{"id":"court_ctb_183_3","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":183,"sub_number":3,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-04-06","title":"EXHIBIT 13 ![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 1 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 13**\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*DANIEL PODHASKIE December 11, 2019*\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_3.jpeg)\n\n*Original File 293035B.txt Min-U-Script® with Word Index*\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 3 of\n\n| | Page 1 | | | | Page 3 |\n|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| | 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | | 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Cont'd) | | |\n| | 2 COUNTY OF NEW YORK | | | | |\n| | -----------------------------------------X
3 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY | 2 | 3 LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC | | |\n| 4 | FUND L.P., | | 4 Attorneys for the Genever Entities | | |\n| 5 | Plaintiff, | 5 | 55 Madison Avenue | | |\n| 6 | - against - | 6 | | Morristown, New Jersey 07960 | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO
7 WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO | | | 7 BY: AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ. | |\n| | WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a
8 MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | 8 | PHONE 914-760-8963 | | |\n| 9 | Defendant. | 9 | E-MAIL aaron@lmesq.com | | |\n| | 10 Index No.: 652077/2017 | 10 | | | |\n| 11 | -----------------------------------------X | 11 | | | |\n| 12 | 605 Third Avenue | | 12 ALSO PRESENT: | | |\n| 13 | New York, New York | 13 | YVETTE WANG, Genever | | |\n| 14 | December 11, 2019
2:56 p.m. | 14 | | DAN MACOM, Videographer | |\n| 15 | | 15 | | | |\n| 16 | VIDEOTAPED EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL | 16 | | | |\n| | 17 of DANIEL PODHASKIE, before Melissa Gilmore, a | 17 | | | |\n| | 18 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the | 18 | | | |\n| | 19 State of New York. | 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | 22 | | | |\n| 23 | ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO., LLC | 23 | | | |\n| 24 | 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10022 | 24 | | | |\n| 25 | 212-750-6434
REF: 293035B | 25 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | Page 2 | | | | Page 4 |\n| | 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: | | | 1 ------------------- I N D E X ------------------- | |\n| 2 | | | 2 WITNESS | EXAMINATION BY | PAGE |\n| | 3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP | | 3 DANIEL PODHASKIE | MR. MOSS | 8 |\n| | 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff | 4 | | MR. MITCHELL | 119 |\n| 5 | 7 Times Square | 5 | | | |\n| 6 | New York, New York 10036 | | 6 DIRECTIONS: PAGE 91, 93 | | |\n| | 7 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. | 7 | | | |\n| 8 | STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. | 8 | | | |\n| 9 | ELI A. GROSSMAN, ESQ. | | | 9 ---------------- E X H I B I T S ---------------- | |\n| 10 | PHONE 212-728-5651 | | 10 PODHASKIE | DESCRIPTION | FOR I.D. |\n| 11 | E-MAIL emoss@omm.com | | 11 Exhibit 1 | Corporate representative | 9 |\n| 12 | ssarnoff@omm.com | 12 | | notice for the deposition | |\n| 13 | egrossman@omm.com | 13 | | of Genever New York | |\n| 14 | | | 14 Exhibit 2 | Notice for the deposition | 9 |\n| 15 | | 15 | | of Genever BVI | |\n| | 16 HODGSON RUSS LLP | | 16 Exhibit 3 | Collection of corporate | 20 |\n| | 17 Attorneys for Defendant | 17 | | documents, Bates Stamped | |\n| 18 | 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300 | 18 | | KWOK143 through 194 | |\n| 19 | New York, New York 10158 | | 19 Exhibit 4 | Certificate of | 55 |\n| | 20 BY: JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ. | 20 | | Registration of Charge | |\n| 21 | PHONE 646-218-7591 | | 21 Exhibit 5 | Notice of Satisfaction or | 56 |\n| 22 | E-MAIL jsearles@hodgsonruss.com | 22 | | Release of Registered | |\n| 23 | | 23 | | Charge Pursuant to | |\n| 24
25 | | 24
25 | | Section 165 | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 4 of\n\n| | | | Page 5 | | Page 7 | |\n|----------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | 1 ------------ E X H I B I T S (Cont'd) ----------- | | 1 | P R O C E E D I N G S | |\n| | 2 PODHASKIE | DESCRIPTION | FOR I.D. | 2 | | |\n| | 3 Exhibit 6 | Defendant's Memorandum of | 58 | 3 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the | |\n| 4 | | Law in Opposition to | | 4 | videotaped deposition of Mr. Daniel T. | |\n| 5 | | Plaintiff's Motion for an | | 5 | Podhaskie, taken by the plaintiff in the | |\n| 6 | | Order of Pre-Judgment | | 6 | matter of Pacific Alliance Asia | |\n| 7 | | Attachment | | 7 | Opportunity Fund L.P. versus Wan, et al., | |\n| | 8 Exhibit 7 | Certificate of | 65 | 8 | in the Supreme Court of the State of New | |\n| 9 | | Registration of Charge | | 9 | York in the County of New York. The Index | |\n| | 10 Exhibit 8 | Notice of Satisfaction or | 69 | 10 | Number is 652077/2017. | |\n| 11 | | Release of Registered | | 11 | This deposition is being held at the | |\n| 12 | | Charge | | 12 | offices of Hodgson Russ, and today's date | |\n| | 13 Exhibit 9 | Declaration of Trust and | 103 | 13 | is December 11, 2019. | |\n| 14 | | Agreement | | 14 | My name is Dan Macom. I'm from | |\n| | 15 Exhibit 10 | Letter from Stevenson | 112 | 15 | Ellen Grauer, a U.S. Legal Support | |\n| 16 | | Wong dated March 4, 2015 | | 16 | Company. | |\n| 17 | | | | 17 | Our court reporter today is | |\n| 18 | | | | 18 | Ms. Melissa Gilmore, also from Ellen | |\n| 19 | | (EXHIBITS TO BE PRODUCED) | | 19 | Grauer, a U.S. Legal Support Company. | |\n| 20 | | | | 20 | All counsel here today, their | |\n| 21 | | | | 21 | appearances will appear on the written | |\n| 22 | | | | 22 | record. | |\n| 23 | | | | 23 | I will ask at this time that our | |\n| 24 | | | | 24 | court reporter please swear in the | |\n| 25 | | | | 25 | witness. | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | Page 6 | | Page 8 | |\n| 1 | | STIPULATIONS | | | 1 D A N I E L
P O D H A S K I E,
called as | |\n| 2 | | | | 2 | a witness, having been sworn by a Notary | |\n| 3 | | IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND | | 3 | Public, was examined and testified as | |\n| 4 | | AGREED by and between the attorneys for the | | 4 | follows: | |\n| 5 | | respective parties herein that the sealing, | | 5 | | |\n| 6 | | and filing be, and the same are hereby | | | 6 EXAMINATION BY | |\n| 7 | waived. | | | | 7 MR. MOSS: | |\n| 8 | | IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND | | 8 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, you are here as a | |\n| 9 | | AGREED that all objections, except as to the | | 9 | corporate representative for two entities; is | |\n| 10 | | form of the question, shall be reserved to | | 10 | that correct? | |\n| 11 | the time of the trial. | | | 11 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 12 | | IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND | | 12 | Q.
And one of those entities is Genever | |\n| 13 | | AGREED that the within deposition may be | | 13 | Holdings, LLC, right? | |\n| 14 | | sworn to and signed before any officer | | 14 | A.
Correct. | |\n| 15 | | authorized to administer an oath, with the | | 15 | Q.
And I'm going to refer to that | |\n| 16 | | same force and effect as if signed to before | | 16 | entity today as Genever New York. Is that | |\n| 17 | the court. | | | 17 | okay? | |\n| 18 | | | | 18 | A.
That's fine. | |\n| 19 | - oOo - | | | 19 | Q.
Will you understand what I mean when | |\n| 20 | | | | 20 | I say Genever New York that I'm referring to
Genever Holdings, LLC? | |\n| 21
22 | | | | 21
22 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 23 | | | | 23 | Q.
And the other entity you are here on | |\n| 24 | | | | 24 | behalf of is Genever Holdings Corporation BVI; | |\n| 25 | | | | 25 | is that correct? | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 5 of\n\n| | Page 9 | | Page 11 | |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | 2 | on that page? | |\n| 3 | Q.
And I'm going to refer to that | 3 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 4 | entity as Genever BVI. Is that okay? | 4 | Q.
Are you prepared to testify on those | |\n| 5 | A.
That's fine. | 5 | five deposition topics today? | |\n| 6 | Q.
And you'll understand that when I'm | 6 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 7 | talking about Genever BVI, I mean Genever | 7 | Q.
What did you do to prepare to | |\n| 8 | Holdings Corporation? | 8 | testify on behalf of Genever New York and | |\n| 9 | A.
I do. | 9 | Genever BVI on these topics that we just | |\n| 10 | Q.
Thank you. | 10 | covered? | |\n| 11 | I assume there is no reason why you | 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 12 | can't give truthful and accurate testimony here | 12 | the question. | |\n| 13 | today? | 13 | You can answer. | |\n| 14 | A.
No. | 14 | A.
I reviewed each one of these | |\n| 15 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 1, Corporate | 15 | deposition notices and the topics that were | |\n| 16 | representative notice for the deposition | 16 | designated. I reviewed the corporate records | |\n| 17 | of Genever New York, marked for | 17 | for Genever New York and for Genever BVI. I | |\n| 18 | identification.) | 18 | spoke with Miles Kwok. I spoke with Guo Qiang | |\n| 19 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 2, Notice for the | 19 | and I spoke with Yvette Wang. | |\n| 20 | deposition of Genever BVI, marked for | 20 | MR. MITCHELL: Maybe, just to go on | |\n| 21 | identification.) | 21 | the record here, just because | |\n| 22 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the | 22 | Mr. Podhaskie is an attorney, I'm | |\n| 23 | record. The time is 2:59 p.m. | 23 | certainly going to allow you to ask | |\n| 24 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, I have handed you | 24 | questions regarding the 30(b)(6) | |\n| 25 | what we have marked as Podhaskie 1 and | 25 | discussions he had with those individuals, | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 10 | | Page 12 | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | Podhaskie 2. Number 1 is the corporate | 2 | but anything outside of that, I'm going to | |\n| 3 | representative notice for the deposition of | 3 | assert privilege. | |\n| 4 | Genever New York, and Exhibit 2 is the notice | 4 | MR. MOSS: Sure. Understood. | |\n| 5 | for the deposition of Genever BVI. Is that -- | 5 | That's helpful. | |\n| 6 | is that correct? | 6 | BY MR. MOSS: | |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 7 | Q.
So let's start with Mr. Kwok. What | |\n| 8 | the question. | 8 | did you discuss with Mr. Kwok in connection | |\n| 9 | A.
(Document review.) Exhibit 1 is a | 9 | with preparing for your testimony here today as | |\n| 10 | deposition notice to Genever New York and | 10 | a corporate representative? | |\n| 11 | Exhibit 2 is a deposition notice to Genever | 11 | A.
I asked him if he would have any | |\n| 12 | BVI, as you previously defined them. | 12 | knowledge about the topics that are listed on | |\n| 13 | Q.
Great. Thank you. | 13 | the notice of deposition. | |\n| 14 | Now, if you can take a look, please, | 14 | Q.
And what did he say? | |\n| 15 | we can start with Exhibit 1. Please take a | 15 | A.
He indicated he would not know. | |\n| 16 | look at the last page of that exhibit. | 16 | Q.
Anything else about your | |\n| 17 | And do you see that there are five
deposition topics? | 17 | conversation with Mr. Kwok as it relates to
your preparation for your corporate | |\n| 18
19 | A.
Yes. | 18
19 | representative topics today? | |\n| 20 | Q.
Are you prepared to testify on those | 20 | A.
Did I discuss anything else with him | |\n| 21 | five topics today? | 21 | about this, the preparation? Other than that, | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | 22 | no. | |\n| 23 | Q.
And if you can please take a look at | 23 | Q.
Who is Guo Qiang? | |\n| 24 | Exhibit 2, at the last page of that exhibit, do | 24 | A.
He is Mr. Kwok's son. | |\n| 25 | you see that there are five deposition topics | 25 | Q.
And did you speak with Mr. Qiang by | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 6 of\n\n| | Page 13 | | Page 15 |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | phone, in person? How did you communicate? | 2 | looking for? |\n| 3 | MR. MITCHELL: Just for | 3 | Q.
You said it was a brief discussion. |\n| 4 | clarification, his first name is Qiang. | 4 | Just anything you remember about that brief |\n| 5 | MR. MOSS: Sorry. | 5 | discussion. |\n| 6 | Q.
Mr. Guo. Let me try it again. | 6 | A.
He told me that they were looking to |\n| 7 | When you speak with Mr. Kwok's son, | 7 | buy a residence at -- you know, somewhere in |\n| 8 | how did you communicate with him? | 8 | New York, and that he had attended the meetings |\n| 9 | A.
By telephone. | 9 | with The Sherry-Netherland with his father, you |\n| 10 | Q.
Who called who? | 10 | know, he attended a lot of the meetings, spoke |\n| 11 | A.
I was with Yvette Wang at the time | 11 | with the president of the -- or the vice |\n| 12 | and she called Guo Qiang. | 12 | president, I'm not sure of the title, of The |\n| 13 | Q.
And where was Guo Qiang located when | 13 | Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 14 | you spoke with him? | 14 | He had signed some application forms |\n| 15 | A.
I believe he was in England. | 15 | to purchase the residence on behalf of Genever |\n| 16 | Q.
And what did the two of you discuss? | 16 | New York and I think that's about it. |\n| 17 | A.
We discussed the deposition topics | 17 | Q.
When you say they were looking to |\n| 18 | that were noticed and the corporate formalities | 18 | buy residences, who is the \"they\" you're |\n| 19 | of both Genever New York and Genever BVI. | 19 | referring to? |\n| 20 | Q.
Do you remember anything he told | 20 | A.
The Guo family. |\n| 21 | you? | 21 | Q.
And is that Mr. Kwok and his son or |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | 22 | is that something broader than that? |\n| 23 | Q.
Can you just tell me your best | 23 | A.
In particular, it was Guo Qiang, |\n| 24 | recollection about what Guo Qiang told you | 24 | Mr. Kwok's son. |\n| 25 | during that conversation to prepare for your | 25 | Q.
When was the conversation you had |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 14 | | Page 16 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | corporate representative testimony?
A.
How much time do I have? | 2 | with Guo Qiang?
A.
I believe this past Monday, |\n| 3
4 | Q.
As much as you need. | 3
4 | December 9. |\n| 5 | A.
Well, we went through each of the | 5 | Q.
You said you also spoke with |\n| 6 | topics one by one. We discussed the formation | 6 | Ms. Yvette Wang to prepare for your testimony; |\n| 7 | and business purpose of both Genever BVI and | 7 | is that correct? |\n| 8 | Genever New York. We discussed the corporate | 8 | A.
She was present when I had the |\n| 9 | and ownership structure of both Genever BVI and | 9 | conversation with Guo Qiang. |\n| 10 | Genever New York. We discussed the personnel | 10 | Q.
Did you have any conversations with |\n| 11 | management and organization structure of both | 11 | her other than her being present for the |\n| 12 | Genever BVI and Genever New York. We discussed | 12 | conversation with Guo Qiang? |\n| 13 | Genever BVI's relationship to Mr. Kwok and | 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Genever New York. And we discussed the assets | 14 | Q.
In connection with preparation for |\n| 15 | that are currently held by both Genever BVI and | 15 | this deposition? |\n| 16 | Genever New York. | 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
Anything else you remember? | 17 | Q.
And can you tell me what the two of |\n| 18 | A.
I think we briefly discussed the | 18 | you discussed, please? |\n| 19 | purchase of the residence at The | 19 | A.
I think we discussed the address for |\n| 20 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel in New York. | 20 | Genever and who maintains -- whether it has an |\n| 21 | Q.
And do you recall anything about | 21 | office here in New York, Genever New York, that |\n| 22 | that discussion? | 22 | is, and the same for Genever BVI. |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | 23 | Q.
Anything else? |\n| 24
25 | Q.
Can you tell me what you remember?
A.
Anything specific that you're | 24
25 | A.
No. I think that's it.
Q.
What is Ms. Wang's role with Genever |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 7 of\n\n| | Page 17 | | Page 19 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | |\n| 1
2 | PODHASKIE
New York? | 1
2 | PODHASKIE
A.
What do you mean by \"role\"? Can you |\n| 3 | A.
I don't know. | 3 | be more specific? |\n| 4 | Q.
What is Ms. Wang's role with Genever | 4 | Q.
I asked you what Ms. Wang told you |\n| 5 | BVI? | 5 | and you answered she has no official role with |\n| 6 | A.
I don't know. | 6 | Genever New York. |\n| 7 | Q.
Well, you're prepared to testify | 7 | What did you mean by the word |\n| 8 | about the personnel of Genever New York, right, | 8 | \"role\"? |\n| 9 | that's topic 3, in Exhibit 1; is that right? | 9 | A.
She is not employed by Genever New |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | 10 | York. |\n| 11 | Q.
Are you prepared to testify on that? | 11 | Q.
Does she have any duties, |\n| 12 | A.
I am. | 12 | responsibility in connection with, affiliation |\n| 13 | Q.
You didn't ask Ms. Wang what her | 13 | with Genever New York? |\n| 14 | role was with Genever New York? | 14 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 15 | A.
I think you're assuming she has a | 15 | the question. |\n| 16 | role with Genever New York. | 16 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 17 | Q.
Did you ask her whether she has a | 17 | Q.
You didn't ask her? |\n| 18 | role with Genever New York? | 18 | A.
No. |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. | 19 | Q.
Let's -- let's focus on Genever BVI. |\n| 20 | Q.
And what did she tell you? | 20 | Mr. Podhaskie, I'm going to hand you |\n| 21 | A.
She has no official role with | 21 | a collection of corporate documents that were |\n| 22 | Genever New York. | 22 | produced to us in this case by -- by one of the |\n| 23 | Q.
Does she have an unofficial role | 23 | Genever entities, I'm not sure which one, but |\n| 24 | with Genever New York? | 24 | they have Kwok Bates stamps on them, and I'm |\n| 25 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 25 | going to look at -- I'm going to direct your |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 18 | | Page 20 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | the question. | 2 | attention to various documents within here. If |\n| 3 | You can answer. | 3 | there are other documents you feel you need to |\n| 4 | A.
What do you mean by \"unofficial | 4 | look at to answer questions or you want to flip |\n| 5 | role\"? | 5 | through this, you're more than welcome to. |\n| 6 | Q.
Well, you testified that you didn't | 6 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 3, Collection of |\n| 7 | know whether she had a role with Genever New | 7 | corporate documents, Bates Stamped KWOK143 |\n| 8 | York. Is that -- is that your testimony? | 8 | through 194, marked for identification.) |\n| 9 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of
the question. | 9 | MR. MITCHELL: Are you marking this
as Podhaskie 3? |\n| 10
11 | A.
If that's what the record reflects. | 10
11 | MR. MOSS: I'm marking this together |\n| 12 | Q.
I asked you, what is Ms. Wang's role | 12 | as 3, yes. |\n| 13 | with Genever New York, and you answered, I | 13 | Q.
So Mr. Podhaskie, Exhibit 3, as I |\n| 14 | don't know. | 14 | mentioned, is a compilation of documents. They |\n| 15 | Do you recall that testimony? | 15 | are in sequential Bates order, and they are |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. | 16 | KWOK143 through KWOK194. And they are various |\n| 17 | Q.
Is that accurate? | 17 | corporate documents with respect to the two |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. | 18 | Genever entities. |\n| 19 | Q.
Okay. Do you know whether she has | 19 | So I would like to direct your |\n| 20 | any role, official or unofficial, with Genever | 20 | attention to page -- the Bates page 176. This |\n| 21 | New York? And by \"her,\" I'm referring to | 21 | is entitled \"Authorization to Date Director's |\n| 22 | Yvette Wang. | 22 | Resolution,\" and it's Bates stamped KWOK176. |\n| 23 | A.
I don't know. | 23 | Can you identify this document? |\n| 24
25 | Q.
Did you ask her whether she had a
role with Genever New York? | 24
25 | A.
(Document review.) It is entitled
\"Authorization to Date Director's Resolution,\" |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 8 of\n\n| | Page 21 | | Page 23 |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | and it appears to be dated effective the 12th | 2 | Can you identify this document which |\n| 3 | day of February, 2015. | 3 | is -- the title of it is \"Territory of the |\n| 4 | Q.
And it relates to the Genever BVI | 4 | British Virgin Island Acts, BVI Companies Act |\n| 5 | entity? | 5 | 2004, Certificate of Incorporation, Section 7 |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | 6 | for Genever Holdings Corporation.\" |\n| 7 | Q.
And is this a true and correct copy | 7 | Can you identify this? |\n| 8 | of this Authorization to Date Director's | 8 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 9 | Resolution, as far as you can tell? | 9 | the question. |\n| 10 | A.
Based on the documents that I | 10 | A.
Yes. This appears to be a copy of |\n| 11 | reviewed in preparation for today, it would | 11 | the certificate of incorporation for Genever |\n| 12 | appear to be true and accurate. | 12 | BVI. |\n| 13 | Q.
And is that -- that signature at the | 13 | Q.
Do you have any reason to believe |\n| 14 | bottom, is that Mr. Kwok's signature? | 14 | that this document is not authentic and |\n| 15 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 15 | accurate? |\n| 16 | the question. | 16 | A.
Based on the documents that I |\n| 17 | A.
I don't know. | 17 | reviewed in preparation for today, this appears |\n| 18 | Q.
Kwok Ho Wan, do you see underneath | 18 | to be an accurate copy. |\n| 19 | the signature line, it has the words | 19 | Q.
And is it correct that Genever BVI |\n| 20 | typewritten \"Kwok Ho Wan\"? | 20 | was incorporated in the BVI on February 13, |\n| 21
22 | A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that Miles Kwok? | 21
22 | 2015?
A.
Yes, I believe that's correct. |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | 23 | Q.
Who besides Mr. Kwok was involved in |\n| 24 | Q.
Do you have any reason to believe | 24 | forming Genever BVI? |\n| 25 | that's not his signature? | 25 | A.
Guo Qiang. |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 22 | | Page 24 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
No. | 2 | Q.
That's Mr. Kwok's son? |\n| 3 | Q.
And it says here, \"The undersigned | 3 | A.
Correct. |\n| 4 | is forming a corporation under the laws of the | 4 | Q.
Anybody else? |\n| 5 | British Virgin Islands, such corporation to be | 5 | A.
Not that I'm aware of. |\n| 6 | known as Genever Holdings Corporation, the | 6 | Q.
Why was Genever BVI formed? |\n| 7 | company.\" | 7 | A.
Initially, it was formed to own a |\n| 8 | Did I read that correctly? | 8 | US-based company that was going to purchase |\n| 9 | A.
You're reading from the beginning of | 9 | real estate. |\n| 10 | the first paragraph? | 10 | Q.
And was the US-based company Genever |\n| 11 | Q.
Yes, the first sentence. | 11 | New York? |\n| 12 | A.
(Document review.) Yes. | 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| | | | |\n| 13 | Q.
And the undersigned is Mr. Kwok; is | 13 | Q.
And was the real estate the |\n| 14 | that right? | 14 | apartment at The Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 15 | A.
Correct. Correct. | 15 | A.
That ultimately ended up being the |\n| 16 | Q.
Mr. Kwok formed Genever Holdings | 16 | real estate that Genever purchased. |\n| 17 | Corporation, correct? | 17 | Q.
So is it your testimony that, at the |\n| 18 | A.
That's what this document reflects. | 18 | time, there was the thought to buy some real |\n| 19 | Q.
And you don't have any reason to | 19 | estate in the United States, but they just |\n| 20 | believe this document that was produced from | 20 | didn't know exactly what that real estate was |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok's or Genever's files is inaccurate, do | 21 | going to be? |\n| 22 | you? | 22 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 23 | A.
No. | 23 | the question. |\n| 24
25 | Q.
Take a look, please, Mr. Podhaskie,
at page KWOK145. | 24
25 | You can answer.
A.
They wanted to invest in real estate |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 9 of\n\n| | Page 25 | | Page 27 |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | in the United States, and they didn't know | 2 | A.
Not from the documents and the |\n| 3 | which asset they were going to purchase or | 3 | conversations I had in preparation for today. |\n| 4 | where they were going to purchase. | 4 | Q.
Does Genever BVI have a bank |\n| 5 | Q.
Was the plan at the time of | 5 | account? |\n| 6 | formation to buy one -- you said which asset | 6 | A.
No. |\n| 7 | they were going to purchase. | 7 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever paid any money |\n| 8 | Was the plan at the time of | 8 | to any other person or entity? |\n| 9 | formation to purchase one asset or several | 9 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 10 | assets? | 10 | the question. |\n| 11 | A.
I don't know what the plan was. I | 11 | A.
When you say \"any other person or |\n| 12 | know they had looked at several different | 12 | entity,\" who are you referring to? |\n| 13 | properties and ultimately chose The | 13 | Q.
Any person or entity other than |\n| 14 | Sherry-Netherland. | 14 | Genever BVI. |\n| 15 | Q.
Has the purpose of Genever BVI | 15 | A.
Has Genever BVI paid any money to |\n| 16 | changed since the purpose at its formation? | 16 | any other person or entity other than Genever |\n| 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 17 | BVI? |\n| 18 | the question. | 18 | Q.
Yeah, to anyone. Has it ever |\n| 19 | You can answer. | 19 | incurred a debt that it needed to pay money |\n| 20 | A.
No. | 20 | for? Has it ever cut a check? Has it ever |\n| 21 | Q.
No purposes have been added or | 21 | spent any money on any goods or services? |\n| 22 | subtracted? | 22 | A.
It hired a registered agent in the |\n| 23 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 23 | BVI and paid them for secretarial services. |\n| 24 | the question. | 24 | Q.
Other than that? |\n| 25 | A.
It's not reflected from the | 25 | A.
No, not from -- I did not see that |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 26 | | Page 28 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | documents and the conversations I had in | 2 | from the documents and the conversations I had |\n| 3 | preparation for today. | 3 | in preparation for today. |\n| 4 | Q.
What business has Genever BVI | 4 | Q.
Do you know where the money came |\n| 5 | conducted? | 5 | from to pay the registered agent for the |\n| 6 | A.
It owns Genever New York, which owns | 6 | secretarial services? |\n| 7 | the residence at The Sherry-Netherland. | 7 | A.
I believe it came from Bravo Luck. |\n| 8 | Q.
Any other business that Genever BVI | 8 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever received any |\n| 9 | has conducted other than owning Genever New | 9 | money from any person or entity? |\n| 10 | York? | 10 | A.
No, that's not apparent from the |\n| 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 11 | documents that I've reviewed in preparation for |\n| 12 | the question. | 12 | today. |\n| 13 | A.
No. | 13 | Q.
At the time of Genever BVI's |\n| 14 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever entered into | 14 | formation, was Mr. Kwok its sole shareholder? |\n| 15 | any contracts? | 15 | A.
Yes. And by Mr. Kwok, you're |\n| 16 | A.
By contract, can you specify more? | 16 | referring to Miles Kwok? |\n| 17 | I think the answer is yes. | 17 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q.
Okay. Can you elaborate? | 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | A.
It entered into -- sorry -- Genever | 19 | Q.
So for purposes of clarity of the |\n| 20
21 | BVI entered into a pledge agreement with an
entity called Roscalitar 2, and also with an | 20
21 | record, thank you for mentioning that, when I
refer to Mr. Kwok, I'm going to be referring to |\n| 22 | entity called Blue Capital Limited. | 22 | Miles Kwok. When I'm referring to Guo Qiang, I |\n| 23 | Q.
Other than those two pledge | 23 | will be referring to Mr. Kwok's son. |\n| 24 | agreements, has Genever BVI entered into any | 24 | Is that okay? |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 10 of\n\n| | Page 29 | | Page 31 | |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | Q.
And that's the way you have been | 2 | Genever BVI? | |\n| 3 | using those terms during the course of this | 3 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 4 | deposition, right? | 4 | the question. | |\n| 5 | A.
Yeah. That's fine. | 5 | A.
He is the sole shareholder of | |\n| 6 | Q.
Can you direct your attention to the | 6 | Genever BVI. | |\n| 7 | next page, please, Mr. Podhaskie, which is | 7 | Q.
And are you distinguishing between | |\n| 8 | Bates stamped KWOK147. The top, it says, | 8 | shareholders and owners because it's a | |\n| 9 | \"Incorporated under the BVI Business Companies | 9 | corporation? Is that why? | |\n| 10 | Act 2004,\" and then it says, \"Genever Holdings | 10 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 11 | Corporation,\" in the middle. | 11 | Q.
But there is nobody else who owns | |\n| 12 | A.
Yes. | 12 | Genever BVI; is that correct? | |\n| 13 | Q.
Can you please identify this | 13 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 14 | document? | 14 | the question. | |\n| 15 | A.
This appears to be a copy of the | 15 | A.
Other than Mr. Kwok? | |\n| 16 | share certificate for Genever BVI. | 16 | Q.
Yes. | |\n| 17 | Q.
And as far as you know, this is a | 17 | A.
Based on the documents I reviewed | |\n| 18 | true, correct, authentic and accurate document? | 18 | today, there's no other shareholder besides | |\n| 19 | A.
Again, based on the documents I | 19 | Mr. Kwok. | |\n| 20 | reviewed in preparation for today, it would | 20 | Q.
Who is Zhang Wei? | |\n| 21 | appear to be an accurate copy. | 21 | A.
He is a colleague of Mr. Kwok's that | |\n| 22
23 | Q.
And this provides that Mr. Kwok is
the owner of 1,000 shares, and those shares | 22
23 | lives in China that ultimately lent the money
to purchase The Sherry-Netherland. | |\n| 24 | have a par value of .001 cents; is that | 24 | Q.
Is he a family member of Mr. Kwok? | |\n| 25 | correct? | 25 | A.
I would be speculating, so I don't | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 30 | | Page 32 | |\n| | | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | A.
I think it's .001 dollar, but yes. | 2 | know. | |\n| 3 | Q.
Yes. Thank you. 001 dollar? | 3 | MR. MITCHELL: I caution the witness | |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. | 4 | not to speculate. | |\n| 5 | Q.
Thank you. | 5 | Q.
When you say Zhang Wei ultimately | |\n| 6 | And so the total value of Mr. Kwok's | 6 | lent the money to purchase The | |\n| 7
8 | share holding in Genever Corporation -- Genever
BVI would be one dollar; is that right? | 7
8 | Sherry-Netherland, to whom did Zhang Wei lend
the money? | |\n| 9 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 9 | A.
He lent the money to Bravo Luck, a | |\n| 10 | the question. | 10 | company that, at that time, was owned by | |\n| 11 | A.
If the math adds up, then yes. | 11 | Mr. Kwok's son, Guo Qiang, and then Guo Qiang | |\n| 12 | That's what it appears to say here. | 12 | ended up funding the purchase of The | |\n| 13 | Q.
Did Mr. Kwok pay a dollar for his | 13 | Sherry-Netherland through Bravo Luck. | |\n| 14 | shares? | 14 | Q.
Does Mr. Zhang Wei have any -- own | |\n| 15 | A.
From the documents I reviewed, | 15 | any of the shares of Genever BVI? | |\n| 16 | that's not reflected. | 16 | A.
Based on the documents that I | |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you know whether or not he paid | 17 | reviewed in preparation for today, his | |\n| 18 | any amount of money for his shares, Mr. Kwok? | 18 | ownership is not reflected on those documents. | |\n| 19 | A.
I don't know. | 19 | Q.
At any time during Genever BVI's | |\n| 20 | Q.
Has Mr. Kwok been the sole | 20 | existence, did Mr. Zhang Wei own any shares of | |\n| 21 | shareholder of Genever BVI for the entirety of | 21 | Genever BVI? | |\n| 22 | Genever BVI's existence? | 22 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed | |\n| 23
24 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed
in preparation for today, yes. | 23
24 | in preparation for today, that is not
reflected. | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 11 of\n\n| | Page 33 | | Page 35 | |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | Genever BVI at the time it was formed; is that | 2 | office that is what we typically think of as an | |\n| 3 | correct? | 3 | office like this. | |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. Again, based on what I | 4 | Q.
Genever BVI has never had a business | |\n| 5 | reviewed for today. | 5 | or a corporate office? | |\n| 6 | Q.
Has Genever BVI, during the course | 6 | A.
Correct. | |\n| 7 | of its existence, ever had any directors other | 7 | Q.
Is the mailing address that Genever | |\n| 8 | than Mr. Kwok? | 8 | BVI has the mailing address for its registered | |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. | 9 | agent for service of process? | |\n| 10 | Q.
Who were those other directors? | 10 | A.
In the BVI? | |\n| 11 | A.
There was a corporate secretary, a | 11 | Q.
Yes. | |\n| 12 | registered agent in the BVI that acted as a | 12 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 13 | director as well. | 13 | Q.
Does it have any other -- does | |\n| 14 | Q.
Is that Elian First Director? | 14 | Genever hold -- strike that. | |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. | 15 | Does Genever BVI have any other | |\n| 16 | Q.
And was that director -- was Elian | 16 | mailing address other than the mailing address | |\n| 17 | First Director only a director for a day or so, | 17 | for its registered agent for service of process | |\n| 18 | until it was replaced by Mr. Kwok? | 18 | in the BVI? | |\n| 19
20 | A.
I don't know how long it was, but it
was a short period of time initially, yes. | 19
20 | A.
Yes.
Q.
What other addresses does it have? | |\n| 21 | Q.
A day or a couple of days? | 21 | A.
There is another address in Hong | |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | 22 | Kong where it maintains its books and records. | |\n| 23 | Q.
Other than Elian First Director, | 23 | Q.
And what is that address? | |\n| 24 | which was a director of Genever BVI for a day | 24 | A.
I don't know it off the top of my | |\n| 25 | or a couple of days, has there been any other | 25 | head. If I had the records in front of me, I | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 34 | | Page 36 | |\n| | | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | director of Genever BVI besides Mr. Kwok? | 2 | would be able to find it. | |\n| 3 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 3 | Q.
And what is that address? Is it the | |\n| 4
5 | the question.
You can answer. | 4
5 | office of another company?
A.
It's -- from what I understand, it's | |\n| 6 | A.
No. | 6 | just another mailing address or another -- just | |\n| 7 | Q.
Has Mr. Kwok ever stopped being a | 7 | an office where they keep the books and | |\n| 8 | director of Genever BVI? | 8 | records. | |\n| 9 | A.
No. | 9 | Q.
And who's in charge of maintaining | |\n| 10 | Q.
He's still a director to this day? | 10 | the books and records? | |\n| 11 | A.
He is currently still a director. | 11 | A.
Guo Qiang. | |\n| 12 | Q.
He is currently still the only | 12 | Q.
Any other addresses besides the | |\n| 13 | director? | 13 | registered agent for service of process in the | |\n| 14 | A.
He is the only director. Guo Qiang | 14 | BVI and the mailing address where the books and | |\n| 15 | is the president. | 15 | records are kept in Hong Kong? | |\n| 16 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever had any | 16 | A.
No, not that I'm aware of. | |\n| 17 | offices? | 17 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever had any | |\n| 18 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 18 | employees? | |\n| 19 | the question. | 19 | A.
No. | |\n| 20 | A.
When you say \"offices,\" do you mean | 20 | Q.
Does Genever BVI have a phone | |\n| 21 | like business office, corporate office, | 21 | number? | |\n| 22 | something like that? | 22 | A.
I think there is a phone number for | |\n| 23 | Q.
Yes.
A.
It has a mailing address in the | 23 | the registered agent, but other than that, no.
Q.
Does Genever BVI have an e-mail | |\n| 24
25 | British Virgin Islands, but it does not have an | 24
25 | address? | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 12 of\n\n| | Page 37 | | Page 39 |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
No. | 2 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever had a board |\n| 3 | Q.
Does Genever BVI have any officers? | 3 | meeting? |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. | 4 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 5 | Q.
You mentioned Guo Qiang. | 5 | the question. |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | 6 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed, |\n| 7 | Q.
What is his role at Genever BVI? | 7 | it's not reflected in there. |\n| 8 | A.
He is the president. | 8 | Q.
So based on everything you've seen, |\n| 9 | Q.
When did he become the president? | 9 | the answer to that question is no? |\n| 10 | A.
May of 2015. | 10 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 11 | Q.
Did Genever BVI have any officers | 11 | the question. |\n| 12 | from the time it was formed in February of 2015 | 12 | A.
If Genever BVI had a board meeting, |\n| 13 | until Guo Qiang became the president in May of | 13 | it was not reflected in the documents I |\n| 14 | 2015? | 14 | reviewed for today's preparation. |\n| 15 | A.
If you consider a director an | 15 | Q.
What documents does Genever BVI |\n| 16 | officer, then yes. | 16 | maintain? |\n| 17 | Q.
And that would have been Mr. Kwok? | 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 18 | A.
Correct. | 18 | the question. |\n| 19 | Q.
And Elian for a day or two? | 19 | A.
The corporate documents that were |\n| 20 | A.
Yes. | 20 | generated when it was formed, the share |\n| 21 | Q.
Other than directors and other | 21 | certificate, the register of directors and |\n| 22 | than -- strike that. | 22 | shareholders, and there was a resolution |\n| 23 | Other than directors, between | 23 | appointing Guo Qiang as president as well. |\n| 24 | February of 2015, when it was formed, and May | 24 | Q.
And you know that there's an address |\n| 25 | of 2015, when Guo Qiang became president, did | 25 | where those documents are maintained, but |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 38 | | Page 40 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Genever BVI have any officers? | 2 | you're not sure if it's an office or a room or |\n| 3 | A.
No. | 3 | what it is? |\n| 4 | Q.
Who appointed or elected Guo Qiang | 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | as president in May of 2015? | 5 | Q.
Do you know whether or not -- do you |\n| 6 | A.
Mr. Kwok. | 6 | know who owns that address, the address in Hong |\n| 7 | Q.
Has -- strike that. | 7 | Kong where the records are maintained? |\n| 8 | Has Genever BVI ever had any other | 8 | A.
I believe it's a UBS office, but I'm |\n| 9 | officers, I'm not talking about directors, just | 9 | speculating. |\n| 10 | officers, other than Guo Qiang, the president?
A.
No. | 10 | MR. MITCHELL: Again, I caution the
witness not to speculate. |\n| 11
12 | Q.
Is Guo Qiang still the president? | 11
12 | Q.
UBS meaning the investment bank? |\n| 13 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed | 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | in preparation for today, yes. | 14 | Q.
Are there any individuals who are |\n| 15 | Q.
Between May of 2015, when he was | 15 | authorized to act on behalf of Genever BVI? |\n| 16 | appointed president by Mr. Kwok, and today, has | 16 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 17 | Guo Qiang ever -- did he ever stop being | 17 | the question. |\n| 18 | president for any period of time? | 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | A.
Not that I'm aware of. | 19 | Q.
Who? |\n| 20 | Q.
Did Mr. Kwok ever have an officer | 20 | A.
Mr. Kwok and Guo Qiang. Me, for |\n| 21 | role at Genever BVI? | 21 | this deposition. And whoever either one of |\n| 22 | A.
Not that I'm aware of. | 22 | them appoints to act for the company. |\n| 23 | Q.
And you're not aware of any other | 23 | Q.
Has either Mr. Kwok or Guo Qiang |\n| 24
25 | officers besides Guo Qiang?
A.
Yes. Correct. | 24
25 | ever appointed anyone to act for Genever BVI
other than you in connection with this |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 13 of\n\n| | Page 41 | | Page 43 |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | deposition? | 2 | number. |\n| 3 | A.
I don't know. | 3 | MR. MITCHELL: Just so -- he's |\n| 4 | MR. MITCHELL: Just object to the | 4 | asking you about Genever BVI. |\n| 5 | form of that question. | 5 | THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. |\n| 6 | Q.
Who specifically appointed you to | 6 | A.
Oh, that might have been for Genever |\n| 7 | act for Genever BVI for this deposition? | 7 | New York. |\n| 8 | A.
Guo Qiang. | 8 | So for Genever BVI -- |\n| 9 | Q.
Are you authorized to act for | 9 | MR. MOSS: Thank you for the |\n| 10 | Genever BVI for any purpose other than this | 10 | clarification. |\n| 11 | deposition currently? | 11 | Q.
Let's just go back. |\n| 12 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 12 | You had an answer earlier, he was |\n| 13 | the question. | 13 | involved in the formation, he was involved in |\n| 14 | A.
I don't know. | 14 | the purchase of The Sherry, and you had -- if |\n| 15 | Q.
What actions has Mr. Kwok taken on | 15 | you want to go back and take a look at that |\n| 16 | behalf of Genever BVI? | 16 | answer, that's fine, but I just want to make |\n| 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 17 | sure the record is clear. |\n| 18 | the question. | 18 | Was that answer relating to Genever |\n| 19 | You can answer. | 19 | New York or Genever BVI? |\n| 20 | A.
Other than signing the corporate | 20 | A.
(Reviewing.) So I guess, just to be |\n| 21 | formation documents, I don't know. | 21 | clear, Guo Qiang was involved in the formation |\n| 22 | Q.
What actions has Guo Qiang taken on | 22 | of Genever BVI. After he was appointed as |\n| 23 | behalf of Genever BVI? | 23 | president, I recall seeing several documents |\n| 24 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 24 | that he signed for Genever BVI in his capacity |\n| 25 | the question. | 25 | as president. I don't recall what those are, |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 42 | | Page 44 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
I don't really understand what you | 2 | as I sit here. |\n| 3 | mean by \"what actions.\" Can you be more | 3 | Other than that, I can't think of |\n| 4 | specific? | 4 | anything. |\n| 5 | Q.
To your knowledge, has Guo Qiang | 5 | Q.
Genever BVI is the sole owner of |\n| 6 | ever done anything, ever attended a meeting, | 6 | Genever New York; is that correct? |\n| 7 | spent money, engaged in any type of business | 7 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 8 | interaction at all ever on behalf of Genever | 8 | the question. |\n| 9 | BVI? | 9 | A.
Yes. |\n| 10 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 10 | Q.
Is Genever BVI also the sole member |\n| 11 | the question. | 11 | of Genever New York? |\n| 12 | A.
He was involved in the formation. | 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | He was involved in the purchase of The Sherry, | 13 | Q.
Is it correct that Genever New |\n| | in reviewing the different properties that they | 14 | York -- strike that. |\n| 15 | thought about purchasing. He signed various | 15 | Is it correct that Genever BVI |\n| 16 | documents for Genever BVI. He communicated | 16 | formed Genever New York? |\n| 17 | with the representatives of The | 17 | A.
Yes. From the documents I reviewed, |\n| 18 | Sherry-Netherland for the purchase. He | 18 | I believe that's accurate. |\n| 19 | communicated with the real estate brokers for | 19 | Q.
Can you direct your attention, |\n| 20 | the purchase. | 20 | Mr. Podhaskie, to Exhibit 3, page KWOK193. |\n| 21 | Q.
When you say he signed various | 21 | It's a document entitled \"Genever Holdings |\n| 22 | documents for Genever BVI, which documents are | 22 | Corporation Written Consent of Director.\" It's |\n| 23 | you referring to? | 23 | Bates stamped KWOK193 to 194. |\n| 24
25 | A.
He signed a request for an
employer -- an EIN, employer identification | 24
25 | Can you identify this document?
A.
(Document review.) Yes. |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 14 of\n\n| | Page 45 | | Page 47 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Q.
Please do so. | 2 | Q.
You don't know whether or not |\n| 3 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed | 3 | Genever BVI has an understanding as to whether |\n| 4 | in preparation for today, this appears to be a | 4 | or not Genever New York is one of its assets? |\n| 5 | copy of Genever BVI's written consent of sole | 5 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 6 | director, dated February 12, 2015. | 6 | the question. |\n| 7 | Q.
And the signature block is Ho Wan | 7 | A.
So what is the question? |\n| 8 | Kwok. | 8 | Q.
Is Genever New York an asset of |\n| 9 | Is that Mr. Kwok? | 9 | Genever BVI? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | 10 | A.
Does Genever BVI consider Genever |\n| 11 | Q.
Do you have any reason to believe | 11 | New York an asset? |\n| 12 | that this is not an accurate and authentic | 12 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 13 | document? | 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | A.
No. | 14 | Q.
Genever BVI considers Genever New |\n| 15 | Q.
This document mentions Andrea Sanft, | 15 | York to be one of Genever BVI's assets? |\n| 16 | S-A-N-F-T. | 16 | A.
Correct. |\n| 17 | Who is she? | 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 18 | A.
She is a lawyer either with the firm | 18 | the question, asked and answered. |\n| 19 | of Paul Weiss or Williams & Connolly. | 19 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever held any assets |\n| 20 | Q.
And she was authorized to be an | 20 | other than Genever New York? |\n| 21 | authorized person on behalf of Genever BVI | 21 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed |\n| 22 | according to this written consent; is that | 22 | in preparation for today, no. |\n| 23 | correct? | 23 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever acquired an |\n| 24 | A.
Yes, that's correct. | 24 | asset other than Genever New York? |\n| 25 | Q.
