽管郭文贵\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 179-1 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 16:09:03 第 94 页，共 94 页\n\n主张，在此不宜作出不利推定，因为“只有在初步证明某项证据真实之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但该主张不攻自破。PAX 已提交大量可采纳证据，证明郭文贵对 Lady May 拥有必要的受益权益及控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（解释证据如“倾向于证明某一重大事实，即案件中直接争议事实的存在或不存在”，即具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 已在本院管辖范围之外停留 268 天。根据本院施加并经上诉庭维持的每日 $500,000 罚款，由此产生的罚款将达 $134,000,000.00，超过 PAX 近 $120 million 的未清偿判决，且为 Lady May GBP £ 28 million 购置价的数倍。尽管如此，若亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以同时寻求利用纽约州及美国其他地区的法院程序，并明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治无从谈起。郭文贵必须在本院附送录入通知的命令送达之日起五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000.00。如未及时支付该罚款，本院准备行使 Judiciary Law § 753 赋予的全部权力。\n\n日期：February 9, 2022\n\n请勾选一项：案件已结案 X 非终局处分 X 已准许 已驳回 部分准许 其他申请：和解命令 提交命令 如适用请勾选：包括移送/重新分配 受托人指定 移交","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","CCP","Yanping Wang","Ho Wan Kwok","William Je","Finkel","Saraca"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":22918,"status":"published","published_at":"2021-02-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2021-02-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:27:15"}