And she was authorized to be an | 25 | A.
Again, from what I reviewed in |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 46 | | Page 48 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | authorized person to form Genever New York and | 2 | preparation for today, no. |\n| 3 | to take such other acts and do such other | 3 | Q.
Has Genever BVI ever sold an asset |\n| 4 | things as are necessary to permit Genever New | 4 | other than Genever New York? |\n| 5 | York to exist and obtain authority to do | 5 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 6 | business in the state of New York and New York | 6 | the question. |\n| 7 | City; is that correct? | 7 | A.
Again, from what I reviewed in |\n| 8 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 8 | preparation for today, no. |\n| 9 | the question. | 9 | Q.
Are any of Genever BVI's assets |\n| 10 | You can answer. | 10 | currently encumbered or pledged? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes, based on this written consent | 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 12 | of the sole director, that's accurate. | 12 | the question. |\n| 13 | Q.
Is Genever New York an asset of | 13 | A.
The assets are not -- I don't think |\n| 14 | Genever BVI? | 14 | I can answer because it's a little complicated. |\n| 15 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 15 | The assets are not pledged. Genever BVI's |\n| 16 | the question. | 16 | assets are not pledged to anyone. |\n| 17 | A.
If you assume that a ownership of a | 17 | Q.
Let's just be clear what we're |\n| 18 | limited liability company is an asset, then | 18 | talking about when we're talking about assets. |\n| 19 | yes. | 19 | Does Genever BVI currently have any |\n| 20 | Q.
Is that your understanding, that a | 20 | assets other than Genever New York? |\n| 21 | ownership of a limited liability company is an | 21 | A.
Yes, they have their shares. |\n| 22 | asset? | 22 | Q.
Whose shares? |\n| 23 | A.
That is my personal understanding. | 23 | A.
Genever BVI. |\n| 24
25 | In my capacity as a representative
for Genever, I don't know. | 24
25 | Q.
But doesn't Mr. Kwok hold those
shares? |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 15 of\n\n| | Page 49 | | Page 51 |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
Yes. | 2 | York? |\n| 3 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 3 | A.
Its shares in Genever BVI. |\n| 4 | the question. | 4 | Q.
Genever BVI pledged its own shares, |\n| 5 | Q.
So my question is, does Genever BVI | 5 | 100 percent of its shares to Roscalitar 2? |\n| 6 | itself hold any assets other than Genever New | 6 | A.
Yes, I believe that's accurate. |\n| 7 | York? | 7 | Q.
And by virtue of pledging a hundred |\n| 8 | A.
No. | 8 | percent of its own shares, it was also pledging |\n| 9 | Q.
Is Genever New York currently | 9 | Genever New York and the assets held by Genever |\n| 10 | encumbered? | 10 | New York; is that correct? |\n| 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | the question. | 12 | Q.
Why was Genever BVI -- why were |\n| 13 | A.
What do you mean by \"encumbered\"? | 13 | Genever BVI shares pledged to Roscalitar 2? |\n| 14 | Q.
Is it currently pledged to anyone? | 14 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 15 | A.
No. | 15 | the question. |\n| 16 | Q.
Does anyone currently have a lien | 16 | A.
Because Zhang Wei had asked Genever |\n| 17 | against it? | 17 | to pledge its shares via the loan. |\n| 18 | A.
No. | 18 | Q.
Why did Zhang Wei want Genever to |\n| 19 | Q.
Has it been promised to anybody in | 19 | pledge its shares? |\n| 20 | connection with any possible future | 20 | A.
As security for the loan that he |\n| 21 | transaction? | 21 | gave to Genever ultimately to buy the |\n| 22 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 22 | residence. |\n| 23 | the question. | 23 | Q.
Who made the decision to pledge the |\n| 24 | A.
There's the order from Judge | 24 | shares of Genever BVI to Roscalitar 2? |\n| 25 | Ostrager in the case indicating that if Genever | 25 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form. |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 50 | | Page 52 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | New York has to -- enters into a contract to | 2 | A.
On behalf of Genever? |\n| 3 | sell The Sherry-Netherland residence, it has to | 3 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 4 | provide PAX with written notice. | 4 | A.
Guo Qiang. |\n| 5 | Q.
Other than Justice Ostrager's order, | 5 | Q.
Was Mr. Kwok involved in that |\n| 6 | is Genever New York encumbered in any way? | 6 | decision? |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 7 | A.
I believe he was. I don't know for |\n| 8 | the question. | 8 | certain. |\n| 9 | A.
No, not that I'm aware of. | 9 | Q.
Did he know about the pledge at the |\n| 10 | Q.
You testified that there was a point
in time where the assets of Genever BVI were | 10 | time it was entered into?
A.
I believe so. |\n| 11
12 | pledged -- strike that. | 11
12 | MR. MITCHELL: I just caution the |\n| 13 | Has Genever BVI been assigned to | 13 | witness. He said I believe. Don't |\n| 14 | anyone? | 14 | speculate. If you're speculating, please |\n| 15 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 15 | don't do so, but |\n| 16 | the question. | 16 | Q.
Was there any board resolution or |\n| 17 | A.
No. | 17 | any official activity to commemorate the pledge |\n| 18 | Q.
You mentioned that there was a time | 18 | to Roscalitar 2? |\n| 19 | when Genever BVI's assets were pledged to an | 19 | A.
Not from what I reviewed in |\n| 20 | entity called Roscalitar 2; is that correct? | 20 | preparation for today. |\n| 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 21 | Q.
Is Roscalitar 2 owned by Zhang Wei? |\n| 22 | the question. | 22 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 23 | A.
I believe that Genever BVI pledged | 23 | Q.
Is it controlled by Zhang Wei? |\n| 24
25 | its shares to Roscalitar 2, but yes.
Q.
Pledged its shares in Genever New | 24
25 | A.
I don't know.
Q.
Do you know who owns or controls |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 16 of\n\n| | Page 53 | | Page 55 | |\n|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | Roscalitar 2? | 2 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 3 | A.
No. | 3 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 4, Certificate of | |\n| 4 | Q.
There came a time when the pledge to | 4 | Registration of Charge, marked for | |\n| 5 | Roscalitar 2 was taken off; is that correct? | 5 | identification.) | |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | 6 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, I have handed you | |\n| 7 | Q.
And that was in or around May of | 7 | Exhibit 4. | |\n| 8 | 2015; is that right? | 8 | Can you identify this document? | |\n| 9 | A.
When the pledge was taken off? I'd | 9 | A.
(Document review.) This appears to | |\n| 10 | have to review the dates, but it sounds | 10 | be a copy of the pledge from Genever BVI to | |\n| 11 | somewhere around that time. | 11 | Roscalitar 2. | |\n| 12 | Q.
Why was the pledge to Roscalitar 2 | 12 | Q.
And it was put on on May 21, 2015; | |\n| 13 | taken off? | 13 | is that correct? | |\n| 14 | A.
I don't know. | 14 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 15 | Q.
Was there any board meeting or | 15 | Q.
Does this appear, based on your work | |\n| 16 | activity, formal corporate resolution around | 16 | to prepare for this deposition, does this | |\n| 17 | that? | 17 | appear to be a true and correct copy of the | |\n| 18 | A.
Not from what I reviewed in | 18 | registration of charge? | |\n| 19 | preparation for today. | 19 | A.
(Document review.) Yes. | |\n| 20 | Q.
I think you testified earlier that | 20 | Q.
And is this, this charge, Exhibit 4, | |\n| 21 | later, after the pledge to Roscalitar was taken | 21 | is that a document that Genever BVI would have | |\n| 22 | off, Genever BVI shares were pledged to a | 22 | retained in the ordinary course of its | |\n| 23 | company called Blue Capital; is that correct? | 23 | business? | |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. | 24 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 25 | Q.
And why were the shares pledged to | 25 | Q.
Is the same true for the other | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 54 | | Page 56 | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | Blue Capital? | 2 | exhibits that I've shown you today, other than | |\n| 3 | A.
Guo Qiang was looking to obtain a | 3 | Exhibits 1 and 2, so Exhibits 3 and 4 are also | |\n| 4 | loan facility and he wanted to pledge the | 4 | documents that would have been retained by | |\n| 5 | shares of Genever BVI to Blue Capital as | 5 | Genever BVI in the ordinary course of its | |\n| 6 | security for a loan facility. | 6 | business? | |\n| 7 | Q.
What was the loan for? | 7 | MR. MITCHELL: I just want to ask | |\n| 8 | A.
He wanted to invest, you know, do | 8 | you, for the record, you asked him about | |\n| 9 | other kinds of investments. | 9 | 4, he said yes. | |\n| 10 | Q.
Do you know who controls or owns | 10 | So you're really only asking him | |\n| 11 | Blue Capital? | 11 | about 3 now, correct? | |\n| 12 | A.
No. | 12 | MR. MOSS: Yes. | |\n| 13 | Q.
Was Mr. Kwok involved in the | 13 | Q.
If you can flip through 3. Are | |\n| 14 | decision to pledge Genever BVI's shares to Blue | 14 | those documents that Genever BVI or Genever New | |\n| 15 | Capital? | 15 | York maintained in the ordinary course of its | |\n| 16 | A.
I don't know. | 16 | business? | |\n| 17 | Q.
Did he know about the pledge? | 17 | A.
(Document review.) Yes. | |\n| 18 | A.
I don't know. | 18 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 5, Notice of | |\n| 19 | Q.
Was the pledge to Blue Capital at | 19 | Satisfaction or Release of Registered | |\n| 20 | some point taken off? | 20 | Charge Pursuant to Section 165, marked for | |\n| 21 | A.
Yes, I believe so. | 21 | identification.) | |\n| 22 | Q.
Why? | 22 | Q.
You have been handed Exhibit 5, | |\n| 23 | A.
I don't know. | 23 | Mr. Podhaskie, which is a Notice of | |\n| 24
25 | Q.
And, currently, there's no pledge of
Genever BVI; is that correct? | 24
25 | Satisfaction or Release of Registered Charge
Pursuant to Section 165. | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 17 of\n\n| | Page 57 | | Page 59 |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Can you identify this document, | 2 | with \"While Kwok\"? |\n| | | | |\n| 3 | please? | 3 | A.
Yes. |\n| 4 | A.
This appears to be a copy of a | 4 | Q.
\"While Kwok is the sole shareholder |\n| 5 | Notice of Satisfaction or Release of Registered | 5 | of Genever BVI, since May of 2015, the assets |\n| 6 | Charge dated May -- sorry -- March 17, 2017. | 6 | of Genever BVI -- which by virtue of its |\n| 7 | Q.
And does this appear to be a true | 7 | ownership of Genever USA include the |\n| 8 | and correct and authentic copy of the | 8 | apartment -- have been pledged in their |\n| 9 | satisfaction of charge? | 9 | entirety to Roscalitar 2, an unrelated third |\n| 10 | A.
From what I reviewed in preparation | 10 | party not owned by Kwok.\" |\n| 11 | for today, yes. | 11 | Do you see that? |\n| | | | |\n| 12 | Q.
And is this a document that Genever | 12 | A.
Yes. |\n| 13 | BVI would have maintained in the ordinary | 13 | Q.
And if you look at the top, do you |\n| 14 | course of its business? | 14 | see that this document is dated May 16 of 2018? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. | 15 | A.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q.
And is that consistent with Genever | 16 | Q.
And as of this date, the assets of |\n| 17 | BVI's testimony that the pledge to Roscalitar 2 | 17 | Genever BVI were not, in fact, pledged to |\n| 18 | was taken off on March 17, 2017? | 18 | Roscalitar 2; is that correct? |\n| 19 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 19 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 20 | the question. | 20 | the question. |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. | 21 | A.
I think we established that the |\n| 22 | Q.
After March 17, 2017, was Genever | 22 | Genever BVI pledge to Roscalitar 2 was removed |\n| | | | |\n| 23 | BVI ever again pledged to Roscalitar 2? | 23 | effective March 17, 2017, if I'm not mistaken. |\n| 24 | A.
From the documents that I reviewed | 24 | Q.
So this is not a true statement; is |\n| 25 | in preparation for today, no. | 25 | that correct? |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 58 | | Page 60 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 6, Defendant's | 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 3 | Memorandum of Law in Opposition to | 3 | the question. |\n| 4 | Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of | 4 | A.
I don't know that the release of the |\n| 5 | Pre-Judgment Attachment, marked for | 5 | charge was publicly available to Hodgson Russ |\n| 6 | identification.) | 6 | when they filed this brief. |\n| | | | |\n| 7 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, you have been handed | 7 | Q.
So try to focus on the question. |\n| 8 | Exhibit 6, which is Defendant's Memorandum of | 8 | I'm not asking you whether or not Hodgson Russ |\n| 9 | Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an | 9 | knew that the statement was false. |\n| 10 | Order of Pre-Judgment Attachment filed by | 10 | I'm just asking you whether or not |\n| 11 | Hodgson Russ LLP on behalf of the defendant. | 11 | this statement, when it was made to the court |\n| 12 | Have you ever seen this document | 12 | on May 16, 2018, was true or false. |\n| 13 | before? | 13 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. | 14 | the question. |\n| 15 | Q.
I'm going to direct your attention | 15 | A.
(Document review.) Again, if the |\n| 16 | to page 9, and I would like to direct your | 16 | release of the charge was not publicly |\n| 17 | attention -- you see the paragraph that starts | 17 | available and was not known to Hodgson Russ, |\n| 18 | \"As explained\"? | 18 | then this statement would have been accurate. |\n| 19 | A.
Which page -- which number 9? | 19 | Q.
Let me try it again. |\n| 20 | Q.
Sure. It's 9 or 15 of 30. | 20 | Was this statement true or false? |\n| | | | |\n| 21 | A.
Okay. Yes. | 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 22 | Q.
And if you jump down one, two, | 22 | the question. |\n| 23 | three, four, five -- six lines down. | 23 | Q.
When it was made on May 16, 2018? |\n| 24
25 | A.
Uh-huh.
Q.
Do you see a sentence that starts | 24
25 | MR. MITCHELL: Asked and answered.
A.
And the statement you're referring |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 18 of\n\n| | Page 61 | | Page 63 | |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | to is? | 2 | Q.
Were the assets of Genever BVI | |\n| 3 | Q.
Is the representation here that the | 3 | pledged to Roscalitar 2 as of May 16, 2018? | |\n| 4 | assets of Genever BVI have been pledged in | 4 | MR. MITCHELL: Objection, asked and | |\n| 5 | their entirety to Roscalitar 2 since May 2015. | 5 | answered. | |\n| 6 | A.
Again, I would refer to my prior | 6 | A.
Again, the pledge to Roscalitar 2 | |\n| 7 | answer. | 7 | from Genever BVI was released effective | |\n| 8 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, that's a false | 8 | March 17, 2017. I think that answers your | |\n| 9 | statement, correct? | 9 | question. | |\n| 10 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 10 | Q.
Did anyone at Genever BVI or Genever | |\n| 11 | the question. | 11 | New York review this brief before it was filed | |\n| 12 | A.
What do you mean by \"false | 12 | with the court? | |\n| 13 | statement\"? | 13 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 14 | Q.
I mean, it was not true, as of | 14 | the question. This is outside of the | |\n| 15 | May 16, 2018, that the assets of Genever BVI | 15 | scope of what you asked him in terms of | |\n| 16 | were pledged to Roscalitar 2, right? | 16 | your deposition notices. You didn't ask | |\n| 17 | A.
The pledge was released with an | 17 | him about any legal documents filed or | |\n| 18 | effective date of March 17, 2017. I don't know | 18 | anything of that nature. | |\n| 19 | when this was filed with the BVI records or | 19 | So if he can answer the question, I | |\n| 20 | with the BVI Business Companies Act. | 20 | will allow him to answer it, but he | |\n| 21 | So I don't know what was available | 21 | certainly can't be expected to have that | |\n| 22 | in May of 2018 that would have reflected | 22 | knowledge. | |\n| 23
24 | whether or not the assets were still pledged.
Q.
Were the assets of Genever BVI | 23
24 | Q.
Can you answer?
A.
I don't know. | |\n| 25 | pledged to Roscalitar 2 as of May 16, 2018? | 25 | Q.
By the way, do you know when Genever | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 62 | | | |\n| | | | Page 64 | |\n| | | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Objection to the form | 2 | BVI received -- you testified earlier that the | |\n| 3 | of the question, asked and answered. | 3 | satisfaction of charge document was maintained | |\n| 4
5 | You have asked him the same question
six times. You're not getting the answer | 4
5 | by Genever BVI in the ordinary course of its
business, right? | |\n| 6 | you want. I'm sorry for that. But he has | 6 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 7 | answered it. | 7 | Q.
Do you know when Genever BVI | |\n| 8 | MR. MOSS: He hasn't answered it. | 8 | received a copy of that document? | |\n| 9 | A.
Okay. So what was the question? | 9 | A.
I don't. | |\n| 10 | Q.
Were the assets of Genever BVI | 10 | Q.
Do you have any reason to believe | |\n| 11 | pledged to Roscalitar 2 as of May 16, 2018? | 11 | that it took a year for Genever BVI to receive | |\n| 12 | A.
The pledge from Genever BVI to | 12 | a copy of that document? | |\n| 13 | Roscalitar 2 was released effective March 17, | 13 | A.
I don't know how long it took for | |\n| 14 | 2017. | 14 | them to receive the document. | |\n| 15 | Q.
So the answer to my question is no, | 15 | Q.
Is it your best understanding that | |\n| 16 | right? | 16 | Genever BVI, when you say it maintained the | |\n| 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 17 | document in its ordinary course, would have had | |\n| 18 | the question. | 18 | that document in its files by the end of 2017? | |\n| 19 | A.
What was your question? | 19 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 20 | Q.
Try to listen to the question and | 20 | the question. | |\n| 21 | answer the question I'm asking. You'd know the | 21 | A.
I don't know, but based on my | |\n| 22
23 | question I was asking if you were trying to
answer it. | 22
23 | experience with lawyers and people in the BVI,
they do things much slower than we do. | |\n| 24
25 | MR. MITCHELL: Objection to whatever
that was. | 24
25 | Q.
Do you know whether or not the
satisfaction of charge of the Roscalitar pledge | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 19 of\n\n| | Page 65 | | Page 67 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | was publicly available in 2017? | 2 | A.
Probably Mr. Kwok. |\n| 3 | A.
I don't know. | 3 | Q.
Well, you recall Mr. Kwok testified |\n| 4 | Q.
It's not Genever BVI's testimony | 4 | that he didn't know anything about any pledges, |\n| 5 | that it takes a year for documents registered | 5 | right? Did you know that? |\n| 6 | in -- relating to charges in the BVI to become | 6 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 7 | publicly available, is it? | 7 | the question. |\n| 8 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 8 | A.
If that's what his testimony was. I |\n| 9 | the question. | 9 | don't recall exactly what he testified to. |\n| 10 | And, again, this is outside the | 10 | Q.
At the time this pledge was entered |\n| 11 | scope of the 30(b)(6) notice. If he | 11 | into, Mr. Kwok was still the sole shareholder |\n| 12 | knows, he can answer, but he certainly | 12 | and sole director of Genever BVI, right? |\n| 13 | can't be expected to know. | 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | A.
I don't know how long it takes. | 14 | Q.
Were there any discussions at |\n| 15 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 7, Certificate of | 15 | Genever BVI regarding the fact that this |\n| 16 | Registration of Charge, marked for | 16 | charge, this pledge was entered into when |\n| 17 | identification.) | 17 | Pacific Alliance's lawsuit was pending? |\n| 18 | Q.
You have been handed Exhibit 7, | 18 | MR. MITCHELL: Objection to the form |\n| 19 | Mr. Podhaskie. | 19 | of the question. |\n| 20 | Can you identify this document? | 20 | A.
Not that I'm aware of. |\n| 21 | MR. MITCHELL: I'm sorry. We are | 21 | Q.
You testified earlier that this Blue |\n| 22 | calling this 7? | 22 | Capital pledge, at some point, was taken off or |\n| 23 | MR. MOSS: Yes. | 23 | satisfied; is that correct? |\n| 24 | A.
(Document review.) It appears to be | 24 | A.
That's my understanding, yes. |\n| 25 | a copy of a Certificate of Registration of | 25 | Q.
Did that -- did you testify -- let |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 66 | | Page 68 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Charge dated February 14, 2018. | 2 | me just ask, what was the reason for it being |\n| 3 | Q.
And is this the charge, the pledge | 3 | taken off? |\n| 4 | to Blue Capital that you testified that was | 4 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 5 | made in connection with Guo Qiang's loan? | 5 | Q.
Was it taken off -- was the |\n| 6 | A.
It would appear to be, yes. | 6 | reason -- strike that. |\n| 7 | Q.
To your knowledge, is this -- to | 7 | Was it taken off for anything having |\n| 8 | Genever BVI's knowledge, is this a true and | 8 | to do with Pacific Alliance's lawsuit? |\n| 9 | accurate copy of the pledge document? | 9 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 10 | A.
(Document review.) Yes, it appears | 10 | the question. |\n| 11 | to be. | 11 | A.
I don't know. |\n| | | | |\n| 12 | Q.
And is this a document that Genever | 12 | Q.
Was it taken off for anything having |\n| 13 | BVI maintains in the ordinary course of its | 13 | to do with The Sherry-Netherland's proprietary |\n| 14 | business? | 14 | lease? |\n| 15 | A.
This would be, yes. | 15 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 16 | Q.
And is Genever BVI's testimony that | 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | it's not sure whether or not its sole director | 17 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 18 | and sole shareholder, Mr. Kwok, knew about this | 18 | Q.
Were the pledges in violation of |\n| 19 | pledge when it was entered into? | 19 | Genever New York's proprietary lease with The |\n| 20 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 20 | Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 21 | the question. | 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 22 | You can answer. | 22 | the question. It calls for a legal |\n| 23 | A.
I don't know. | 23 | conclusion. |\n| 24 | Q.
Who would know the answer to that | 24 | A.
No. |\n| 25 | question? | 25 | Q.
Did Genever -- no. Okay. |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 20 of\n\n| | Page 69 | | Page 71 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 8, Notice of | 2 | A.
No, not on behalf of Genever BVI. |\n| 3 | Satisfaction or Release of Registered | 3 | Q.
On behalf of anyone? Were there |\n| 4 | Charge, marked for identification.) | 4 | ever any -- was there ever a request to The |\n| 5 | Q.
You have been handed Exhibit 8, | 5 | Sherry-Netherland to transfer or assign |\n| 6 | Mr. Podhaskie. | 6 | ownership of Genever BVI or Genever New York or |\n| 7 | Can you identify it, please? | 7 | The Sherry-Netherland to Mr. Kwok's son? |\n| 8 | A.
This appears to be a copy of a | 8 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 9 | Notice of Satisfaction or Release of Registered | 9 | the question. |\n| 10 | Charge. It's dated effective June 12, 2018. | 10 | A.
There was a request made to The |\n| 11 | Q.
And is this the satisfaction of the | 11 | Sherry-Netherland to transfer ownership from |\n| 12 | Blue Capital charge that we were just talking | 12 | Mr. Kwok to Guo Qiang, his son. |\n| 13 | about? | 13 | Q.
To transfer ownership of what? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. | 14 | A.
The Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 15 | Q.
Is this a true and correct copy, | 15 | Q.
And when was that request made? |\n| 16 | authentic copy of the satisfaction of charge? | 16 | A.
I don't recall the date off the top |\n| 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 17 | of my head. |\n| 18 | the question. | 18 | Q.
Whose idea was it to make that |\n| 19 | A.
It would appear to be, yes. | 19 | request? |\n| 20 | Q.
And is this a document that's | 20 | A.
I believe Guo Qiang. |\n| 21 | maintained by Genever BVI in the ordinary | 21 | Q.
Why was the request made? |\n| 22 | course of its business? | 22 | A.
Because he initially wanted to |\n| 23 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 23 | purchase The Sherry-Netherland himself and The |\n| 24 | the question. | 24 | Sherry didn't like the idea of someone his age |\n| 25 | A.
Yes, it would be. | 25 | at the time, you know, a mid 20-year-old, |\n| | Page 70 | | Page 72 |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Q.
And you don't have anything to add | 2 | owning this residence. And so his father |\n| 3 | about discussions around this or why this | 3 | became the owner and then they had the idea of, |\n| 4 | pledge was taken off, right? | 4 | after the fact, maybe approaching the board and |\n| 5 | A.
No, I don't know why it was taken | 5 | seeing if Guo Qiang could become the owner. |\n| 6 | off. | 6 | Q.
And did Mr. Kwok know about that |\n| 7 | Q.
Did you ask Guo Qiang, when you | 7 | request? |\n| 8 | spoke to him to prepare for the deposition, why | 8 | A.
Yes, I think he was aware of it. |\n| 9 | this pledge was taken off? | 9 | Q.
Do you know who made the request to |\n| 10 | A.
No. | 10 | The Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 11 | Q.
Did Genever BVI -- anyone at Genever | 11 | A.
Who specifically, no. |\n| 12 | BVI ever have any discussions about | 12 | Q.
Were there ever any other |\n| 13 | transferring ownership of Genever BVI to anyone | 13 | discussions about transferring ownership of |\n| 14 | other than Mr. Kwok? | 14 | Genever BVI, Genever New York or The |\n| 15 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 15 | Sherry-Netherland to anyone other than |\n| 16 | the question. | 16 | Mr. Kwok? |\n| 17 | A.
I don't know. Not that I'm aware | 17 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 18 | of. | 18 | the question. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did Genever BVI, or anyone on behalf | 19 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 20 | of Genever BVI, ever approach The | 20 | Q.
Other than the discussions we have |\n| 21 | Sherry-Netherland to ask whether or not the | 21 | talked about, about the pledges? |\n| 22 | ownership of Genever BVI could be restructured | 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | and assigned to Mr. Kwok's son?
MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 23 | MR. MITCHELL: Sorry. Just for the
record, I just want to make sure. |\n| 24
25 | the question. | 24
25 | You're answering his question that |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 21 of\n\n| | Page 73 | | Page 75 |\n|----------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | you understood his question to mean only | 2 | beginning of tape number two. We are now |\n| 3 | discussions about the pledges, correct, | 3 | back on the record. The time is 4:38 p.m. |\n| 4 | not, yes, there were other -- the record | 4 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 5 | is just not clear. I just want to make | 5 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, you have in front of |\n| 6 | sure -- | 6 | you Yvette Wang's, Yan Ping Wang's affidavit |\n| 7 | MR. MOSS: Let me try it again. | 7 | submitted in this case on May 16, 2018 or -- |\n| 8 | MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. | 8 | it's sworn on May 15, and the ECF stamp is |\n| 9 | Q.
Other than the pledges that we've | 9 | May 16. |\n| 10 | talked about to Roscalitar 2 and Blue Capital, | 10 | Do you see that? |\n| 11 | and other than the request to transfer | 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | ownership of The Sherry-Netherland to | 12 | Q.
This was Exhibit 24 from Mr. Kwok's |\n| 13 | Mr. Kwok's son, were there ever any discussions | 13 | deposition earlier today. |\n| 14 | about pledges, transfers or assignments of | 14 | Do you recall I asked you whether or |\n| 15 | either Genever BVI, Genever New York or The | 15 | not Mr. Kwok has an ownership interest in the |\n| 16 | Sherry-Netherland? | 16 | apartment through a limited liability company |\n| 17 | A.
There was a trust agreement with | 17 | and you testified, no, he does not? |\n| 18 | Bravo Luck, but other than that, I don't know. | 18 | Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 19 | Q.
Is it true that Mr. Kwok has an | 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | ownership interest in The Sherry-Netherland | 20 | Q.
Take a look at paragraph 2. The |\n| 21 | apartment? | 21 | first sentence reads, \"Mr. Kwok's ownership |\n| 22 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 22 | interest in the apartment through a limited |\n| 23 | the question. | 23 | liability company is not in real property.\" |\n| 24 | A.
No, that's not accurate. | 24 | Is it a true statement that Mr. Kwok |\n| 25 | Q.
Does Mr. Kwok own The | 25 | has an ownership interest in The |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 74 | | Page 76 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Sherry-Netherland apartment through his | 2 | Sherry-Netherland apartment through a limited |\n| 3 | ownership of Genever BVI which, in turn, owns | 3 | liability company? |\n| 4 | Genever New York which, in turn, owns the | 4 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 5 | apartment? | 5 | the question. |\n| 6 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 6 | A.
Mr. Kwok does not have an ownership |\n| 7 | the question. | 7 | interest in the apartment. He has an ownership |\n| 8 | A.
No, that's not accurate. | 8 | interest in The Sherry-Netherland Corporation, |\n| 9 | Q.
Okay. Is it true that Mr. Kwok's | 9 | which then leases the real property to Genever |\n| 10 | ownership interest in the apartment is through | 10 | New York. |\n| 11 | a limited liability company? | 11 | Q.
So Mr. Kwok's ownership interest is |\n| 12 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 12 | in The Sherry-Netherland Corporation? |\n| 13 | the question. | 13 | A.
His ownership interest of the shares |\n| 14 | A.
That's not accurate. | 14 | of The Sherry-Netherland Corporation, is that |\n| 15 | Q.
This is Exhibit 24 from Mr. Kwok's | 15 | what you're referring to? |\n| 16 | deposition. | 16 | Q.
You testified he has a ownership |\n| 17 | MR. MOSS: Sorry. We don't have | 17 | interest in The Sherry-Netherland Corporation. |\n| 18 | extra copies, but we handed it out today | 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | during Mr. Kwok's deposition. | 19 | Q.
That's correct, Mr. Kwok has an |\n| 20 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, we have | 20 | ownership interest in The Sherry-Netherland |\n| 21 | three minutes left on the tape. | 21 | Corporation? |\n| 22
23 | We are now off the record. The time
is 4:25 p.m. | 22
23 | A.
Yes.
Q.
And that ownership interest relates |\n| 24 | (Recess taken.) | 24 | to the apartment on the 18th floor? |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 22 of\n\n| | Page 77 | | Page 79 | |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | the question. | 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 3 | A.
He has a proprietary lease to the | 3 | the question. | |\n| 4 | apartment on the 18th floor, yes. | 4 | A.
When you say \"lived,\" do you mean | |\n| 5 | Q.
That's related to that ownership | 5 | primary residence? | |\n| 6 | interest -- | 6 | Q.
I mean, has he ever resided there | |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. | 7 | for extended periods of time? | |\n| 8 | Q.
-- in The Sherry-Netherland | 8 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 9 | Corporation, right? | 9 | Q.
Has The Sherry-Netherland Hotel ever | |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | 10 | been Guo Qiang's primary residence? | |\n| 11 | Q.
And Mr. Kwok owns that interest in | 11 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 12 | The Sherry-Netherland Corporation shares | 12 | Q.
When? | |\n| 13 | through Genever New York and through Genever | 13 | A.
I'm speculating, but I think it was | |\n| 14 | BVI, right? | 14 | in 2015. | |\n| 15 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 15 | Q.
Since 2015, has Guo Qiang ever | |\n| 16 | the question. | 16 | been -- strike that. | |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. | 17 | Since 2015, has The | |\n| 18 | Q.
Does anyone else, other than | 18 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel ever been Guo Qiang's | |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok, Miles Kwok, have an ownership | 19 | primary residence? | |\n| 20 | interest in the shares of The Sherry-Netherland | 20 | A.
I don't know. | |\n| 21 | Hotel with respect to the 18th floor apartment? | 21 | Q.
Has he ever visited since 2015? | |\n| 22 | A.
I don't know. | 22 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form. | |\n| 23
24 | Q.
As Genever BVI and Genever New
York's corporate representative, can you | 23
24 | MR. MOSS: Let me try it again.
Strike it. | |\n| 25 | identify anyone else, sitting here today? | 25 | Q.
Has Guo Qiang ever slept in The | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 78 | | Page 80 | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 2 | Sherry-Netherland apartment since 2015? | |\n| 3 | the question. | 3 | A.
I assume so, but I can't say, you | |\n| 4 | A.
Sitting here in this room? | 4 | know, with certainty. I don't -- I don't sleep | |\n| 5 | Q.
Yeah. | 5 | with him, so. | |\n| 6 | A.
That has an ownership interest in -- | 6 | Q.
Let's go back to Exhibit 3, | |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL: That was my | 7 | Mr. Podhaskie, and I would like to direct your | |\n| 8 | objection. | 8 | attention to page KWOK193. | |\n| 9 | MR. MOSS: Okay. That's what | 9 | A.
Okay. | |\n| 10 | happens when you depose a lawyer. | 10 | Q.
See it says, in the first paragraph, | |\n| 11 | MR. MITCHELL: For the record, | 11 | it refers to Genever BVI being the sole member | |\n| 12 | several people in the room will gladly | 12 | of Genever New York. | |\n| 13 | accept an ownership share in The Sherry.
Q.
As Genever BVI's and Genever New | 13 | Is Genever BVI the sole member of
Genever New York? | |\n| 14
15 | York's corporate representative here today, can | 14
15 | A.
Just for the record, it says \"being | |\n| 16 | you identify anyone else who has an ownership | 16 | the sole director of Genever Holdings | |\n| 17 | interest in the shares of The Sherry-Netherland | 17 | Corporation.\" | |\n| 18 | Hotel with respect to the 18th floor apartment | 18 | Q.
So take a look at the first | |\n| 19 | beside Mr. Miles Kwok? | 19 | resolution. See \"Resolved, that Andrea Sanft\"? | |\n| 20 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 20 | Do you see that? | |\n| 21 | the question. | 21 | A.
Yes, yes. | |\n| 22 | A.
I don't know. | 22 | Q.
And look at the last sentence of | |\n| 23 | Q.
Does Mr. Kwok -- strike that. | 23 | that paragraph. \"To the extent necessary to | |\n| 24
25 | Has Guo Qiang ever lived in The
Sherry-Netherland apartment on the 18th floor? | 24
25 | complete such actions, the corporation,\" and
the corporation refers to Genever BVI? | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 23 of\n\n| | Page 81 | | Page 83 |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
Uh-huh. | 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 3 | Q.
\"As sole member of Genever New | 3 | the question. |\n| 4 | York.\"
Do you see that? | 4 | A.
That was one of the purposes, yes.
Q.
What were the other purposes? |\n| 5
6 | A.
Yes. | 5
6 | A.
To invest in other real estate as |\n| 7 | Q.
Is Genever BVI the sole member of | 7 | they deemed fit. |\n| 8 | Genever New York? | 8 | Q.
Genever New York and Genever BVI |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. | 9 | were formed within days of each other, right? |\n| 10 | Q.
Has Genever BVI been the sole member | 10 | A.
Yes, around the same time. |\n| 11 | of Genever New York since Genever New York's | 11 | Q.
You said that Genever New York had |\n| 12 | foundation? | 12 | other purposes to invest in other real estate |\n| 13 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 13 | as they deemed fit. |\n| 14 | the question. | 14 | Has Genever New York ever invested |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. | 15 | in any other real estate besides The |\n| 16 | MR. MOSS: Well, that's because it's | 16 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 17 | a bad question. | 17 | A.
No. |\n| 18 | Q.
Has Genever BVI been the sole member | 18 | Q.
So Genever New York and Genever BVI |\n| 19 | of Genever New York's since Genever New York's | 19 | were both formed to hold Mr. Kwok's interest in |\n| 20 | formation? | 20 | The Sherry-Netherland apartment? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. | 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 22 | Q.
If you look at the third resolution | 22 | the question. |\n| 23 | there, there's a resolution relating to Michael | 23 | A.
That's not accurate. |\n| 24 | O'Connor. | 24 | Q.
Okay. What's inaccurate about it? |\n| 25 | A.
Uh-huh. | 25 | A.
Initially, Guo Qiang, Mr. Kwok's |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 82 | | Page 84 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Q.
Who is Michael O'Connor? | 2 | son, wanted to purchase the apartment at The |\n| 3 | A.
He is an attorney either with the | 3 | Sherry-Netherland. They formed the |\n| 4 | firm of Paul Weiss or Williams & Connolly. I'm | 4 | corporations with the understanding that he |\n| 5 | not sure. I think Paul Weiss, but I'm not | 5 | would be the actual owner, but The |\n| 6 | positive. | 6 | Sherry-Netherland did not like the idea of Guo |\n| 7 | Q.
And so Ms. Sanft was authorized to | 7 | Qiang being the owner because they felt that he |\n| 8 | form Genever New York, and Mr. O'Connor was | 8 | was too young. |\n| 9 | authorized to cause Genever New York, once | 9 | Q.
So is it your testimony that Genever |\n| 10 | formed, to enter into a purchase agreement with | 10 | New York and Genever BVI were formed to hold |\n| 11 | The Sherry-Netherland; is that correct? | 11 | Guo Qiang's interest in The Sherry-Netherland, |\n| 12 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 12 | but Mr. Kwok just ended up being the owner |\n| 13 | the question. | 13 | because that's what The Sherry-Netherland |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. | 14 | wanted? |\n| 15 | Q.
And so the plan, from formation, was | 15 | A.
They were formed to own the real |\n| 16
17 | that once Genever New York was formed, it would
enter into a purchase agreement with The | 16
17 | estate that Guo Qiang and the family wanted to
invest in. They made Mr. Kwok the sole member |\n| 18 | Sherry-Netherland relating to the 18th floor, | 18 | of Genever BVI, and as the sole member of |\n| 19 | correct? | 19 | Genever BVI, the owner of Genever New York |\n| 20 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 20 | because The Sherry-Netherland felt that Guo |\n| 21 | the question. | 21 | Qiang was too young to be the owner of this |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. | 22 | particular apartment. |\n| 23 | Q.
And the purpose of forming Genever | 23 | Q.
I direct your attention to page 178 |\n| 24 | New York was to enter into that agreement with | 24 | of Exhibit 3. |\n| 25 | The Sherry-Netherland? | 25 | Can you identify this document? |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 24 of\n\n| | Page 85 | | Page 87 |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
(Document review.) It is a -- looks | 2 | subtracted? |\n| 3 | like a printout from the New York State | 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Department of State, the corporations public | 4 | Q.
What business has Genever New York |\n| 5 | inquiry system for Genever Holdings LLC. | 5 | conducted since it was formed in February 2015? |\n| | | | |\n| 6 | Q.
And it shows -- and that's the | 6 | A.
It owns The Sherry-Netherland |\n| 7 | entity we have been referring to as Genever New | 7 | apartment. |\n| 8 | York, right? | 8 | Q.
Any other business? |\n| 9 | A.
Yes. | 9 | A.
No. |\n| 10 | Q.
And this document refers to Genever | 10 | Q.
Has Genever New York ever entered |\n| 11 | New York being incorporated in New York | 11 | into a contract other than its contracts with |\n| 12 | effective February 17, 2015; is that correct? | 12 | The Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 13 | A.
That's what this says, yes. | 13 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 14 | Q.
And that's consistent with Genever's | 14 | Q.
Has Genever New York ever spent or |\n| 15 | understanding, right? | 15 | disbursed any money? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. | 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
And so Genever New York was formed | 17 | Q.
To whom? |\n| 18 | about five days after Genever BVI was formed? | 18 | A.
The Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 19 | A.
I don't recall exactly, but they | 19 | Q.
For maintenance fees? |\n| 20 | were formed around the same time. | 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q.
Does it refresh your recollection if | 21 | Q.
Anything else? |\n| 22 | I told you a few minutes ago we looked at | 22 | A.
I think that's it. |\n| 23 | documents showing that Genever BVI was formed | 23 | Q.
Does The Sherry-Netherland -- has |\n| 24 | on February 12? | 24 | Genever New York spent any money on anything |\n| 25 | A.
No. Which document were we looking | 25 | else other than to The Sherry-Netherland for |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 86 | | Page 88 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | at? | 2 | maintenance fees? |\n| 3 | Q.
Why don't you take a look at 145? | 3 | A.
Not that I know of. |\n| 4 | MR. SARNOFF: Of Exhibit 3. | 4 | Q.
Does the -- does Genever New York |\n| 5 | A.
(Document review.) Yes, it was | 5 | have a bank account? |\n| 6 | formed -- according to this, it was formed | 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | February 13, 2015. | 7 | Q.
With which bank? |\n| 8 | Q.
Genever BVI was formed on | 8 | A.
Chase. |\n| 9 | February 13, 2015, and Genever New York was | 9 | Q.
When was that formed? |\n| 10 | formed on February 17, 2015, right? | 10 | A.
2018. |\n| 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 11 | Q.
Does the money from the -- do the |\n| | the question. | | payments to The Sherry-Netherland come from |\n| 12 | A.
Yes, based on these documents. | 12 | that bank account? |\n| 13 | | 13 | |\n| 14 | Q.
So four days apart? | 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | A.
That would be correct. | 15 | Q.
How is that bank account funded? |\n| 16 | Q.
What was Genever -- Genever New York | 16 | A.
It receives money from Golden Spring |\n| 17 | was formed to enter into the agreement with The | 17 | New York. |\n| 18 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel, correct? | 18 | Q.
Who owns Golden Spring New York? |\n| 19 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 19 | A.
China Golden Spring Group Hong Kong |\n| 20 | the question, asked and answered. | 20 | Limited. |\n| 21 | A.
Yes, that was one of the purposes. | 21 | Q.
Who owns China Golden Spring Group |\n| 22 | Q.
Has the business purpose of Genever | 22 | Hong Kong Limited? |\n| 23 | New York changed over time? | 23 | A.
Guo Qiang. |\n| 24
25 | A.
No.
Q.
Have any purposes been added or | 24
25 | Q.
Does Mr. Kwok have any interest in
China Golden Spring Group Hong Kong Limited? |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 25 of\n\n| | Page 89 | | Page 91 |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 2 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 3 | the question. | 3 | Q.
Who is paying Genever BVI and |\n| 4 | A.
No. | 4 | Genever New York's legal fees to Mr. Mitchell's |\n| 5 | Q.
Before 2018, did Genever New York | 5 | firm? |\n| 6 | have a bank account? | 6 | MR. MITCHELL: I'm going to instruct |\n| 7 | A.
Before what year? | 7 | him not to answer, privilege. |\n| 8 | Q.
2018. | 8 | MR. MOSS: Who pays the bills is |\n| 9 | A.
I don't know. | 9 | privileged? |\n| 10 | Q.
Did Genever New York have to pay | 10 | DI
MR. MITCHELL: Potentially. I'm |\n| 11 | maintenance to The Sherry-Netherland before | 11 | asserting privilege. You can make the |\n| 12 | 2018? | 12 | argument it's not. |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | 13 | Q.
Are you going to follow your |\n| 14 | Q.
Where did that money come from? | 14 | counsel's instruction? |\n| 15 | A.
I believe it came from Golden Spring | 15 | A.
I will follow my counsel's |\n| 16 | New York. | 16 | instruction. |\n| 17 | Q.
Has anyone, other than Golden Spring | 17 | Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Kwok is |\n| 18 | New York, ever put any money into Genever New | 18 | paying Genever BVI and Genever New York's legal |\n| 19 | York's bank account? | 19 | fees in connection with this lawsuit? |\n| 20 | A.
I don't know. | 20 | A.
He's not. |\n| 21 | Q.
So, to your knowledge, Genever New | 21 | Q.
But you don't know who is? |\n| 22 | York did not have any bank account prior to | 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | 2018? | 23 | Q.
Mr. Kwok and Genever New York sued |\n| 24 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 24 | The Sherry-Netherland Hotel a few years ago in |\n| 25 | the question. | 25 | a dispute relating to maintenance of his |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 90 | | Page 92 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
I don't know. | 2 | terrace. |\n| 3 | Q.
Do you know why Genever New York | 3 | Does that sound familiar? |\n| 4 | formed a bank account in 2018? | 4 | A.
Yes. |\n| 5 | A.
I don't know. | 5 | Q.
And Mr. Kwok and Genever New York |\n| 6 | Q.
Has any money ever been deposited | 6 | were represented by the same law firm -- |\n| 7 | into Genever New York's bank account other than | 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | money from Golden Spring that was meant to pay | 8 | Q.
-- in that lawsuit? |\n| 9 | the maintenance to The Sherry-Netherland hotel? | 9 | Who paid that law firm's legal fees? |\n| 10 | A.
I don't know. | 10 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 11 | Q.
Genever New York and Genever BVI are | 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Just for |\n| 12 | parties to this lawsuit. | 12 | clarification of the record, do you have |\n| 13 | You're aware of that? | 13 | the name of the firm? Just because it's |\n| 14 | A.
Yes. | 14 | not my firm, I don't believe it was |\n| 15 | Q.
And Genever New York and Genever BVI | 15 | Hodgson Russ, I just want to make sure -- |\n| 16 | were represented by the Hodgson Russ firm up | 16 | when you say the same firm, you mean they |\n| 17 | until a few weeks ago; is that right?
A.
That's correct. | 17 | both had the same attorney, not that it
was one of either of our firms, correct? |\n| 18
19 | Q.
And now they are represented by | 18
19 | MR. MOSS: Correct. |\n| 20 | Mr. Mitchell's firm; is that correct? | 20 | Q.
So I don't know -- do you know the |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. | 21 | name of the firm? |\n| 22 | Q.
Who was paying Genever New York and | 22 | A.
That represented Genever and |\n| 23 | Genever BVI's legal fees to Hodgson Russ? | 23 | Mr. Kwok in the prior lawsuit against The |\n| 24
25 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of
the question. | 24
25 | Sherry?
Q.
Yes. |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 26 of\n\n| | Page 93 | | Page 95 | |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | A.
I think it was Stone Magnanini. | 2 | BVI, even though he's the sole director and the | |\n| 3 | Q.
Do you know who was paying Stone | 3 | sole shareholder? | |\n| 4 | Magnanini's legal fees for Genever New York? | 4 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 5 | A.
I don't know. | 5 | the question, asked and answered. | |\n| 6 | Q.
Do you know whether or not Stone | 6 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 7 | Magnanini was paid legal fees from one person | 7 | Q.
Does Zhang Wei have any role with | |\n| 8 | or entity or from two people or entities in | 8 | respect to Genever New York? | |\n| 9 | connection with that lawsuit? | 9 | A.
I don't know. | |\n| 10 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form. | 10 | Q.
Does Zhang Wei own any of the | |\n| 11 | A.
I don't know. | 11 | membership interests of Genever New York? | |\n| 12 | Q.
In other words, did the same person | 12 | A.
That's not reflected from the | |\n| | | | | |\n| 13 | or entity pay the legal fees for both Mr. Kwok | 13 | documents I reviewed in preparation for today. | |\n| 14 | and Genever in The Sherry-Netherland lawsuit?
A.
I don't know. | 14 | Q.
Does Genever New York have any
directors? | |\n| 15 | Q.
Does the same person or entity pay | 15 | A.
No, I don't think so. | |\n| 16 | | 16 | | |\n| 17 | the legal fees for Mr. Kwok and both Genever | 17 | Q.
Has it ever had any directors? \"It\" | |\n| 18 | entities in this lawsuit? | 18 | being Genever New York? | |\n| 19 | DI
MR. MITCHELL: I instruct my client | 19 | A.
I think it has just an authorized | |\n| 20 | not to answer. | 20 | person and its sole member. Other than that, | |\n| 21 | MR. MOSS: That's a yes-or-no | 21 | no. | |\n| 22
23 | question.
Q.
Does the same person or entity pay | 22
23 | Q.
The sole member is Genever BVI?
A.
Yes. | |\n| 24 | the legal fees for both Mr. Kwok and Genever | 24 | Q.
Who's the authorized person? | |\n| 25 | entities in this lawsuit? | 25 | A.
Guo Qiang. | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 94 | | Page 96 | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | MR. MITCHELL: That one, you can | 2 | Q.
Have there ever been any other | |\n| 3 | answer. | 3 | authorized persons for Genever New York other | |\n| 4 | A.
I don't know. | 4 | than Guo Qiang? | |\n| 5 | Q.
Has Genever BVI been the sole | 5 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 6 | shareholder of Genever New York for the | 6 | the question. | |\n| 7 | entirety of Genever New York's existence? | 7 | A.
Other than the attorneys that were | |\n| 8 | A.
No, that's not accurate. | 8 | referenced in the resolutions in the formation | |\n| 9 | Q.
Why not? | 9 | in the purchase of The Sherry, no. | |\n| 10 | A.
Genever New York is an LLC. It has | 10 | Q.
Does Genever New York have any | |\n| 11 | members. It doesn't have shareholders. | 11 | offices? | |\n| 12 | Q.
Has Genever BVI been the sole member | 12 | A.
No. | |\n| 13 | of Genever New York for the entirety of Genever | 13 | Q.
Has it ever had any offices? | |\n| 14 | New York's existence? | 14 | A.
No. | |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. | 15 | Q.
Does Genever New York have any | |\n| 16 | Q.
Does Mr. Kwok control Genever BVI? | 16 | employees? | |\n| 17 | A.
No. | 17 | A.
No. | |\n| 18 | Q.
Who does? | 18 | Q.
Has Genever New York ever had any | |\n| 19 | A.
Guo Qiang. | 19 | employees? | |\n| 20 | Q.
Does Mr. Kwok control Genever New | 20 | A.
No. | |\n| 21 | York? | 21 | Q.
Does Genever New York have a phone | |\n| 22 | A.
No. | 22 | number? | |\n| 23 | Q.
Who does? | 23 | A.
I don't know. | |\n| 24
25 | A.
Guo Qiang.
Q.
Mr. Kwok does not control Genever | 24
25 | Q.
Since Genever New York does not have
any directors, I assume it's never had a board | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 27 of\n\n| | Page 97 | | Page 99 | |\n|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | meeting; is that right? | 2 | A.
I don't know. | |\n| 3 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form. | 3 | Q.
What documents does Genever New York | |\n| 4 | A.
That was not reflected from the | 4 | possess? | |\n| 5 | documents that I reviewed for today's | 5 | A.
Its corporate formation documents, | |\n| 6 | preparation. | 6 | its stock register, the mail it receives. | |\n| 7 | Q.
Does Genever New York have any | 7 | Q.
Are there any people who are | |\n| 8 | address? | 8 | authorized to act on behalf of Genever New | |\n| 9 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 9 | York? | |\n| 10 | the question. | 10 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 11 | A.
781 Fifth Avenue. | 11 | the question, asked and answered. | |\n| 12 | Q.
And what is that? | 12 | A.
You mean other than Mr. Kwok and his | |\n| 13 | A.
That's The Sherry-Netherland. | 13 | son? | |\n| 14 | Q.
Genever New York's -- strike that. | 14 | Q.
Well, so is Mr. Kwok authorized to | |\n| 15 | Is the 18th floor part of the | 15 | act on behalf of Genever New York? | |\n| 16 | address? | 16 | A.
Mr. Kwok? I don't know. | |\n| 17 | A.
Yes. | 17 | Q.
Is Guo Qiang authorized to act on | |\n| 18 | Q.
So Genever New York's address is the | 18 | behalf of Genever New York? | |\n| 19 | apartment that Mr. Kwok lives in on the 18th | 19 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 20 | floor of The Sherry-Netherland? | 20 | Q.
Who authorized him to do that? | |\n| 21 | A.
That's the mailing address for | 21 | A.
He was authorized by Genever BVI. | |\n| 22 | Genever New York. | 22 | Q.
And did Mr. Kwok, as the sole | |\n| 23 | Q.
Does it have any other addresses? | 23 | director and sole shareholder of Genever BVI, | |\n| 24 | A.
Not that I'm aware of. Actually, | 24 | authorize Genever BVI to authorize Guo Qiang to | |\n| 25 | there might be an address for its registered | 25 | act on behalf of Genever New York? | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 98 | | Page 100 | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | agent for service of process in Albany, but | 2 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | |\n| 3 | other than that, I'm not aware of any. | 3 | the question. | |\n| 4 | Q.
Other than the address for a | 4 | A.
I would assume so. I don't know for | |\n| 5 | registered agent, Genever New York does not | 5 | certain, but I know that, in or around | |\n| 6 | have any addresses apart from The | 6 | May 2015, Guo Qiang was made an authorized | |\n| 7 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? | 7 | person for Genever New York. | |\n| 8 | A.
No, not that I'm aware of. | 8 | Q.
What assets does Genever New York | |\n| 9 | Q.
Does Genever New York possess any | 9 | hold? | |\n| 10 | documents? | 10 | A.
It owns the shares in The | |\n| 11 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 11 | Sherry-Netherland Corporation and it has a bank | |\n| 12 | the question. | 12 | account with JPMorgan Chase. | |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | 13 | Q.
And that's the bank account that's | |\n| 14 | Q.
Where are they maintained? | 14 | funded by Golden Spring New York whose purpose | |\n| 15 | A.
I believe in The Sherry-Netherland, | 15 | is to hold the money to pay the maintenance | |\n| 16 | but I'm not -- I don't know for sure. | 16 | fees for The Sherry-Netherland? | |\n| 17 | Q.
Are any of the Genever New York's -- | 17 | A.
The bank account's purpose, I don't | |\n| 18 | are any of Genever New York's documents | 18 | know if it's to hold the money, but it is -- | |\n| 19 | maintained in -- at the British Virgin Islands | 19 | the bank account is used to pay the maintenance | |\n| 20 | address where Genever BVI's documents are held? | 20 | for Genever New York. | |\n| 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 21 | Q.
And you can't identify any other | |\n| 22 | the question. | 22 | payments that have come out of the bank | |\n| 23
24 | A.
I don't know.
Q.
Are Genever -- are any Genever BVI | 23
24 | account, other than to pay the maintenance for
The Sherry-Netherland Hotel? | |\n| 25 | documents maintained at The Sherry-Netherland? | 25 | A.
I don't know. | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 28 of\n\n| | Page 101 | | Page 103 |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Q.
Has Genever New York ever held any | 2 | Trust and Agreement, marked for |\n| 3 | other assets -- by the way, strike that. | 3 | identification.) |\n| 4 | What's the most money that's ever | 4 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, you have been landed |\n| 5 | been in that JPMorgan account, that Chase | 5 | Exhibit 9. |\n| 6 | account for Genever New York? | 6 | Is this the trust agreement that you |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 7 | have been referring to relating to Bravo Luck |\n| 8 | the question. | 8 | and the Genever entities? |\n| 9 | A.
I don't know. | 9 | A.
(Document review.) Yes, this |\n| 10
11 | Q.
Any sense?
A.
Not really, no. | 10
11 | appears to be a copy of that trust agreement.
Q.
It's dated February 17, 2015. |\n| 12 | Q.
More than \\$3 million? | 12 | Is that when it was entered into? |\n| 13 | A.
The monthly maintenance for The | 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Sherry is about 60,000. So, you know, enough | 14 | Q.
If you look at the bottom on the |\n| 15 | to cover that every month. | 15 | left-hand side, do you know whose signature |\n| 16 | Q.
Has Genever New York ever held any | 16 | that is? I'm sorry. The bottom of the first |\n| 17 | other assets besides the Chase account and the | 17 | page, 543. |\n| 18 | ownership in The Sherry-Netherland? | 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | A.
I don't know. | 19 | Q.
Whose is it? |\n| 20 | Q.
Has Genever New York ever sold any | 20 | A.
Guo Qiang. |\n| 21 | assets? | 21 | Q.
How about on the right-hand side, |\n| 22 | A.
Not that I'm aware of. | 22 | whose signature is that? |\n| 23 | Q.
Are you aware of any acquisitions | 23 | A.
I don't know for certain, but it |\n| 24 | other than the bank account and the shares of | 24 | looks like Mr. Kwok's. |\n| 25 | The Sherry-Netherland? | 25 | Q.
And on page 544, is it same thing, |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 102 | | Page 104 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
It's not reflected in the documents | 2 | Guo Qiang's signature is on the left and |\n| 3 | I reviewed for today. | 3 | Mr. Kwok's is on the right? |\n| 4 | Q.
Other than Justice Ostrager's order, | 4 | A.
It appears so, yes. |\n| 5
6 | are any of -- is Genever New York encumbered in
any way? | 5
6 | Q.
And on page 545, is Guo Qiang's the
first signature and Mr. Kwok's are the next |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 7 | three? |\n| 8 | the question. | 8 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 9 | A.
There is a trust agreement between | 9 | the question. |\n| 10 | Genever New York and Bravo Luck, Mr. Kwok and | 10 | A.
You mean the three below the other |\n| 11 | Genever BVI, I believe, that involves The | 11 | three signatures besides Guo Qiang's? |\n| 12 | Sherry-Netherland residence, but other than | 12 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 13 | that, and Justice Ostrager's order, I'm not | 13 | A.
Yes, it appears so. |\n| 14 | aware of any other encumbrances. | 14 | Q.
Guo Qiang signed on behalf of Bravo |\n| 15 | Q.
Are you aware of whether Genever New | 15 | Luck Limited; is that right? |\n| 16 | York's assets have ever been encumbered in the | 16 | A.
Yes. |\n| 17 | past other than the trust agreement and Justice | 17 | Q.
And Mr. Kwok signed on behalf of |\n| 18
19 | Ostrager's order?
MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 18
19 | Genever New York, Genever BVI and Mr. Kwok,
himself, right? |\n| 20 | the question. | 20 | A.
Yes. |\n| 21 | A.
I would say the pledge agreements we | 21 | Q.
Do you know whether or not |\n| 22 | discussed earlier to Roscalitar 2 and Blue | 22 | counsel -- there was any counsel who |\n| 23 | Capital. Other than that, I'm not aware of | 23 | represented any of the parties in connection |\n| 24
25 | any.
(Podhaskie Exhibit 9, Declaration of | 24
25 | with this agreement?
A.
I don't know. |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 29 of\n\n| | Page 105 | | Page 107 |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Q.
Do you know where this agreement was | 2 | A.
That's one of the purposes, yes. |\n| 3 | maintained? | 3 | Q.
The document doesn't say it's one of |\n| 4 | A.
I don't know. | 4 | the purposes. It says it's the purpose, right? |\n| 5 | Q.
So I want to direct your attention | 5 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form. |\n| 6 | down in the background section. | 6 | A.
The document says that the US SPV is |\n| 7 | Number 2 -- first of all, do you see | 7 | a special purpose vehicle holding a property |\n| 8 | at the top, when it defines the parties, the | 8 | situated at, and it references the 18th floor |\n| 9 | BVI company is Genever Holdings Corporation? | 9 | of The Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | 10 | Q.
You said one of the purposes was to |\n| 11 | Q.
That's the company we have been | 11 | hold the apartment, and I'm just saying the |\n| 12 | referring to as Genever BVI, right? | 12 | document says the purpose of the US SPV, right? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes, I believe so. | 13 | Not one of the purposes. |\n| 14 | Q.
And the company, Genever Holdings | 14 | A.
Yes. |\n| 15 | LLC, which you and I have been referring to as | 15 | Q.
And it says the purpose of the BVI |\n| 16 | Genever New York, is referred to in this | 16 | Company is to hold Genever New York, not one of |\n| 17 | document as the US SPV; is that right? | 17 | the purposes, right? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. | 18 | A.
Right. But it's one of the |\n| 19 | Q.
And SPV stands for special purpose | 19 | purposes. |\n| 20 | vehicle; is that right? | 20 | Q.
And it says, in number 4, that \"For |\n| 21 | A.
I believe so, yes. | 21 | the avoidance of doubt, the trustee is holding |\n| 22 | Q.
And if you look in the background, | 22 | the BVI Company and the US SPV,\" those are the |\n| 23 | number 2, it says, \"The purpose of the BVI | 23 | two Genever entities, right? |\n| 24 | company,\" which is Genever BVI, \"is a special | 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | purpose vehicle holding the US SPV.\" | 25 | Q.
\"The trustee is holding the Genever |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 106 | | Page 108 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE
Do you see that? | 1 | PODHASKIE
entities in trust for the owner.\" |\n| 2
3 | A.
Yes. | 2
3 | And the owner is Bravo Luck; is that |\n| 4 | Q.
And the US SPV is Genever New York, | 4 | correct? |\n| 5 | right? | 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | 6 | Q.
And it says that the owner, which is |\n| 7 | Q.
So according to this document, the | 7 | Bravo Luck, is a beneficial owner of New |\n| 8 | purpose of Genever BVI is to hold Genever New | 8 | York -- Genever New York and Genever BVI,\" |\n| 9 | York, right? | 9 | right? |\n| 10 | A.
That's what this says, yes. | 10 | A.
That's what it says, yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
Is that accurate? | 11 | Q.
Is that consistent with Genever's |\n| 12 | A.
That's one of the purposes, as I | 12 | understanding? |\n| 13 | understand it, yes. | 13 | A.
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q.
And in number 3, \"The purpose of the | 14 | Q.
Did Genever New York or Mr. Kwok |\n| 15 | US SPV,\" that's Genever New York, right? | 15 | ever disclose to The Sherry-Netherland, when it |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. | 16 | was applying for the lease, that Bravo Luck was |\n| 17 | Q.
So \"The purpose of Genever New York | 17 | going to be the beneficial owner of the Genever |\n| 18 | is a special purpose vehicle holding a property | 18 | entities? |\n| 19 | situated at,\" and then it has several units on | 19 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 20 | the 18th floor at The Sherry-Netherland.\" | 20 | Q.
You think The Sherry-Netherland |\n| 21 | Is that right? | 21 | would have wanted to know who the beneficial |\n| 22 | A.
That's what it says, yes. | 22 | owner of the apartment was going to be? |\n| 23 | Q.
So the purpose of Genever New York | 23 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 24
25 | is to be a special purpose vehicle to hold the
18th floor residence, right? | 24
25 | the question, calls for speculation.
Q.
You can answer. |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 30 of\n\n| | Page 109 | | Page 111 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | A.
I don't know what The | 2 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 3 | Sherry-Netherland would have wanted to know, | 3 | Q.
Did -- |\n| 4 | but I know that they knew the money came from | 4 | A.
I'm sorry. I don't know who the |\n| 5 | Bravo Luck. | 5 | co-owners are. The owner is defined as Bravo |\n| 6 | Q.
Did you, in the course of your | 6 | Luck. |\n| 7 | review of documents to prepare for this | 7 | Q.
Yes. Did Mr. Kwok, the trustee, get |\n| 8 | deposition, did you see any document evidencing | 8 | prior written approval of the owner, Bravo |\n| 9 | that The Sherry-Netherland knew that Bravo Luck | 9 | Luck, or any of the co-owners before pledging |\n| 10 | was going to be the beneficial owner of the | 10 | the shares of Genever BVI to either Roscalitar |\n| 11 | apartment? | 11 | 2 or Blue Capital? |\n| 12 | A.
I didn't see anything in my | 12 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 13 | preparation for today. | 13 | the question. |\n| 14 | Q.
See there are covenants by the | 14 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 15 | trustee in Section 3? See those covenants? | 15 | Q.
Have you seen any documents |\n| 16 | A.
Are we still on page 1? | 16 | suggesting that such written approval was |\n| 17 | Q.
Sorry. Section 3, \"The trustee | 17 | obtained? |\n| 18 | further covenants with the owner.\" | 18 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 19 | Do you see that? | 19 | the question. |\n| 20 | A.
Oh. Yes, yes, yes. | 20 | A.
I didn't see any in my preparation |\n| 21
22 | Q.
And you see on the first page that
the trustee is Mr. Kwok? | 21
22 | for today.
Q.
As of early 2015, when Mr. Kwok was |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. | 23 | applying to The Sherry-Netherland board, who |\n| 24 | Q.
So take a look at 3.4, \"The trustee | 24 | owned Bravo Luck? |\n| 25 | covenants that it will not create or allow to | 25 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 110 | | Page 112 |\n| | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | be created any charge, mortgage or lien on the | 2 | the question. |\n| 3
4 | BVI company, the US SPV and/or assets held by
the BVI company and/or the US SPV unless with | 3
4 | A.
I think, as of January 2015, Bravo
Luck was owned by Guo Qiang. |\n| 5 | the prior written approval of the owner and the | 5 | Q.
Isn't it true that Mr. Kwok, |\n| 6 | co-owners.\" | 6 | himself, was also a 50 percent owner of Bravo |\n| 7 | Do you see that? | 7 | Luck? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. | 8 | A.
I think Guo Qiang transferred |\n| 9 | Q.
The pledges to Blue Capital and | 9 | 50 percent of the ownership in Bravo Luck to |\n| 10 | Roscalitar 2 would require prior written | 10 | his father around that time. |\n| 11 | approval of the owner and the co-owners under | 11 | Q.
By the way, what business is Guo |\n| 12 | this agreement; is that right? | 12 | Qiang in? |\n| 13 | A.
Yes. | 13 | A.
Finance. |\n| 14 | Q.
And the owner is Bravo Luck? | 14 | (Podhaskie Exhibit 10, Letter from |\n| 15 | A.
Yes. | 15 | Stevenson Wong dated March 4, 2015, marked |\n| 16 | Q.
And who are the co-owners? The | 16 | for identification.) |\n| 17 | co-owners, if you look at background, page 1, | 17 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, you have been handed |\n| 18 | 543, Section 6, \"The owner made known to the | 18 | Exhibit 10, which is a letter from Stevenson |\n| 19 | trustee that certain parties\" -- \"third parties | 19 | Wong dated March 4, 2015, to the board of |\n| 20 | may co-own the property through the owner in | 20 | directors of The Sherry-Netherland, regarding |\n| 21 | accordance with the co-operation plan and the | 21 | the application of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan to become a |\n| 22 | trustee is also acting as a trustee for those | 22 | shareholder of The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., |\n| 23 | third parties.\" | 23 | Bravo Luck Limited, the company. |\n| 24
25 | Do you know who those co-owner third
parties are? | 24
25 | Do you see that?
A.
Yes. |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 31 of\n\n| | Page 113 | | Page 115 |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | Q.
Was Stevenson Wong representing | 2 | ownership interest in Bravo Luck has increased |\n| 3 | Mr. Kwok in connection with his application to | 3 | or decreased or stayed the same since March 4, |\n| 4 | become a shareholder of The Sherry-Netherland? | 4 | 2015? |\n| 5 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of | 5 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 6 | the question. | 6 | the question. Again, I think this is |\n| 7 | And, additionally, this is outside | 7 | outside the scope. I will allow him to |\n| 8 | of the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice. If | 8 | answer if he has the knowledge, but |\n| 9 | he has knowledge, I will allow him to | 9 | A.
I understand that Guo Qiang is |\n| 10 | answer, but note my objection for the | 10 | currently the 100 percent owner of Bravo Luck. |\n| 11 | record. | 11 | Q.
Do you understand how it came to be |\n| 12 | MR. MOSS: Well, Genever New York | 12 | that Mr. Kwok lost his 50 percent? |\n| 13 | was a -- | 13 | MR. MITCHELL: Same objection. |\n| 14 | MR. MITCHELL: If you're asking | 14 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 15 | about Genever New York. You asked | 15 | Q.
Do you know when that happened? |\n| 16 | specifically about Mr. Kwok, who his | 16 | MR. MITCHELL: Same objection. |\n| 17 | attorney was. | 17 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 18 | MR. MOSS: Sure. But Mr. Kwok was | 18 | Q.
Have you seen any documents relating |\n| 19 | buying this on behalf of an entity, | 19 | to that transfer? |\n| 20 | Genever New York. | 20 | MR. MITCHELL: Same objection. |\n| 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Are you asking about | 21 | A.
Not in my preparation for today's |\n| 22 | the entity? | 22 | deposition. |\n| 23 | BY MR. MOSS: | 23 | MR. MOSS: Why don't we take a break |\n| 24 | Q.
I'm asking, what was Stevenson | 24 | now? Let's go off the record. |\n| 25 | Wong's role -- who was Stevenson Wong | 25 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off |\n| | | | |\n| | Page 114 | | Page 116 |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE |\n| 2 | representing in connection with The | 2 | the record. The time is 5:27 p.m. |\n| 3 | Sherry-Netherland application? | 3 | (Recess taken.) |\n| 4 | A.
I don't know. Based on this letter, | 4 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now back |\n| 5 | it appears they were representing Mr. Kwok or | 5 | on the record. The time is 5:36 p.m. |\n| 6 | his family, but I don't know. | 6 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 7 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | Q.
If you look at page -- the second | 7 | Q.
Mr. Podhaskie, you've answered a lot |\n| 8 | page, SN74, Stevenson Wong writes, \"We confirm | 8 | of questions today saying yes or no based on |\n| 9 | that, A, the company,\" which is defined on the | 9 | the documents I had access to in my review. |\n| 10 | previous page as Bravo Luck, \"is legally and | 10 | Did you have access to Genever New |\n| 11 | beneficially owned as to 50 percent by Mr. Kwok | 11 | York and Genever BVI's full set of files? |\n| 12 | Ho Wan and 50 percent by Mr. Guo Qiang, | 12 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 13 | respectively.\" | 13 | the question. |\n| 14 | Do you see that? | 14 | I don't know that that's exactly |\n| 15 | A.
Yes.
Q.
Is it correct that, as of March 4, | 15 | what he said, but I know you're
paraphrasing, but |\n| 16 | | 16 | |\n| 17 | 2015, Mr. Kwok owned 50 percent of Bravo Luck? | 17 | MR. MOSS: Okay. |\n| 18 | A.
That is what this letter reflects. | 18 | A.
Whatever they had, I reviewed, so. |\n| 19 | I was not prepared to talk about the ownership | 19 | Q.
Did you ever ask to see any |\n| 20 | of Bravo Luck today. | 20 | documents that weren't provided to you? |\n| 21 | Q.
Do you have any reason to believe | 21 | MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of |\n| 22 | that this document is inaccurate? | 22 | the question. |\n| 23
24 | A.
No.
Q.
Do you know whether or not Bravo | 23
24 | A.
No.
Q.
Do you have any reason to believe |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 32 of\n\nPage 117 PODHASKIE review? A. I don't know. There's no reason for me to think anything was missing, I don't know. Q. Did you say any document referencing the fact that Guo Qiang has control of Genever BVI? MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of the question. A. There's a document that indicates he's the president of Genever BVI. Other than that, no. Q. Do you know whether or not that document was produced to us in this litigation? A. I don't know. I believe it was, but I don't know. Q. Did you ever see any document providing that Genever BVI authorized Guo Qiang to act on behalf of Genever New York? A. There was a document that Guo Qiang became the authorized person of Genever New York. I don't recall who executed it or what, but I remember seeing a document that indicated he was the authorized person, and Guo Qiang, he signed an application for an EIN for Genever Page 118 PODHASKIE New York. Q. Have you ever seen any document or did you see any document in the course of your review providing that Yvette Wang had any role with Genever BVI or Genever New York? MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of the question. A. I know that she signed an affidavit in connection with the litigation that made statements about Genever and The Sherry-Netherland. Other than that, I don't recall. Q. Do you know where she obtained the information she put in her affidavit relating to Genever and The Sherry-Netherland? MR. MITCHELL: Object to the form of the question, and I think this is outside the scope of the 30(b)(6). If he has the knowledge, I'm glad to let him answer. MR. MOSS: Okay. A. I don't know. MR. MOSS: Nothing further at this time. Thank you, Mr. Podhaskie. Page 119 PODHASKIE MR. MITCHELL: Just before you start going off the record, I just have a couple questions for Mr. Podhaskie, just to clarify the record. MR. MOSS: Sure. EXAMINATION BY MR. MITCHELL: Q. Mr. Podhaskie, you were provided with a number of exhibits today. One of those exhibits was Podhaskie 3 -- Exhibit 3, rather. A. Yes. Q. If you'll note, these were identified, when questions were asked, by Bates stamps number, Kwok, and then a number. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Looking now at Podhaskie -- is it your understanding that these documents were produced by Mr. Kwok's attorney in relation to this litigation? MR. MOSS: Objection, leading. A. Yes. Q. Looking at Exhibit Podhaskie 4, do you see any such Bates stamps? Page 120 PODHASKIE A. No. Q. Prior to today, do you have any recollection of seeing this document? MR. MOSS: What document? MR. MITCHELL: Exhibit 4 that we're talking about. MR. MOSS: Okay. A. I think I may have seen it as one of the documents that was filed in connection with the litigation, but other than that, no. Q. Have you seen -- in your review of the documents, Genever BVI and Genever New York as they have been referred to here today, in reviewing in preparation for this deposition, did you see those documents within their records? MR. MOSS: Objection to the form. A. Did I see Exhibit 4? Q. Exhibit 4, correct. MR. MOSS: I don't know what \"those documents\" mean. Q. Exhibit 4, this set of pages that is Exhibit 4. A. So did I see Exhibit 4 in connection\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 33 of\n\n| | Page 121 | | Page 123 | |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | with the documents I reviewed in connection for | 2 | number on this document, when you find it? | |\n| 3 | today's deposition? | 3 | A.
(Document review.) No. | |\n| 4 | Q.
Correct. | 4 | Q.
Do you know -- up top, do you see | |\n| 5 | A.
I saw it in connection with -- if I | 5 | that it was filed in this proceeding in the | |\n| 6 | recall, I saw it in connection with the filings | 6 | eCourt's filing system? | |\n| 7 | that were made in the New York litigation. | 7 | A.
By \"the proceeding,\" you're | |\n| 8 | Q.
Was it contained within the records | 8 | referring to the litigation? | |\n| 9 | that you reviewed in preparation for today? | 9 | Q.
Correct. | |\n| 10 | A.
The records maintained by Genever | 10 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 11 | New York? | 11 | Q.
In your review of Genever New York's | |\n| 12 | Q.
Correct. | 12 | books and records, do you recall seeing this | |\n| 13 | A.
And Genever BVI? I don't think so. | 13 | document? | |\n| 14 | Q.
Exhibit 5, do you see a Bates stamp | 14 | A.
I don't recall. | |\n| 15 | on that document? | 15 | Q.
In your review of Genever BVI's | |\n| 16 | A.
(Document review.) No. | 16 | books and records, do you recall seeing this | |\n| 17 | Q.
Now, this document appears to have | 17 | document? | |\n| 18 | been filed in the litigation or in a | 18 | A.
I don't recall. | |\n| 19
20 | litigation, anyway. I believe that's the
docket number in this case. | 19
20 | Q.
Exhibit 8, do you see a Bates stamp
number on here? | |\n| 21 | A.
Yes, it appears so. | 21 | A.
No. | |\n| 22 | Q.
Do you recall seeing this document | 22 | Q.
And Exhibit 8, at the top, do you | |\n| 23 | before today? | 23 | see -- would you agree that it was filed in New | |\n| 24 | A.
Again, I think I may have seen this | 24 | York County Clerk in this litigation? | |\n| 25 | when I reviewed the litigation file as | 25 | MR. MOSS: Objection, leading. | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | Page 122 | | Page 124 | |\n| | | | | |\n| 1 | PODHASKIE | 1 | PODHASKIE | |\n| 2 | something that was filed in the litigation. | 2 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q.
Do you recall seeing this document
within the books and records maintained by | 3 | Q.
And prior to today, do you recall
seeing this document? | |\n| 4
5 | Genever New York? | 4
5 | A.
I think I would have seen it in | |\n| 6 | A.
I don't recall, no. | 6 | connection with my review of the litigation | |\n| 7 | Q.
How about Genever BVI? | 7 | file. | |\n| 8 | A.
I don't recall. | 8 | Q.
In your review of the Genever New | |\n| 9 | Q.
Exhibit 6, which is the memorandum? | 9 | York books and records, do you recall seeing | |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. | 10 | this document? | |\n| 11 | Q.
Do you see any Bates stamps on | 11 | A.
I don't recall. | |\n| 12 | there? | 12 | Q.
And in your review of the books and | |\n| 13 | A.
(Document review.) No. | 13 | records for Genever BVI, do you recall seeing | |\n| 14 | Q.
But there is a docket filing number, | 14 | this document? | |\n| 15 | correct? | 15 | A.
I don't recall. | |\n| 16 | A.
Yes. | 16 | MR. MITCHELL: No further questions. | |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you recall seeing this document | 17 | MR. MOSS: No questions. | |\n| 18 | in the books and records maintained by Genever | 18 | MR. SARNOFF: Thank you. | |\n| 19 | New York? | 19 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes | |\n| 20 | A.
Exhibit 6? | 20 | today's deposition. We are now going off | |\n| 21 | Q.
Correct. | 21 | the record. The time is 5:46 p.m. Thank | |\n| 22
23 | A.
No.
Q.
Genever BVI? | 22
23 | you.
(Time noted: 5:46 p.m.) | |\n| 24 | A.
No. | 24 | | |\n| 25 | Q.
Exhibit 7, do you see a Bates stamp | 25 | | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 34 of\n\n| | KWOK HO WAN | | December 11, 2019 |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Page 125 | | Page 127 |\n| 1 | A C K N O W L E D G M E N T | 1 | *** ERRATA SHEET *** |\n| 2 | | 2 | ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO., LLC
126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor |\n| 3 | STATE OF
) | 3 | New York, New York 10022
212-750-6434 |\n| 4 | :ss | 4 | |\n| 5 | COUNTY OF
) | | 5 NAME OF CASE: PACIFIC ALLIANCE v. KWOK HO WAN
DATE OF DEPOSITION: DECEMBER 11, 2019 |\n| 6 | | | 6 NAME OF WITNESS: DANIEL PODHASKIE |\n| 7 | I, DANIEL PODHASKIE, hereby certify | | 7 PAGE LINE
FROM
TO
REASON |\n| 8 | that I have read the transcript of my testimony | | 8 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 9 | taken under oath in my deposition; that the | | 9 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 10 | transcript is a true, complete and correct | | 10 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 11 | record of my testimony, and that the answers on | | 11 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 12 | the record as given by me are true and correct. | | 12 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 13 | | | 13 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 14 | | | 14 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 15 | | | 15 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 16 | ________________________ | | 16 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 17 | DANIEL PODHASKIE | | 17 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 18 | | | 18 ____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________ |\n| 19
20 | Signed and subscribed to before me | 19 | |\n| 21 | this _______ day of ______________, ____. | 20 | __________________________ |\n| 22 | | | 21 Subscribed and sworn before me |\n| 23 | | | 22 this____day of__________,20__. |\n| 24 | ________________________________________ | 23 | 24 ___________________ |\n| 25 | Notary Public, State of ___________ | | ______________________
25 (Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: |\n| 1
2 | Page 126
C E R T I F I C A T E
3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) | | |\n| 4 | :ss | | |\n| | 5 COUNTY OF RICHMOND) | | |\n| 6 | | | |\n| 7 | I, MELISSA GILMORE, a Notary Public | | |\n| | 8 within and for the State of New York, do hereby | | |\n| | 9 certify: | | |\n| 10 | That DANIEL PODHASKIE, the witness | | |\n| | 11 whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was | | |\n| | 12 duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a | | |\n| | 13 true record of the testimony given by such | | |\n| | 14 witness. | | |\n| 15 | I further certify that I am not | | |\n| | 16 related to any of the parties to this action by | | |\n| | 17 blood or marriage; and that I am in no way | | |\n| | 18 interested in the outcome of this matter. | | |\n| 19 | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto | | |\n| | 20 set my hand this 16th day of December, 2019. | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| | 24 _________________________ | | |\n| | 25 MELISSA GILMORE | | |\n\n**DANIEL PODHASKIE**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 35 of 241\n\n| | 113:7 | 60:24;62:3,7,8;63:5; | 59:5,16;61:4,15,23,24; | bad (1) |\n|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|\n| \\$ | address (22) | 86:20;95:5;99:11; | 62:10;63:2;100:8; | 81:17 |\n| | 16:19;34:24;35:7,8, | 116:7 | 101:3,17,21;102:16; | bank (17) |\n| \\$3 (1) | 16,16,21,23;36:3,6,14, | apart (2) | 110:3 | 27:4;40:12;88:5,7, |\n| 101:12 | 25;39:24;40:6,6;97:8, | 86:14;98:6 | assign (1) | 13,15;89:6,19,22;90:4, |\n| | 16,18,21,25;98:4,20 | apartment (24) | 71:5 | 7;100:11,13,17,19,22; |\n| A | addresses (4) | 24:14;59:8;73:21; | assigned (2) | 101:24 |\n| | 35:20;36:12;97:23; | 74:2,5,10;75:16,22; | 50:13;70:23 | Based (13) |\n| | 98:6 | 76:2,7,24;77:4,21; | assignments (1) | 21:10;23:16;29:19; |\n| AARON (1) | adds (1) | 78:18,25;80:2;83:20; | 73:14 | 31:17;32:16;33:4;39:8; |\n| 3:7 | 30:11 | 84:2,22;87:7;97:19; | assume (5) | 46:11;55:15;64:21; |\n| aaron@lmesqcom (1) | administer (1) | 107:11;108:22;109:11 | 9:11;46:17;80:3; | 86:13;114:4;116:8 |\n| 3:9 | 6:15 | apparent (1) | 96:25;100:4 | Bates (13) |\n| able (1) | affidavit (3) | 28:10 | assuming (1) | 19:24;20:7,15,20,22; |\n| 36:2 | | | | |\n| accept (1) | 75:6;118:9,15 | appear (8) | 17:15 | 29:8;44:23;119:14,25; |\n| 78:13 | affiliation (1) | 7:21;21:12;29:21; | Attachment (2) | 121:14;122:11,25; |\n| access (2) | 19:12 | 55:15,17;57:7;66:6; | 58:5,10 | 123:19 |\n| 116:9,10 | again (16) | 69:19 | attended (3) | became (4) |\n| accordance (1) | 13:6;29:19;33:4; | appearances (1) | 15:8,10;42:6 | 37:13,25;72:3; |\n| 110:21 | 40:10;47:25;48:7; | 7:21 | attention (9) | 117:21 |\n| according (3) | 57:23;60:15,19;61:6; | appears (17) | 20:2,20;29:6;44:19; | become (5) |\n| 45:22;86:6;106:7 | 63:6;65:10;73:7;79:23; | 21:2;23:10,17;29:15; | 58:15,17;80:8;84:23; | 37:9;65:6;72:5; |\n| account (17) | 115:6;121:24 | 30:12;45:4;55:9;57:4; | 105:5 | 112:21;113:4 |\n| 27:5;88:5,13,15; | against (2) | 65:24;66:10;69:8; | attorney (5) | beginning (2) |\n| 89:6,19,22;90:4,7; | 49:17;92:23 | 103:10;104:4,13; | 11:22;82:3;92:17; | 22:9;75:2 |\n| | age (1) | 114:5;121:17,21 | 113:17;119:20 | behalf (21) |\n| 100:12,13,19,23;101:5, | 71:24 | application (5) | Attorneys (3) | 8:24;11:8;15:15; |\n| 6,17,24 | agent (9) | 15:14;112:21;113:3; | 3:4;6:4;96:7 | 40:15;41:16,23;42:8; |\n| account's (1) | 27:22;28:5;33:12; | 114:3;117:25 | authentic (5) | 45:21;52:2;58:11; |\n| 100:17 | 35:9,17;36:13,23;98:2, | applying (2) | 23:14;29:18;45:12; | 70:19;71:2,3;99:8,15, |\n| accurate (19) | 5 | 108:16;111:23 | 57:8;69:16 | 18,25;104:14,17; |\n| 9:12;18:17;21:12; | ago (3) | appointed (5) | authority (1) | 113:19;117:19 |\n| 23:15,18;29:18,21; | 85:22;90:17;91:24 | 38:4,16;40:24;41:6; | 46:5 | below (1) |\n| 44:18;45:12;46:12; | agree (1) | 43:22 | Authorization (3) | 104:10 |\n| 51:6;60:18;66:9;73:24; | 123:23 | appointing (1) | 20:21,25;21:8 | beneficial (4) |\n| 74:8,14;83:23;94:8; | AGREED (3) | 39:23 | authorize (2) | 108:7,17,21;109:10 |\n| 106:11 | 6:4,9,13 | appoints (1) | 99:24,24 | beneficially (1) |\n| acquired (1) | agreement (14) | 40:22 | authorized (21) | 114:11 |\n| 47:23 | | | | |\n| acquisitions (1) | 26:20;73:17;82:10, | approach (1) | 6:15;40:15;41:9; | beside (1) |\n| 101:23 | 17,24;86:17;102:9,17; | 70:20 | 45:20,21,25;46:2;82:7, | 78:19 |\n| Act (13) | 103:2,6,10;104:24; | approaching (1) | 9;95:19,24;96:3;99:8, | besides (8) |\n| 23:4;29:10;40:15,22, | 105:2;110:12 | 72:4 | 14,17,20,21;100:6; | 23:23;31:18;34:2; |\n| 24;41:7,9;61:20;99:8, | agreements (2) | approval (4) | 117:18,21,24 | 36:12;38:24;83:15; |\n| 15,17,25;117:19 | 26:24;102:21 | 110:5,11;111:8,16 | available (5) | 101:17;104:11 |\n| acted (1) | al (1) | argument (1) | 60:5,17;61:21;65:2,7 | best (2) |\n| 33:12 | 7:7 | 91:12 | Avenue (2) | 13:23;64:15 |\n| acting (1) | Albany (1) | around (8) | 3:5;97:11 | bills (1) |\n| 110:22 | 98:2 | 53:7,11,16;70:3; | avoidance (1) | 91:8 |\n| actions (4) | Alliance (1) | 83:10;85:20;100:5; | 107:21 | block (1) |\n| 41:15,22;42:3;80:24 | 7:6 | 112:10 | aware (18) | 45:7 |\n| activity (2) | Alliance's (2) | Asia (1) | 24:5;36:16;38:19,22, | Blue (14) |\n| 52:17;53:16 | 67:17;68:8 | 7:6 | 23;50:9;67:20;70:17; | 26:22;53:23;54:2,5, |\n| Acts (2) | allow (5) | assert (1) | 72:8;90:13;97:24;98:3, | 11,14,19;66:4;67:21; |\n| 23:4;46:3 | 11:23;63:20;109:25; | 12:3 | 8;101:22,23;102:14,15, | 69:12;73:10;102:22; |\n| actual (1) | 113:9;115:7 | asserting (1) | 23 | 110:9;111:11 |\n| 84:5 | amount (1) | 91:11 | | board (8) |\n| Actually (1) | 30:18 | asset (10) | B | 39:2,12;52:16;53:15; |\n| 97:24 | and/or (2) | 25:3,6,9;46:13,18, | | 72:4;96:25;111:23; |\n| add (1) | 110:3,4 | 22;47:8,11,24;48:3 | back (5) | 112:19 |\n| 70:2 | Andrea (2) | assets (29) | 43:11,15;75:3;80:6; | books (10) |\n| added (2) | 45:15;80:19 | 14:14;25:10;47:4,15, | 116:4 | 35:22;36:7,10,14; |\n| 25:21;86:25 | answered (12) | 19;48:9,13,15,16,18, | background (3) | 122:4,18;123:12,16; |\n| additionally (1) | 18:13;19:5;47:18; | 20;49:6;50:11,19;51:9; | 105:6,22;110:17 | 124:9,12 |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 36 of 241\n\n| both (10) | 64:2,4,7,11,16,22;65:6; | 29:24 | 11,14,24;107:16,22; | 74:18 |\n|-------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|----------------------|------------------------|\n| 13:19;14:7,9,11,15; | 66:13;67:12,15;69:21; | certain (4) | 110:3,4;112:23;114:9 | copy (18) |\n| 83:19;92:17;93:13,17, | 70:11,12,13,19,20,22; | 52:8;100:5;103:23; | compilation (1) | 21:7;23:10,18;29:15, |\n| 24 | 71:2,6;72:14;73:15; | 110:19 | 20:14 | 21;45:5;55:10,17;57:4, |\n| bottom (3) | 74:3;77:14,23;80:11, | certainly (3) | complete (2) | 8;64:8,12;65:25;66:9; |\n| 21:14;103:14,16 | 13,25;81:7,10,18;83:8, | 11:23;63:21;65:12 | 80:24;125:10 | 69:8,15,16;103:10 |\n| Bravo (26) | 18;84:10,18,19;85:18, | certainty (1) | complicated (1) | corporate (21) |\n| 28:7;32:9,13;73:18; | 23;86:8;90:11,15;91:3, | 80:4 | 48:14 | 8:9;9:15;10:2;11:16; |\n| 102:10;103:7;104:14; | 18;94:5,12,16;95:2,22; | Certificate (7) | concludes (1) | 12:10,18;13:18;14:2,8; |\n| 108:3,7,16;109:5,9; | 98:24;99:21,23,24; | 23:5,11;29:16;39:21; | 124:19 | 19:21;20:7,17;33:11; |\n| 110:14;111:5,8,24; | 102:11;104:18;105:9, | 55:3;65:15,25 | conclusion (1) | 34:21;35:5;39:19; |\n| 112:3,6,9,23;114:10, | 12,23,24;106:8;107:15, | certify (1) | 68:23 | 41:20;53:16;77:24; |\n| 17,20,24;115:2,10 | 22;108:8;110:3,4; | 125:7 | conducted (3) | 78:15;99:5 |\n| break (1) | 111:10;117:7,11,18; | changed (2) | 26:5,9;87:5 | Corporation (23) |\n| 115:23 | 118:6;120:13;121:13; | 25:16;86:23 | confirm (1) | 8:24;9:8;22:4,5,6,17; |\n| brief (4) | 122:7,23;124:13 | charge (21) | 114:8 | 23:6;29:11;30:7;31:9; |\n| 15:3,4;60:6;63:11 | BVI's (19) | 36:9;55:4,18,20; | connection (18) | 44:22;76:8,12,14,17, |\n| briefly (1) | 14:13;28:13;30:22; | 56:20,24;57:6,9;60:5, | 12:8;16:14;19:12; | 21;77:9,12;80:17,24, |\n| 14:18 | 32:19;45:5;47:15;48:9, | 16;64:3,25;65:16;66:2, | 40:25;49:20;66:5; | 25;100:11;105:9 |\n| British (4) | 15;50:19;54:14;57:17; | 3;67:16;69:4,10,12,16; | 91:19;93:9;104:23; | corporations (2) |\n| 22:5;23:4;34:25; | 65:4;66:8,16;78:14; | 110:2 | 113:3;114:2;118:10; | 84:4;85:4 |\n| | | | | |\n| 98:19 | 90:23;98:20;116:11; | charges (1) | 120:10,25;121:2,5,6; | correctly (1) |\n| broader (1) | 123:15 | 65:6 | 124:6 | 22:8 |\n| 15:22 | | Chase (4) | Connolly (2) | counsel (4) |\n| brokers (1) | C | 88:8;100:12;101:5, | 45:19;82:4 | 7:20;74:20;104:22, |\n| 42:19 | | 17 | Consent (4) | 22 |\n| business (20) | called (7) | check (1) | 44:22;45:5,22;46:11 | counsel's (2) |\n| 14:7;26:4,8;29:9; | 8:1;13:10,12;26:21, | 27:20 | consider (2) | 91:14,15 |\n| 34:21;35:4;42:7;46:6; | 22;50:20;53:23 | China (4) | 37:15;47:10 | County (3) |\n| 55:23;56:6,16;57:14; | calling (1) | 31:22;88:19,21,25 | considers (1) | 7:9;123:24;125:5 |\n| 61:20;64:5;66:14; | 65:22 | chose (1) | 47:14 | couple (3) |\n| 69:22;86:22;87:4,8; | calls (2) | 25:13 | consistent (3) | 33:21,25;119:3 |\n| 112:11 | 68:22;108:24 | City (1) | 57:16;85:14;108:11 | course (12) |\n| buy (5) | came (6) | 46:7 | contained (1) | 29:3;33:6;55:22; |\n| 15:7,18;24:18;25:6; | 28:4,7;53:4;89:15; | clarification (3) | 121:8 | 56:5,15;57:14;64:4,17; |\n| 51:21 | 109:4;115:11 | 13:4;43:10;92:12 | Cont'd (1) | 66:13;69:22;109:6; |\n| buying (1) | can (41) | clarify (1) | 3:1 | 118:4 |\n| 113:19 | 10:14,15,23;11:13; | 119:5 | contract (3) | court (6) |\n| BVI (203) | 13:23;14:24;16:17; | clarity (1) | 26:16;50:2;87:11 | 6:17;7:8,17,24; |\n| 8:24;9:4,7,20;10:5, | 18:3;19:2;20:23;21:9; | 28:19 | contracts (3) | 60:11;63:12 |\n| 12;11:9,17;13:19;14:7, | 23:2,7;24:24;25:19; | clear (4) | 26:15,25;87:11 | covenants (4) |\n| 9,12,15;16:22;17:5; | 26:16,18;29:6,13;34:5; | 43:17,21;48:17;73:5 | control (4) | 109:14,15,18,25 |\n| 19:19;21:4;23:4,12,19, | 41:19;42:3;44:19,24; | Clerk (1) | 94:16,20,25;117:6 | cover (1) |\n| 20,24;24:6;25:15;26:4, | 46:10;48:14;55:8; | 123:24 | controlled (1) | 101:15 |\n| 8,14,20,24;27:4,7,14, | 56:13;57:2;63:19,23; | client (1) | 52:23 | covered (1) |\n| 15,17,23;28:8;29:9,16; | 65:12,20;66:22;69:7; | 93:19 | controls (2) | 11:10 |\n| 30:8,21;31:2,6,12; | 77:24;78:15;84:25; | colleague (1) | 52:25;54:10 | create (1) |\n| 32:15,21;33:2,6,12,24; | 91:11;94:2;108:25 | 31:21 | conversation (5) | 109:25 |\n| 34:2,8,16;35:4,8,10,15, | capacity (2) | collection (2) | 12:17;13:25;15:25; | created (1) |\n| 18;36:14,17,20,24; | 43:24;46:24 | 19:21;20:6 | 16:9,12 | 110:2 |\n| 37:3,7,11;38:2,8,21; | Capital (14) | commemorate (1) | conversations (4) | currently (11) |\n| 39:2,12,15;40:15,24; | 26:22;53:23;54:2,5, | 52:17 | 16:10;26:2;27:3; | 14:15;34:11,12; |\n| 41:7,10,16,23;42:9,16, | 11,15,19;66:4;67:22; | communicate (2) | 28:2 | 41:11;48:10,19;49:9, |\n| 22;43:4,8,19,22,24; | 69:12;73:10;102:23; | 13:2,8 | co-operation (1) | 14,16;54:24;115:10 |\n| 44:5,10,15;45:21; | 110:9;111:11 | communicated (2) | 110:21 | cut (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 46:14;47:3,9,10,14,19, | case (4) | 42:16,19 | co-own (1) | 27:20 |\n| 23;48:3,19,23;49:5; | 19:22;49:25;75:7; | Companies (3) | 110:20 | |\n| 50:11,13,23;51:3,4,12, | 121:20 | 23:4;29:9;61:20 | co-owner (1) | D |\n| 13,24;53:22;54:5,25; | cause (1) | Company (25) | 110:24 | |\n| 55:10,21;56:5,14; | 82:9 | 7:16,19;22:7;24:8, | co-owners (6) | DAN (2) |\n| 57:13,23;59:5,6,17,22; | caution (3) | 10;32:10;36:4;40:22; | 110:6,11,16,17; | 3:14;7:14 |\n| 61:4,15,19,20,24; | 32:3;40:10;52:12 | 46:18,21;53:23;74:11; | 111:5,9 | Daniel (3) |\n| 62:10,12;63:2,7,10; | cents (1) | 75:16,23;76:3;105:9, | copies (1) | 7:4;125:7,17 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 37 of 241\n\n| date (7) | 11,13,14;37:15;44:22; | dollar (4) | end (1) | 69:2,5;74:15;75:12; |\n|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| | | | | |\n| 7:12;20:21,25;21:8; | 45:6;46:12;66:17; | 30:2,3,8,13 | 64:18 | 80:6;84:24;86:4; |\n| 59:16;61:18;71:16 | 67:12;80:16;95:2; | done (1) | ended (3) | 102:25;103:5;112:14, |\n| dated (9) | 99:23 | 42:6 | 24:15;32:12;84:12 | 18;119:11,24;120:6,19, |\n| 21:2;45:6;57:6; | directors (10) | doubt (1) | engaged (1) | 20,23,24,25;121:14; |\n| 59:14;66:2;69:10; | 33:7,10;37:21,23; | 107:21 | 42:7 | 122:9,20,25;123:19,22 |\n| 103:11;112:15,19 | 38:9;39:21;95:15,17; | down (3) | England (1) | exhibits (5) |\n| dates (1) | 96:25;112:20 | 58:22,23;105:6 | 13:15 | 56:2,3,3;119:10,11 |\n| | | | | |\n| 53:10 | Director's (3) | during (5) | enough (1) | exist (1) |\n| day (7) | 20:21,25;21:8 | 13:25;29:3;32:19; | 101:14 | 46:5 |\n| 21:3;33:17,21,24; | disbursed (1) | 33:6;74:19 | enter (4) | existence (5) |\n| 34:10;37:19;125:21 | 87:15 | duties (1) | 82:10,17,24;86:17 | 30:22;32:20;33:7; |\n| days (5) | disclose (1) | 19:11 | entered (10) | 94:7,14 |\n| 33:21,25;83:9;85:18; | 108:15 | | 26:14,19,20,24; | expected (2) |\n| 86:14 | discuss (3) | E | 52:10;66:19;67:10,16; | 63:21;65:13 |\n| debt (1) | 12:8,20;13:16 | | 87:10;103:12 | experience (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 27:19 | discussed (10) | earlier (6) | enters (1) | 64:22 |\n| December (2) | 13:17;14:6,8,10,12, | 43:12;53:20;64:2; | 50:2 | explained (1) |\n| 7:13;16:4 | 14,18;16:18,19;102:22 | 67:21;75:13;102:22 | entirety (5) | 58:18 |\n| decision (3) | discussion (3) | early (1) | 30:21;59:9;61:5; | extended (1) |\n| 51:23;52:6;54:14 | 14:22;15:3,5 | 111:22 | 94:7,13 | 79:7 |\n| Declaration (1) | discussions (8) | ECF (1) | Entities (12) | extent (1) |\n| 102:25 | 11:25;67:14;70:3,12; | 75:8 | 3:4;8:9,12;19:23; | 80:23 |\n| | | | | |\n| decreased (1) | 72:13,20;73:3,13 | eCourt's (1) | 20:18;93:8,18,25; | extra (1) |\n| 115:3 | dispute (1) | 123:6 | 103:8;107:23;108:2,18 | 74:18 |\n| deemed (2) | 91:25 | effect (1) | entitled (3) | |\n| 83:7,13 | distinguishing (1) | 6:16 | 20:21,24;44:21 | F |\n| defendant (1) | 31:7 | effective (7) | entity (19) | |\n| 58:11 | docket (2) | 21:2;59:23;61:18; | 8:16,23;9:4;21:5; | facility (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| Defendant's (2) | 121:20;122:14 | 62:13;63:7;69:10; | 26:21,22;27:8,12,13, | 54:4,6 |\n| 58:2,8 | Document (74) | 85:12 | 16;28:9;50:20;85:7; | fact (4) |\n| defined (3) | 10:9;20:23,24;22:12, | EIN (2) | 93:8,13,16,23;113:19, | 59:17;67:15;72:4; |\n| 10:12;111:5;114:9 | 18,20;23:2,14;29:14, | 42:25;117:25 | 22 | 117:6 |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| defines (1) | 18;44:21,24,25;45:13, | either (7) | ESQ (1) | false (5) |\n| 105:8 | 15;55:8,9,19,21;56:17; | 40:21,23;45:18; | 3:7 | 60:9,12,20;61:8,12 |\n| Department (1) | 57:2,12;58:12;59:14; | 73:15;82:3;92:18; | established (1) | familiar (1) |\n| 85:4 | 60:15;64:3,8,12,14,17, | 111:10 | 59:21 | 92:3 |\n| depose (1) | 18;65:20,24;66:9,10, | elaborate (1) | estate (11) | family (4) |\n| 78:10 | 12;69:20;84:25;85:2, | 26:18 | 24:9,13,16,19,20,25; | 15:20;31:24;84:16; |\n| | | | | |\n| deposited (1) | 10,25;86:5;103:9; | elected (1) | 42:19;83:6,12,15; | 114:6 |\n| 90:6 | 105:17;106:7;107:3,6, | 38:4 | 84:16 | far (2) |\n| deposition (33) | 12;109:8;114:22; | Elian (4) | et (1) | 21:9;29:17 |\n| 6:13;7:4,11;9:16,20; | 117:5,10,14,17,20,23; | 33:14,16,23;37:19 | 7:7 | father (3) |\n| 10:3,5,10,11,18,25; | 118:3,4;120:4,5; | Ellen (2) | even (1) | 15:9;72:2;112:10 |\n| 11:5,15;12:13;13:17; | 121:15,16,17,22;122:3, | 7:15,18 | 95:2 | February (13) |\n| 16:15;29:4;40:21;41:2, | 13,17;123:2,3,13,17; | else (11) | evidencing (1) | 21:3;23:20;37:12,24; |\n| 7,11;55:16;63:16;70:8; | 124:4,10,14 | 12:16,20;14:17; | 109:8 | 45:6;66:2;85:12,24; |\n| 74:16,19;75:13;109:8; | documents (61) | 16:23;24:4;31:11; | exactly (4) | 86:7,9,10;87:5;103:11 |\n| | | | | |\n| 115:22;120:15;121:3; | 19:21;20:2,3,7,14, | 77:18,25;78:16;87:21, | 24:20;67:9;85:19; | feel (1) |\n| 124:20;125:9 | 17;21:10;23:16;26:2; | 25 | 116:14 | 20:3 |\n| designated (1) | 27:2;28:2,11;29:19; | E-MAIL (2) | EXAMINATION (2) | fees (12) |\n| 11:16 | 30:15,23;31:17;32:16, | 3:9;36:24 | 8:6;119:7 | 87:19;88:2;90:23; |\n| DI (2) | 18,22;38:13;39:6,13, | employed (1) | examined (1) | 91:4,19;92:9;93:4,7,13, |\n| 91:10;93:19 | 15,19,25;41:21;42:16, | 19:9 | 8:3 | 17,24;100:16 |\n| different (2) | 22,22;43:23;44:17; | employees (3) | except (1) | felt (2) |\n| 25:12;42:14 | 45:3;47:21;56:4,14; | 36:18;96:16,19 | 6:9 | 84:7,20 |\n| | | | | |\n| direct (9) | 57:24;63:17;65:5; | employer (2) | executed (1) | few (3) |\n| 19:25;20:19;29:6; | 85:23;86:13;95:13; | 42:25,25 | 117:22 | 85:22;90:17;91:24 |\n| 44:19;58:15,16;80:7; | 97:5;98:10,18,20,25; | encumbered (6) | Exhibit (47) | Fifth (1) |\n| 84:23;105:5 | 99:3,5;102:2;109:7; | 48:10;49:10,13;50:6; | 9:15,19;10:4,9,11,15, | 97:11 |\n| director (23) | 111:15;115:18;116:9, | 102:5,16 | 16,24,24;17:9;20:6,13; | file (2) |\n| 32:25;33:13,14,16,
17,17,23,24;34:2,8,10, | 20,25;119:19;120:10,
13,16,22;121:2 | encumbrances (1)
102:14 | 44:20;55:3,7,20;56:18,
22;58:2,8;65:15,18; | 121:25;124:7
filed (10) |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 38 of 241\n\n# **DANIEL PODHASKIE December 11, 2019**\n\n| 58:10;60:6;61:19; | | | | |\n|-------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|\n| | 72:17;73:22;74:6,12; | 12,12,13,14,15,16; | 6,11,16;120:13,13; | 12:5 |\n| | | | | |\n| 63:11,17;120:10; | 76:4,25;77:15;78:2,20; | 15:15;16:20,21,22,25; | 121:10,13;122:5,7,18, | HEREBY (3) |\n| 121:18;122:2;123:5,23 | 79:2,22;81:13;82:8,12, | 17:4,8,14,16,18,22,24; | 23;123:11,15;124:8,13 | 6:3,6;125:7 |\n| files (3) | 20;83:2,21;86:11,19; | 18:7,13,20,25;19:6,9, | Genever's (3) | herein (1) |\n| 22:21;64:18;116:11 | 89:2,24;90:24;93:10; | 13,19,23;20:18;21:4; | 22:21;85:14;108:11 | 6:5 |\n| | | | | |\n| filing (3) | 95:4;96:5;97:3,9; | 22:6,16;23:6,11,19,24; | Gilmore (1) | himself (3) |\n| 6:6;122:14;123:6 | 98:11,21;99:10;100:2; | 24:6,10,16;25:15;26:4, | 7:18 | 71:23;104:19;112:6 |\n| filings (1) | 101:7;102:7,19;104:8; | 6,8,9,14,19,24;27:4,7, | given (1) | hired (1) |\n| 121:6 | 107:5;108:23;111:12, | 14,15,16;28:8,13; | 125:12 | 27:22 |\n| | | | | |\n| Finance (1) | 18,25;113:5;115:5; | 29:10,16;30:7,7,21,22; | glad (1) | Ho (5) |\n| 112:13 | 116:12,21;117:8; | 31:2,6,12;32:15,19,21; | 118:20 | 21:18,20;45:7; |\n| find (2) | 118:7,17;120:18 | 33:2,6,24;34:2,8,16; | gladly (1) | 112:21;114:12 |\n| 36:2;123:2 | formal (1) | 35:4,7,14,15;36:17,20, | 78:12 | Hodgson (8) |\n| | | | | |\n| fine (5) | 53:16 | 24;37:3,7,11;38:2,8,21; | Golden (9) | 7:12;58:11;60:5,8, |\n| 8:18;9:5;28:25;29:5; | formalities (1) | 39:2,12,15;40:15,24; | 88:16,18,19,21,25; | 17;90:16,23;92:15 |\n| 43:16 | 13:18 | 41:7,10,16,23;42:8,16, | 89:15,17;90:8;100:14 | hold (12) |\n| firm (10) | formation (13) | 22;43:4,6,8,18,19,22, | goods (1) | 35:14;48:24;49:6; |\n| | | | | |\n| 45:18;82:4;90:16,20; | 14:6;25:6,9,16; | 24;44:5,6,10,11,13,15, | 27:21 | 83:19;84:10;100:9,15, |\n| 91:5;92:6,13,14,16,21 | 28:14;41:21;42:12; | 16,21;45:5,21;46:2,4, | Grauer (2) | 18;106:8,24;107:11,16 |\n| firms (1) | 43:13,21;81:20;82:15; | 13,14,25;47:3,4,8,9,10, | 7:15,19 | holding (6) |\n| 92:18 | 96:8;99:5 | 10,14,14,15,19,20,23, | Great (1) | 30:7;105:25;106:18; |\n| firm's (1) | formed (27) | 24;48:3,4,9,15,19,20, | 10:13 | 107:7,21,25 |\n| | | | | |\n| 92:9 | 22:16;24:6,7;33:2; | 23;49:5,6,9,25;50:6,11, | Group (3) | Holdings (13) |\n| first (13) | 37:12,24;39:20;44:16; | 13,19,23,25;51:3,4,9,9, | 88:19,21,25 | 8:13,21,24;9:8;22:6, |\n| 13:4;22:10,11;33:14, | 82:10,16;83:9,19;84:3, | 12,13,16,18,21,24; | guess (1) | 16;23:6;29:10;44:21; |\n| 17,23;75:21;80:10,18; | 10,15;85:17,18,20,23; | 52:2;53:22;54:5,14,25; | 43:20 | 80:16;85:5;105:9,14 |\n| 103:16;104:6;105:7; | 86:6,6,8,10,17;87:5; | 55:10,21;56:5,14,14; | Guo (71) | Hong (6) |\n| | | | | |\n| 109:21 | 88:9;90:4 | 57:12,16,22;59:5,6,7, | 11:18;12:23;13:6,12, | 35:21;36:15;40:6; |\n| fit (2) | forming (3) | 17,22;61:4,15,24; | 13,24;15:20,23;16:2,9, | 88:19,22,25 |\n| 83:7,13 | 22:4;23:24;82:23 | 62:10,12;63:2,7,10,10, | 12;23:25;28:22;32:11, | Hotel (13) |\n| five (6) | forms (1) | 25;64:4,7,11,16;65:4; | 11;34:14;36:11;37:5, | 14:20;24:14;77:21; |\n| 10:17,21,25;11:5; | 15:14 | 66:8,12,16;67:12,15; | 13,25;38:4,10,12,17, | 78:18;79:9,18;83:16; |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 58:23;85:18 | foundation (1) | 68:19,25;69:21;70:11, | 24;39:23;40:20,23; | 86:18;87:12;90:9; |\n| flip (2) | 81:12 | 11,13,19,20,22;71:2,6, | 41:8,22;42:5;43:21; | 91:24;98:7;100:24 |\n| | | | | |\n| 20:4;56:13 | four (2) | 6;72:14,14;73:15,15; | 52:4;54:3;66:5;70:7; | hundred (1) |\n| floor (11) | 58:23;86:14 | 74:3,4;76:9;77:13,13, | 71:12,20;72:5;78:24; | 51:7 |\n| 76:24;77:4,21;78:18, | front (2) | 23,23;78:14,14;80:11, | 79:10,15,18,25;83:25; | |\n| 25;82:18;97:15,20; | 35:25;75:5 | 12,13,14,16,25;81:3,7, | 84:6,11,16,20;88:23; | I |\n| 106:20,25;107:8 | full (1) | 8,10,11,11,18,19,19; | 94:19,24;95:25;96:4; | |\n| | | | | |\n| focus (2) | 116:11 | 82:8,9,16,23;83:8,8,11, | 99:17,24;100:6; | idea (4) |\n| 19:19;60:7 | Fund (1) | 14,18,18;84:9,10,18, | 103:20;104:2,5,11,14; | 71:18,24;72:3;84:6 |\n| follow (2) | 7:7 | 19,19;85:5,7,10,17,18, | 112:4,8,11;114:12; | identification (11) |\n| 91:13,15 | funded (2) | 23;86:8,9,16,16,22; | 115:9;117:6,18,20,24 | 9:18,21;20:8;42:25; |\n| follows (1) | 88:15;100:14 | 87:4,10,14,24;88:4; | | 55:5;56:21;58:6;65:17; |\n| 8:4 | funding (1) | 89:5,10,18,21;90:3,7, | H | 69:4;103:3;112:16 |\n| | | | | |\n| force (1) | 32:12 | 11,11,15,15,22,23; | | identified (1) |\n| 6:16 | FURTHER (5) | 91:3,4,18,18,23;92:5, | hand (1) | 119:14 |\n| form (113) | 6:8,12;109:18; | 22;93:4,14,17,24;94:5, | 19:20 | identify (13) |\n| 6:10;10:7;11:11; | 118:24;124:16 | 6,7,10,12,13,13,16,20, | handed (8) | 20:23;23:2,7;29:13; |\n| 17:25;18:9;19:14; | future (1) | 25;95:8,11,14,18,22; | 9:24;55:6;56:22; | 44:24;55:8;57:2;65:20; |\n| | | | | |\n| 21:15;23:8;24:22; | 49:20 | 96:3,10,15,18,21,24; | 58:7;65:18;69:5;74:18; | 69:7;77:25;78:16; |\n| 25:17,23;26:11;27:9; | | 97:7,14,18,22;98:5,9, | 112:17 | 84:25;100:21 |\n| 30:9;31:3,13;34:3,18; | G | 17,18,20,24,24;99:3,8, | happened (1) | inaccurate (3) |\n| 39:4,10,17;40:16;41:5, | | 15,18,21,23,24,25; | 115:15 | 22:21;83:24;114:22 |\n| 12,17,24;42:10;44:7; | gave (1) | 100:7,8,20;101:2,6,16, | happens (1) | Inc (1) |\n| 46:2,8,15;47:5,17;48:5, | 51:21 | 20;102:5,10,11,15; | 78:10 | 112:22 |\n| | | | | |\n| 11;49:3,11,22;50:7,15, | generated (1) | 103:8;104:18,18; | head (2) | include (1) |\n| 21;51:14,25;57:19; | 39:20 | 105:9,12,14,16,24; | 35:25;71:17 | 59:7 |\n| 59:19;60:2,13,21; | Genever (416) | 106:4,8,8,15,17,23; | held (8) | incorporated (3) |\n| 61:10;62:2,17;63:13; | 3:4,13;8:12,16,20,21, | 107:16,23,25;108:8,8, | 7:11;14:15;47:19; | 23:20;29:9;85:11 |\n| 64:19;65:8;66:20;67:6, | 24;9:4,7,7,17,20;10:4, | 14,17;111:10;113:12, | 51:9;98:20;101:2,16; | Incorporation (2) |\n| 18;68:9,15,21;69:17, | 5,10,11;11:8,9,17,17; | 15,20;116:10,11;117:6, | 110:3 | 23:5,11 |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC (4) files - increased**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 39 of 241\n\n| 115:2 | 112:3 | KWOK147 (1) | liability (6) | 102:10;103:7;104:15; |\n|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|\n| incurred (1) | Jersey (1) | 29:8 | 46:18,21;74:11; | 108:3,7,16;109:5,9; |\n| 27:19 | 3:6 | KWOK176 (1) | 75:16,23;76:3 | 110:14;111:6,9,24; |\n| Index (1) | JPMorgan (2) | 20:22 | lien (2) | 112:4,7,9,23;114:10, |\n| 7:9 | 100:12;101:5 | KWOK193 (3) | 49:16;110:2 | 17,20,25;115:2,10 |\n| indicated (2) | Judge (1) | 44:20,23;80:8 | Limited (12) | |\n| 12:15;117:23 | 49:24 | KWOK194 (1) | 26:22;46:18,21; | M |\n| indicates (1) | jump (1) | 20:16 | 74:11;75:16,22;76:2; | |\n| 117:10 | 58:22 | Kwok's (26) | 88:20,22,25;104:15; | MACOM (2) |\n| indicating (1) | June (1) | 12:24;13:7;15:24; | 112:23 | 3:14;7:14 |\n| 49:25 | 69:10 | 21:14;22:21;24:2; | line (1) | Madison (1) |\n| individuals (2) | Justice (4) | 28:23;30:6;31:21; | 21:19 | 3:5 |\n| 11:25;40:14 | 50:5;102:4,13,17 | 32:11;70:23;71:7; | lines (1) | Magnanini (2) |\n| information (1) | | 73:13;74:9,15,19; | 58:23 | 93:2,7 |\n| 118:15 | K | 75:12,21;76:11;83:19, | listed (1) | Magnanini's (1) |\n| Initially (4) | | 25;103:24;104:3,6; | 12:12 | 93:4 |\n| 24:7;33:20;71:22; | keep (1) | 114:25;119:20 | listen (1) | mail (1) |\n| 83:25 | 36:7 | | 62:20 | 99:6 |\n| inquiry (1) | kept (1) | L | litigation (12) | mailing (8) |\n| 85:5 | 36:15 | | 117:14;118:10; | 34:24;35:7,8,16,16; |\n| instruct (2) | kinds (1) | landed (1) | 119:21;120:11;121:7, | 36:6,14;97:21 |\n| 91:6;93:19 | 54:9 | 103:4 | 18,19,25;122:2;123:8, | maintain (1) |\n| instruction (2) | knew (4) | last (3) | 24;124:6 | 39:16 |\n| 91:14,16 | 60:9;66:18;109:4,9 | 10:16,24;80:22 | little (1) | maintained (14) |\n| interaction (1) | knowledge (9) | later (1) | 48:14 | 39:25;40:7;56:15; |\n| 42:8 | 12:12;42:5;63:22; | 53:21 | lived (2) | 57:13;64:3,16;69:21; |\n| interest (21) | 66:7,8;89:21;113:9; | Law (4) | 78:24;79:4 | 98:14,19,25;105:3; |\n| 73:20;74:10;75:15, | 115:8;118:20 | 58:3,9;92:6,9 | lives (2) | 121:10;122:4,18 |\n| 22,25;76:7,8,11,13,17, | known (3) | LAWALL (1) | 31:22;97:19 | maintaining (1) |\n| 20,23;77:6,11,20;78:6, | 22:6;60:17;110:18 | 3:3 | LLC (6) | 36:9 |\n| 17;83:19;84:11;88:24; | knows (1) | laws (1) | 3:3;8:13,21;85:5; | maintains (3) |\n| 115:2 | 65:12 | 22:4 | 94:10;105:15 | 16:20;35:22;66:13 |\n| interests (1) | Kong (6) | lawsuit (10) | LLP (1) | maintenance (9) |\n| 95:11 | 35:22;36:15;40:7; | 67:17;68:8;90:12; | 58:11 | 87:19;88:2;89:11; |\n| into (17) | 88:19,22,25 | 91:19;92:8,23;93:9,14, | loan (6) | 90:9;91:25;100:15,19, |\n| 26:14,19,20,24;50:2; | Kwok (100) | 18,25 | 51:17,20;54:4,6,7; | 23;101:13 |\n| 52:10;66:19;67:11,16; | 11:18;12:7,8,17; | lawyer (2) | 66:5 | management (1) |\n| 82:10,17,24;86:17; | 14:13;15:21;19:24; | 45:18;78:10 | located (1) | 14:11 |\n| 87:11;89:18;90:7; | 21:18,20,22;22:13,16; | lawyers (1) | 13:13 | March (11) |\n| 103:12 | 23:23;28:14,15,16,21, | 64:22 | long (3) | 57:6,18,22;59:23; |\n| invest (5) | 22;29:22;30:13,18,20, | leading (2) | 33:19;64:13;65:14 | 61:18;62:13;63:8; |\n| 24:25;54:8;83:6,12; | 25;31:15,19,24;32:25; | 119:22;123:25 | look (18) | 112:15,19;114:16; |\n| 84:17 | 33:8,18;34:2,7;37:17; | lease (4) | 10:14,16,23;19:25; | 115:3 |\n| invested (1) | 38:6,16,20;40:20,23; | 68:14,19;77:3; | 20:4;22:24;43:15; | marked (11) |\n| 83:14 | 41:15;45:8,9;48:24; | 108:16 | 59:13;75:20;80:18,22; | 9:17,20,25;20:8; |\n| investment (1) | 52:5;54:13;59:2,4,10; | leases (1) | 81:22;86:3;103:14; | 55:4;56:20;58:5;65:16; |\n| 40:12 | 66:18;67:2,3,11;70:14; | 76:9 | 105:22;109:24;110:17; | 69:4;103:2;112:15 |\n| investments (1) | 71:12;72:6,16;73:19, | left (2) | 114:7 | marking (2) |\n| 54:9 | 25;75:15,24;76:6,19; | 74:21;104:2 | looked (2) | 20:9,11 |\n| involved (8) | 77:11,19,19;78:19,23; | left-hand (1) | 25:12;85:22 | marks (1) |\n| 23:23;42:12,13; | 84:12,17;88:24;91:17, | 103:15 | looking (7) | 74:25 |\n| 43:13,13,21;52:5; | 23;92:5,23;93:13,17, | Legal (13) | 15:2,6,17;54:3; | math (1) |\n| 54:13 | 24;94:16,20,25;97:19; | 7:15,19;63:17;68:22; | 85:25;119:18,24 | 30:11 |\n| involves (1) | 99:12,14,16,22;102:10; | 90:23;91:4,18;92:9; | looks (2) | matter (1) |\n| 102:11 | 104:17,18;108:14; | 93:4,7,13,17,24 | 85:2;103:24 | 7:6 |\n| Island (1) | | | lost (1) | |\n| | 109:22;111:7,22; | legally (1) | | may (26) |\n| 23:4 | 112:5,21;113:3,16,18; | 114:10 | 115:12 | 6:13;37:10,13,24; |\n| Islands (3) | 114:5,11,17;115:12; | lend (1) | lot (2) | 38:5,15;53:7;55:12; |\n| 22:5;34:25;98:19 | 119:15 | 32:7 | 15:10;116:7 | 57:6;59:5,14;60:12,23; |\n| | KWOK143 (2) | lent (3) | LP (1) | 61:5,15,22,25;62:11; |\n| J | 20:7,16 | 31:22;32:6,9 | 7:7 | 63:3;75:7,8,9;100:6; |\n| | KWOK145 (1) | Letter (4) | Luck (26) | 110:20;120:9;121:24 |\n| January (1) | 22:25 | 112:14,18;114:4,18 | 28:7;32:9,13;73:18; | Maybe (2) |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 40 of 241\n\n| 11:20;72:4 | 11;49:3,11,22;50:7,15, | name (4) | 13:18 | 3,5;36:4,7;40:2,8 |\n|---------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|\n| mean (17) | 21;51:14,25;52:12; | 7:14;13:4;92:13,21 | notices (2) | officer (3) |\n| 8:19;9:7;18:4;19:2, | 56:7;57:19;59:19;60:2, | nature (1) | 11:15;63:16 | 6:14;37:16;38:20 |\n| 7;34:20;42:3;49:13; | 13,21,24;61:10;62:2, | 63:18 | Number (19) | officers (6) |\n| 61:12,14;73:2;79:4,6; | 17,24;63:4,13;64:19; | necessary (2) | 7:10;10:2;36:21,22; | 37:3,11;38:2,9,10,24 |\n| 92:16;99:12;104:10; | 65:8,21;66:20;67:6,18; | 46:4;80:23 | 43:2;58:19;75:2;96:22; | offices (5) |\n| 120:22 | 68:9,15,21;69:17,23; | need (2) | 105:7,23;106:14; | 7:12;34:17,20;96:11, |\n| meaning (1) | 70:15,24;71:8;72:17, | 14:4;20:3 | 107:20;119:10,15,15; | 13 |\n| 40:12 | 23;73:8,22;74:6,12; | needed (1) | 121:20;122:14;123:2, | official (4) |\n| meant (1) | 76:4,25;77:15;78:2,7, | 27:19 | 20 | 17:21;18:20;19:5; |\n| 90:8 | 11,20;79:2,22;81:13; | New (191) | | 52:17 |\n| meeting (5) | 82:12,20;83:2,21; | 3:6;7:8,9;8:16,20; | O | once (2) |\n| 39:3,12;42:6;53:15; | 86:11,19;89:2,24; | 9:17;10:4,10;11:8,17; | | 82:9,16 |\n| 97:2 | 90:24;91:6,10;92:11; | 13:19;14:8,10,12,14, | oath (2) | one (27) |\n| meetings (2) | 93:10,19;94:2;95:4; | 16,20;15:8,16;16:21, | 6:15;125:9 | 8:12;11:14;14:6,6; |\n| 15:8,10 | 96:5;97:3,9;98:11,21; | 21;17:2,8,14,16,18,22, | Object (107) | 19:22,23;25:6,9;30:8; |\n| Melissa (1) | 99:10;100:2;101:7; | 24;18:7,13,21,25;19:6, | 10:7;11:11;17:25; | 40:21;47:4,15;58:22; |\n| 7:18 | 102:7,19;104:8;107:5; | 9,13;24:11;26:6,9; | 18:9;19:14;21:15;23:8; | 83:4;86:21;92:18;93:7; |\n| member (13) | 108:23;111:12,18,25; | 43:7,19;44:6,11,13,16; | 24:22;25:17,23;26:11; | 94:2;106:12;107:2,3, |\n| 31:24;44:10;80:11, | 113:5,14,21;115:5,13, | 46:2,4,6,6,13;47:4,8, | 27:9;30:9;31:3,13; | 10,13,16,18;119:10; |\n| 13;81:3,7,10,18;84:17, | 16,20;116:12,21; | 11,14,20,24;48:4,20; | 34:3,18;39:4,10,17; | 120:9 |\n| 18;94:12;95:20,22 | 117:8;118:7,17;119:2, | 49:6,9;50:2,6,25;51:9, | 40:16;41:4,12,17,24; | only (5) |\n| members (1) | 8;120:6;124:16 | 10;56:14;63:11;68:19; | 42:10;44:7;46:8,15; | 33:17;34:12,14; |\n| 94:11 | Mitchell's (2) | 71:6;72:14;73:15;74:4; | 47:5,17;48:5,11;49:3, | 56:10;73:2 |\n| membership (1) | 90:20;91:4 | 76:10;77:13,23;78:14; | 11,22;50:7,15,21; | oOo (1) |\n| 95:11 | Monday (1) | 80:12,14;81:3,8,11,11, | 51:14,25;57:19;59:19; | 6:19 |\n| Memorandum (3) | 16:3 | 19,19;82:8,9,16,24; | 60:2,13,21;61:10; | Opportunity (1) |\n| 58:3,8;122:9 | money (24) | 83:8,11,14,18;84:10, | 62:17;63:13;64:19; | 7:7 |\n| mentioned (3) | 27:7,15,19,21;28:4, | 19;85:3,7,11,11,17; | 65:8;66:20;67:6;68:9, | Opposition (2) |\n| 20:14;37:5;50:18 | 9;30:18;31:22;32:6,8, | 86:9,16,23;87:4,10,14, | 15,21;69:17,23;70:15, | 58:3,9 |\n| mentioning (1) | 9;42:7;87:15,24;88:11, | 24;88:4,17,18;89:5,10, | 24;71:8;72:17;73:22; | order (8) |\n| 28:20 | 16;89:14,18;90:6,8; | 16,18,18,21;90:3,7,11, | 74:6,12;76:4,25;77:15; | 20:15;49:24;50:5; |\n| mentions (1) | 100:15,18;101:4;109:4 | 15,22;91:4,18,23;92:5; | 78:2,20;79:2,22;81:13; | 58:4,10;102:4,13,18 |\n| 45:15 | month (1) | 93:4;94:6,7,10,13,14, | 82:12,20;83:2,21; | ordinary (8) |\n| Michael (2) | 101:15 | 20;95:8,11,14,18;96:3, | 86:11,19;89:2,24; | 55:22;56:5,15;57:13; |\n| 81:23;82:2 | monthly (1) | 10,15,18,21,24;97:7, | 90:24;93:10;95:4;96:5; | 64:4,17;66:13;69:21 |\n| mid (1) | 101:13 | 14,18,22;98:5,9,17,18; | 97:3,9;98:11,21;99:10; | organization (1) |\n| 71:25 | more (5) | 99:3,8,15,18,25;100:7, | 100:2;101:7;102:7,19; | 14:11 |\n| middle (1) | 19:3;20:5;26:16; | 8,14,20;101:2,6,16,20; | 104:8;107:5;108:23; | Ostrager (1) |\n| 29:11 | 42:3;101:12 | 102:5,10,15;104:18; | 111:12,18,25;113:5; | 49:25 |\n| might (2) | Morristown (1) | 105:16;106:4,8,15,17, | 115:5;116:12,21; | Ostrager's (4) |\n| 43:6;97:25 | 3:6 | 23;107:16;108:7,8,14; | 117:8;118:7,17 | 50:5;102:4,13,18 |\n| Miles (6) | mortgage (1) | 113:12,15,20;116:10; | Objection (12) | out (2) |\n| 11:18;21:22;28:16, | 110:2 | 117:19,21;118:2,6; | 62:2,24;63:4;67:18; | 74:18;100:22 |\n| 22;77:19;78:19 | MOSS (34) | 120:13;121:7,11; | 78:8;113:10;115:13, | outside (6) |\n| million (1) | 8:7;12:4,6;13:5; | 122:5,19;123:11,23; | 16,20;119:22;120:18; | 12:2;63:14;65:10; |\n| 101:12 | 20:11;43:9;56:12;62:8; | 124:8 | 123:25 | 113:7;115:7;118:18 |\n| minutes (2) | 65:23;73:7;74:17;75:4; | next (2) | objections (1) | over (1) |\n| 74:21;85:22 | 78:9;79:23;81:16;91:8; | 29:7;104:6 | 6:9 | 86:23 |\n| missing (2) | 92:19;93:21;113:12, | nobody (1) | obtain (2) | own (8) |\n| 116:25;117:4 | 18,23;115:23;116:6, | 31:11 | 46:5;54:3 | 24:7;32:14,20;51:4, |\n| mistaken (1) | 17;118:22,24;119:6, | Notary (2) | obtained (2) | 8;73:25;84:15;95:10 |\n| 59:23 | 22;120:5,8,18,21; | 8:2;125:25 | 111:17;118:14 | owned (7) |\n| MITCHELL (141) | 123:25;124:17 | note (2) | O'Connor (3) | 32:10;52:21;59:10; |\n| 3:3,7;10:7;11:11,20; | most (1) | 113:10;119:13 | 81:24;82:2,8 | 111:24;112:4;114:11, |\n| 13:3;17:25;18:9;19:14; | 101:4 | noted (1) | off (21) | 17 |\n| 20:9;21:15;23:8;24:22; | Motion (2) | 124:23 | 35:24;53:5,9,13,22; | owner (27) |\n| 25:17,23;26:11;27:9; | 58:4,9 | notice (15) | 54:20;57:18;67:22; | 29:23;30:25;44:5; |\n| 30:9;31:3,13;32:3; | much (3) | 9:16,19;10:3,4,10, | 68:3,5,7,12;70:4,6,9; | 72:3,5;84:5,7,12,19,21; |\n| 34:3,18;39:4,10,17;
40:10,16;41:4,12,17, | 14:3,4;64:23 | 11;12:13;50:4;56:18,
23;57:5;65:11;69:2,9; | 71:16;74:22;115:24, | 108:2,3,6,7,17,22; |\n| 24;42:10;43:3;44:7; | N | 113:8 | 25;119:3;124:20
office (10) | 109:10,18;110:5,11,14,
18,20;111:5,8;112:6; |\n| 46:8,15;47:5,17;48:5, | | noticed (1) | 16:21;34:21,21;35:2, | 115:10 |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 41 of 241\n\n| owners (1)
31:8 | payments (2)
88:12;100:22 | pledging (3)
51:7,8;111:9 | 121:9
prepare (6) | 14:19;15:15;24:8;
25:3,4,7,9;31:23;32:6, |\n|------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------------------|\n| ownership (34) | pays (1) | pm (7) | 11:7;13:25;16:6; | 12;42:13,18,20;43:14; |\n| | | | | |\n| 14:9;32:18;46:17,21; | 91:8 | 9:23;74:23;75:3; | 55:16;70:8;109:7 | 71:23;82:10,17;84:2; |\n| 59:7;70:13,22;71:6,11, | pending (1) | 116:2,5;124:21,23 | prepared (5) | 96:9 |\n| 13;72:13;73:12,20; | 67:17 | Podhaskie (157) | 10:20;11:4;17:7,11; | purchased (1) |\n| 74:3,10;75:15,21,25; | people (4) | 7:5;8:8;9:1,15,19,24, | 114:19 | 24:16 |\n| 76:6,7,11,13,16,20,23; | 64:22;78:12;93:8; | 25;10:1,2;11:1,22; | preparing (1) | purchasing (1) |\n| 77:5,19;78:6,13,16; | 99:7 | 12:1;13:1;14:1;15:1; | 12:9 | 42:15 |\n| 101:18;112:9;114:19; | percent (9) | 16:1;17:1;18:1;19:1, | PRESENT (3) | purpose (21) |\n| 115:2 | 51:5,8;112:6,9; | 20;20:1,6,10,13;21:1; | 3:12;16:8,11 | 14:7;25:15,16;41:10; |\n| owning (2) | 114:11,12,17;115:10, | 22:1,24;23:1;24:1; | president (16) | 82:23;86:22;100:14, |\n| 26:9;72:2 | 12 | 25:1;26:1;27:1;28:1; | 15:11,12;34:15;37:8, | 17;105:19,23,25;106:8, |\n| owns (13) | period (2) | 29:1,7;30:1;31:1;32:1; | 9,13,25;38:5,10,12,16, | 14,17,18,23,24;107:4, |\n| 26:6,6;31:11;40:6; | 33:20;38:18 | 33:1;34:1;35:1;36:1; | 18;39:23;43:23,25; | 7,12,15 |\n| 52:25;54:10;74:3,4; | periods (1) | 37:1;38:1;39:1;40:1; | 117:11 | purposes (14) |\n| 77:11;87:6;88:18,21; | 79:7 | 41:1;42:1;43:1;44:1, | previous (1) | 25:21;28:19;83:4,5, |\n| 100:10 | permit (1) | 20;45:1;46:1;47:1; | 114:10 | 12;86:21,25;106:12; |\n| | | | | |\n| | 46:4 | 48:1;49:1;50:1;51:1; | previously (1) | 107:2,4,10,13,17,19 |\n| P | person (17) | 52:1;53:1;54:1;55:1,3, | 10:12 | Pursuant (2) |\n| | 13:2;27:8,11,13,16; | 6;56:1,18,23;57:1; | primary (3) | 56:20,25 |\n| Pacific (3) | 28:9;45:21;46:2;93:7, | 58:1,2,7;59:1;60:1; | 79:5,10,19 | put (3) |\n| 7:6;67:17;68:8 | 12,16,23;95:20,24; | 61:1,8;62:1;63:1;64:1; | printout (1) | 55:12;89:18;118:15 |\n| page (21) | 100:7;117:21,24 | 65:1,15,19;66:1;67:1; | 85:3 | |\n| 10:16,24;11:2;20:20, | personal (1) | 68:1;69:1,2,6;70:1; | prior (8) | Q |\n| 20;22:25;29:7;44:20; | 46:23 | 71:1;72:1;73:1;74:1; | 61:6;89:22;92:23; | |\n| 58:16,19;80:8;84:23; | personnel (2) | 75:1,5;76:1;77:1;78:1; | 110:5,10;111:8;120:3; | Qiang (64) |\n| 103:17,25;104:5; | 14:10;17:8 | 79:1;80:1,7;81:1;82:1; | 124:3 | 11:18;12:23,25;13:4, |\n| 109:16,21;110:17; | persons (1) | 83:1;84:1;85:1;86:1; | privilege (3) | 12,13,24;15:23;16:2,9, |\n| 114:7,8,10 | 96:3 | 87:1;88:1;89:1;90:1; | 12:3;91:7,11 | 12;23:25;28:22;32:11, |\n| pages (1) | PHONE (5) | 91:1;92:1;93:1;94:1; | privileged (1) | 11;34:14;36:11;37:5, |\n| 120:23 | 3:8;13:2;36:20,22; | 95:1;96:1;97:1;98:1; | 91:9 | 13,25;38:4,10,12,17, |\n| paid (6) | 96:21 | 99:1;100:1;101:1; | Probably (1) | 24;39:23;40:20,23; |\n| 27:7,15,23;30:17; | Ping (1) | 102:1,25;103:1,4; | 67:2 | 41:8,22;42:5;43:21; |\n| 92:9;93:7 | 75:6 | 104:1;105:1;106:1; | proceeding (2) | 52:4;54:3;70:7;71:12, |\n| par (1) | plaintiff (1) | 107:1;108:1;109:1; | 123:5,7 | 20;72:5;78:24;79:15, |\n| | | | | |\n| 29:24 | 7:5 | 110:1;111:1;112:1,14, | process (4) | 25;83:25;84:7,16,21; |\n| paragraph (5) | Plaintiff's (2) | 17;113:1;114:1;115:1; | 35:9,17;36:13;98:2 | 88:23;94:19,24;95:25; |\n| 22:10;58:17;75:20; | 58:4,9 | 116:1,7;117:1;118:1, | produced (4) | 96:4;99:17,24;100:6; |\n| 80:10,23 | plan (5) | 25;119:1,4,9,11,18,24; | 19:22;22:20;117:14; | 103:20;104:14;112:4, |\n| paraphrasing (1) | 25:5,8,11;82:15; | 120:1;121:1;122:1; | 119:20 | 8,12;114:12;115:9; |\n| 116:16 | 110:21 | 123:1;124:1;125:7,17 | promised (1) | 117:6,18,20,24 |\n| part (1) | please (12) | point (3) | 49:19 | Qiang's (7) |\n| 97:15 | 7:24;10:14,15,23; | 50:10;54:20;67:22 | properties (2) | 66:5;79:10,18;84:11; |\n| particular (2) | 16:18;22:24;29:7,13; | positive (1) | 25:13;42:14 | 104:2,5,11 |\n| 15:23;84:22 | 45:2;52:14;57:3;69:7 | 82:6 | property (5) | |\n| parties (8) | pledge (32) | possess (2) | 75:23;76:9;106:18; | R |\n| 6:5;90:12;104:23; | 26:20,23;51:17,19, | 98:9;99:4 | 107:7;110:20 | |\n| 105:8;110:19,19,23,25 | 23;52:9,17;53:4,9,12, | possible (1) | proprietary (3) | rather (1) |\n| party (1) | 21;54:4,14,17,19,24; | 49:20 | 68:13,19;77:3 | 119:11 |\n| 59:10 | 55:10;57:17;59:22; | Potentially (1) | provide (1) | read (2) |\n| past (2) | 61:17;62:12;63:6; | 91:10 | 50:4 | 22:8;125:8 |\n| 16:3;102:17 | 64:25;66:3,9,19;67:10, | Pre-Judgment (2) | provided (2) | reading (1) |\n| Paul (3) | 16,22;70:4,9;102:21 | 58:5,10 | 116:20;119:9 | 22:9 |\n| 45:19;82:4,5 | pledged (21) | preparation (30) | provides (1) | reads (1) |\n| PAX (1) | 48:10,15,16;49:14; | 12:18,21;16:14; | 29:22 | |\n| | | | | 75:21 |\n| 50:4 | 50:12,19,23,25;51:4, | 21:11;23:17;26:3;27:3; | providing (2) | real (13) |\n| pay (11) | 13;53:22,25;57:23; | 28:3,11;29:20;30:24; | 117:18;118:5 | 24:9,13,16,18,20,25; |\n| 27:19;28:5;30:13; | 59:8,17;61:4,16,23,25; | 32:17,23;38:14;39:14; | Public (3) | 42:19;75:23;76:9;83:6, |\n| 89:10;90:8;93:13,16, | 62:11;63:3 | 45:4;47:22;48:2,8; | 8:3;85:4;125:25 | 12,15;84:15 |\n| 23;100:15,19,23 | pledges (7) | 52:20;53:19;57:10,25; | publicly (4) | really (3) |\n| paying (4) | 67:4;68:18;72:21; | 95:13;97:6;109:13; | 60:5,16;65:2,7 | 42:2;56:10;101:11 |\n| 90:22;91:3,18;93:3 | 73:3,9,14;110:9 | 111:20;115:21;120:15; | purchase (19) | reason (11) |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 42 of 241\n\n| 9:11;21:24;22:19; | 11:24;67:15;112:20 | 15:18 | 26:21;50:20,24;51:5, | service (4) |\n|------------------------|-----------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|\n| 23:13;45:11;64:10; | register (2) | Resolution (9) | 13,24;52:18,21;53:2,5, | 35:9,17;36:13;98:2 |\n| 68:2,6;114:21;116:24; | 39:21;99:6 | 20:22,25;21:9;39:22; | 12,21;55:11;57:17,23; | services (3) |\n| 117:3 | registered (15) | 52:16;53:16;80:19; | 59:9,18,22;61:5,16,25; | 27:21,23;28:6 |\n| recall (27) | 27:22;28:5;33:12; | 81:22,23 | 62:11,13;63:3,6;64:25; | set (2) |\n| 14:21;18:15;43:23, | 35:8,17;36:13,23; | resolutions (1) | 73:10;102:22;110:10; | 116:11;120:23 |\n| 25;67:3,9;71:16;75:14, | 56:19,24;57:5;65:5; | 96:8 | 111:10 | several (5) |\n| 18;85:19;117:22; | 69:3,9;97:25;98:5 | Resolved (1) | Russ (8) | 25:9,12;43:23;78:12; |\n| 118:13;121:6,22; | Registration (4) | 80:19 | 7:12;58:11;60:5,8, | 106:19 |\n| 122:3,6,8,17;123:12, | 55:4,18;65:16,25 | respect (4) | 17;90:16,23;92:15 | shall (1) |\n| 14,16,18;124:3,9,11, | related (1) | 20:17;77:21;78:18; | | 6:10 |\n| 13,15 | 77:5 | 95:8 | S | share (4) |\n| receive (2) | relates (3) | respective (1) | | 29:16;30:7;39:20; |\n| 64:11,14 | 12:17;21:4;76:23 | 6:5 | same (18) | 78:13 |\n| received (3) | relating (8) | respectively (1) | 6:6,16;16:22;55:25; | shareholder (12) |\n| 28:8;64:2,8 | 43:18;65:6;81:23; | 114:13 | 62:4;83:10;85:20;92:6, | 28:14;30:21;31:5,18; |\n| receives (2) | 82:18;91:25;103:7; | responsibility (1) | 16,17;93:12,16,23; | 59:4;66:18;67:11;94:6; |\n| 88:16;99:6 | 115:18;118:15 | 19:12 | 103:25;115:3,13,16,20 | 95:3;99:23;112:22; |\n| Recess (2) | relation (1) | restructured (1) | Sanft (3) | 113:4 |\n| 74:24;116:3 | 119:20 | 70:22 | 45:15;80:19;82:7 | shareholders (3) |\n| recollection (3) | relationship (1) | retained (2) | S-A-N-F-T (1) | 31:8;39:22;94:11 |\n| 13:24;85:21;120:4 | 14:13 | 55:22;56:4 | 45:16 | shares (30) |\n| record (23) | Release (7) | review (28) | SARNOFF (2) | 29:23,23;30:14,18; |\n| 7:22;9:23;11:21; | 56:19,24;57:5;60:4, | 10:9;20:24;22:12; | 86:4;124:18 | 32:15,20;48:21,22,25; |\n| 18:11;28:20;43:17; | 16;69:3,9 | 44:25;53:10;55:9,19; | Satisfaction (10) | 50:24,25;51:3,4,5,8,13, |\n| 56:8;72:24;73:4;74:22; | released (3) | 56:17;60:15;63:11; | 56:19,24;57:5,9; | 17,19,24;53:22,25; |\n| 75:3;78:11;80:15; | 61:17;62:13;63:7 | 65:24;66:10;85:2;86:5; | 64:3,25;69:3,9,11,16 | 54:5,14;76:13;77:12, |\n| 92:12;113:11;115:24; | remember (5) | 103:9;109:7;116:9; | satisfied (1) | 20;78:17;100:10; |\n| 116:2,5;119:3,5; | 13:20;14:17,24;15:4; | 117:2;118:5;120:12; | 67:23 | 101:24;111:10 |\n| 124:21;125:11,12 | 117:23 | 121:16;122:13;123:3, | saw (2) | Sherry (7) |\n| records (17) | removed (1) | 11,15;124:6,8,12 | 121:5,6 | 42:13;43:14;71:24; |\n| 11:16;35:22,25;36:8, | 59:22 | reviewed (31) | saying (2) | 78:13;92:24;96:9; |\n| 10,15;40:7;61:19; | replaced (1) | 11:14,16;21:11; | 107:11;116:8 | 101:14 |\n| 120:17;121:8,10; | 33:18 | 23:17;28:11;29:20; | scope (5) | Sherry-Netherland (83) |\n| 122:4,18;123:12,16; | reporter (2) | 30:15,23;31:17;32:17, | 63:15;65:11;113:8; | 14:20;15:9,13;24:14; |\n| 124:9,13 | 7:17,24 | 22;33:5;38:13;39:6,14; | 115:7;118:19 | 25:14;26:7;31:23;32:7, |\n| refer (4) | representation (1) | 44:17;45:3;47:21,25; | sealing (1) | 13;42:18;50:3;68:20; |\n| 8:15;9:3;28:21;61:6 | 61:3 | 48:7;52:19;53:18; | 6:5 | 70:21;71:5,7,11,14,23; |\n| referenced (1) | representative (9) | 57:10,24;95:13;97:5; | second (1) | 72:10,15;73:12,16,20; |\n| 96:8 | 8:9;9:16;10:3;12:10, | 102:3;116:18;121:2,9, | 114:7 | 74:2;76:2,8,12,14,17, |\n| references (1) | 19;14:2;46:24;77:24; | 25 | secretarial (2) | 20;77:8,12,20;78:17, |\n| 107:8 | 78:15 | reviewing (3) | 27:23;28:6 | 25;79:9,18;80:2;82:11, |\n| referencing (1) | representatives (1) | 42:14;43:20;120:15 | secretary (1) | 18,25;83:16,20;84:3,6, |\n| 117:5 | 42:17 | right (39) | 33:11 | 11,13,20;86:18;87:6, |\n| referred (2) | represented (5) | 8:13;17:8,9;22:14; | Section (7) | 12,18,23,25;88:12; |\n| 105:16;120:14 | 90:16,19;92:6,22; | 29:4;30:8;53:8;61:16; | 23:5;56:20,25;105:6; | 89:11;90:9;91:24; |\n| referring (16) | 104:23 | 62:16;64:5;67:5,12; | 109:15,17;110:18 | 93:14;97:13,20;98:7, |\n| 8:20;15:19;18:21; | representing (3) | 70:4;77:9,14;83:9; | security (2) | 15,25;100:11,16,24; |\n| 27:12;28:16,21,22,23; | 113:2;114:2,5 | 85:8,15;86:10;90:17; | 51:20;54:6 | 101:18,25;102:12; |\n| 42:23;60:25;76:15; | request (9) | 97:2;104:3,15,19; | seeing (12) | 106:20;107:9;108:15, |\n| 85:7;103:7;105:12,15; | 42:24;71:4,10,15,19, | 105:12,17,20;106:5,9, | 43:23;72:5;117:23; | 20;109:3,9;111:23; |\n| 123:8 | 21;72:7,9;73:11 | 15,21,25;107:4,12,17, | 120:4;121:22;122:3, | 112:20,22;113:4; |\n| refers (3) | require (1) | 18,23;108:9;110:12 | 17;123:12,16;124:4,9, | 114:3;118:12,16 |\n| 80:11,25;85:10 | 110:10 | right-hand (1) | 13 | Sherry-Netherland's (1) |\n| reflected (10) | reserved (1) | 103:21 | sell (1) | 68:13 |\n| 25:25;30:16;32:18, | 6:10 | role (20) | 50:3 | short (1) |\n| 24;39:7,13;61:22; | resided (1) | 16:25;17:4,14,16,18, | sense (1) | 33:20 |\n| 95:12;97:4;102:2 | 79:6 | 21,23;18:5,7,12,20,25; | 101:10 | showing (1) |\n| reflects (3) | residence (12) | 19:2,5,8;37:7;38:21; | sentence (4) | 85:23 |\n| 18:11;22:18;114:18 | 14:19;15:7,15;26:7; | 95:7;113:25;118:5 | 22:11;58:25;75:21; | shown (1) |\n| refresh (1) | 50:3;51:22;72:2;79:5, | room (3) | 80:22 | 56:2 |\n| 85:21 | 10,19;102:12;106:25 | 40:2;78:4,12 | sequential (1) | shows (1) |\n| regarding (3) | residences (1) | Roscalitar (30) | 20:15 | 85:6 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 43 of 241\n\n| side (2) | specific (3) | 99:6 | 9,21;75:17;76:16 | 71:5,11,13;73:11; |\n|-------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------|\n| 103:15,21 | 14:25;19:3;42:4 | Stone (3) | testify (6) | 115:19 |\n| signature (9) | specifically (3) | 93:2,3,6 | 10:20;11:4,8;17:7, | transferred (1) |\n| 21:13,14,19,25;45:7; | 41:6;72:11;113:16 | stop (1) | 11;67:25 | 112:8 |\n| 103:15,22;104:2,6 | specify (1) | 38:17 | testimony (15) | transferring (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| signatures (1) | 26:16 | stopped (1) | 9:12;12:9;14:2;16:6; | 70:13;72:13 |\n| 104:11 | speculate (3) | 34:7 | 18:8,15;24:17;57:17; | transfers (1) |\n| signed (12) | 32:4;40:11;52:14 | strike (11) | 65:4;66:16;67:8;75:18; | 73:14 |\n| 6:14,16;15:14;42:15, | speculating (4) | 35:14;37:22;38:7; | 84:9;125:8,11 | trial (1) |\n| 21,24;43:24;104:14, | 31:25;40:9;52:14; | 44:14;50:12;68:6; | third (5) | 6:11 |\n| 17;117:25;118:9; | 79:13 | 78:23;79:16,24;97:14; | 59:9;81:22;110:19, | true (18) |\n| 125:20 | speculation (1) | 101:3 | 23,24 | 21:7,12;29:18;55:17, |\n| signing (1) | 108:24 | structure (2) | though (1) | 25;57:7;59:24;60:12, |\n| | | | | |\n| 41:20 | spent (4) | 14:9,11 | 95:2 | 20;61:14;66:8;69:15; |\n| sit (1) | 27:21;42:7;87:14,24 | submitted (1) | thought (2) | 73:19;74:9;75:24; |\n| 44:2 | spoke (7) | 75:7 | 24:18;42:15 | 112:5;125:10,12 |\n| sitting (2) | 11:18,18,19;13:14; | subscribed (1) | three (5) | trust (7) |\n| 77:25;78:4 | 15:10;16:5;70:8 | 125:20 | 58:23;74:21;104:7, | 73:17;102:9,17; |\n| situated (2) | Spring (9) | subtracted (2) | 10,11 | 103:2,6,10;108:2 |\n| 106:19;107:8 | 88:16,18,19,21,25; | 25:22;87:2 | times (1) | trustee (10) |\n| six (2) | 89:15,17;90:8;100:14 | sued (1) | 62:5 | 107:21,25;109:15, |\n| 58:23;62:5 | SPV (10) | 91:23 | title (2) | 17,22,24;110:19,22,22; |\n| | | | | |\n| sleep (1) | 105:17,19,25;106:4, | suggesting (1) | 15:12;23:3 | 111:7 |\n| 80:4 | 15;107:6,12,22;110:3,4 | 111:16 | today (47) | truthful (1) |\n| slept (1) | ss (1) | Support (2) | 7:17,20;8:16;9:13; | 9:12 |\n| 79:25 | 125:4 | 7:15,19 | 10:21;11:5;12:9,19; | try (6) |\n| slower (1) | stamp (4) | Supreme (1) | 21:11;23:17;26:3;27:3; | 13:6;60:7,19;62:20; |\n| 64:23 | 75:8;121:14;122:25; | 7:8 | 28:3,12;29:20;30:24; | 73:7;79:23 |\n| SN74 (1) | 123:19 | Sure (14) | 31:18;32:17,23;33:5; | trying (1) |\n| 114:8 | Stamped (4) | 12:4;15:12;19:23; | 38:14,16;45:4;47:22; | 62:22 |\n| | | | | |\n| sold (2) | 20:7,22;29:8;44:23 | 40:2;43:17;58:20; | 48:2,8;52:20;53:19; | turn (2) |\n| 48:3;101:20 | stamps (4) | 66:17;72:24;73:6;82:5; | 56:2;57:11,25;74:18; | 74:3,4 |\n| sole (31) | 19:24;119:15,25; | 92:15;98:16;113:18; | 75:13;77:25;78:15; | two (10) |\n| 28:14;30:20,25;31:5; | 122:11 | 119:6 | 95:13;102:3;109:13; | 8:9;13:16;16:17; |\n| 32:25;44:5,10;45:5; | stands (1) | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | swear (1) | 111:21;114:20;116:8; | 20:17;26:23;37:19; |\n| 46:12;59:4;66:17,18; | 105:19 | 7:24 | 119:10;120:3,14; | 58:22;75:2;93:8; |\n| 67:11,12;80:11,13,16; | start (3) | sworn (3) | 121:9,23;124:3 | 107:23 |\n| 81:3,7,10,18;84:17,18; | 10:15;12:7;119:2 | 6:14;8:2;75:8 | today's (6) | type (1) |\n| 94:5,12;95:2,3,20,22; | starts (2) | system (2) | 7:12;39:14;97:5; | 42:7 |\n| 99:22,23 | 58:17,25 | 85:5;123:6 | 115:21;121:3;124:20 | typewritten (1) |\n| someone (1) | State (6) | | together (1) | 21:20 |\n| 71:24 | 7:8;46:6;85:3,4; | T | 20:11 | typically (1) |\n| somewhere (2) | 125:3,25 | | told (5) | 35:2 |\n| 15:7;53:11 | statement (9) | | 13:20,24;15:6;19:4; | |\n| | | talk (1) | | |\n| son (13) | 59:24;60:9,11,18,20, | 114:19 | 85:22 | U |\n| 12:24;13:7;15:21,24; | 25;61:9,13;75:24 | talked (2) | took (2) | |\n| 24:2;28:23;32:11; | statements (1) | 72:21;73:10 | 64:11,13 | UBS (2) |\n| 70:23;71:7,12;73:13; | 118:11 | talking (6) | top (7) | 40:8,12 |\n| 84:2;99:13 | States (2) | 9:7;38:9;48:18,18; | 29:8;35:24;59:13; | ultimately (5) |\n| Sorry (10) | 24:19;25:2 | 69:12;120:7 | 71:16;105:8;123:4,22 | 24:15;25:13;31:22; |\n| 13:5;26:19;57:6; | stayed (1) | tape (2) | topic (1) | 32:5;51:21 |\n| 62:6;65:21;72:23; | 115:3 | 74:21;75:2 | 17:9 | under (4) |\n| 74:17;103:16;109:17; | Stevenson (6) | telephone (1) | topics (10) | 22:4;29:9;110:11; |\n| | | | | |\n| 111:4 | 112:15,18;113:2,24, | 13:9 | 10:18,21,25;11:5,9, | 125:9 |\n| sound (1) | 25;114:8 | terms (2) | 15;12:12,19;13:17; | underneath (1) |\n| 92:3 | still (7) | 29:3;63:15 | 14:6 | 21:18 |\n| sounds (1) | 34:10,11,12;38:12; | terrace (1) | total (1) | undersigned (2) |\n| 53:10 | 61:23;67:11;109:16 | 92:2 | 30:6 | 22:3,13 |\n| speak (2) | STIPULATED (3) | Territory (1) | transaction (1) | Understood (2) |\n| 12:25;13:7 | 6:3,8,12 | 23:3 | 49:21 | 12:4;73:2 |\n| special (5) | STIPULATIONS (1) | testified (11) | transcript (2) | United (2) |\n| 105:19,24;106:18,
24;107:7 | 6:1
stock (1) | 8:3;18:6;50:10;
53:20;64:2;66:4;67:3, | 125:8,10
transfer (5) | 24:19;25:2
units (1) |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. VS. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 44 of 241\n\n| 106:19 | 75:6,6 | 15:8,16;16:21,21;17:2, | 29:23 | 112:3,15,19;114:17; |\n|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|\n| unless (1) | way (6) | 8,14,16,18,22,24;18:8, | 10 (2) | 115:4 |\n| 110:4 | 29:2;50:6;63:25; | 13,21,25;19:6,10,13; | 112:14,18 | 2017 (9) |\n| unofficial (3) | 101:3;102:6;112:11 | 24:11;26:6,10;43:7,19; | 100 (2) | 57:6,18,22;59:23; |\n| 17:23;18:4,20 | weeks (1) | 44:6,11,14,16;46:2,5,6, | 51:5;115:10 | 61:18;62:14;63:8; |\n| unrelated (1) | 90:17 | 6,13;47:4,8,11,15,20, | 11 (1) | 64:18;65:2 |\n| 59:9 | Wei (11) | 24;48:4,20;49:7,9; | 7:13 | 2018 (17) |\n| up (6) | 31:20;32:5,7,14,20; | 50:2,6;51:2,9,10; | 12 (3) | 59:14;60:12,23; |\n| 24:15;30:11;32:12; | 51:16,18;52:21,23; | 56:15;63:11;71:6; | 45:6;69:10;85:24 | 61:15,22,25;62:11; |\n| 84:12;90:16;123:4 | 95:7,10 | 72:14;73:15;74:4; | 12th (1) | 63:3;66:2;69:10;75:7; |\n| | | | | |\n| USA (1) | Weiss (3) | 76:10;77:13;80:12,14; | 21:2 | 88:10;89:5,8,12,23; |\n| 59:7 | 45:19;82:4,5 | 81:4,8,11;82:8,9,16,24; | 13 (3) | 90:4 |\n| US-based (2) | welcome (1) | 83:8,11,14,18;84:10, | 23:20;86:7,9 | 2019 (1) |\n| 24:8,10 | 20:5 | 19;85:3,8,11,11,17; | 14 (1) | 7:13 |\n| used (1) | weren't (1) | 86:9,16,23;87:4,10,14, | 66:2 | 20-year-old (1) |\n| 100:19 | 116:20 | 24;88:4,17,18;89:5,10, | 145 (1) | 71:25 |\n| using (1) | What's (2) | 16,18,22;90:3,11,15, | 86:3 | 21 (1) |\n| 29:3 | 83:24;101:4 | 22;91:23;92:5;93:4; | 15 (2) | 55:12 |\n| | who's (2) | 94:6,10,13,21;95:8,11, | 58:20;75:8 | 24 (2) |\n| V | 36:9;95:24 | 14,18;96:3,10,15,18, | 16 (9) | 74:15;75:12 |\n| | Whose (6) | 21,24;97:7,22;98:5,9; | 59:14;60:12,23; | |\n| value (2) | 48:22;71:18;100:14; | 99:3,9,15,18,25;100:7, | 61:15,25;62:11;63:3; | 3 |\n| 29:24;30:6 | 103:15,19,22 | 8,14,20;101:2,6,16,20; | 75:7,9 | |\n| various (4) | Williams (2) | 102:5,10;104:18; | 165 (2) | 3 (17) |\n| 20:2,16;42:15,21 | 45:19;82:4 | 105:16;106:4,9,15,17, | 56:20,25 | 17:9;20:6,10,12,13; |\n| vehicle (5) | within (6) | 23;107:16;108:8,8,14; | 17 (10) | 44:20;56:3,11,13;80:6; |\n| 105:20,25;106:18, | 6:13;20:2;83:9; | 113:12,15,20;116:11; | 57:6,18,22;59:23; | 84:24;86:4;106:14; |\n| 24;107:7 | 120:16;121:8;122:4 | 117:19,22;118:2,6; | 61:18;62:13;63:8; | 109:15,17;119:11,11 |\n| versus (1) | witness (6) | 120:13;121:7,11; | 85:12;86:10;103:11 | 3.4 (1) |\n| 7:7 | 7:25;8:2;32:3;40:11; | 122:5,19;123:24;124:9 | 176 (1) | 109:24 |\n| via (1) | 43:5;52:13 | York's (18) | 20:20 | 30 (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 51:17 | Wong (5) | 68:19;77:24;78:15; | 178 (1) | 58:20 |\n| vice (1) | 112:15,19;113:2,25; | 81:11,19,19;89:19; | 84:23 | 30b6 (4) |\n| 15:11 | 114:8 | 90:7;91:4,18;94:7,14; | 18th (11) | 11:24;65:11;113:8; |\n| Videographer (8) | Wong's (1) | 97:14,18;98:17,18; | 76:24;77:4,21;78:18, | 118:19 |\n| 3:14;7:3;9:22;74:20, | 113:25 | 102:16;123:11 | 25;82:18;97:15,19; | |\n| 25;115:25;116:4; | word (1) | young (2) | 106:20,25;107:8 | 4 |\n| 124:19 | 19:7 | 84:8,21 | 194 (2) | |\n| videotaped (1) | words (2) | YVETTE (7) | 20:8;44:23 | 4 (17) |\n| 7:4 | 21:19;93:12 | 3:13;11:19;13:11; | | 55:3,7,20;56:3,9; |\n| violation (1) | work (1) | 16:6;18:22;75:6;118:5 | 2 | 107:20;112:15,19; |\n| 68:18 | 55:15 | | | 114:16;115:3;119:24; |\n| Virgin (4) | writes (1) | Z | 2 (37) | 120:6,19,20,23,24,25 |\n| 22:5;23:4;34:25; | 114:8 | | 9:19;10:2,4,11,24; | 4:25 (1) |\n| 98:19 | written (10) | Zhang (11) | 26:21;50:20,24;51:5, | 74:23 |\n| virtue (2) | 7:21;44:22;45:5,22; | 31:20;32:5,7,14,20; | 13,24;52:18,21;53:2,5, | 4:38 (1) |\n| 51:7;59:6 | 46:11;50:4;110:5,10; | 51:16,18;52:21,23; | 12;55:11;56:3;57:17, | 75:3 |\n| visited (1) | 111:8,16 | 95:7,10 | 23;59:9,18,22;61:5,16, | |\n| 79:21 | | | 25;62:11,13;63:3,6; | 5 |\n| | Y | 0 | 73:10;75:20;102:22; | |\n| W | | | 105:7,23;110:10; | 5 (3) |\n| | Yan (1) | 001 (3) | 111:11 | 56:18,22;121:14 |\n| waived (1) | 75:6 | 29:24;30:2,3 | 2:59 (1) | 5:27 (1) |\n| 6:7 | year (3) | 07960 (1) | 9:23 | 116:2 |\n| Wan (6) | 64:11;65:5;89:7 | 3:6 | 2004 (2) | 5:36 (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 7:7;21:18,20;45:7; | years (1) | | 23:5;29:10 | 116:5 |\n| 112:21;114:12 | 91:24 | 1 | 2015 (32) | 5:46 (2) |\n| WANG (8) | yes-or-no (1) | | 21:3;23:21;37:10,12, | 124:21,23 |\n| 3:13;11:19;13:11; | 93:21 | 1 (9) | 14,24,25;38:5,15;45:6; | 50 (6) |\n| 16:6;17:13;18:22;19:4; | York (172) | 9:15,25;10:2,9,15; | 53:8;55:12;59:5;61:5; | 112:6,9;114:11,12, |\n| 118:5 | 7:9,9;8:16,20;9:17; | 17:9;56:3;109:16; | 79:14,15,17,21;80:2; | 17;115:12 |\n| Wang's (5)
16:25;17:4;18:12; | 10:4,10;11:8,17;13:19;
14:8,10,12,14,16,20; | 110:17
1,000 (1) | 85:12;86:7,9,10;87:5;
100:6;103:11;111:22; | 543 (2)
103:17;110:18 |\n\n| 544 (1) | | |\n|----------------------|--|--|\n| 103:25 | | |\n| 545 (1) | | |\n| 104:5 | | |\n| 55 (1) | | |\n| 3:5 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| 6 | | |\n| | | |\n| 6 (5) | | |\n| 58:2,8;110:18;122:9, | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 60,000 (1) | | |\n| 101:14 | | |\n| 652077/2017 (1) | | |\n| 7:10 | | |\n| | | |\n| 7 | | |\n| | | |\n| 7 (5) | | |\n| 23:5;65:15,18,22; | | |\n| 122:25 | | |\n| 781 (1) | | |\n| 97:11 | | |\n| | | |\n| 8 | | |\n| | | |\n| 8 (4) | | |\n| 69:2,5;123:19,22 | | |\n| | | |\n| 9 | | |\n| | | |\n| 9 (6) | | |\n| 16:4;58:16,19,20; | | |\n| 102:25;103:5 | | |\n| 914-760-8963 (1) | | |\n| 3:8 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 46 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 14**\n\n![](_page_46_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_46_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n**CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC**\n\nONE BOLAND DRIVE WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052\n\n**LEE VARTAN** lvartan@csglaw.com (O) 973.530.2107 (F) 973.530.2307\n\nJune 7, 2021\n\n**Via email and regular mail – emoss@omm.com** Edward Moss, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nRe: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al. Index No. 652077/2017 Superior Court of the State of Delaware Subpoena K21M-04-001 NEP\n\nDear Mr. Moss:\n\nI write in follow-up to our previous conversations concerning your subpoena to my client, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK International\"). As we discussed, HK International was formed in September 2018 as a Delaware limited liability company. Its sole member is Ms. Mei Guo, and its sole asset is the Lady May yacht, which it has owned since April 2020. Documents bearing Bates Nos. HKI-0001 through HKI-0013, which reflect the foregoing, are included with this letter. They are responsive to Requests 14-16 of your subpoena.\n\nHK International is continuing its search for documents responsive to your subpoena, but so far has found little. As we discussed, HK International has no directors, officers, or employees; has no dedicated e-mail server or e-mail suffix; does not file tax returns; and has no bank account and is not otherwise \"capitalized.\" (*See* Request 17). As promised, I did endeavor to determine how, without a bank account, HK International is able to maintain the Lady May and pay for its staff and crew. I can confirm that all expenses for the Lady May yacht, including staff, crew, and maintenance, are paid by Golden Spring New York. I understand from our conversation that Justice Ostrager ordered Golden Spring New York to provide your client with access to its books and records; HK International does not have access to those books and records.\n\nFinally, notwithstanding that HK International has no dedicated e-mail server or e-mail suffix, to the extent HK International has communications with Captain Heaslop (*see* Request 2) or communications with the Debtor (*see* Request 4), *concerning its sole asset, the Lady May*, HK International will provide those communications.\n\nEdward Moss, Esq. June 7, 2021 Page 2\n\nPlease contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter.\n\nSincerely,\n\n*/s/ Lee Vartan*\n\nLee Vartan Member\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 49 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 15**\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 L.P., | | |\n| | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff,
-
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| KWOK 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, GENEVER HOLDINGS
LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 007 |\n| | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n\nDefendants.\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nBefore the Court is plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"Pacific Alliance\") motion for partial summary judgement on Count I of the Amended Complaint against defendant Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") and defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument on motion 006. The Court heard oral argument via Skype on September 14, 2020. Based on the papers submitted and the arguments made on the record of September 14, 2020, and for the reasons that follow, Pacific Alliance's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and Kwok's motion for reargument on motion 006 is denied.\n\n## **Background**\n\nIn 2008, Pacific Alliance entered into an agreement with Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit\"), one of Kwok's business entities, under which Pacific Alliance provided Spirit with a loan facility in the principal amount of \\$30 million. Kwok executed a personal Guarantee of the loan. In September 2009, Spirit executed a deed under which Shiny Times Holdings Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), a business listing Kwok as its sole shareholder and director, assumed\n\nthe loan debt that Spirit owed to Pacific Alliance. Kwok again executed a personal guarantee in favor of Pacific Alliance to secure Shiny Times' repayment obligation.\n\nIn March 2011, Pacific Alliance and Shiny Times entered into a new loan facility (\"2011 Loan Facility\") that expressly superseded and replaced the 2009 Deed of Settlement and a 2010 Letter Agreement. Simultaneously, Kwok entered into a new personal guarantee (\"2011 Personal Guarantee\") which expressly superseded the 2009 Guarantee. The 2011 Personal Guarantee is the operative agreement in this action.\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement, whereby the outstanding loan amount would no longer be due and owing to Pacific Alliance if Pacific Alliance purchased certain apartments from Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another Kwok business entity, and Shiny Times' made certain installment payments to Pacific Alliance. Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the sale and purchase of each of the apartments by Pacific Alliance. If any such condition was not satisfied by June of 2013, the Deed of Settlement would be terminated in its entirety. Pacific Alliance and Kwok subsequently executed four extensions of the Deed of Settlement, changing only the date by which the conditions precedent needed to be satisfied. The latest Deed of Settlement required that the conditions precedent be satisfied by June of 2015.\n\nPacific Alliance seeks summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint which alleges that Kwok failed to satisfy the conditions precedent by June of 2015 and thus, per the terms of the agreement, the Deed of Settlement was terminated in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee again controlled.\n\nThe Court recently held, in response to Pacific Alliance's motion for sanctions, that Kwok was judicially estoppel from challenging the authenticity of documents that Kwok had\n\n2\n\npreviously sponsored in proceedings before this Court. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 404. Specifically, at his November 2019 deposition, Kwok denied having signed several agreements discussed above, including the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the 2013 Deed of Settlement, and the four Supplemental Deeds. Kwok testified that the documents were forgeries. On the motion for contempt, Pacific Alliance argued, and the Court found, that these denials were inconsistent with the positions Kwok had taken throughout the duration of this 2017 case. As such, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of these agreements in opposition to Pacific Alliance's motion for summary judgment or at trial.\n\n#### **Kwok's Cross-Motion**\n\nTurning first to defendant Kwok's cross-motion for leave to reargue the Court's Decision and Order dated July 7, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 404), this motion is denied. As stated above, the Court held that Kwok was judicially estopped from challenging the authenticity of the agreements that Kwok had previously sponsored as authentic before the Court in this proceeding. Kwok argues that the Court misapprehended the law in reaching this holding. This Court rejects that argument in its entirety.\n\nAt the outset of this case, Kwok moved to dismiss this action on *forum non conveniens* grounds (motion 001). The Court granted Kwok's motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102), which decision was subsequently reversed and remitted by the First Department (NYSCEF Doc. 121). In making his motion to dismiss, Kwok argued that the contracts at issue were governed by Hong Kong law. Specifically, Kwok attached to his motion \"true and correct\" copies of several agreements among the parties including the 2011 Personal Guarantee (NYSCEF Doc. No. 17) and the 2013 Deed of Settlement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18), which he now contests.\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 53 of 241\n\nKwok now argues that because the thrust of his argument on the motion to dismiss and the Court's decision related to *forum non conveniens,* (1) he is not actually changing his position on the authenticity of the documents, and (2) the Court did not actually determine the authenticity of the documents. This argument is incorrect. Kwok's assertion that the case should have been dismissed in favor of a resolution in Hong Kong *because the agreements on their face are governed by Hong Kong law* necessarily required an argument by Kwok, and an acceptance by the Court, that the agreements were authentic and not forgeries, as Kwok now claims.\n\nKwok further argues that in any event judicial estoppel cannot apply because there was no final determination on the merits on the issue of whether the contracts were authentic, because the First Department reversed this Court's decision on the motion to dismiss. This argument is not supported by the case law in the First Department. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine used to prevent a party from changing its position during the same litigation. *See e.g. Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000) (\"[u]nder the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.\"). Indeed, because judicial estoppel is used to prevent parties from changing their position in the same litigation – a final determination *cannot* be a prerequisite for judicial estoppel. *See id* (precluding the landlord from relying on a different lease on appeal than had been relied on at the trial-court level in the same proceeding).\n\nAdditionally, the Court notes that Kwok never pleaded that the documents were forgeries in either of his Answers, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g., Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C*., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995) (granting a motion for leave to amend the pleadings to add affirmative defense of forgery); *Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino,* 71 A.D.2d\n\n4\n\n836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979) (holding that \"proof of defendants' handwriting was material in light of their affirmative defense of forgery\").\n\nKwok's recent, uncorroborated assertion that the agreements are forgeries is inconsistent with his prior position in this litigation – and therefore provides an appropriate basis for judicial estoppel. Accordingly, Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied, and the agreements previously sponsored by Kwok are accepted as authentic for the purpose of evaluating plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.\n\n#### **Pacific Alliance's Motion**\n\nThe Court is granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Pacific Alliance holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract under the 2011 Personal Guarantee. By the plain terms of the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the failure to satisfy the conditions precedent to the settlement by June 30, 2015, would result in reverting to the 2011 Personal Guarantee being in full force and effect. *See* NYSCEF Doc. 461.\n\n> **Clause 3.4:** Reversion of the Facility Letter after 31 July 2013. In the event that all conditions precedent set out in Clause 3.2 for all Apartments have not been satisfied by 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing[ here, 30 June 2015, per the fourth and final supplemental Deed of Settlement]), **then the entire settlement as contemplated under this Deed shall be terminated and the Parties acknowledge that the Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately** after 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing) and Shiny Times shall be obliged to settle the Total Outstanding Amount and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter. (emphasis added).\n\n*See also* NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 \"Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement\" (changing the date to satisfy the conditions precedent to \"30 June 2015\").\n\nPlaintiff Pacific Alliance has shown, and defendant Kwok has failed to refute, that several of the conditions precedent in the 2013 Deed of Settlement were not fulfilled. Namely, defendant Kwok failed to deliver clean title, failed to provide plaintiff with an invoice for the\n\n5\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 55 of 241\n\npurchase of the apartments, failed to provide plaintiff with evidence regarding the payment of all relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and failed to deliver the House Ownership Certificates of any of the Apartments to plaintiff. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i).\n\nKwok does not dispute that these conditions were never satisfied. Instead, in opposition, Kwok argues that plaintiff Pacific Alliance failed to mitigate its damages when it allegedly did not act on an opportunity to potentially seize the three apartments with the aid of Beijing police.\n\nFirst, even taking Kwok's version of events as true, mitigation speaks to damages, not liability, and thus these events would not preclude partial summary judgment on liability. Second, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence sponsored by both parties, the alleged opportunity to take possession of the three apartments with the aid of police only came up *after* June 2015, and thus the 2013 Deed of Settlement had already been nullified in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in full force and effect. Third, Kwok has never pleaded, in either of his Answers, mitigation, which is an affirmative defense. *See e.g. Eskenazi v. Mackoul,* 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010) (referring to \"the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages\").\n\nFinally, under Hong Kong law, a party is only required to act *reasonably* to mitigate damages. *See* Affirmation of Vishal Prakash Melwani at ¶17.2 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 535) *and see* Affirmation of Phillip Loukis Georgiou (NYSCEF Doc. No. 498) at ¶¶ 18.3 and 21. The record currently indicates that to take advantage of the alleged offer of the Beijing Police, Pacific Alliance would have needed to pay RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million] per unit to get them released. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288. The prospect of paying approximately \\$16 million for assets that the parties had agreed would be transferred free of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 56 of 241\n\ncharge to settle a debt would likely not have qualified as a *reasonable* opportunity to mitigate\n\ndamages under Hong Kong law. Nevertheless, the Court reserves decision as to the issue of\n\ndamages.\n\nUnder the 2011 Personal Guarantee\n\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally. . . guarantee[d] to PAX [Pacific Alliance] the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Facility] and agree[d] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]bligations that are due but unpaid\";\n- Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally agree[d] (as primary obligor and not only as surety) to indemnify and hold harmless PAX on demand from and against any and all losses incurred by PAX as a result of any [o]bligation [of Shiny Times] being or becoming void, voidable, unenforceable, or ineffective as against Shiny Times for any reason whatsoever . . . .\";\n- Kwok agreed that his \"obligations . . . under this Guarantee shall constitute and be continuing obligations which shall not be released or discharged by any intermediate payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Loan Facility] or any of them, shall continue in full force and effect until the unconditional and irrevocable payment and discharge in full of [those o]bligations and are in addition to and independent of, and shall not prejudice or merge with, any other security (or any right of setoff) which PAX may at any time hold in respect of [those o]bligations or any of them;\"\n- PAX was permitted to seek recourse against Kwok as primary obligor without first enforcing the debt against Shiny Times; and\n- Kwok agreed to a catchall waiver of any defenses based on \"any other act, event or omission which might operate to discharge, impair or otherwise affect the Guarantor or any of the Obligations or any of the rights, powers, and remedies conferred upon [PAX LP] by this Guarantee or by law.\"\n\nKwok does not argue that either he or Shiny Times made any payments under the 2011 Loan\n\nFacility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee to satisfy the debt. Accordingly, the Court finds Kwok\n\nliable for breach of the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\n## **Conclusion**\n\nThe remaining issue in the action – Count II of the Amended Complaint – seeks to hold\n\ntwo of Kwok's companies—Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation— liable\n\nfor Kwok's debt to Pacific Alliance as alter egos. This action was scheduled for a jury trial on October 5, 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court is unable to have a jury trial on that date and the trial is rescheduled for January 15, 2021.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that defendant Kwok's cross-motion for reargument is denied; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint is granted in favor of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. and against Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a Kwok Ho, a/ka, GWO Wen Gui, a/ka/ Gui Wengui, a/ka/ Guo Wen-Gui, a/ka/ Wan Gue Haoyun a/k/a Miles Kwok a/ka/ Haoyun Guo to the extent of holding defendant Kwok liable for breach of contract; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall move no later than October 14, 2020 by notice of motion returnable in the Submissions Part to establish damages on Count I by presenting affidavits on personal knowledge and evidence in admissible form as to the principal amount due and owing under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the rate of interest applicable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, and the date from which interest is accruing, so that the Clerk of Court may calculate the total amount due and owing as of the date of entry of judgment; and it is further\n\nORDERED that plaintiff shall simultaneously move for an award of legal fees and expenses, setting forth the document which plaintiff is relying on and attaching invoices for services rendered; and it is further\n\nORDERED that the parties appear for a status conference on December 22, 2020 at 10:20\n\nam.\n\nDated: September 15, 2020\n\n| CHECK ONE: | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|--------|---|-----------------------|-----------|\n| | GRANTED | DENIED | X | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | SETTLE ORDER | | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 59 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 16**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 60 of 241\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 L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 009 |\n| | GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE | | |\n| | HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | | |\n| GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS | | | |\n| CORPORATION, | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nThe Court heard oral argument on motion 009 by plaintiff for damages on December 18, 2020 via Microsoft Teams. In accordance with the documents submitted and the proceedings on the record, plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent of awarding plaintiff damages of \\$46,426,489.00 (unpaid principal) plus contractual interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010. *See* Aff. of Jon Lewis made on personal knowledge (NYSCEF Doc. No. 563).\n\n## **Procedural History**\n\nOn September 15, 2020, the Court issued a Decision and Order on Motion 007, plaintiff's motion for summary judgement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 549). The Court found Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") liable for breach of contract, specifically the 2011 Personal Guarantee entered into by the parties. In this Decision and Order, the Court expressed skepticism about Kwok's newly raised mitigation argument but reserved ruling on the issue until the Court determined damages. The Court directed plaintiff to file a motion setting forth both damages pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee and attorney's fees which the Court expressly found that plaintiff is entitled\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 61 of 241\n\nto under the contract. The issue of damages, and whether the Court should pierce the corporate veil and hold the Genever defendants liable remained outstanding.\n\nBecause the veil piercing issue will require a trial by jury, the Court asked plaintiff to withdraw the portion of Motion 009 which sought attorney's fees, and to renew it at the resolution of the entire action. Plaintiff agreed to do so, and thus this motion only addresses the damages portion of Motion 009.\n\nThe initial briefing on this motion included a cross-motion by defendant Kwok to amend his Answer to assert mitigation as an affirmative defense. In its November 12, 2020 Status Conference Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 648) the Court directed that Kwok need not amend his Answer to argue his mitigation defense. Accordingly, this Decision and Order addresses the merits of plaintiff's motion for damages and Kwok's mitigation defense.\n\n#### **Discussion**\n\nAs the Court had already found Kwok liable under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, plaintiff filed a straightforward motion setting forth the interest owed on the unpaid principal pursuant to the terms of the agreement. In opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff had a duty to mitigate its damages, specifically by pursuing an offer from the Beijing police to potentially sell apartments to plaintiff – the same apartments that Kwok was supposed to transfer to plaintiff to satisfy his debt owed to plaintiff.\n\nAs stated in the Decision and Order on Motion 007 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 549):\n\nIn April 2013, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement, whereby the outstanding loan amount would no longer be due and owing to Pacific Alliance if Pacific Alliance purchased certain apartments from Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\"), another Kwok business entity, and Shiny Times' made certain installment payments to Pacific Alliance Beijing Pangu was required to satisfy ten conditions precedent in connection with the sale and purchase of each of the apartments by Pacific Alliance. If any such condition was not satisfied by June of 2013, the Deed of Settlement would be terminated in its entirety. Pacific Alliance\n\nand Kwok subsequently executed four extensions of the Deed of Settlement, changing only the date by which the conditions precedent needed to be satisfied. The latest Deed of Settlement required that the conditions precedent be satisfied by June of 2015. . . . [S]everal of the conditions precedent in the 2013 Deed of Settlement were not fulfilled. Namely, defendant Kwok failed to deliver clean title, failed to provide plaintiff with an invoice for the purchase of the apartments, failed to provide\n\nplaintiff with evidence regarding the payment of all relevant taxes and charges in connection with the sale and purchase of the apartments, and failed to deliver the House Ownership Certificates of any of the Apartments to plaintiff. . . .\n\nBecause the conditions precedent were not satisfied by June 30, 2015 the Deed of Settlement was terminated and its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was once again in full force and effect.\n\nDefendants first argue that plaintiff had a duty to mitigate its damages \"once the Deed of Settlement was breached.\" However, the Deed of Settlement was never \"breached\" because the Deed of Settlement never went into effect, because the conditions precedent were not satisfied by June 30, 2015. Defendants argue that the conditions listed above were not conditions precedent, because \"the Deed of Settlement was not conditioned upon anything happening before it could come into full force and effect\" (*See* Def. Sur-Reply at p. 7). The Court rejects this argument raised for the first time in defendants' sur-reply. Defendants had until June 30, 2015 to satisfy the conditions precent. Failure to meet the conditions prior to June 30, 2015 was not a breach of the agreement, and on June 30, 2015, the failure to meet the conditions precedent resulted in the nullification of the Deed of Settlement and reversion to the 2011 Personal Guarantee, not a \"breach\" of the agreement.\n\nDefendants next argue that there are genuine issues of material fact that would show plaintiff had the opportunity to mitigate its damages prior to the expiration of the Deed of Settlement. First, the Court has already found – based on documentary evidence submitted by both parties – that the opportunity presented by the Beijing police only came up *after* June 2015\n\n3\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 63 of 241\n\nwhen the Deed of Settlement had already expired. *See* NYSCEF Doc. No. 549 at p. 6. Second, it does not make a difference as a matter of law when the police presented the opportunity to plaintiff. If it was prior to June 30, 2015, then plaintiff did not know whether or not Kwok would fulfill the conditions precedent and transfer plaintiff the apartments, and thus there was nothing to mitigate and no reason to pursue alternative methods of procuring the apartments. If it was after June 30, 2015, the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in effect, and under Hong Kong law, mitigation is inapplicable to a debt-repayment claims. Both plaintiff and Kwok's experts in Hong Kong law affirm this. *See* Melwani Aff. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 640) at ¶ 10 (\"the Court of Final Appeal … has confirmed … that mitigation is not applicable to claims for repayment of a debt\") *and* Georgiou Aff. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 667) at ¶ 7 (\"I agree with Mr. Melwani that the principle of mitigation does not apply to a claim for repayment of a debt where that claim is made under a . . . personal guarantee.\").\n\nDefendants further argue that plaintiff had an obligation to pursue the offer from the Beijing police because plaintiff was allegedly being presented with an opportunity to receive the benefit it had bargained for under the Deed of Settlement – the apartments. As stated above, plaintiff did not have an obligation to pursue mitigation of a debt-repayment claim. However, even if plaintiff did have a duty to mitigate, as the Court has already found, plaintiff is only ever required to *reasonably* mitigate damages. The proposal to purchase the apartments from the Beijing police for \\$17 M, when plaintiff was supposed have the apartments transferred to it for zero dollars (in satisfaction of a debt) is hardly receiving the benefit for which plaintiff had bargained.\n\nFinally, defendants argue that plaintiff has possession of the keys to the apartments, and that that must be worth something to offset the contractual damages under the 2011 Personal\n\n4\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 64 of 241\n\nGuarantee. Defendants cite no legal authority for this contention. While this type of conclusory assertion is insufficient to bar judgment as a matter of law, the Court notes that even under the Deed of Settlement, plaintiff did not bargain for mere possession of the apartments, and instead plaintiff bargained for clean title so that it could legally sell the apartments in satisfaction of the debt Kwok owed plaintiff. *See* Pl. Reply Memo at p. 11.\n\nIn conclusion, Kwok's mitigation argument is without merit and plaintiff is entitled to contractual damages and interest under the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\n\nThe Court notes that plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for veil piercing against the Genever defendants must still be tried. A trial on the remaining claim was set for January 15, 2021. The parties have submitted a stipulation requesting to adjourn the trial without a date, in light of (1) the present prohibition on jury trials in New York State due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and (2) the bankruptcy stay against one of the Genever defendants. This request is granted. A status conference is scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am to report on the status of the Genever bankruptcy.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. and against defendant Kwok Ho Wan in the amount of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order.\n\nDecember 18, 2020 **\\$SIG\\$**\n\n**DATE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C.**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 65 of 241\n\n![](_page_64_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 66 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 17**\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 141 Filed 10/08/21 Entered 10/08/21 14:04:00 Main Document Pg 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 67 of 241\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------x In re: Chapter 11\n\nGenever Holdings LLC, Case No. 20-12411 (JLG)\n\nDebtor.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------x\n\n## **ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR'S SECOND RENEWED MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT**\n\nUpon the Debtor's renewed motion (ECF No 131) (the \"**Renewed Motion**\") of Genever Holdings LLC, (the \"**Debtor**\") seeking approval of a certain settlement agreement between the Debtor, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"**PAX**\") and Bravo Luck Limited ( \"**Bravo Luck**\") (ECF No. 62); and upon the opposition to the Renewed Motion filed by the Office of the U.S. Trustee via a motion for the appointment of an Operating Chapter 11 Trustee (ECF No. 64) (the \"**UST Opposition**\"); and upon the supplemental responses filed by the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck relating to the UST Opposition (ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106); and a series of hearings having been held before the undersigned; and upon the record compiled at these hearings; and the Court having considered the UST Opposition; and upon the September 1, 2021, decision (the \"September 1, 2021 Decision\") in which the undersigned determined that the Restated Settlement meets the standards of reasonableness and is supported by the creditors and major stakeholders in the Chapter 11 case, but denied the Renewed Motion due to issues relating to certain aspects of the proposed retention of Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq. and her firm, Otterbourg, P.C.; and, thereafter, the Settling Parties having agreed to the Second Amended and Revised Settlement Agreement between the Debtor, PAX and Bravo Luck (the \"**Revised Settlement Agreement**\") which addresses the concerns raised by the Court in its September 1, 2021 Decision as well as the objections of the U.S. Trustee, which no longer has any objections to the Revised\n\n#### 20-12411-jlg Doc 141 Filed 10/08/21 Entered 10/08/21 14:04:00 Main Document Pg 2 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 68 of 241\n\nSettlement Agreement and the terms of Melanie L. Cyganowski's employment as Sale Officer for the Debtor; and the Court having agreed to consider final approval of the Renewed Settlement by Notice of Presentment; and based upon the entirety of the record compiled at the various hearings; and good cause appearing therefor; it is hereby\n\nORDERED as follows:\n\n1. The Renewed Settlement Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Revised Settlement Agreement is approved in all respects and shall become effective immediately upon the entry of this Order.\n\n3. The Debtor's proposed employment of Melanie L. Cyganowski as Sale Officer shall be approved by separate Order to be noticed and entered simultaneously herewith.\n\n4. The UST Motion seeking the appointment of an Operating Trustee is adjourned *sine die*.\n\n5. Stay relief is granted to allow PAX to prosecute, and the Debtor to defend, the state court action currently pending in the New York Supreme Court under Docket No. 652077/2017 (the \"**State Court Action**\"), with the stay to otherwise remain in place for all other purposes, including relating to enforcement or collection of any judgment entered against the Debtor in the State Court Action, pending further order of the Bankruptcy Court upon further notice to all Parties.\n\n6. The Lift Stay Motion and Conversion Motion filed by PAX are withdrawn as mooted by the approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement.\n\nDated: New York, New York October 8, 2021\n\n/s/ *James L. Garrity, Jr.*\n\nHon. James L. Garrity, Jr.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 69 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 18**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 70 of 241\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\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**NOTICE OF APPEAL**\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\n- against -\n\nKWOK HO WAN, et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE**, that Defendant Kwok Ho Wan hereby appeals to the Appellate\n\nDivision, First Judicial Department, from the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New\n\nYork, County of New York dated February 3, 2021, and entered in the office of the New York\n\nCounty Clerk on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716), and from each and every part thereof.\n\nDated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, March 2, 2021\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\nBy: *\\_/s/ John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_*\n\nJohn Siegal Melissa Carvalho Erica Barrow 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com ebarrow@bakerlaw.com *Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*\n\nTo: Clerk of the County of New York (via NYSCEF) All counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)\n\n![](_page_70_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n# **~r.cm.c s llll\\\\ cau,e· b) \\\\ hic·h th 111.Jllel \\\\,h pr is tt, be· ~·n111111c·11L·,·d. Pl ,1' a111c11tkd.
against - | Date Notice of Appeal Filed | | | | |\n| Kwok Ho Wan, et al. | | | For Appellate Division | | |\n| ( .i,c· l pc·
' I
iii
Civil Action
0
CPLR article 75 Arbitration | D CPLR article 78 Proceeding
D
Special Proceeding Other
D Habeas Corpus Proceeding | iii Appeal
D
Original Proceedings
0 CPLR Article 78
0 Eminent Domain
0 Labor Law 220 or 220-b
D Public Officers Law§ 36
0 Real Property Tax Law§ 1278 | D Transferred Proceeding
0 CPLR Article 78
0 Executive Law § 298
• CPLR 5704 Review | | |\n| Nature of Suit: ( IK·ck up 111 tlm:1· tll.
ll t)\\\\ i11g catcg11ri1·-., \"hich h1·-.,1 r1·ll1·ct th1· 11:1turc tlf till' 1·a,1·.
th1· li) | | | | | |\n| • Administrative Review | !ii Business Relationships | !ii Commercial | iii Contracts | | |\n| • Declaratory Judgment
D Domestic Relations | | • Election Law | D Estate Matters | | |\n| D Family Court
D Mortgage Foreclosure | | D Miscellaneous | 0 Prisoner Discipline & Parole | | |\n| • Real Property
( other than foreclosure) | • Statutory | 0 Taxation | •
Torts | | |\n\nInformational Statement - Civil\n\n| | Appeal | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Paper Appealed From (Check one only): | | If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or | | | |\n| | | judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please | | | |\n| | | | indicate the below information for each such order or | | |\n| | | | judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. | | |\n| D Amended Decree | • Determination | • Order | • Resettled Order | | |\n| • Amended Judgement | D Finding | 0 Order & Judgment | • Ruling | | |\n| • Amended Order | • Interlocutory Decree | D Partial Decree | D Other (specify): | | |\n| • Decision | • Interlocutory Judgment | • Resettled Decree | | | |\n| D Decree | i!!I Judgment | D Resettled Judgment | | | |\n| Supreme Court
Court: | El | New York
County: | | | |\n| Dated:
02/03/2021 | | Entered: 02/03/2021 | | | |\n| Judge (name in full): Hon. Barry R. Ostrager | | Index No.:652077/2017 | | | |\n| D Interlocutory i!!I Final • Post-Final
Stage: | | D Yes • No
Trial: | lfYes: 0 Jury D Non-Jury | | |\n| | | Prior Un perfected Appeal and Related Case Information | | | |\n| Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? | | | llves D No | | |\n| If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal | | | | | |\n| 2020-04180 and 2021-00138 | | | | | |\n| Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other | | | | | |\n| jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case: | | | | | |\n| GTV Media Group v. Pacific Asia Alliance Fund LP., Supreme Court, New York County (Ostrager, J.), | | | | | |\n| Index No. 150823/2021. Dismissed without prejudice. | | | | | |\n| | Original Proceeding | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) | | | | | |\n| Choose Court
Court: | | | | | |\n| Judge (name in full): | | | | | |\n| CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: | | | | | |\n| Choose Court
Court: | | County: | Choose Countv | | |\n| Judge (name in full): | | Dated: | | | |\n| Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues | | | | | |\n| Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief | | | | | |\n| requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred | | | | | |\n| pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the | | | | | |\n| nature of the ex parte order to be reviewed. | | | | | |\n| Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan is appealing the Judgment in this action entered February 3, 2021.
Pursuant to CPLR 5501(a)(1), the appeal from the Judgment brings up for review, inter alia, any non-final | | | | | |\n\njudgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment.\n\nInformational Statement - Civil\n\nIssues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 73 of 241\n\nWithout limiting the arguments that may be presented on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan states: that the Judgment should be reversed in its entirety; that the Supreme Court's orders which, inter alia, imposed sanctions and a judicial estoppel upon him, granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against him, and awarded damages against him, were in error and should be reversed; and that numerous genuine issues of material fact existed as to both liability and damages that should have precluded the entry of summary judgment on either liability or damages.\n\n#### Party Information\n\nInstructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party's name and his, her, or its status in this court.\n\n| No. | Party Name | | Original Status | | Appellate Division Status | |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------|---------------|---------------------------|--|\n| 1 | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. | Plaintiff | | El Respondent | | |\n| 2 | Kwok Ho Wan | Defendant | | G Appellant | Ell | |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings LLC | Defendant | El | -
None | G | |\n| 4 | Genever Holdings Corporation | Defendant | | 13 None | G | |\n| s | | | | | | |\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\n| I | | Attorney Information | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | |\n| | | | Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the |\n| | | | notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, |\n| | | | only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or |\n| | | | himself, the box marked \"Pro Se\" must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied |\n| in the spaces provided. | | | I |\n| Attorney/Firm Name:Edward Moss, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | | | |\n| Address:? Times Square | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:New York | I Zip:10036 | I Telephone No:212-326-2000 |\n| E-mail Address:emoss@omm.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | • Government | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | | I |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | | | |\n| Address:7 Times Square | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:New York | I Zip:10036 | I Telephone No:212-326-2000 |\n| E-mail Address: ssamoff@omm.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | D Government | • Pro Se
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | | \\ |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: Robert W. Seiden | | | |\n| Address:1120 Avenue of the Americas | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:NewYork | I Zip:10036 | I Telephone No:212-626-6708 |\n| E-mail Address:rseiden@seidenlegal.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | D Government | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| \\
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | | |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: John Siegal, Baker & Hostetler LLP | | | |\n| Address:45 Rockefeller Center | | | |\n| City:New York | I State:New York | I Zip:10111 | I Telephone No:212-589-1400 |\n| E-mail Address:jsiegal@baker1aw.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | D Assigned
Retained | D Government | • Pro Se
0 Pro Hae Vice |\n| Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | | a |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | | | |\n| Address: 99 Church Street, 4th floor | | | |\n| City: White Plains | I State:New York | I Zip: 10601 | I Telephone No:973-285-3280 |\n| E-mail Address:aaron@lrnesq.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
Retained | 0 Government | • Prose
• Pro Hae Vice |\n| 3 MG,\\ t{
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | | |\n| Attorney/Firm Name: | | | |\n| Address: | | | |\n| City: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| E-mail Address: | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Prose |\n| Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 74 of 241\n\nInformational Statement - Civil\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 241\n\nWEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAO YUN, *a/k/a*\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nDefendants.\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n| SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------|\n| COUNTY OF NEW YORK | | |\n| PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY | | |\n| FUNDL.P., | | 17 652077 |\n| Plaintiff, | | |\n| V. | Index No. 652077/2017 | |\n| KWOK HOW AN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO
WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO | [liftOI OSEff] JUDGMENT | |\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., filed a complaint against Defendant Kwok 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 (\"Kwok\"), alleging a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant Kwok.\n\nWHEREAS, on April 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Kwok, and Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation ( together with Genever Holdings LLC, the \"Genever Defendants\"), alleging causes of action for (i) breach of contract against Defendant Kwok and (ii) veil piercing against the Genever Defendants.\n\nWHEREAS, on July 24, 2020, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Kwok, and the motion was fully briefed and heard before Justice Barry R. Ostrager, who issued a Decision and Order dated September 15, 2020, which was entered in the New York County Clerk's Office on September 16, 2020, granting Plaintiffs motion on Count I of the Amended Complaint for breach of contract, and directed Plaintiff move by Notice of Motion to establish damages on Count I no later than October 14, 2020. **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20216 of 9Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 75 of\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 **17 652077** 241\n\nWHEREAS, (i) on September 21, 2020, Plaintiff moved by Notice of Motion to establish damages, legal fees and expenses; (ii) Plaintiff agreed to temporarily withdraw, without prejudice and with the Court's permission and the other parties' understanding that it would be renewed at a later date, the portion of its application relating to legal fees and expenses (i.e., enforcement costs); and (iii) the motion was fully briefed and heard before Justice Barry R. Ostrager, who issued a Decision and Order dated December 18, 2020 (the \"Damages Order\"), and entered into the New York County Clerk's office on December 18, 2020, directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Kwok in the amount of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order. **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20217 of 9Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 76 of\n\nNOW, upon motion ofO'Melveny & Myers LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff, it is:\n\nADJUDGED that Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., having a business address at 33/F, Three Pacific Place, 1 Queen's Road East, Hong Kong, have judgment against and do recover from Defendant Kwok Ho Wan, residing at 781 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10022, the amount of **\\$46,426,489.00** , plus contractual ------------ interest in the amount **of \\_\\_\\_ ~\\$\\_6\\_9~,\\_4\\_4\\_8~,\\_9\\_3\\_9\\_.\\_7\\_1 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ ,** plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of9% in the amount **of \\_\\_\\_ \\$\\_5\\_2\\_6\\_,\\_5\\_9\\_0\\_.\\_8\\_6 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ ,** for a total of\n\n**X \\$116,402,019.57** , and Plaintiff shall have execution thereof.\n\n| Ji ii1~nHt 1i~1111••11t0£c11 this _th Ja5 cf | | | !OH
, | |\n|----------------------------------------------|---|-----|---------------|-----------|\n| FILED | | | 1/lt;tlk
H | ~~--
- |\n| Feb 03 2021
NEW YORK | | 3rd | Clerk
Feb. | 2021 |\n| COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE | 2 | | | |\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nKWOK HOW AN, *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 HAO YUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/20218 of 9Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 77 of\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n**AFFIRMATION OF EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.**\n\n![](_page_76_Picture_6.jpeg)\n\nDefendants.\n\nI, Edward Moss, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the\n\nState of New York, hereby affirm, under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the Civil Practice Law\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021\n\n241\n\nand Rules of the State ofNew York§ 2106, as follows:\n\n1. I am a member of the bar of this Court and a partner in the law firm of O'Melveny\n\n& Myers LLP, counsel ofrecord for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") in this matter.\n\n2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances in this action. For purposes\n\nof entry of this judgment, I submit this affirmation waiving costs and disbursements.\n\nDated: January 25, 2021 New York, New York By: /s/ *Edward Moss* Edward Moss\n\n| PACTFlC. ALJ.lANC E ASl.A OFPO.RTl)NfTY FU ND
LJt,
KWOK HO W.AN,. dlkht KWOK HO, ,#kh GWO \\\\.'EN
··Gt.Jo··tvENG·Ul, .tuk·\\I.·GUn
oc 1,· {l-''ls,/t1.
\"'{ EN:ou1,
•·
a/l:.ld W.AN GUE HAO-YUN, a//4/a NULE:S K\\VOK,
idkki HAOYUN GLD, (iENE\\/ER HOL1)1NGS
(.IJRm)RA.TiON, and GEN EV'hR HOLDINGS LLC,
FILED
JUDGMENT
Feb 03 2021
UtBOtlOfUOl~•Ull(Ji\\lKNT
NEVVYORK
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
, u ,J,\\'l '.NY & 1\\-lHiRi'i LLP
o~
T! :i,{fS.SQfi.ll.RE·'.rffWER
-'! T!\\WS \\$QCARf
NF\\\\' \\'ORK, NF\\V vrnn,;; !{itH6
(:Z } .Z) ·l lt~~-Jt~OO
.:.\\ttrnm«y~ for Pb.infrfff';,i(:Hk i\\l lfam~('. :\\jfa OppmtrnRy
Fimd,LY. | 241
SlXPRE.\\lE COURT Of THE STATE OF NE\\V YC)RK
COUNTY or
Nt\\v
·vonK
··
·.
fod~KNn,. 652077/2(H7 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 79 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 19**\n\n*To be Argued by:* **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 09/02/2021 04:31 PM** 2021-00740 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 80 of 241\n\nMARK C. ZAUDERER *(Time Requested: 15 Minutes)*\n\n# New York Supreme Court\n\nAppellate Division—First Department\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n*Plaintiff-Respondent,*\n\n– against –\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\n*Defendant-Appellant,*\n\n– and –\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n*Defendants.*\n\n# **BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT**\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP 360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 922-9250 mzauderer@ganfershore.com imatetsky@ganfershore.com jcohen@ganfershore.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant*\n\nNew York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/17\n\n**Appellate Case No.: 2021-00740**\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n# **Page**\n\n| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | | | ii |\n|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 | |\n| | | QUESTIONS PRESENTED5 | |\n| | | FACTUAL BACKGROUND5 | |\n| A. | | The Underlying Transactions and Disputed Documents
5 | |\n| B. | | The Spurned Opportunity to Mitigate
8 | |\n| C. | | The Litigation10 | |\n| | | ARGUMENT16 | |\n| POINT I | | | |\n| | | THE MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BARRED
MR.
KWOK FROM DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF
DOCUMENTS BASED UPON JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL16 | |\n| A. | | The Elements of Judicial Estoppel Were Not Present
17 | |\n| | 1. | The Motion Court Overlooked the \"Prevailing\"
Requirement17 | |\n| | 2. | The Motion Court Overlooked the
\"Prior Action\"
Requirement19 | |\n| B. | Unjust | The Motion Court's Invocation of Judicial Estoppel Was
22 | |\n| C. | | PAX's Other Contentions Also Did Not Support Judicial
Estoppel24 | |\n| POINT II | | | |\n| | | THE MOTION COURT ERRED BY REJECTING THE
DEFENSE
THAT PAX FAILED TO MITIGATE ITS
DAMAGES27 | |\n| | | CONCLUSION37 | |\n| | | | |\n\n# **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n# **Page(s)**\n\n# **Cases:**\n\n| All Terrain Props. v. Hay,
265 A.D.2d 87 (2000)19 | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| Anonymous v. Anonymous,
156 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep't 2017)17 | |\n| Assouline Ritz 1 LLC v. Edward I. Mills & Associates, Architects, PC,
91 A.D.3d 473 (1st Dep't 2012)29 | |\n| Co.,
Bajaj v. General Assurance,
18 Misc. 3d 25 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007)25 | |\n| Baje Realty Corp. v. Cutler,
32 A.D.3d 307 (1st Dep't 2006)19 | |\n| Bernstein v. Freudman,
180 A.D.2d 420 (1st Dep't 1992) | 29, 31 |\n| Bibeau v. Ward,
228 A.D.2d 943 (3d
Dep't 1996)34 | |\n| Bronson v. Jacobs,
195 A.D.3d 550 (1st Dep't 2021)16 | |\n| Carr v. Caputo,
114 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013)18 | |\n| CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,
23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)24 | |\n| Charles v. Charles,
296 A.D.2d 547 (2d Dep't 2002)23 | |\n| Epk Brand v. Leret,
194 A.D.3d 644 (1st Dep't 2021)16 | |\n| Feliciano-Delgado v. New York Hotel
Trades Council,
281 A.D.2d 312 (1st Dep't 2001)26 | |\n| Ferreira v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.,
24 Misc. 3d 91 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2009), aff'd,
81 A.D.3d 587 | |\n| (2d Dep't 2011)
| 21, 23 |\n\n| Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp.,
215 A.D.2d 435 (1995)19 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,
169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)19 | |\n| Houston v. McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc.,
124 A.D.3d 1205 (4th Dep't 2015)
20 | |\n| Jones Lang Wootton USA v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae,
243 A.D.2d 168 (1998), leave dismissed, 92 N.Y.2d 962 (1998)18 | |\n| Kapchan v. 31 Mt. Hope, LLC,
111 A.D.3d 530 (1st Dep't 2013)26 | |\n| Lorenzo v. Kahn,
100 A.D.3d 1480 (4th Dep't 2012)
21 | |\n| Lowinger v. Lowinger,
303 A.D.2d 723 (2003)19 | |\n| MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,
182 A.D.3d 514 (1st Dep't 2020)17 | |\n| Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v. Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc.,
110 A.D.3d 680 (2d Dep't 2013)29 | |\n| Mass v. Cornell Univ.,
253 A.D.2d 1 (1999), aff'd,
94
N.Y.2d
87
(1999)
19 | |\n| Matter of Aho,
39 N.Y.2d 241 (1976)16 | |\n| MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,
166 A.D.3d 13 (1st Dep't 2018)18 | |\n| Napoli v. Bern,
187 A.D.3d 510 (1st Dep't 2020)16 | |\n| Nestor v. Britt,
270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000) | 21, 22 |\n| NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan,
276 A.D.2d 443 (1st Dep't 2000)34 | |\n| Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,
18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)20 | |\n\n| Ouziel v. Baram,
305 A.D.2d 564 (2d Dep't 2003)26 | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Kwok,
160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018) | 3, 11, 19 |\n| Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC,
189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020) | 3, 17, 20, 21 |\n| Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C.,
214 A.D.2d 460
(1st Dep't 1995)26 | |\n| Rothstein & Hoffman Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Gong Park Realty Corp.,
37 A.D.3d 206 (1st Dep't 2007)23 | |\n| Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Nigro
Bros., Inc.,
222 A.D.2d 574 (2d Dep't 1995)26 | |\n| Tynan Incinerator Co. v.
International Fidelity Ins. Co.,
117 A.D.2d 796 (2d Dep't 1986)29 | |\n| Walsh v. Pisano,
190 A.D.3d 535 (1st Dep't 2021)16 | |\n| Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,
113 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2014)18 | |\n| White v. Farrell,
20 N.Y.3d 487 (2013) | 29, 33 |\n| Wilmot v. State
of N.Y.,
32 N.Y.2d 164 (1973)29 | |\n| Zelik v. Rubashkin,
2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6844, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33760(U)
(Sup. Ct. Kings Co. Dec. 11, 2019)26 | |\n\n# **Statutes & Other Authorities:**\n\n| 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130.1-1
12 | |\n|-------------------------------|--|\n| CPLR 32710 | |\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nPlaintiff-Respondent, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), sued Defendant-Appellant, Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Mr. Kwok\"), for more than \\$100 million in principal and interest on a guarantee that Mr. Kwok had allegedly signed on a loan to a corporate entity. Mr. Kwok testified unequivocally at his deposition that the signatures on the guarantee and several related documents were not his and were forgeries.\n\nPlaintiff-Respondent, PAX, is a Cayman Islands investment fund with substantial holdings in China. Defendant-Appellant, Mr. Kwok, is an individual who previously lived in China but after publicly exposing Chinese governmental corruption, was forced to move to the United States several years ago and to apply for political asylum here. As a well-known, outspoken dissident dedicated to the overthrow of China's ruling political party, the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"), Mr. Kwok has been persecuted by the CCP for over 30 years, including having been arrested, spending 22 months in jail after the Tiananmen Square killings, and having his younger brother murdered. (*See, e.g.,* R574, 622).\n\nAs the plaintiff, PAX had the burden of proving that the documents that it relied on to support its claim were genuine and authentic. Instead of seeking to meet that burden, PAX convinced the motion court to preclude Mr. Kwok from disputing the key documents' authenticity, and thereby to deprive Mr. Kwok of his right to contest PAX's claims on the merits, by misapplying the doctrine of judicial estoppel.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 86 of 241\n\nThe motion court never held an evidentiary hearing or trial on the genuineness of the guarantee and other documents PAX relied upon. Instead, in a two-page order that did not cite any legal authority, the motion court held that Mr. Kwok was judicially estopped because two years earlier, another individual had submitted an affidavit attaching copies of the documents in connection with an unsuccessful *forum non conveniens* motion by Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok did not sign that affidavit and he testified that he never even saw it. When Mr. Kwok later sought to investigate the circumstances under which the affidavit was submitted, he learned that the affiant had disappeared and could not be located. This was particularly suspicious because Mr. Kwok has extensively criticized, and is considered an enemy, by the Chinese government, which forced him to flee China and seek political asylum in the United States.\n\nRather than prove the genuineness of the documents it relied upon, PAX sought to bypass having to prove the merits of its claim by having the motion court declare that the documents would be deemed authentic, despite Mr. Kwok's testimony that \"his\" signatures on the documents were forgeries. It was unjust for the motion court to preclude Mr. Kwok from defending himself against a claim for more than \\$100 million based on documents he denies having signed.\n\nThe motion court's ruling on judicial estoppel was not only unwarranted on the facts, but also erroneous as a matter of law. It is well-settled that a judicial\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 87 of 241\n\nestoppel may arise only when a party has *prevailed* on a litigated issue through the benefit of its prior position. *See, e.g., Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC*, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020) (\"The claim was not barred by judicial estoppel given that, even if contradictory, none of defendants' prior positions prevailed.\"). Here, the affidavit on which PAX relies was submitted in support of Mr. Kwok's motion to dismiss this action on *forum non conveniens* grounds, but this Court denied that motion, ruling that the action would go forward in New York and would not be dismissed. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Kwok*, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018). Mr. Kwok did not prevail on the motion and, for this reason among others, judicial estoppel did not apply.\n\nPredicated entirely on its judicial estoppel ruling, the motion court granted summary judgment against Mr. Kwok on the issue of liability. The authenticity of the guarantee was a critically important issue of fact, in a case claiming more than \\$100 million in damages. The motion court should have required PAX to meet its burden of proving authenticity, and should have allowed Mr. Kwok to testify and present evidence as to the documents' lack of authenticity and all of the surrounding circumstances. It should not have granted what was effectively a case-terminating sanction based upon an affidavit that was not signed, seen, or blessed by Mr. Kwok, and submitted by former counsel on an unsuccessful procedural motion. Accordingly, this Court should reverse the judgment entered against Mr. Kwok.\n\nAlthough the judgment should be reversed because the motion erroneously excused PAX from proving the authenticity of the documents it relied upon, even assuming *arguendo* that the documents had been found to be authentic, the motion court also independently erred by summarily resolving the issue of damages, also without a hearing or trial. Under the documents relied upon by PAX, it was agreed that the alleged loan and Mr. Kwok's alleged guarantee of it would be canceled if PAX received title to three luxury apartments at a project in Beijing, China (the \"Beijing Apartments\"). Mr. Kwok presented evidence, much of it drawn from PAX's own e-mails and admissions, that the Beijing police, an arm of the Chinese government, seized those apartments early in 2015 and offered to transfer them to PAX for far less than their market value. PAX could have achieved its objective in the underlying transaction, while offsetting, or at the very least substantially mitigating, its alleged damages by accepting this offer, but it failed to do so. Under both Hong Kong law (which governed the alleged loan documents and guarantees) and New York law, PAX had a duty to mitigate its alleged damages. Issues of fact existed on whether PAX failed to satisfy that duty and if so, whether all or most of its alleged damages could and should have been avoided. Accordingly, even if the judgment against Mr. Kwok on liability is upheld – which it should not be – there should still be a reversal and a remand for trial to determine the amount of damages, if any, that PAX should be awarded after taking its failure to mitigate into account.\n\n## **QUESTIONS PRESENTED**\n\n1. Did the motion court err by invoking the doctrine of judicial estoppel to preclude Mr. Kwok from disputing more than \\$100 million in liability on a guarantee that he had not signed, because another individual submitted an affidavit earlier in the case annexing copies of the documents purportedly bearing Mr. Kwok's signature, even though Mr. Kwok did not gain any favorable outcome as a result of its submission?\n\n2. Did the motion court err in rejecting, as a matter of law, Mr. Kwok's evidence that PAX failed to mitigate its damages?\n\n## **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n## **A. The Underlying Transactions and Disputed Documents**\n\nThe transactions underlying this action concern a real estate development in Beijing known as the Pangu Plaza. PAX's Amended Complaint alleges that in 2008, it entered into loan and investment transactions involving the Pangu Plaza with a Hong Kong company, Spirit Charter Investment Limited (\"Spirit Charter\"). (R144). In 2009, Shiny Times Limited (\"Shiny Times\"), a Hong Kong corporation, allegedly entered into an agreement under which it assumed certain of Spirit Charter's obligations. (R144-45). PAX alleges that Mr. Kwok executed guarantees in connection with these transactions. (*Id.*). Mr. Kwok testified at his deposition that he recalls having entered into only a single personal guarantee in connection with a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 90 of 241\n\n\\$30 million loan in or about 2008, and that that loan was fully repaid, thereby discharging the guarantee. (R532-33, 540-42, 624-25). PAX's claims in this action do not arise directly from these 2008 and 2009 transactions.\n\nPAX alleges that on March 16, 2011, Shiny Times and PAX entered into an agreement concerning a new loan facility, which superseded and replaced the 2009 agreement. (R145-46). However, when shown a copy of the alleged 2011 loan facility letter (R264-72) at his deposition, Mr. Kwok unequivocally denied that he had signed it, stating that \"I can tell you 100 percent that it is not my signature.\" (R673-74). When shown a copy of an alleged guarantee also dated March 16, 2011 (R253-63), Mr. Kwok testified that \"I guarantee with my life this is not my signature.\" (R679). PAX further alleges that on April 19, 2013, PAX, Shiny Times, Mr. Kwok, and Beijing Pangu entered into an agreement, referred to as the 2013 deed of settlement, in relation to the 2011 Loan Facility. (R273-90). Mr. Kwok testified that this document does not bear his authentic signature either. (R747-51).\n\nAccording to PAX, the purported 2013 deed of settlement recited that the sum outstanding to PAX was now \\$52 million, but provided that Shiny Times' debt to PAX and Mr. Kwok's guarantee obligation would be discharged in return if Shiny Times caused PAX to gain ownership of three luxury apartments at the Pangu Palace, the Beijing Apartments. (R147-48). More specifically, according to PAX's Amended Complaint, the parties agreed that PAX would purchase the three Beijing Apartments from Beijing Pangu for \\$15 million, which Shiny Times would reimburse. (*See id.*). If consummated by July 31, 2013, this alleged transaction would extinguish the debt under the 2011 loan facility letter and the guarantee. (*Id*.). PAX further alleges that the parties agreed to a series of extensions to the 2013 deed of settlement, the last terminating on June 30, 2015. (R148-49, 291-316). Mr. Kwok denied having signed any of these documents. (R753-61).\n\nWhen Mr. Kwok testified at his deposition that the key documents PAX is suing him on are forgeries, he also provided important context for this assertion, testifying that he believes various individuals and the CCP have worked together to set him up by fabricating documents to exhaust him so that he would stop exposing CCP corruption. (*See* R565-71, 587). Mr. Kwok has also pointed out that in the documents he was shown at his deposition, \"some have witnesses, some do not, some have notary, some do not.\" (R627). Mr. Kwok asserted that \"the lawsuit is fake. The document[s], they are all forged,\" and that the CCP was likely behind the forgeries. (R729; *see also* R604, R607-27, R658-59). Mr. Kwok challenged PAX to allow the documents to be forensically analyzed to help determine their authenticity. (R748-50).\n\nAt an evidentiary hearing or trial on the documents' authenticity, Mr. Kwok could also have presented substantial evidence that as a leading opponent of the Chinese government and CCP, he has been subjected to a relentless and extensive campaign of harassment and targeting, thereby placing his allegations of forgery into their full context for consideration by the trier of fact. As will be seen below, PAX sought to avoid any inquiry and to steer this litigation on a very different course.\n\n## **B. The Spurned Opportunity to Mitigate**\n\nAs noted above, PAX alleges that it agreed that the obligations under the purported documents would terminate if certain things happened by a specified date, which under the last of the purported extension agreements was June 30, 2015. (R147-49). The key condition was that PAX would have the opportunity to purchase and obtain title to the three luxury Beijing Apartments. In other words, if the transaction documents proffered by PAX were genuine, then PAX agreed in them to accept title to the three Beijing Apartments as being equivalent in value to it to the repayment of its outstanding loan.\n\nIn February 2015, the police department in Beijing, an arm of the Chinese government, seized the Beijing Apartments. (R 149 ¶ 41). PAX acknowledged that this seizure took place in the context of a \"political situation.\" (R4532). The Beijing Police were aware of PAX's interest in acquiring these apartments, had the ability to transfer title to the apartments, and offered to assist PAX by transferring the apartments to PAX. E-mails involving several different PAX employees show that PAX was aware of this opportunity to acquire the Beijing Apartments that were the subject of the alleged deed of settlement and related documents. PAX would have had to make an initial cash outlay to accept the offer, but that outlay would have been far less than the acknowledged value of the apartments. PAX officials acknowledged that it was still \"a good price\" that would result in an immediate profit for PAX. (R4360).\n\nMultiple PAX employees – including the Chief Operating Officer, Derek Crane (R4328-33), the General Counsel, Catherine Yang (R4339-40), and the group General Counsel and Managing Director, Jon Lewis (R4344-46) – were aware of the Beijing Police's offer to transfer the apartments to PAX at or around the time the offer was made in 2015. These PAX employees were all unable to identify who, if anyone, may have followed-up with the Beijing Police regarding that offer, what the substance of any of those discussions may have been, or whether any steps were taken to pursue this opportunity.\n\nInstead, PAX elected not to mitigate by accepting the offer of assistance from the Beijing Police. In other words, even though the Beijing Police afforded PAX the opportunity to obtain the Beijing Apartments that were the subject of the purported deed of settlement and related documents – and thereby eliminate or at least substantially reduce its alleged damages – PAX chose to ignore that opportunity in favor of bringing this lawsuit against Mr. Kwok personally in New York. In 2012, a PAX officer had referred to \"the sheer satisfaction it would create\" if PAX were to sue Mr. Kwok personally.\" (R4579). PAX was required to take the reasonable opportunity presented to it to mitigate its alleged losses, rather than seek some sort of perverse \"sheer satisfaction\" by suing Mr. Kwok for avoidable damages.\n\n## **C. The Litigation**\n\nPAX filed its Complaint against Mr. Kwok in the Supreme Court, New York County, on April 18, 2017. (R96-127). After filing an Answer, which denied most of the Complaint's allegations (R128-38), Mr. Kwok filed a pre-answer CPLR 327 motion to dismiss the action on grounds of *forum non conveniens*, contending that Hong Kong would be a more convenient forum for the litigation than New York. (NYSCEF Docs. 7-24). In support of this motion, Mr. Kwok submitted a one-page affidavit that discussed his places of residence at various times. (NYSCEF Doc. 24). This affidavit that Mr. Kwok signed and swore to was written in Mandarin, accompanied by an English translation. (*Id*.). Mr. Kwok's affidavit did not address any other issues. (*Id*.).\n\nAlso submitted in favor of the *forum non conveniens* motion was an affidavit executed by Fiona Yu. (R3166-68). The affidavit described Ms. Yu as \"an appointed person\" of Mr. Kwok but did not explain what this meant. (R3166). Ms. Yu's affidavit stated that it was submitted to place various transaction documents before the court. The documents were located in Hong Kong or China (R3166), at a time when Mr. Kwok had left China to seek asylum in New York. It recited boilerplate language that the annexed documents were \"true and correct\" copies but\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 95 of 241\n\ndid not explain how Ms. Yu knew this or from where she had obtained the documents. (*Id*.).\n\nAfter full briefing, the motion court granted Mr. Kwok's motion to dismiss for *forum non conveniens*. (NYSCEF Doc. 102). PAX appealed and this Court reversed, directing that the litigation would proceed in New York. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok*, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018). PAX then filed an Amended Complaint (R139-352), which Mr. Kwok answered, again denying most of PAX's allegations. (R357-71).\n\nThe parties engaged in extensive discovery, including PAX's taking of Mr. Kwok's deposition. At his deposition, Mr. Kwok was shown copies of the documents on which PAX bases its claims, including the 2011 loan facility letter, the 2011 guarantee, and the series of subsequent extension agreements. Mr. Kwok testified that he did not sign these documents.\n\nMr. Kwok's testimony that the signatures he was shown were not his was clear and unequivocal. For example, with respect to the March 16, 2011 Loan Facility document he testified, \"I can tell you that 100 percent that it is not my signature.\" (R673-74). With respect to the March 16, 2011 guarantee, he testified, \"I guarantee with my life this is not my signature.\" (R679). As with other documents on which PAX relies, when shown documents written in English and containing what purported to be his signatures, Mr. Kwok testified that they were a \"[h]undred\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 96 of 241\n\npercent forged\" (R753-54), \"hundred percent no\" (R757), and \"[h]undred percent, they are fakes\" (R756). He added with respect to the documents that \"I never did this . . . never signed this, and besides that I don't understand English.\" (R679).\n\nTellingly, PAX did not seek to take any further discovery on the genuineness of these documents or of Mr. Kwok's purported signatures on them, even though the documents were the basis for its claims against Mr. Kwok that, with interest, now exceeded \\$100 million. Instead, in an extraordinary effort to avoid meeting its burden of proof, PAX filed an unusual \"Motion for Costs and Sanctions\" against Mr. Kwok and his then-counsel. The only relief that PAX sought in its notice of motion was an award of costs and sanctions pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130.1-1. (R372- 73). However, in its memorandum of law accompanying the motion, PAX also asked the motion court to deem Mr. Kwok to be bound by the doctrines of judicial admission or judicial estoppel from denying the authenticity of the documents and his signatures on them. (R374-400).\n\nPAX's request for judicial estoppel was primarily based upon the fact that Mr. Kwok's former counsel had submitted copies of the documents as exhibits to Ms. Yu's affirmation. At his deposition, Mr. Kwok emphasized that he had never seen that affirmation before it was shown to him at his deposition. (R801-02). Mr. Kwok further testified that he did not know how the documents annexed to Ms. Yu's affirmation came into her possession or came to be used by his then-counsel in connection with the *forum non conveniens* (R757-58). Mr. Kwok also consistently stated that he cannot read English. (*E.g.,* R609, 619-20). Additionally, Mr. Kwok testified at his deposition in 2019 that by that time, Ms. Yu had \"been disappeared for the longest time,\" under troubling circumstances. (R802; *see also* R804-05). Thus, it was not possible to ask her where she obtained the documents annexed to her affirmation or about any of the other facts and circumstances surrounding her execution of the affirmation.\n\nPAX also argued that Mr. Kwok's then-counsel had acknowledged the documents' authenticity in a cover letter forwarding a list of exhibits that PAX would use at an upcoming evidentiary hearing on a prejudgment attachment motion. (NYSCEF Doc. 325). That cover letter from PAX's counsel was submitted only after the parties had stipulated to focus the hearing narrowly on attachment-related issues, not on the merits of PAX's claims. (NYSCEF Doc. 306). The cover letter likewise addressed the admissibility of the exhibits at that specific hearing, not for other purposes. PAX also contended that Mr. Kwok had supposedly acknowledged the documents' genuineness in his counsel's responses to PAX's requests for admissions (\"RFAs\"), but PAX had not even attached the documents to the RFAs so that anyone could review them, as is required. (*See* R411-99).\n\nThe motion court declined to grant costs or monetary sanctions against Mr. Kwok or his then-counsel, as PAX had sought. (R59-60). In a cursory two-page\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 98 of 241\n\norder, however, the motion court decided \"that defendant Kwok is judicially estopped from challenging, in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion or at trial, the authenticity of documents defendant Kwok previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court, notwithstanding that defendant Kwok sought to disavow his signature on those documents during his deposition. Should the matter proceed to trial, those documents will be admitted into evidence.\" (R59). The entire discussion of judicial estoppel was contained in a single paragraph. (*Id.*). The motion court's decision did not explain why Mr. Kwok was judicially estopped, did not discuss the legal elements of judicial estoppel or how they were or were not satisfied in this case, did not contain any specific findings of fact, and did not cite even a single legal authority. (R59-60).\n\nWith its adversary thus involuntarily disarmed, PAX then moved for summary judgment against Mr. Kwok. (R1388-89). Mr. Kwok opposed the motion and crossmoved for the motion court to reconsider its judicial estoppel ruling. (R3204-55). Mr. Kwok also argued in opposition, *inter alia*, that in any event, PAX was not entitled to summary judgment because it had failed to mitigate its alleged damages when it declined the Beijing Police's offer to assist following their seizure of the Beijing Apartments. (R3224-28).\n\nOn September 15, 2020, the motion court granted PAX's motion for partial summary judgment against Mr. Kwok. (R50-58). In doing so, the motion court\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 99 of 241\n\nrefused to reconsider its judicial estoppel ruling. (R52-54). The motion court also stated it did not consider it \"likely\" that Mr. Kwok would prevail on his failure-tomitigate argument, while ultimately holding that the mitigation issue went to the question of damages, which was not yet before the court, rather than the issue of liability. (R54-57). The motion court stated that it would have to conduct an evidentiary hearing held on the issue of damages, stating that \"we are going to have a damages hearing, and at the damages hearing you will be able to adduce whatever testimony you wish or whatever documents you wish to introduce on the mitigation\" issue. (NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 4, 6-7).\n\nNext, PAX moved to determine the amount owed under Mr. Kwok's alleged guarantee. (R4121-33). In opposition, Mr. Kwok presented additional argument and evidence showing that PAX had a clear opportunity to mitigate its damages on the loan by acquiring the Beijing Apartments from the Beijing Police, but had knowingly and deliberately spurned that opportunity in favor of seeking an enormous money judgment against Mr. Kwok. (R4269-4382, 4529-4957).\n\nIn a Decision and Order dated December 18, 2020, the motion court again sided with PAX, holding as a matter of law that PAX had no obligation to mitigate its damages. (R12-17). The motion court resolved this issue without conducting the evidentiary hearing that it had expressly stated would be necessary just two months earlier. The motion court rejected the mitigation defense and found that Mr. Kwok was liable to PAX for more than \\$46 million in principal on the alleged guarantees, plus interest at 15% per annum since 2011. (R16-17). On February 5, 2021, the Clerk entered a money judgment against Mr. Kwok in the total amount of \\$116,402,019.57. Mr. Kwok timely appealed to this Court. (R3-9).1\n\n# **ARGUMENT**\n\n# **POINT I**\n\n# **THE MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BARRED MR. KWOK FROM DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS BASED UPON JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL**\n\nThe motion court held that Mr. Kwok was judicially estopped from disputing the authenticity of the documents that underpinned PAX's entire case against him. The motion court then granted summary judgment in PAX's favor for the full amount it was seeking, and entered judgment against Mr. Kwok for more than \\$100 million, predicated entirely upon its ruling that Mr. Kwok's sworn denial of signing the documents would be ignored. It did so in a two-page order that did not find that the required elements of judicial estoppel were satisfied, did not identify the specific\n\n1 Mr. Kwok had previously filed timely notices of appeal from two interlocutory orders. *See* Docket Nos. 2020-04180 and 2021-00138. The appeals from these interlocutory orders were superseded by the judgment and the appeal therefrom. *See Matter of Aho*, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248 (1976); *Bronson v. Jacobs*, 195 A.D.3d 550, 550 (1st Dep't 2021); *Epk Brand v. Leret*, 194 A.D.3d 644, 644 (1st Dep't 2021); *Walsh v. Pisano*, 190 A.D.3d 535, 536 (1st Dep't 2021); *Napoli v. Bern*, 187 A.D.3d 510, 511 (1st Dep't 2020). Accordingly, this appeal has been perfected from the judgment and the prior, superseded interlocutory appeals were withdrawn, without prejudice, by leave of the Court (*see* Motion Nos. 2021-02347 and 2021-02348).\n\nfacts that the court believed warranted judicial estoppel, and did not cite any legal authority. (R59-60). This was error.\n\n# **A. The Elements of Judicial Estoppel Were Not Present**\n\n# **1. The Motion Court Overlooked the \"Prevailing\" Requirement**\n\nIn holding that Mr. Kwok was judicially estopped, the court disregarded a fundamental and well-settled element of that doctrine: a party can be judicially estopped from taking a position in an action only when the party advanced an allegedly inconsistent position in prior litigation and it *prevailed* on the basis of that prior inconsistent position. In a series of decisions spanning many years, this Court has repeatedly and squarely held that in the absence of this element, judicial estoppel does not apply:\n\nThe claim was not barred by judicial estoppel given that, even if contradictory, none of defendants' prior positions prevailed.\n\n*Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC*, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020).\n\nPlaintiff's assertion that defendants' position in the parties' 1998 Supreme Court action should control is unavailing. . . . Plaintiff also did not provide an instance in which [defendants' prior] theory was successfully employed in securing a judgment in defendants' favor, as judicial estoppel requires (*see Anonymous v. Anonymous,* 156 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep't 2017)).\n\n*MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith*, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020).\n\nPlaintiff's reliance on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, binding defendant to its litigating position in Supreme Court, is misplaced. This doctrine \"precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.\" Because defendant did not prevail on its claim in Supreme Court, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.\n\n*MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd*, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018)\n\n(citations omitted).\n\nThe doctrine of judicial estoppel \"'precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding *and who secured a judgment in his or her favor* from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.'\" As plaintiffs did not prevail on their contractual indemnification claim, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.\n\n*Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.*, 113 A.D.3d 516, 516 (1st\n\nDep't 2014) (emphasis in original; citations omitted).\n\nThe doctrine of judicial estoppel \"precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.\" Although Carr has been selective in seeking to enforce the 1969 agreement's terms when beneficial to her but rejecting provisions and transactions that are of no benefit to her, or reduce the value of her own interests, Carr did not \"secure\" a judgment in her favor on the earlier motion, rendering the doctrine inapplicable to the situation presented.\n\n*Carr v. Caputo*, 114 A.D.3d 62, 71 (1st Dep't 2013) (citations omitted).\n\n\"The doctrine of judicial estoppel or the doctrine of inconsistent positions 'precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding *and who secured a judgment in his or her favor* from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed.'\" (*Jones Lang Wootton USA v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae,* 243 A.D.2d 168, 176 (1998), *leave* *dismissed*, 92 N.Y.2d 962 (1998), quoting *Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp.*, 215 A.D.2d 435, 436 (1995)). Because thirdparty defendants did not secure any formal grant of relief based upon Sakow's prior statement, it does not implicate the doctrine of inconsistent positions (*Lowinger v. Lowinger*, 303 A.D.2d 723, 724 (2003); *cf. All Terrain Props. v. Hay*, 265 A.D.2d 87, 93 (2000); *Mass v. Cornell Univ.*, 253 A.D.2d 1, 5 (1999), *aff'd*, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999).\n\n*Baje Realty Corp. v. Cutler*, 32 A.D.3d 307, 310 (1st Dep't 2006) (emphasis in original).\n\nHere, judicial estoppel did not apply because on the *forum non conveniens* motion, the motion court never made any determination on the authenticity of the documents. (NYSCEF Doc. 102). Hence, Mr. Kwok did not prevail on that issue, as is required in order to give rise to a potential judicial estoppel. Equally important, when PAX appealed from the motion court's dismissal of this action in favor of a Hong Kong forum, this Court reversed the motion court's decision and directed that the litigation would proceed in New York, as it subsequently has. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok*, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018). Where a preliminary determination that might allegedly have supported a judicial estoppel is overturned in later proceedings, judicial estoppel is unavailable. *See Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc*. 169 A.D.3d 1010, 1012-13 (2d Dep't 2019).\n\n# **2. The Motion Court Overlooked the \"Prior Action\" Requirement**\n\nMoreover, this Court has held that judicial estoppel applies only where a party has secured a final determination in its favor in a prior action, rather than in the same\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 104 of 241\n\naction. In *Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc*., 18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005), the Court reversed a trial court order based on judicial estoppel because the inconsistent position was not from a prior action. In reversing the trial court's order, this Court explained: \"We also reject the employer's argument that the owners are judicially estopped from arguing that plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply here because first, the verdict against the owners cannot be considered a ruling in their favor, and second, the inconsistent positions are being asserted in the same action.\" *Id.* at 350-51.\n\nEven assuming *arguendo* that judicial estoppel could sometimes arise from inconsistent positions taken with the same action – despite this Court's direct holding to the contrary in *Olszewski* – it still could not apply against Mr. Kwok because his position on the *forum non conveniens* motion did not prevail even within this action. *Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC*, cited above, was a case in which the two allegedly inconsistent positions were taken within a single action, and this Court held that \"[t]he claim was not barred by judicial estoppel given that, even if contradictory, none of defendants' prior positions prevailed.\" 189 A.D.3d at 633.\n\nSome cases from other Departments (not followed in the First Department) allow judicial estoppel to be applied where both allegedly inconsistent positions were taken within the same case, but only where the party to be estopped had prevailed on an issue by virtue of its earlier position. *See Houston v. McNeilus Truck* *& Mfg., Inc.*, 124 A.D.3d 1205, 1208 (4th Dep't 2015) (holding that judicial estoppel may apply to inconsistent positions within the same action, but only \"'where the party had prevailed with respect to the earlier position'\"); *Lorenzo v. Kahn*, 100 A.D.3d 1480, 1483 (4th Dep't 2012) (same); *Ferreira v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.*, 24 Misc. 3d 91, 96 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2009) (even if judicial estoppel can apply within the same action, the doctrine \"is applied in New York only where the party to be precluded obtained a ruling in its favor based on the assumed position\"), *aff'd,* 81 A.D.3d 587, 588 (2d Dep't 2011) (defendant's assertion of judicial estoppel was \"without merit\" because \"the plaintiff never obtained a judgment in her favor by adopting that position\").\n\nIn declining to reconsider its judicial estoppel ruling, the motion court did not address the requirement that the party to be estopped must have prevailed in a prior litigation – or at the very least, at a prior stage of the same litigation (although that is not the law in the First Department) – through the benefit of its prior inconsistent position. (R52-54). The motion court cited only a single authority, this Court's decision in *Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000). *Nestor* also did not discuss this requirement and cannot outweigh the overwhelming weight of decisions from this Court that did discuss and apply it, including most recently *Patmos*, 189 A.D.3d at 633.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 106 of 241\n\n*Nestor* is also distinguishable because the prior position taken by the estopped petitioners in that case – that a 1983 lease rather than a 1970 lease governed the tenancy at issue – was asserted \"before, during and after the trial of the underlying owner occupancy proceeding . . . as the exclusive contractual predicate for the relief sought in their petition.\" *Nestor*, 270 A.D.2d at 193. That is a far cry from this case, in which an individual merely provided copies of documents obtained from an unknown source, in a single instance rather than throughout the litigation, in the context of a preliminary procedural motion that Mr. Kwok lost.\n\n## **B. The Motion Court's Invocation of Judicial Estoppel Was Unjust**\n\nThe motion court's judicial estoppel directive relied entirely on Mr. Kwok's having \"sponsored\" the documents before the court, presumably referring to their submission as exhibits to Ms. Yu's affirmation. That affirmation was submitted to support Mr. Kwok's pre-answer motion to dismiss the action on grounds on *forum non conveniens,* contending that it would more conveniently be heard in Hong Kong rather than in New York. While the affirmation indicated that it was based on Ms. Yu's personal knowledge and a review of records, it does not reflect that she actually had any such personal knowledge or to what extent it was based thereon. (R3166- 68). There is no evidence that Ms. Yu was involved in the underlying transactions and PAX has never contended that she had any involvement in them. Troublingly, by the time of Mr. Kwok's deposition, Ms. Yu – like many others who have had business or personal connections to Mr. Kwok – had disappeared. (*See* R802-05).\n\nMr. Kwok testified that he had never read Ms. Yu's affirmation before it was shown to him at his deposition. (R801-02). Mr. Kwok also testified that he does not know how the documents annexed to Ms. Yu's affirmation came into her possession or came to be used in connection with the *forum non conveniens* motion. (R757-58). Even independent of the failure to satisfy the technical elements of judicial estoppel – which itself warrants reversal – estoppel is an equitable doctrine whose invocation under these circumstances was unjust. *See Rothstein & Hoffman Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Gong Park Realty Corp.*, 37 A.D.3d 206, 206 (1st Dep't 2007) (describing judicial estoppel as an \"equitable doctrine\"); *Charles v. Charles*, 296 A.D.2d 547, 550 (2d Dep't 2002) (\"Estoppels are equitable doctrines used to promote fairness and justice.\").\n\nMoreover, PAX had a full opportunity to examine Mr. Kwok on the authenticity issue at the deposition and thereafter to conduct any other discovery it wished concerning the genuineness of the disputed documents. *See Ferreira v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.*, 24 Misc. 3d 91, 96 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2009) (\"inasmuch as [the parties] had been given a full opportunity to conduct discovery after plaintiff changed her position, [defendants] would not be prejudiced by plaintiff's change in position\"), *aff'd,* 81 A.D.3d 587 (2d Dep't 2011).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 108 of 241\n\nMr. Kwok also testified at his deposition that as an outspoken opponent of the Chinese government and ruling party, he has been subjected to a lengthy, relentless, and extensive campaign in which he has been viciously harassed and targeted by the CCP. (*See, e.g.,* R565-71, 622). Had the motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing or trial on the authenticity of the documents, rather than pretermitted that inquiry by invoking judicial estoppel, then Mr. Kwok would also have presented substantial evidence to this effect. Mr. Kwok would thereby have been able to place his allegations of forgery into their full context, thus allowing for a fully informed decision by the trier of fact. Instead, the judicial estoppel ruling effectively served as a terminating sanction in this action, precluding Mr. Kwok on disputed procedural grounds from presenting his defense to the court or a jury. *Cf. CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen*, 23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014) (case-terminating sanctions such as striking a pleading should be granted only when support by clear and convincing evidence).\n\n## **C. PAX's Other Contentions Also Did Not Support Judicial Estoppel**\n\nIn its motion seeking sanctions including judicial estoppel, PAX also contended that Mr. Kwok had admitted the disputed documents' authenticity in a cover letter submitted before an attachment hearing (NYSCEF Doc. 325), and Mr. Kwok's then-counsel's responses to PAX's RFAs (R411-99). The motion court's judicial estoppel ruling did not mention PAX's contentions regarding the cover letter or RFA responses, much less accept them as a basis for judicial estoppel. (*See* R5254, 59-60). In any event, they could not give rise to a judicial estoppel, because Mr. Kwok did not prevail on any issue based upon them. (*See supra* Point I.A).\n\nThe cover letter that PAX cited was submitted in connection with an evidentiary hearing on PAX's motion for a prejudgment attachment. (NYSCEF Doc. 325). The parties had already stipulated that this hearing would address *only* whether PAX had grounds for an attachment, and not the merits of the action, on which discovery would be conducted later. (NYSCEF Doc. 306). The cover letter subsequently submitted by PAX's counsel provided the motion court with an exhibit list for the upcoming attachment hearing, while stating that Mr. Kwok was not objecting to the authenticity of PAX's exhibits. (NYSCEF Doc. 325). The context was the admissibility of exhibits at the attachment hearing, not in the proceedings on the merits that would take place subsequently, during which Mr. Kwok directly disputed the documents' authenticity as soon as they were shown to him.\n\nPAX also asserted that Mr. Kwok admitted the authenticity of the documents in responding to PAX's RFAs. (*See* R411-99). Mr. Kwok's then-counsel objected to the RFAs on several grounds, including that copies of the documents at issue were not attached to them, as is required. *See Bajaj v. General Assurance Co.*, 18 Misc. 3d 25, 27 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007) (\"Copies of the documents must accompany the notice to admit unless they have already been furnished.\"). Mr. Kwok's RFA responses did not admit the authenticity of any specific document. How could they\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 110 of 241\n\nhave, when no specific documents were presented for anyone to review? And as noted above, Mr. Kwok did not prevail on any issue based on either his responses to the RFAs or the cover letter, so they could not form the basis for a judicial estoppel.\n\nFinally, in its decision refusing to reconsider its judicial estoppel holding, the motion court observed that Mr. Kwok's Answer to the Amended Complaint did not plead forgery as an affirmative defense. (R53-54). No authority was cited that would bar a litigant from disputing a document's authenticity on this ground. To the contrary, *Ouziel v. Baram*, 305 A.D.2d 564, 565 (2d Dep't 2003), held that \"[n]otwithstanding that the defendant failed to plead forgery as an affirmative defense, he was properly permitted to offer evidence as to the genuineness of the signatures.\" *See also Kapchan v. 31 Mt. Hope, LLC*, 111 A.D.3d 530, 530-31 (1st Dep't 2013) (holding that unpleaded affirmative defense raised an issue of fact defeating summary judgment); *Feliciano-Delgado v. New York Hotel Trades Council*, 281 A.D.2d 312 316 (1st Dep't 2001) (\"in examining the pleadings on a motion for summary judgment, [the court] may take into account an unpleaded defense\"); *Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Nigro Bros., Inc.*, 222 A.D.2d 574, 575 (2d Dep't 1995) (holding that an unpleaded defense of forgery could defeat a motion for summary judgment where the opposing party was \"not taken by surprise\"); *Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C.*, 214 A.D.2d 460, 460-61 (1st Dep't 1995) (affirming order allowing amendment of answer to add forgery defense); *Zelik v. Rubashkin*, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6844, at \\*3-4, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33760(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. Dec. 11, 2019) (allowing defendant to add forgery defense that he first raised at his deposition). Here, Mr. Kwok's Answers to the Complaint and the Amended Complaint denied almost all of PAX's allegations, including those concerning the disputed documents, putting PAX on notice from an early stage of the proceedings that it would need to prove those allegations. (R128-38, 357-71). The motion court's passing observation that Mr. Kwok had not expressly pleaded the word \"forgery\" in his Answer thus provided no additional support for its decision to preclude Mr. Kwok from defending himself against PAX's claim.\n\n## **POINT II**\n\n# **THE MOTION COURT ERRED BY REJECTING THE DEFENSE THAT PAX FAILED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES**\n\nAs discussed in Point I, the judgment below should be reversed because the motion court improperly relieved PAX from its obligation to prove the genuineness of the documents it sued upon, and precluded Mr. Kwok from presenting his defense. But assuming *arguendo* that the motion court's judicial estoppel ruling was correct and summary judgment had properly been entered on the issue of liability, even in such event, the judgment should still be reversed insofar as it awarded damages to PAX. The motion court erred by summarily resolving the issue of damages and entering judgment against Mr. Kwok. It did so without a hearing or trial, in the full\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 112 of 241\n\namount of PAX's claim, after erroneously rejecting Mr. Kwok's defense that PAX failed to mitigate its damages.\n\nEven when a contract has allegedly been breached, a plaintiff like PAX may not seek to maximize its damages (including a decade of 15% interest) rather than pursue a reasonable opportunity to eliminate or reduce the resulting damages. Here, the court erred by rejecting, as a matter of law, Mr. Kwok's defense that PAX's damages were largely self-inflicted because PAX knowingly failed to mitigate an avoidable loss. The error was compounded because the motion court ruled on this issue without conducting an evidentiary hearing, just two months after it had specifically stated on the record that an evidentiary hearing was necessary and would be held. (NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 4, 6-7).\n\nThat plaintiffs must mitigate their damages, rather than seek to collect for losses that they could have avoided, is a fundamental precept under Hong Kong law, which is invoked in the documents on which PAX relies, as well as under New York law. As attested in the affidavits of Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert (R3260-68, 4622-28, which cited and annexed substantial legal authority under Hong Kong law, \"a claimant must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss to him consequent upon the defendant's wrong and cannot recover damages for any such loss which he could thus have avoided but failed, through unreasonable action or inaction, to avoid. Put shortly, the claimant cannot recover for avoidable loss.\" (R4356). As the Hong Kong law expert attested, the issue of \"whether or not a party has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss is primarily a question of fact, not law.\" (*Id.*).\n\nNew York law embodies the same principle. In a breach of contract case, \"the injured party has a duty to mitigate.\" *White v. Farrell*, 20 N.Y.3d 487, 499 (2013). \"[T]he duty to mitigate damages arising from a breach of contract is a duty that arises from common law.\" *Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v. Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc*. 110 A.D.3d 680, 682 (2d Dep't 2013). \"[A]ssuming liability, [a defendant] should be entitled to limit damages, if any, if the plaintiff failed to make 'reasonable exertions to minimize the injury\" caused by the defendant's alleged breach.\" *Id.* \"'[T]here rests on a party seeking damage 'the active duty of making reasonable exertions to render the injury as light as possible.'\" *Wilmot v. State of N.Y.*, 32 N.Y.2d 164, 168 (1973) (citation omitted); *see also Assouline Ritz 1 LLC v. Edward I. Mills & Associates, Architects, PC*, 91 A.D.3d 473, 474 (1st Dep't 2012) (defendant was entitled to reduction in damages if it proved that plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages by reselling the subject property).\n\n\"A party injured by a breach of contract is required to make a reasonable effort to mitigate its damages. The question of whether that party acted reasonably to mitigate its damages is a question of fact.\" *Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.*, 117 A.D.2d 796, 797 (2d Dep't 1986) (citations omitted); *accord Bernstein v. Freudman*, 180 A.D.2d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 1992). Thus, neither Hong Kong law nor New York law allows a plaintiff to ignore an opportunity to mitigate the damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract, and then collect from the plaintiff for the losses that it could have avoided.\n\nBut that is just what PAX did here, and what the motion court erroneously allowed it to do. In 2015, the Beijing Police seized the three Beijing Apartments. (R149). Under this seizure procedure, which appears to have no clear analog under American law, the police had the ability to convey title to the seized assets. (R3530- 35). The Beijing Police offered to assist PAX by conveying title to the Beijing Apartments to PAX. These were the same apartments that PAX alleges Shiny Times had agreed to convey to PAX under the deed of settlement, in full satisfaction of its obligation to repay the loan that Mr. Kwok had supposedly guaranteed.\n\nPAX knowingly spurned the opportunity to acquire the Beijing Apartments through the Beijing Police, and opted instead to pursue enormous damage claims against Mr. Kwok individually – a step that a PAX officer, in a telling display of personal animus, had previously endorsed for \"the sheer satisfaction it would create.\" (R4579). To allow PAX to recover on a nine-figure judgment against Mr. Kwok under these circumstances would be unconscionable.\n\nPAX alleges that it had bargained for the right to acquire the Beijing Apartments. More specifically, the documents proffered by PAX provided that PAX would complete the purchase of the Beijing Apartments, for a total of \\$15 million, from Beijing Pangu. (*See* R147). In exchange, Shiny Times, the borrower under the original 2011 Loan Facility, would reimburse Plaintiff the \\$15 million. (*Id.*). This transaction would completely extinguish the debt allegedly owed under the 2011 loan facility letter and the associated guarantee. (R147). In other words, in the document PAX proffers, it agreed that its obtaining title to the Beijing Apartments was worth the outstanding amount that it alleges was due and owing to it.\n\nThereafter, PAX was then presented with the ability to acquire the Beijing Apartments – exactly the outcome that it had sought to achieve. The Beijing Police seized the Beijing Apartments from February 2015 and retained them at least until February 2017, during which period they had the authority to convey title to PAX. (R3530-31). The Beijing Police offered to lift any transfer restriction and register PAX as the title holder to the apartments. (*See* R4248-52). PAX personnel reported that the Beijing Police \"seemed keen to do this as it was in line with what they were doing for others.\" (R4360-61).\n\nPAX's internal emails and its own witnesses' deposition testimony show that PAX knew it had the opportunity to take title to the Beijing Apartments, which it asserted was its goal in the underlying transaction, yet it chose to sue Mr. Kwok instead. For example, PAX's Chief Operating Officer, Derek Crane, who had been directly involved in the Pangu Plaza development transaction since 2007, reported within PAX in 2015 that \"the police indicated that they could transfer the units to us\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 116 of 241\n\nand any payment would be a matter for us and Pangu. They said they would revert with more detail but seemed keen to do this as it was in line with what they were doing for others.\" (R4360-61). Crane admitted at his deposition that although he was aware of PAX's opportunity to take possession of the apartments – having learned of it \"from discussions with [the] team in China, [the] legal team and possibly [the] finance team\" – he did nothing about it and is unaware of anyone else at PAX who did. (R4328-31). Crane admitted that in mid-2015, PAX decided not to not pursue mitigation and instead to \"use whatever resources may be available, whether it be legal advisors, whether it be police, whether it be anybody to try and help recover\" money directly from Mr. Kwok. (R4333).\n\nPAX's General Counsel, Catherine Yang, likewise conceded that PAX never pursued the Chinese authorities' offer to assist regarding the Beijing Apartments. (R4339-40). Jon Lewis, the Group General Counsel and Managing Director of the investment group that formed and operates PAX, similarly testified that he learned of the mitigation opportunity in February 2015, and that the Beijing Police had offered to assist in transferring title to the apartments, but that he had never spoken with the police and did not know of anyone else who had, either then or subsequently. (R4344-46).\n\nNumerous internal emails amongst senior PAX personnel reflect enthusiasm that there was an alternative means for Plaintiff to obtain the Beijing Apartments. As stated in one e-mail, \"[t]here was also positive movement in Beijing. Didn't the police say they would help us get the units?\" (R4361). These admissions establish PAX's failure to fulfill its obligation to consider and pursue reasonable mitigation efforts in good faith.\n\nThe motion court held that because the last of the alleged extension agreements expired in mid-2015 and hence there was no obligation to mitigate after that date. (R12-14). The motion court cited neither Hong Kong nor New York law for this proposition. The passing of a deadline did not terminate PAX's duty to mitigate, because a contracting party has a continuing duty to mitigate following a breach. (R4355-58, 4623-25). *See White v. Farrell*, 20 N.Y.3d at 499. In any event, if the timing of when the opportunity to mitigate arose is deemed material, then an issue of fact exists as to whether the opportunity arose before or after the July 31, 2015 deadline in the last alleged extension. PAX alleged in its Amended Complaint that the seizure took place in 2015 and two PAX witnesses testified that it occurred in February 2015. (*See* R149, R3530-31, 4344-46).\n\nThe motion court suggested it was \"likely\" that PAX had no duty to mitigate its damages by taking title to the apartments because it would have incurred out-ofpocket expenses in doing so, but it never ruled directly on this point. (R54-57). Hong Kong law, however, recognizes that a plaintiff may at times be required to be expend money in order to mitigate losses where the facts make it reasonable to do so. (R4628).\n\nThe New York courts have likewise recognized that an aggrieved party may be required to expend money in order to mitigate its damages. For example, in *NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan*, 276 A.D.2d 443 (1st Dep't 2000), this Court held that the defendant seller had breached an apartment-sale contract by failing to pay the real estate taxes through the date of sale, but that the plaintiff purchaser had failed to comply with its duty of reasonable mitigation when it failed to pay the taxes to obtain clean title to the apartment. *Id*. at 443. Just as the buyer in *Malihan* was required to mitigate by making the expenditure to release the tax lien, here PAX's duty of mitigation required it to make the payment required to transfer title to the apartments so that Plaintiff could get the benefit of its bargain and mitigate damages. *See also Bibeau v. Ward*, 228 A.D.2d 943, 946 (3d Dep't 1996) (finding that after defendant breached contract by failing to title property in plaintiff's name, plaintiff properly responded by mitigating losses by paying for expenses that contractually should have been borne by defendant). PAX's reasonable out-of-pocket costs of mitigation would have remained recoverable as part of its contract damages. *See id.*\n\nThe motion court also held that the duty to mitigate was inapplicable because PAX's claim against Mr. Kwok's arises under an alleged personal guarantee to pay money. But assuming that the deed of settlement proffered by PAX is genuine, PAX agreed to accept either repayment of the loan amount *or* title to the Beijing Apartments in satisfaction of the outstanding obligation. The deed of settlement was breached when the conditions for title transfer of the Beijing Apartments were not met by the extended deadline in 2015. (R4626). PAX had a duty to mitigate under this agreement just as it would under any other agreement. (R4623-25). Although the motion court relied on a narrow exception to the duty to mitigate that exists under Hong Kong law where the sole obligation involved is repayment of a debt, Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert explained, with citations of authority, that that limitation \"does not apply to situations, such as the one presented here, where the parties have entered into a subsequent agreement to settle the debt which involves alternative forms of repayment, such as the sale and purchase of property.\" (R4624).\n\nIn the alleged agreement upon which PAX relies, PAX had agreed that the value to it of title to the Beijing Apartments was sufficient to discharge the alleged indebtedness. Thus, if PAX had accepted the Beijing Police's offer to convey title, the alleged obligation should have been satisfied in full, except perhaps for reimbursement of PAX's out-of-pocket expenses in acquiring the title. In the alternative, at a minimum, PAX has admitted that if it had obtained title to the Beijing Apartments, it would have made a substantial built-in profit. A PAX employee noted that even if PAX would have incurred some initial cost to acquire the Beijing Apartments, \"but that's still a good price\" (R4360), \"less than the market price\" (R4348), and would have resulted in an \"immediate write up\" for PAX. (R4359). Not only would this have sharply reduced the principal amount claimed by PAX, either altogether or at least by tens of millions of dollars, but it also would have reduced PAX's claim for several years' worth of 15% annual interest on that sum – high-rate prejudgment interest that gave rise to a majority of the \\$116 million judgment against him.\n\nIn addition to PAX's failure to mitigate its damages by accepting the Beijing Police's offer to convey title to the Beijing Apartments, PAX received an additional benefit that should have resulted in a set-off against its alleged damages. PAX was given the keys to – and thus, possession of – the Beijing Apartments for several years. (*See, e.g.,* R4336-38). Such possession provided value to PAX that should also result in a set-off against its alleged damages, and the motion court erred by holding as a matter of law that it was valueless. (R15-16).\n\nHad the motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing or trial on damages, the evidence would have established that PAX had ample opportunity to mitigate its damages by acquiring the Beijing Apartments and that its claim would have been either eliminated or dramatically reduced had PAX done so. The motion court should have afforded Mr. Kwok the opportunity to present such evidence in order to demonstrate that PAX acted unreasonably in failing to mitigate its damages. Because it failed to do so, the judgment should be reversed.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor all the foregoing reasons, the judgment should be reversed.\n\nDated: New York, New York September 2, 2021\n\nGANFER SH RE LEEDS & ZAUDERER **LLP**\n\n3 60 Lexington A venue New York, New York 10017 (212) 412-9500 mzauderer@ganfershore.com *Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 122 of 241\n\n# **PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT**\n\nI hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j) that the foregoing brief was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.\n\n*Type.* A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:\n\n| Name of typeface: | Times New Roman |\n|-------------------|-----------------|\n| Point size: | 14 |\n| Line spacing: | Double |\n\n*Word Count.* The total number of words in this brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service and this Statement is 9,147.\n\nDated: September 2, 2021\n\n## **STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR § 5531**\n\n# New York Supreme Court\n\nAppellate Division—First Department\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n*Plaintiff-Respondent,*\n\n– against –\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\n*Defendant-Appellant,*\n\n– and –\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n*Defendants.*\n\n- 1. The index number of the case in the court below is 652077/17.\n- 2. The full names of the original parties are as set forth above. There have been no changes.\n- 3. The action was commenced in Supreme Court, New York County.\n- 4. The action was commenced on or about April 18, 2017, by the filing of a Summons and Complaint. Issue was joined on or about April 25, 2018, by service of an Answer.\n- 5. The nature and object of the action involves breach of contract.\n- 6. This appeal is from the Judgment in this action entered on February 3, 2021, and brings up for review any and all prior judgments or orders which necessarily affects the final judgment.\n- 7. This appeal is on the full reproduced record.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 125 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 20**\n\n*To be Argued by:* **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 10/06/2021 12:42 PM** 2021-00740 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 126 of 241\n\nANTON METLITSKY NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2021\n\n# *(Time Requested: 15 Minutes)*\n\n# New York Supreme Court\n\nAppellate Division—First Department\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n*Plaintiff-Respondent,*\n\n– against –\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\n*Defendant-Appellant,*\n\n– and –\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n*Defendants.*\n\n# **BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT**\n\n O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 (212) 326-2000 ssarnoff@omm.com emoss@omm.com ametlitsky@omm.com\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent*\n\nNew York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/17\n\n**Appellate Case No.: 2021-00740**\n\n**TABLE OF CONTENTS** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 127 of 241\n\n# **Page**\n\n| | | | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | | QUESTIONS PRESENTED 5 | |\n| | | | NATURE OF THE CASE 6 | |\n| | A. | Factual Background 6 | | |\n| | | 1. | The Parties' Relationship and PAX's Initial Loans 6 | |\n| | | 2. | The 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee 7 | |\n| | | 3. | PAX and Kwok Endeavor to Settle The Outstanding
Debt 8 | |\n| | | 4. | PAX's Efforts to Collect the Debt 10 | |\n| B. | | Kwok's Repeated Reliance On The Contracts 11 | | |\n| | | 1. | Kwok Asserts From the Outset of Litigation That the
Contracts Are Authentic 11 | |\n| | | 2. | Kwok Adheres to His Position Regarding Authenticity
Throughout Discovery and Renewed Attachment
Proceedings 15 | |\n| | C. | | Kwok Suddenly Disclaims the Contracts' Authenticity 17 | |\n| D. | | | PAX's Motions for Summary Judgment and Damages 20 | |\n| | E.
Entry of Judgment in Favor of PAX and Kwok's Subsequent
Evasion Tactics 23 | | | |\n| | | | ARGUMENT 25 | |\n| I. | THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY BARRED KWOK FROM
ABANDONING HIS LONGSTANDING POSITION THROUGHOUT
THE LITIGATION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE AUTHENTIC. 26 | | | |\n| | A. | | The Motion Court Acted Well Within Its Discretion In Barring
Kwok's Eleventh-Hour Forgery Argument On The Basis Of
Judicial Estoppel. 26 | |\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 128 of 241\n\n# **Page**\n\n| | B. | Kwok Was Also Barred From Changing Positions Because He Is
Bound By His Prior Judicial Admissions. 36 |\n|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | C. | In The Alternative, This Court Should Impose Sanctions To
Preclude Kwok From Relying On Perjured Testimony. 42 |\n| | D. | Even If Kwok Had Not Been Barred From Asserting Forgery,
PAX Was Nevertheless Entitled To Summary Judgment. 45 |\n| II. | THE MOTION COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED KWOK'S
MITIGATION ARGUMENTS. 47 | |\n| | A. | The Motion Court Correctly Determined That PAX Had No Duty
To Pursue The Possibility Of Purchasing The Apartments From
The Beijing Police. 48 |\n| | | 1.
PAX Was Not Subject To A Duty To Mitigate Damages. 48 |\n| | | 2.
Kwok Has Not Identified A Reasonable Opportunity To
Mitigate 53 |\n| | B. | The Motion Court Correctly Rejected Kwok's Argument That
PAX's Possession Of Keys To The Apartments Should Have
Offset The Damages He Owes. 56 |\n| | | CONCLUSION 57 |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 129 of\n\n# 241\n\n# **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n# **Page(s)**\n\n# **Cases**\n\n| 35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC,
171 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dep't 2019) 27, 30 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep't of Transp.,
733 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 2013) 34 |\n| Bajaj v. Gen. Assurance Co.,
18 Misc. 3d 25 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007) 38 |\n| Baje Realty Corp. v. Cutler,
32 A.D.3d 307 (1st Dep't 2006) 31 |\n| Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgmt., Inc.,
1 N.Y.3d 381 (2004) 46, 47 |\n| Bellino v. Bellino Constr. Co.,
75 A.D.2d 630 (2d Dep't 1980) 41 |\n| Bibeau v. Ward,
228 A.D.2d 943 (3d Dep't 1996) 55 |\n| Cafferty v. Thompson,
223 A.D.2d 99 (3d Dep't 1996) 34 |\n| Carr v. Caputo,
114 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013) 31 |\n| Casper v. Cushman & Wakefield,
74 A.D.3d 669 (1st Dep't 2010) 29 |\n| Catanese v. Lipschitz,
44 A.D.2d 579 (2d Dep't 1974) 42 |\n| CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen,
23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014) 43 |\n| City of New York v. Black Garter,
179 Misc. 2d 597, 685 N.Y.S.2d 606 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999), aff'd, 273
A.D.2d 188 (2d Dep't 2000) 35 |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 183-3
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45
Page 130 of
241 | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(Continued) | | | | | |\n| Page(s) | | | | | |\n| Corkran v. Orics Indus., Inc.,
62 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 2018 WL 7568231 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) 27 | | | | | |\n| Czajka v. Dellehunt,
125 A.D.3d 1177 (3d Dep't 2015) 43 | | | | | |\n| D&L Holdings v. Goldman Co.,
287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep't 2001) 27, 28, 30 | | | | | |\n| Env't Concern v. Larchwood Constr. Corp.,
101 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1984) 3, 30 | | | | | |\n| Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp.,
215 A.D.2d 435 (2d Dep't 1995) 35 | | | | | |\n| Freedman v. Chem. Constr. Corp.,
43 N.Y.2d 260 (1977) 56 | | | | | |\n| Genger v. TPR Inv. Assocs., Inc.,
182 A.D.3d 417 (1st Dep't 2020) 29 | | | | | |\n| GJF Constr., Inc. v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co.,
89 A.D.3d 622 (1st Dep't 2011) 42 | | | | | |\n| Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,
169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019) 33 | | | | | |\n| Gusinsky v. Genger,
74 A.D.3d 539 (1st Dep't 2010) 53 | | | | | |\n| Hartsdale Fire Dist. v. Eastland Constr., Inc.,
65 A.D.3d 1345 (2d Dep't 2009) 29 | | | | | |\n| Honghui Kuang v. MetLife, | | | | | |\n\n| 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dept. 1984) 40 | |\n|----------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | |\n| Inter–Power of N.Y. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., | |\n| 208 A.D.2d 1073 (3d Dep't 1994) 27 | |\n\n159 A.D.3d 878 (2d Dep't 2018) ......................................................................... 43\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** 241\n\n# **(Continued)**\n\n# **Page(s)**\n\n| Karasik v. Bird,
104 A.D.2d 758 (1st Dep't 1984) 29 | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Lorenzo v. Kahn,
100 A.D.3d 1480 (4th Dep't 2012) 29 | |\n| Maas v. Cornell Univ.,
253 A.D.2d 1 (3d Dep't 1998), aff'd, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999) 29 | |\n| MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,
182 A.D.3d 514, (1st Dep't 2020) 31 | |\n| Matter of People v. Telehublink Corp.,
301 A.D.2d 1006 (3d Dep't 2003) 47 | |\n| Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Crest Plaza LLC,
24 Misc.3d 1201, 2009 WL 1675994 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009), aff'd, 83
A.D.3d 1016 (2d Dep't 2011) 30 | |\n| MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,
166 A.D.3d 13 (1st Dep't 2018) 31 | |\n| Nat'l Commc'ns Ass'n, Inc. v. AT&T,
2001 WL 99856 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) 55 | |\n| Nestor v. Britt,
270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000) 27, 28, 32, 33 | |\n| New Dance Grp. Studio, Inc. v. Seltzer,
293 A.D.2d 298 (1st Dep't 2002) 47 | |\n| NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan,
276 A.D.2d 443 (1st Dep't 2000) 54 | |\n| Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,
18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005) 29, 30 | |\n| Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,
160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018) 15 | |\n| Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC,
189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020) 31 | |\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** 241\n\n# **(Continued)**\n\n# **Page(s)**\n\n| People v. Brown,
98 N.Y.2d 226 (2002) 36, 46 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Peyton v. State of Newburgh, Inc.,
14 A.D.3d 51 (1st Dep't 2004) 47 |\n| Rahman v. Smith,
40 A.D.3d 613 (2d Dep't 2007) 37 |\n| Tozzi v. Long Island R.R. Co.,
170 Misc. 2d 606 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996), aff'd, 247 A.D.2d 466 (2d Dep't
1998) 35 |\n| Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,
113 A.D.3d 513 (1st Dep't 2014) 31 |\n| Statutes |\n| CPLR 2104 40 |\n| CPLR 3123(a) 37, 38 |\n| CPLR 3212(b) 25 |\n| CPLR 327(a) 12 |\n| Other Authorities |\n| Authentic, Merriam-Webster, http>/dictionary/authentic 40 |\n| Press Release, SEC Charges Three Media Companies with Illegal Offerings
of Stock and Digital Assets (Sept. 13, 2021),
http 24 |\n| Treatises |\n| Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-215 (11th ed.) 36, 37, 40 |\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThis appeal continues the pattern that Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") has followed throughout this litigation: having no bona fide defense to Plaintiff-Respondent Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"PAX\") breach of contract claim, Kwok seeks to avoid his debts by making a mockery of the judicial system. This Court should put an end to it.\n\nIn March 2011, Kwok executed a personal guarantee on a debt of more than \\$46 million that one of his companies owed to PAX. For years, Kwok evaded PAX's efforts to collect, and no portion of the debt has ever been repaid. And those efforts continue to this day, even though the motion court granted PAX summary judgment on the merits in September 2020, and on February 3, 2021 entered a damages award of more than \\$116 million, which is the current amount due to PAX, including accruing interest. Kwok did not post a bond to stay the judgment pending appeal, yet he simultaneously has refused to pay PAX even a penny of the money the motion court concluded he owes (or even to respond to PAX's judgment demand letter). Instead, Kwok has engaged in a troubling pattern of dishonest and dilatory tactics to thwart PAX's ability to collect, including shielding his assets using shell corporations, secreting his yacht (the \"Lady May\") outside this jurisdiction in flagrant contempt of the motion court's orders, and stonewalling PAX's legitimate collection-related discovery efforts. The motion court, having grown deeply familiar\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 134 of 241\n\nwith Kwok's antics over four years of litigation, has repeatedly decried Kwok's \"shell games,\" \"gamesmanship,\" and \"dissembling,\" as well as his many attempts \"to mislead the court.\" R.4425, 4428.\n\nHaving no plausible legal or factual defense on the merits, Kwok has channeled his energies into avoiding his debts and making a mockery of the motion court's jurisdiction. As his appellate brief makes abundantly apparent, Kwok's breach of contract is clear as day. So, true to form, Kwok turned to farce, suddenly testifying at his merits deposition years into the case that the contracts that form the basis of this action—contracts that he entered into the record from his own files, whose authenticity he repeatedly admitted, and that he affirmatively relied on earlier in the litigation—were actually forgeries, and that even a \"pig\" could have figured that out.\n\nKwok's assertion that the contracts at issue are actually forgeries is perhaps his most brazen effort to manipulate—and, really, to ridicule—this State's judiciary. From the inception of this litigation, Kwok consistently represented to both the motion court and this Court that the contracts in question were authentic. Right at the outset, he submitted his own copies of the very same contracts to the motion court and contended that the Hong Kong choice-of-law provisions they contain required dismissal for *forum non conveniens*—an argument the motion court accepted. This Court reversed the motion court on the law, but never doubted—nor\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 135 of 241\n\nwas asked by Kwok to question—the authenticity of the contracts Kwok himself had sponsored. Indeed, relying on the authenticity of the contracts was a hallmark of Kwok's litigation strategy for years, as he repeatedly argued that they had been substantially performed, admitted to the contracts' authenticity in response to PAX's requests for admission, separately stipulated to their authenticity in advance of an evidentiary hearing, and made numerous other unequivocal judicial admissions binding him to a factual position that has always been apparent: that the agreements, copies of which Kwok had produced from his own files and sponsored before the court as legitimate, were indeed authentic. Unsurprisingly, there is also abundant documentary evidence—including scores of contemporaneous correspondence between PAX and Kwok's Hong Kong attorneys—demonstrating that the contracts are in fact real, and that Kwok signed them.\n\nThis kind of conduct is simply incompatible with a functioning judicial system, which is why the motion court was quite right to preclude Kwok from switching positions and contesting the authenticity of the contracts under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Kwok's conduct is an exaggerated version of exactly the sort of inequitable behavior that doctrine is meant to prevent—it reflects the principle that \"a litigant should not be permitted … to lead a court to find a fact one way\" and later contend \"that the same fact should be found otherwise.\" *Env't Concern v. Larchwood Constr. Corp.*, 101 A.D.2d 591, 593 (2d Dep't 1984)\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 136 of 241\n\n(quotation omitted). Having successfully convinced the motion court that the contracts were so real that they required dismissal on *forum non conveniens* grounds, Kwok cannot be allowed to walk that back because it would now be better for him if the contracts somehow were forgeries. Kwok's legal objections to that straightforward conclusion—including, principally, his bizarre argument that judicial estoppel applies only to parties who attempted to manipulate courts in prior proceedings, but not to parties that attempt to manipulate the very court they remain before—are meritless. And while the motion court may have chosen the most obvious doctrine—judicial estoppel—to reject Kwok's gambit, the same result is independently required under numerous other doctrines pressed by PAX before the motion court, and that are elaborated in detail below. The motion court's summary judgment on the merits should be affirmed.\n\n Kwok's lone other argument—which bears solely on the question of damages, not liability—is equally meritless. Under an agreement the parties had entered into to attempt to settle their years-long loan dispute, Kwok could satisfy his debt if he transferred to PAX ownership of three Beijing apartments at no cost, such that PAX could then resell them. Kwok contends that the court should have lowered the contract damages amount because PAX failed to pursue a purported opportunity to mitigate its damages by possibly working with the Beijing police to obtain, at a cost of \\$17 million, the three apartment units that PAX would have obtained for free under the parties' contract. That is wrong for many reasons, including that there was no duty to mitigate under both black letter Hong Kong law and the undisputed facts. Kwok's only other argument as to mitigation—that there was some unspecified value to PAX in possessing keys to the apartments, when what PAX actually needed and expressly contracted for was legal title that would allow it to sell them—is likewise insufficient to withstand summary judgment.\n\nThe decisions below should be affirmed.\n\n## **QUESTIONS PRESENTED**\n\n1. Whether the motion court abused its discretion by barring Kwok from disputing the authenticity of certain contracts, when he had previously maintained throughout years of litigation that the contracts were authentic; had sponsored the contracts as genuine in numerous pleadings; and had obtained a favorable ruling from the court on the basis of those representations; and when a bald assertion of forgery cannot withstand summary judgment in any event.\n\nAnswer: The motion court did not abuse its discretion.\n\n2. Whether the motion court erred in determining as a matter of law that PAX had no obligation to pursue a speculative opportunity to purchase real estate from the Beijing police to mitigate its damages, when (1) PAX was not subject to a duty to mitigate under any operable contract, and (2) the purported mitigation opportunity would have required PAX to undertake unreasonable expenditures.\n\nAnswer: The motion court did not err.\n\n## **NATURE OF THE CASE**\n\n# **A. Factual Background**\n\n## **1. The Parties' Relationship and PAX's Initial Loans**\n\na. In early 2008, Kwok met with representatives of PAX to discuss obtaining funding to finish construction of the Beijing Pangu Plaza, a real estate project undertaken by Kwok and his companies. R.1420 ¶1. PAX agreed to lend Kwok's companies \\$100 million in two tranches—a \\$30 million loan in February 2008, conditioned on Kwok's personal guarantee; and (ii) a \\$70 million loan in March 2008, under which PAX received an equity interest in the real-estate project as collateral. R.1420 ¶2.\n\nb. Over the next two years, the parties entered into a series of repayment extensions and related agreements. R.1422-1424 ¶¶11-18. In late 2009, Kwok's entities repaid roughly two-thirds of the \\$148 million owed to PAX and agreed that the balance was outstanding and would continue to accrue interest. R.1423 ¶15. By 2011, the total outstanding debt, including accrued interest, was over \\$46 million. R.1425 ¶23.\n\n## **2. The 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee**\n\na. On March 16, 2011, PAX and a Kwok-controlled entity named Shiny Times Limited (\"Shiny Times\") entered a new facility (the \"2011 Loan Facility\") that Kwok again guaranteed (the \"2011 Personal Guarantee\"). These contracts, which expressly superseded and replaced the parties' prior contracts, provided that the amount due was \\$46,426,489 and that interest would accrue at 15% annually until a repayment date of June 30, 2012. R.2377 ¶¶3-6. Under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, Kwok \"irrevocably and unconditionally … guarantee[d] to PAX the due and punctual payment of [Shiny Times'] [o]bligations [under the 2011 Facility] and agree[d] that promptly on PAX's demand he will pay to PAX all [o]bligations that are due but unpaid.\" R.2388 ¶2.1. The Personal Guarantee also entitled PAX to reimbursement, including legal fees, for its enforcement efforts. R.2390 ¶5.3.\n\nThe 2011 Loan Facility, which was executed by Kwok on behalf of Shiny Times, contains a choice-of-law provision specifying that it is governed by Hong Kong law. R.2380 ¶20, R.2382. The 2011 Personal Guarantee, which Kwok executed on his own behalf, likewise contains a provision stating it is governed by Hong Kong law. R.2393 ¶10, R.2395. Kwok and Shiny Times were represented by outside counsel—the Hong Kong law firm Stevenson, Wong & Co. (\"Stevenson Wong\")—in connection with the agreements. R.1432 ¶83.\n\nb. Shiny Times and Kwok failed to make any payments under the 2011 Loan Facility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee, respectively, by the June 30, 2012 deadline. R.1427 ¶¶29-30.\n\n## **3. PAX and Kwok Endeavor to Settle The Outstanding Debt**\n\na. In an attempt to resolve the outstanding debt, the parties entered into a series of settlement agreements, each of which ultimately proved unsuccessful when Kwok and his companies failed to perform their obligations. R. 1428-35. Like the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee, these contracts are governed by Hong Kong law, and Stevenson Wong again represented Kwok and his entities in connection with the contracts. R.1432 ¶83, R.1433 ¶49.\n\nAs relevant here, on April 19, 2013, PAX, Shiny Times, Kwok, and another Kwok-controlled entity named Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. (\"Beijing Pangu\") entered a \"Deed of Settlement In Relation to Facility Letter Dated 16 March 2011\" (the \"2013 Deed of Settlement\"). R.2530. Under the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the parties agreed that Shiny Times's debt to PAX under the 2011 Loan Facility, which had at that point reached \\$52 million, was to be discharged in return for PAX receiving ownership of three apartments in the Beijing Pangu Plaza (the \"Apartments\") for no net payment. R.2531-42. PAX intended to sell the apartments to recoup the debt it was owed. R.2087-88.\n\n8\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 141 of 241\n\nCritically, however, the 2013 Deed of Settlement specified that the settlement would be effected only if ten conditions precedent were satisfied by July 21, 2013. R.2534-35 ¶3.2. The conditions precedent included, among other things, that the parties enter into purchase agreements; that the mortgages be fully discharged; and, most importantly, that Beijing Pangu deliver evidence of legal title transfer, known as \"House Ownership Certificates.\" *Id.*; *see* R.1431 ¶43.If any of the conditions precedent were not fulfilled by the deadline, the 2013 Deed of Settlement provided that \"the entire settlement as contemplated under this Deed shall be terminated and the Parties acknowledge that the [2011 Loan Facility] shall revert and be in full force and effect.\" R.2535 ¶3.4. At that point, \"Shiny Times shall be obliged to settle the [t]otal [o]utstanding [a]mount [of the debt] and any interest accrued thereon in accordance with terms and conditions of [the 2011 Loan Facility].\" *Id.* By its terms, the 2011 Personal Guarantee would thus also be in effect. R.2388 ¶2.1\n\nb. The conditions precedent were not all satisfied by July 31, 2013. R.1431 ¶46. But Kwok continued to string PAX along as the parties entered four extensions of the 2013 Deeds of Settlement, including supplemental deeds entered into on December 3, 2013, May 15, 2014, July 11, 2014, and February 10, 2015. R.1432 ¶47. The last of these agreements provided that the conditions precedent must be fulfilled by June 30, 2015. R.2720 ¶2.1(a).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 142 of 241\n\nAlong the way, Kwok did satisfy certain of the conditions precedent. For example, in November 2013, PAX received keys to the Apartments and executed Property Acceptance Confirmation Notices; Beijing Pangu executed Notices of Housing Delivery; and the parties jointly executed Property Purchase Contracts. R.1433 ¶50. Other conditions precedent, however, remained unsatisfied as of the final extended deadline of June 30, 2015—and remain unsatisfied—including, most critically, the conveyance of legal title. R.1434-5 ¶¶55-60; R.2691.\n\nc. Accordingly, on June 30, 2015, by operation of the terms of the fourth extension to the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the Deed of Settlement terminated and the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee reverted back into effect. R.2719- 21. Subsequently, on August 3, 2015, a PAX employee reported internally that the Beijing police had communicated with PAX about possible assistance in effectuating a transfer of the apartments. R.1433 ¶63; R.3165.\n\n## **4. PAX's Efforts to Collect the Debt**\n\na. Because Shiny Times had failed to repay any of the sum due under the 2011 Loan Facility, PAX sent on October 16, 2015 a written notice of demand to Kwok at his address set forth in the 2011 Personal Guarantee seeking immediate payment of \\$71,818,633.44, the then-outstanding debt. R.2392 § 9.2; *see* R.3128- 3129. Kwok never responded. R.1436 ¶66.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 143 of 241\n\nOn February 19, 2016, following the procedure set forth in the 2011 Loan Facility, PAX sent a demand letter to Shiny Times seeking payment of the \\$82,219,404.08 that was then due and owing. R.2380 ¶9, R.2383, R.3130-32. Shiny Times likewise never responded. R.1436 ¶66.\n\nb. On February 29, 2016, in an attempt to recoup its debt, PAX commenced an action in the British Virgin Islands to place Shiny Times into liquidation. R.1436 ¶69. But Kwok was one step ahead of PAX. Although PAX succeeded in having Shiny Times wound down, it was unable to collect any of the amount owed under the 2011 Facility Letter or the Personal Guarantee because it turned out that, at least by that time, Shiny Times was a shell company with no assets. R.1436 ¶70.\n\n## **B. Kwok's Repeated Reliance On The Contracts**\n\nKwok's sole argument on the merits (renewed on appeal) is that the abovedescribed contracts between PAX, Kwok, and Kwok's entities were actually inauthentic forgeries. That position is contrary to that which Kwok took repeatedly and consistently from the outset of the litigation.\n\n# **1. Kwok Asserts From the Outset of Litigation That the Contracts Are Authentic**\n\na. Having learned that Kwok had taken up residence in New York City, where he had significant assets, PAX filed suit in the court below on April 18, 2017, alleging breach of contract for failure to satisfy the 2011 Personal Guarantee. R.98. At that point, the outstanding debt stood at approximately \\$88 million. R.107 ¶48.\n\n11\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 144 of 241\n\nb. Rather than answering the complaint, Kwok, then represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, moved on June 29, 2017 to dismiss for *forum non conveniens* under CPLR 327(a). Dkt. No. 8.1 That motion was premised on a position to which Kwok would continue to adhere for years of litigation: that the contracts were authentic. Indeed, Kwok's *forum non conveniens* brief meticulously detailed his conduct in entering into all of the contracts at issue—from PAX's \\$30 million loan in 2008, to the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee, to the 2013 Deed of Settlement and its subsequent extensions, *id.* at 1, 3-5—and contended that the suit belonged in Hong Kong because, *inter alia*, \"[t]he parties entered into each of these agreements in Hong Kong or China\" and \"each of these agreements contained choice of law provisions specifying that Hong Kong law governs the agreements,\" *id.* at 4; *see also id.* at 5, 9. Kwok's counsel likewise represented to the court at oral argument on the motion that \"[t]he contracts at issue predominantly were signed in Hong Kong, the contracts are all governed by Hong Kong [law]. They also have a choice of law provision [that] provided for [disputes under] them to be brought in Hong Kong … .\" Dkt. No. 106 at 4:12–19.\n\nIn support of this motion, Kwok also proffered a complete set of the parties' agreements, including, among others, the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal\n\n1 Unless otherwise indicated, references to \"Dkt. No. \\_\" refer to the docket below, NYSCEF Index No. 652077/2017.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 145 of 241\n\nGuarantee, and the 2013 Deed of Settlement and the extensions thereto. R.3166- 67.2 The documents were attached to an affirmation by Kwok's \"appointed person,\" Fiona Yu, who represented that the submission was \"in support of Mr. Kwok's motion to dismiss\" based on \"[her] personal knowledge and [her] review of [her] records relating to the loan facility\" entered into in 2008 and the \"relevant transactions thereto.\" R.3166 (the \"Yu Affirmation\"). The affirmation represented that the copies of the documents were \"true and correct.\" *Id.* Kwok specifically acknowledged at his deposition that he had \"authorized [Ms. Yu] to submit this affidavit on [his] behalf.\" R.801.\n\nc. On July 7, 2017, while Kwok's *forum non conveniens* motion was pending, PAX filed a motion for prejudgment attachment, hoping to prevent Kwok from evading his contractual obligations by selling or transferring his luxury New York apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel (the \"Residence\") or the Genever shell companies through which Kwok owns the Residence, and secreting the proceeds to one of his many offshore accounts or holding companies. Dkt. No. 28.3 In his opposition to that motion, Kwok reasserted his position that the contracts in question\n\n2 Kwok also produced—and stamped with \"KWOK\" Bates numbers—each of these contracts in discovery. R.1085-1180.\n\n3 Kwok had purchased the Residence in early March 2015 for approximately \\$67.5 million in cash, at a time when Kwok's debt to PAX exceeded \\$70 million. R.2508, 2516 ¶8.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 146 of 241\n\nwere authentic, arguing that PAX was unlikely to succeed on the merits because of Kwok's substantial performance of the 2013 Deed of Settlement—a defense that, like Kwok's *forum non conveniens* argument, was premised on the argument that the contracts were genuine, and that Kwok had fulfilled several of the conditions precedent set forth in the contracts. *See* R.3110 (arguing that there may have been \"substantial performance of the April 19, 2013 Deed of Settlement … because purchase agreements for the three Beijing Pangu apartments were executed and the apartments were delivered to PAX LP's entities\").\n\nd. On September 20, 2017, the motion court, in reliance on Kwok's repeated representations of the authenticity of the contracts, granted Kwok's *forum non conveniens* motion. Dkt. No. 102. Giving substantial weight to the contracts' choice-of-law provisions, the court concluded that New York lacked a sufficient interest in deciding the dispute because, *inter alia*, the transaction was \"governed by Hong Kong law.\" *Id.* at 1. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action and denied PAX's attachment motion as moot. *Id.* at 2; Dkt. No. 103.\n\ne. PAX appealed to this Court. Dkt. No. 107. Kwok's brief on appeal was again premised on the validity of the contracts' choice-of-law provisions, repeatedly representing that the contracts were genuine and should be relied upon in ruling on the *forum non conveniens* motion. *See* Kwok FNC Appeal Br. (Appellate Division, First Department, Jan. 26, 2018), at 2, 5-8, 20 (representing to this Court that \"[t]he\n\n14\n\nbreach of contract claim at issue in this action arises from contracts and agreements negotiated and executed almost exclusively in either Hong Kong or China,\" *id.* at 2, and that \"each of these agreements contained choice of law provisions specifying that Hong Kong law would govern,\" *id.* at 6-7).\n\nOn April 5, 2018, this Court reversed the motion court's grant of the *forum non conveniens* motion. *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan*, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018). The Court's reversal was not based on a rejection of Kwok's position that the contracts were authentic. Rather, this Court accepted as a foundational premise of the case that the contracts were genuine, acknowledging that \"the agreements at issue in this breach of contract action concern a Chinese real estate development project and that most (although not all) of them were negotiated and executed in Hong Kong or China.\" *Id.* at 453. Nevertheless, this Court determined that reversal was required on other grounds—namely, that there was a sufficient nexus between the action and New York such that New York was not an inconvenient forum. *Id.*\n\n# **2. Kwok Adheres to His Position Regarding Authenticity Throughout Discovery and Renewed Attachment Proceedings**\n\na. With the action reinstated on the motion court's docket, the parties proceeded with discovery. On June 11, 2018, Kwok filed responses to PAX's requests for admission in which he admitted that he \"executed\" multiple agreements with the same dates and the same parties as the agreements attached to Fiona Yu's\n\n15\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 148 of 241\n\naffirmation in support of Kwok's motion to dismiss. R.411. Kwok's responses again unambiguously admitted that he signed each of the key agreements now at issue. *See* R.424 (regarding the 2011 Loan Facility, admitting that \"Shiny Times and PAX executed an agreement in 2011\"); R.427 (regarding the 2011 Personal Guarantee, admitting \"he executed an agreement in 2011\"); R.433 (regarding the 2013 Deed of Settlement, admitting that \"he, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX executed an agreement dated April 19, 2013\"); R.445, 453, 461, 469 (regarding the extensions to the Deed of Settlement, admitting that \"he, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX executed an agreement dated December 3, 2013\"; \"he, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX executed an agreement dated May 15, 2014\"; \"he, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX executed an agreement dated July 11, 2014\"; and that \"he, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX executed an agreement dated February 10, 2015\").\n\nb. PAX then renewed its motion to attach the Residence and the shell companies that hold it. Kwok again argued in an opposition brief to that motion that prejudgment attachment was not warranted because, since he had complied with some of the 2013 Deed of Settlement's conditions precedent, \"substantial performance of the April 19, 2013 Deed of Settlement may have occurred.\" Dkt. 167 at 21. Kwok also argued that \"it was still unclear from the record before the Court why supplemental deeds *were executed* notwithstanding the fact that PAX\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 149 of 241\n\nentities had formally accepted the apartment[s].\" *Id.* (emphasis added).Similarly, at oral argument, Kwok's counsel argued that PAX had failed to explain how there \"can't be substantial performance of the agreement by which the debts would be paid by delivery of the apartments.\" Dkt. No. 199 at 19:17–19.\n\nKwok also expressly stipulated to the authenticity of the contracts in a joint letter to the court submitted by the parties in advance of an April 2019 evidentiary hearing on attachment. Dkt. No. 325. In the letter, Kwok represented that he \"does not dispute the authenticity of any of Plaintiff's exhibits,\" *id.*—which included all the key contracts, including the 2011 Loan Facility, 2011 Personal Guarantee, and 2013 Deed of Settlement, *see* Dkt. No. 326.\n\nThus, for well over two years of litigation, Kwok consistently maintained and formally represented to both the motion court and this Court his position that the contracts were authentic, shaping the course of discovery and extracting favorable rulings from the motion court on that basis.\n\n## **C. Kwok Suddenly Disclaims the Contracts' Authenticity**\n\na. Two and a half years after this case was filed, Kwok was deposed on the merits on November 25, 2019. At that deposition, Kwok claimed for the first time that all the key contracts were fake documents that he had never seen before, and that his signatures on them were forgeries. As to the 2011 Loan Facility, for example, Kwok claimed \"that 100 percent it is not my signature.\" R.674. Similarly,\n\n17\n\nfor the 2011 Personal Guarantee, Kwok asserted \"I guarantee with my life this is not my signature.\" R.679. As for the 2013 Deed of Settlement—the same agreement he for two full years had argued had been substantially performed—Kwok protested that \"[a]ny Chinese person or even a Chinese pig—I mean, this is ridiculous. It's so ridiculous. You forge something like this, you try to accuse me.\" R.748. Regarding the December 3, 2013 extension of the Deed of Settlement, Kwok declared it a \"[h]undred percent forged. You crazy? Even a pig can tell this is not signed by the same person.\" R.754. Similarly, as to the July 11, 2014 extension, he stated: \"Hundred percent, they are fakes. To me, it's a shock. This is the first time I have ever seen this kind of document. Wow.\" R.757. He testified along similar lines regarding the two other extensions of the Deed of Settlement. *See* R.756, 761.\n\nb. In response to Kwok's sudden about-face, PAX wrote to Kwok's thencounsel, Hodgson Russ LLP, to request that they remedy what was plainly perjured testimony. R.500-03. In its letter, PAX detailed why the testimony was demonstrably false in light of Kwok's prior representations and conduct, and asked Hodgson Russ to address its client's perjury by abstaining from asserting the newly concocted forgery defense in court filings and by counseling Kwok to recant the false testimony. *Id.*\n\nWhen Hodgson Russ refused to do so, PAX filed a motion for sanctions. R.372. PAX sought monetary sanctions against both Kwok and Hodgson Russ and\n\n18\n\nadditionally argued that Kwok should be precluded from asserting his perjured claim of forgery in subsequent proceedings on three independent grounds: first, as a sanction for misleading behavior; second, because Kwok could not disavow his prior judicial admissions; and, third, as a matter of judicial estoppel. R.395-99.\n\nIn support of its motion, PAX pointed to the overwhelming record evidence that Kwok's testimony was perjured, including the prior representations and admissions detailed above in the context of the *forum non conveniens* motion and the attachment proceedings (including the express authenticity stipulation), as well as Kwok's responses to PAX's requests for admission. R.383-86. PAX also placed before the motion court a trove of communications from Stevenson Wong, Kwok's Hong Kong counsel that had represented him in connection with the agreements, that confirm the contracts' authenticity. R.386-88.\n\nThe motion court held a hearing on PAX's sanctions motion on July 7, 2020, and issued a ruling later that day. R.59. While the court did not sanction Kwok, it did hold that Kwok was \"judicially estopped from challenging, in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion or at trial, the authenticity of documents defendant Kwok previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court.\" *Id.* The court did not reach the question whether Kwok would also be barred from arguing forgery due to the binding effect of his own prior judicial admissions.\n\n## **D. PAX's Motions for Summary Judgment and Damages**\n\na. PAX then moved for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim.4 R.1390. Notably, Kwok's only response as to liability was to ask the motion court to reconsider its judicial estoppel ruling. R.3218-22. Kwok also argued that summary judgment on damages was not warranted because of purported fact issues regarding mitigation of damages by PAX. R.3224-28.\n\nOn September 15, 2020, following oral argument the day prior, the motion court issued an order granting PAX summary judgment as to liability on the breach of contract claim. R.50. The court first reaffirmed its holding on judicial estoppel, explaining that \"Kwok's recent, uncorroborated assertion that the agreements are forgeries is inconsistent with his prior position in this litigation\"—a position the court had necessarily adopted in ruling in Kwok's favor on the *forum non conveniens* motion because \"Kwok's assertion that the case should have been dismissed in favor of a resolution in Hong Kong *because the agreements on their face are governed by Hong Kong law* necessarily required an argument by Kwok, and an acceptance by the Court, that the agreements were authentic and not forgeries, as Kwok now claims.\" R.53-54.\n\n4 PAX did not seek summary judgment on Count II of its complaint, which involves veil piercing claims against Kwok's two Genever shell companies.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 153 of 241\n\nNext, the court applied the unambiguous terms of the parties' agreements and concluded that because (i) PAX \"has shown, and defendant Kwok has failed to refute, that several of the conditions precedent in the 2013 Deed of Settlement were not fulfilled,\" such that the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee had reverted back into effect; and (ii) \"Kwok does not argue that either he or Shiny Times made any payments under the 2011 Loan Facility or the 2011 Personal Guarantee to satisfy the debt,\" Kwok was liable to PAX for breach of contract under the 2011 Personal Guarantee. R.54-56.\n\nFinally, the Court cast significant doubt on Kwok's mitigation argument, noting that \"documentary evidence sponsored by both parties\" demonstrated that \"the alleged opportunity to take possession of the three apartments with the aid of police only came up after June 2015,\" when \"the 2013 Deed of Settlement had already been nullified in its entirety and the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in full force and effect.\" R.55. In any event, because the mitigation argument \"speaks to damages, not liability,\" the court reserved decision on the issue. R.55-56.\n\nb. Having obtained judgment in its favor on liability, on September 21, 2020, PAX filed a straightforward motion for damages based on simple arithmetic dictated by the parties' unambiguous contract terms. R.4121. In response, Kwok revived his mitigation argument. R.4254.\n\n21\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 154 of 241\n\nThe motion court rejected Kwok's argument. R.12. Reaffirming its prior determination that \"based on documentary evidence submitted by both parties … the opportunity presented by the Beijing police only came up *after* June 2015 when the Deed of Settlement had already expired,\" the court explained that \"the Deed of Settlement was never 'breached' because the Deed of Settlement never went into effect, because the conditions precedent were not satisfied by June 30, 2015.\" R.14- 15. In any event, the court determined that Kwok could not prevail regardless of the timing of the opportunity with the Beijing police, explaining:\n\n[I]t does not make a difference as a matter of law when the police presented the opportunity to plaintiff. If it was prior to June 30, 2015, then plaintiff did not know whether or not Kwok would fulfill the conditions precedent and transfer plaintiff the apartments, and thus there was nothing to mitigate and no reason to pursue alternative methods of procuring the apartments. If it was after June 30, 2015, the 2011 Personal Guarantee was in effect, and under Hong Kong law, mitigation is inapplicable to a debt-repayment claim[].\n\nR.15. The court also rejected Kwok's argument for the further reason that \"[t]he proposal to purchase the apartments from the Beijing police for \\$17 M, when plaintiff was supposed have the apartments transferred to it for zero dollars (in satisfaction of a debt),\" did not represent a reasonable duty to mitigate. *Id.* Finally, the court determined that Kwok's \"conclusory assertion\" that damages should be reduced in light of PAX's possession of keys to the Apartments was \"insufficient to bar judgment as a matter of law\" and was irrelevant because PAX had bargained not for mere possession of the Apartments, but for clean title, which was required for resale purposes. R.16. Because each of Kwok's mitigation arguments lacked merit, the motion court held that PAX was entitled to contractual damages and interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee. *Id.*\n\n# **E. Entry of Judgment in Favor of PAX and Kwok's Subsequent Evasion Tactics**\n\na. On February 3, 2021, the motion court entered a total judgment against Kwok of \\$116,402,019.57, which consisted of (i) approximately \\$46.4 million owed under the contract, (ii) approximately \\$69.4 million in contractual interest, and (iii) approximately \\$526.6 thousand in post-judgment interest under the statutory rate (which continues to accrue). R.6-7. As noted above, PAX is also contractually entitled to legal fees incurred in connection with enforcing the contract. R.2390 §5.3; *see* R.7.\n\nb. Kwok has, of course, done everything he can to date to avoid paying that judgment. Although he has not posted a bond to stay the judgment pending appeal, Kwok has flagrantly ignored and refused to pay any portion of what he owes, even publicly stating on social media that he has no intention of doing so. *See* Dkt. Nos. 754, 755 (detailing Kwok's boast in a YouTube video that PAX \"won't a get a dime\" of his money). Instead, Kwok has turned his time and energy toward thwarting PAX's legitimate collection efforts. His primary tactic has been to shield his assets in shell companies held by family members, leading him to claim to personally have no assets, while readily accessing millions of dollars to fund his lavish lifestyle and\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 156 of 241\n\nenormous legal expenses. *See, e.g.*, Dkt. No. 750 at 2, 6-7; Dkt. No. 833 at 9:35- 10:3; Dkt. Nos. 764-68 (documenting Kwok's use of the shell company Golden Spring New York Ltd. as a personal piggy bank).\n\nIndeed, before invoking his rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment in connection with pending government investigations against him,5 *see* Dkt. No. 760, Kwok—despite being a self-proclaimed billionaire—stated that he had no assets other than the shell companies that own the Residence. Dkt. No. 756 at 9; *see also* Dkt. No. 580 at 101:3-5 (Kwok testimony that \"[i]n reality, under the law,\" he had \"no\" \"assets in the United States.\"). Kwok's other machinations to avoid satisfying the judgment have included filing a questionable bankruptcy for one of the shell companies through which he holds the Residence; stonewalling—and causing his associates and shell companies to stonewall—PAX's legitimate collection-related discovery requests; and secreting his yacht, the \"Lady May,\" out of this jurisdiction in blatant violation of the motion court's express restraining orders. *See* Dkt. Nos. 757, 728, 846.\n\nHaving witnessed this pattern of misconduct throughout the litigation, the motion court has repeatedly recognized that Kwok has engaged in a \"great deal of\n\n5 Three Kwok-linked media companies recently agreed to pay over \\$539 million to settle charges brought by the SEC. *See* Press Release, SEC Charges Three Media Companies with Illegal Offerings of Stock and Digital Assets (Sept. 13, 2021), http\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 157 of 241\n\ngamesmanship, a great deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders,\" R.4428; *see*, *e.g*., Dkt. No. 728 at 2 (stating in an order that \"it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht 'Lady May'\"); R.4425 (stating that \"Mr. Kwok has attempted to mislead the court\" and that \"Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets\"); Dkt. No. 833 at 9:2-3 (stating that \"Mr. Kwok believes that these court proceedings are a game of evasion that he wants to play.\").\n\nc. On March 2, 2021, Kwok deployed yet another gambit in his ongoing game of evasion and delay: this appeal. R.3. For the reasons set forth below, each of Kwok's appellate arguments lacks merit.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\nA motion for summary judgment \"shall be granted if … the cause of action … [is] established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party.\" CPLR 3212(b). PAX readily satisfied that standard—it is, after all, undisputed that Kwok did not satisfy his unambiguous obligations under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, which is the currently operative agreement. *See supra* at 10. The motion court thus properly granted summary judgment based on Kwok's clear contract breach, R.57, and awarded damages as dictated by the contract's plain terms, R.12.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 158 of 241\n\nKwok's sole argument as to liability is that the contracts he personally proffered to the Court and on which he repeatedly relied in briefs, pleadings, and oral arguments were in fact forgeries that Kwok had never seen or even heard of. The motion court properly precluded Kwok from taking that dishonest position. Kwok also challenges the motion court's damages ruling, but that court quite rightly rejected Kwok's mitigation argument in light of undisputed, controlling Hong Kong law that made clear that PAX was not subject to a duty to mitigate. The decisions below should be affirmed.\n\n# **I. THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY BARRED KWOK FROM ABANDONING HIS LONGSTANDING POSITION THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE AUTHENTIC.**\n\nThe motion court correctly held that Kwok is judicially estopped from contesting the authenticity of the contracts that form the basis of this lawsuit. There are, moreover, several readily available alternative grounds on which to affirm that determination—namely, on the basis of Kwok's prior judicial admissions; as a sanction for Kwok's perjured testimony; and because Kwok did not adduce sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on the authenticity issue.\n\n# **A. The Motion Court Acted Well Within Its Discretion In Barring Kwok's Eleventh-Hour Forgery Argument On The Basis Of Judicial Estoppel.**\n\n1. \"Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party is precluded from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary\n\nto or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding,\" *Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (1st Dep't 2000), or in \"a prior proceeding,\" *Inter– Power of N.Y. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.*, 208 A.D.2d 1073, 1075 (3d Dep't 1994). Judicial estoppel applies where the party \"obtain[ed] a favorable ruling or judgment … as a result\" of the inconsistent position. *35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC*, 171 A.D.3d 545, 545 (1st Dep't 2019). This \"equitable doctrine\" can be \"invoked by a court at its discretion,\" *Corkran v. Orics Indus., Inc*., 62 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 2018 WL 7568231, at \\*3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (quotation omitted), in order to \"prevent abuses of the judicial system,\" *D&L Holdings v. Goldman Co.*, 287 A.D.2d 65, 71 (1st Dep't 2001).\n\nThe motion court properly determined that judicial estoppel bars Kwok from disavowing the authenticity of contracts he had repeatedly sponsored to the court as authentic because Kwok's prior representations had persuaded the court to grant a *forum non conveniens* motion in Kwok's favor. As detailed above, *see supra* at 12- 15, Kwok's briefing and argument on the *forum non conveniens* motion repeatedly asserted that the documents were authentic, attached \"true and correct\" copies of the documents, and urged dismissal based on the contracts' choice-of-law provisions. Kwok suggests that \"the motion court never made any determination on the authenticity of the documents.\" Defendant-Appellant's Opening Brief (\"OB\") at 19. That is wrong. As the motion court itself explained in its summary judgment order, R.53, that court necessarily relied on and accepted Kwok's representations that the contracts were authentic. After all, the court had granted Kwok's motion based in large part on the fact that the agreements included a Hong Kong choice-of-law provision.6 *See id*. And those choice-of-law provisions were obviously relevant only to the extent the contracts were authentic and governed this dispute. The court thus acted well within its discretion in estopping Kwok from relying on his newly concocted forgery defense.\n\n2. Kwok's contrary arguments are meritless.\n\na. Kwok errs in contending that judicial estoppel applies only when the inconsistent position was taken in a \"prior proceeding.\" OB19-21. It is of course true that this Court routinely applies the doctrine where an inconsistent position was adopted in a separate prior judicial proceeding. *See, e.g.*, *D&L*, 287 A.D.2d at 71. But the Court has held over and over again that judicial estoppel is equally applicable where the inconsistent position was adopted in the *same* proceeding. *See Nestor*, 270 A.D.2d at 193 (judicial estoppel applies where a position is \"inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding\"); *accord Genger v. TPR Inv.*\n\n6 Below, Kwok suggested that the motion court had not necessarily adopted a position inconsistent with his new forgery argument because he had admitted at his deposition that some of the contracts were real. *See* R.3220 n.19. Not so. Because PAX sued on the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the court's *forum non conveniens* ruling necessarily pertained to that contract, which Kwok asserted at his deposition was forged. *See* R.679.\n\n*Assocs., Inc*., 182 A.D.3d 417, 418 (1st Dep't 2020); *Casper v. Cushman & Wakefield*, 74 A.D.3d 669, 670 (1st Dep't 2010); *Karasik v. Bird*, 104 A.D.2d 758, 758-59 (1st Dep't 1984). That is also the rule in every other Appellate Division. *See, e.g.*, *Hartsdale Fire Dist. v. Eastland Constr., Inc*., 65 A.D.3d 1345, 1346 (2d Dep't 2009); *Maas v. Cornell Univ*., 253 A.D.2d 1, 5 (3d Dep't 1998), *aff'd*, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999); *Lorenzo v. Kahn*, 100 A.D.3d 1480, 1482 (4th Dep't 2012). Indeed, Kwok actually *conceded* this point below, acknowledging that \"[t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel has been applied to preclude a party 'from inequitably adopting a position directly contrary to or inconsistent with an earlier assumed position in the same proceeding.'\" R.3219 (quoting *Maas*, 253 A.D.2d at 5).\n\nIn characteristic fashion, Kwok now tries to abandon that concession on appeal, relying on *Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc*., 18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005). But Kwok's overbroad reading of that case does not withstand scrutiny. In the course of its two-sentence discussion of judicial estoppel, the *Olszewski* Court first determined that judicial estoppel was not applicable because, unlike here, no court had ever accepted the party's prior inconsistent position. *Id.* at 350. The Court went on to state that \"the inconsistent positions are being asserted in the same action.\" *Id.* at 351. But the Court's statement should not be read as establishing a legal precedent restricting judicial estoppel to inconsistent statements in prior proceedings, for at least three reasons. First, such a statement would be dictum, since the Court had already made clear that judicial estoppel did not apply because no court had ever accepted the prior position. *See id.* at 350. Second, that reading of *Olszewski* would place it in irreconcilable conflict with other precedents of this Court and every other Appellate Department. *See supra* at 28-29. Third, such a rule would make no sense. The point of the doctrine is to prevent inequitable manipulation of the judicial system—\"a litigant should not be permitted … to lead a court to find a fact one way\" and later contend \"that the same fact should be found otherwise.\" *Env't Concern*, 101 A.D.2d at 593 (quotation omitted). That principle applies equally to prior positions taken in the same litigation as to prior litigations, just as this Court and others have repeatedly held.\n\nb. There is likewise no merit to Kwok's contention that the motion court disregarded what Kwok calls the \"'prevailing' requirement\" of judicial estoppel. OB17. As this Court has recognized, there is no requirement that the prior inconsistent position have resulted in a final judgment in the estopped party's favor, *see D&L*, 287 A.D.2d at 72; it suffices if the party obtained \"a favorable ruling … as a result\" of the inconsistent position, *35 W. Realty Co.*, 171 A.D.3d at 545; *see also Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Crest Plaza LLC*, 24 Misc.3d 1201, 2009 WL 1675994, at \\*14 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) (explaining that \"the prior inconsistent position must have been adopted by the tribunal in some manner\"), *aff'd*, 83 A.D.3d 1016 (2d Dep't 2011). Here, that requirement was amply satisfied by the motion court's ruling in Kwok's favor on the *forum non conveniens* motion—a ruling which, as set forth above, was based on the court's acceptance of Kwok's original position that the contracts he himself proffered were authentic.\n\nThe cases on which Kwok relies, in contrast, involved inconsistent positions that were *never accepted* by a tribunal at any point. *See Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC*, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020) (the motion court denied the motion in which the inconsistent position was asserted, and this Court affirmed, *see* Index No. 108421/11 Dkt. No. 16 at 4); *MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith*, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020) (affirming Justice Ostrager's refusal to apply judicial estoppel where the merits of the inconsistent position had never been ruled upon); *MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,* 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018) (defendant was not bound to position adopted in motions rejected by the motion court); *Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp*., 113 A.D.3d 513, 516 (1st Dep't 2014) (motion court had dismissed claim for contractual indemnification, so plaintiffs had not prevailed on any position with respect to the availability of attorneys' fees under such a claim); *Carr v. Caputo*, 114 A.D.3d 62, 69, 71 (1st Dep't 2013) (no judicial estoppel based on arguments advanced in motion for summary judgment that was denied by motion court); *Baje Realty Corp. v. Cutler*, 32 A.D.3d 307, 310 (1st Dep't 2006) (motion court had not awarded relief based upon prior statements).\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 164 of 241\n\nThis Court's subsequent reversal of the motion court's *forum non conveniens* determination—while at the same time accepting Kwok's ongoing representations as to the contracts' authenticity as a foundational premise, *see supra* at 15—does not alter the result. *Nestor v. Britt* is directly on point. There, petitioner landlords in an owner-occupancy proceeding obtained a judgment of possession in their favor, relying on a 1983 lease. 270 A.D.2d at 192-93. Subsequently, the judgment in the landlords' favor was reversed on appeal, and the respondent tenant moved for an award of fees based on the same lease. *Id.* at 192. This Court held that, because of the landlords' reliance on the 1983 lease in obtaining their initially successful but ultimately reversed judgment, the landlords were estopped from disputing the validity of the lease. *Id.* at 193. The Court refused to permit the landlords to \"jettison the 1983 lease only after the adverse order of the Appellate Term,\" explaining that they could not \"now, based on a reversal of their legal fortunes, seek to invalidate provisions of that lease.\" *Id.* Just so here: having relied upon the authenticity of the contracts in obtaining a ruling in his favor, Kwok cannot, in light of the \"reversal of his legal fortunes\" occasioned by this Court's reversal on appeal, \"seek to invalidate\" and thereby \"jettison\" those same contracts. *Id.*\n\nKwok suggests that *Nestor* is different because the estopped parties in that case had asserted their prior position \"before, during and after the trial.\" OB22. But the same is true here. Although Kwok remarkably contends that his position that the\n\ncontracts are authentic was expressed only \"in a single instance,\" *id.*, he in fact consistently represented that the contracts were authentic for well over two years of litigation, including in his briefing, argument, and other submissions to the motion court *and this Court* in support of the *forum non conveniens* motion, in his opposition to PAX's attachment motions, in response to PAX's requests for admission, and in an authenticity stipulation. *See supra* at 11-17. *Nestor* is thus on all fours with this case.\n\nKwok's only authority for the proposition that this Court's subsequent ruling affects the judicial estoppel calculus is *Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc*., 169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019), but that case is inapposite. *Goodman* held that for judicial estoppel to apply on the basis of a failure to disclose claims in a bankruptcy proceeding, \"there must be a final determination in the bankruptcy proceeding endorsing the party's inconsistent position concerning his or her assets.\" *Id.* at 1013 (quotation omitted). But that holding was expressly cabined to the bankruptcy context, where courts have held that the reopening of a bankruptcy proceeding by the bankruptcy court \"nullif[ies] the final determination upon which … judicial estoppel could be predicated.\" *Id.* (quotation omitted). This special rule is based on policy considerations unique to bankruptcy and inapplicable here. Judicial estoppel barring a debtor from pursuing a claim that he failed to disclose in a bankruptcy proceeding strikes a careful balance. On the one hand, estopping the debtor from\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 166 of 241\n\npursuing such a claim is desirable because \"[i]f a debtor in possession were permitted to omit claims in bankruptcy and later assert title to them, there might be an inducement to do so, to the prejudice of creditors' interests.\" *Cafferty v. Thompson*, 223 A.D.2d 99, 102 (3d Dep't 1996). On the other hand, strictly applying judicial estoppel to bar such claims in circumstances when the bankruptcy proceeding has been reopened (which allows for the initially omitted claim to be included) would \"operate[] to the detriment primarily of innocent creditors\" by depriving them of \"a potential recovery,\" while providing a windfall to the alleged bad actors—the defendants who would otherwise face the claim. *Ah Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep't of Transp*., 733 F.3d 267, 275 (9th Cir. 2013). These bankruptcy-specific policy considerations have no bearing on the ordinary operation of judicial estoppel.\n\nc. Kwok's fallback argument—that it was \"unjust\" for the motion court to have given any weight to his *forum non conveniens* motion and the affirmation he submitted in support of that motion (OB22)—is absurd. Although Kwok now tries to attack the credibility of his own witness, Fiona Yu, Kwok conceded under oath that he expressly \"authorized [Ms. Yu] to submit this affidavit on [his] behalf.\" R.801. And even more important, Kwok himself—through his very able counsel at Boies Schiller and Hodgson Russ—relied on Ms. Yu's affidavit and the attached documents in Kwok's motion-court (and appellate) briefing on the *forum non conveniens* motion. The only injustice here would be allowing Kwok to yet again manipulate the judiciary by abandoning a position on which he earlier prevailed now that he is out of other options. The judicial estoppel doctrine exists for cases precisely like this, because the system \"cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts.\" *Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp*., 215 A.D.2d 435, 436 (2d Dep't 1995) (quotation omitted).\n\nMeanwhile, Kwok's insistence that PAX was not prejudiced by his switch in litigation position (OB23) is both irrelevant and wrong. It is irrelevant because there is no prejudice requirement: \"detrimental reliance is not a prerequisite to the applicability of judicial estoppel as the intent of said doctrine is not to protect the individual litigant, but to protect the integrity of the judicial system itself.\" *Tozzi v. Long Island R.R. Co.*, 170 Misc. 2d 606, 613 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996), *aff'd*, 247 A.D.2d 466 (2d Dep't 1998); *see also City of New York v. Black Garter*, 179 Misc. 2d 597, 599, 685 N.Y.S.2d 606, 607 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999), *aff'd*, 273 A.D.2d 188 (2d Dep't 2000). And it is wrong because Kwok's conduct has obviously been prejudicial to PAX. For one thing, PAX was required to expend the time and resources to oppose the *forum non conveniens* motion—and to appeal the motion court's grant of that motion—that was based in large part on the authenticity of the contracts. And PAX would undoubtedly have been prejudiced had the motion court not estopped Kwok from switching positions before summary judgment. Kwok has been stringing PAX along for the better part of a decade, and additional undue delay—including wasted time and resources dedicated to disproving Kwok's specious assertions that the contracts were forged, *see infra* at 43-45—would certainly have further prejudiced PAX.\n\n# **B. Kwok Was Also Barred From Changing Positions Because He Is Bound By His Prior Judicial Admissions.**\n\nIn light of its judicial estoppel finding, the motion court did not need to rule on PAX's alternative contention that Kwok was bound by his previous judicial admissions that the contracts are authentic. *See* R.397. This Court likewise need not reach that argument, since the motion court's judicial estoppel ruling was correct. But the court's judgment can also be affirmed on the alternative ground that Kwok is bound by his numerous formal judicial admissions that the contracts are authentic.\n\n\"A formal judicial admission is an act of a party done in the course of a judicial proceeding, which dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding, for the purposes of the litigation, the truth of a fact alleged by the adversary.\" *People v. Brown*, 98 N.Y.2d 226, 232 n.2 (2002) (quoting Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-215 (11th ed.)). Unlike informal admissions, which are merely evidence of the fact admitted, \"a formal judicial admission takes the place of evidence and is *conclusive* of the facts admitted in the action in which [it is] made.\" *Id.* (quotation omitted). To be considered a formal judicial admission, a statement \"must be one of fact,\" \"must be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal,\" and must be \"made with sufficient formality and conclusiveness.\" *Rahman v. Smith*, 40 A.D.3d 613, 615 (2d Dep't 2007). Classic examples of formal judicial admissions include \"(1) statutory admissions, such as an admission of facts pursuant to notice [under] CPLR 3123; (2) facts admitted by an agreed statement of facts or other stipulations [under] CPLR 3222, 2104; … (3) facts formally admitted in open court, as by a formal plea of guilty in a criminal case,\" and \"(4) facts admitted by the pleadings, [*see*] CPLR 3018(a),\" among others. Richardson on Evidence § 8-215.\n\nAs described in detail above, *supra* at 11-17, Kwok repeatedly and unequivocally admitted throughout this litigation, in statements that qualify as formal judicial admissions, that the contracts at issue were authentic, including in (1) his responses to PAX's requests for admission (\"RFA\"); (2) his stipulation in a joint letter to the court in advance of an attachment hearing; and (3) other representations made in briefs, submissions, and statements in open court in the context of the *forum non conveniens* motion and attachment proceedings.\n\n1. *Kwok's RFA responses.* As described above, *supra* at 15-16, on June 11, 2018, Kwok submitted responses to PAX's RFAs pursuant to CPLR 3123 in which he admitted the authenticity of the key contracts, R.411—a quintessential formal judicial admission. *See* Richardson on Evidence § 8-215.\n\nKwok insists that these admissions are invalid because PAX did not attach copies of the contracts to its RFAs. But there is no requirement to provide copies of documents that have \"already been furnished.\" CPLR 3123(a); *Bajaj v. Gen.*\n\n37\n\n*Assurance Co*., 18 Misc. 3d 25, 27 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007) (cited at OB25). PAX was thus under no obligation to attach copies of documents that Kwok had already produced from his own files and submitted to the court in support of his *forum non conveniens* motion.\n\nNor can Kwok evade the binding force of those admissions by relying on his boilerplate general objections, because Kwok unambiguously admitted in his RFA responses that he signed the key agreements. An example involving the 2013 Deed of Settlement makes this clear. In RFA 19, PAX asked Kwok to \"[a]dmit that You, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX LP executed a Deed of Settlement dated April 19, 2013 (the \"Original Deed of Settlement\"), which among other things confirmed that at the time[] of the Original Deed of Settlement's execution Shiny Times owed to PAX LP \\$52,000,000.\" R.433. As expressly permitted by CPLR 3123(a), PAX did not attach the Deed of Settlement to its RFAs because Kwok had already submitted that document as Exhibit 7 to the Yu Affirmation, which swore that it was a \"true and correct copy\" of that same \"Deed of Settlement between PAX LP, Shiny Times, Mr. Kwok, and Beijing Pangu Investment Inc. … dated April 19, 2013.\" R.3167. Kwok responded as follows:\n\nWithout waiving the Reservation of Rights and General Objections, and subject to them, to the extent that an answer is required, Kwok *admits only that he, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu, and PAX executed an agreement dated April 19, 2013*, and otherwise objects to this Request as compound and improper because it goes beyond the intended scope and purpose of a notice to admit as contemplated by CPLR 3123 which would allow PAX to attach as an exhibit a copy of the document at issue and seek an admission as to its genuineness. Notwithstanding, PAX does not merely seek an admission as to the genuineness of the document at issue (a copy of which it has not attached), but rather seeks to obtain an admission as to the legal import of the document at issue based on PAX's characterization of the same. Kwok further objects to PAX's attempt to use the Requests to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, such as depositions or interrogatories.\n\nR.433-34 (emphasis added). In other words, Kwok claimed that the only proper purpose of an RFA was to authenticate a document, and objected because he believed PAX was trying to do more than that (as well as on the baseless grounds that PAX had not sent Kwok a copy of his own, previously furnished document). But there is no doubt that Kwok admitted in his RFA response that he had \"executed\" the same document that the Yu Affirmation had presented to the motion court as Exhibit 7. As set forth *supra* at 16, Kwok made the same admissions with respect to every other relevant contract, including the 2011 Loan Facility, the 2011 Personal Guarantee, and the four extensions to the Deed of Settlement. R.424, 427, 445, 453, 461, 469. These formal judicial admissions, standing alone, justify the motion court's decision barring Kwok from advancing his subsequent, insincere forgery argument.\n\n2. *Kwok's stipulation in a joint letter to the motion court.* Kwok again formally admitted the authenticity of the contracts when he made a written representation to the motion court in advance of an April 2019 attachment hearing stating without caveat that he \"does not dispute the authenticity of any of Plaintiff's\n\n39\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 172 of 241\n\nexhibits\"—which included the specific contracts he later falsely testified were forged or fake. Dkt. No. 325; *see* Dkt. No. 326. Kwok suggests that this admission does not mean what it says because it \"addressed the admissibility of the exhibits at that specific hearing, not for other purposes.\" OB13; *see also id.* at 25 (stating that this admission was made in \"[t]he context\" of \"the admissibility of exhibits at the attachment hearing, not in the proceedings on the merits that would take place subsequently.\"). That purported distinction is nonsensical: a document cannot be \"authentic\" for purposes of one proceeding but not another.7 And while the parties had agreed to limit the scope of the April 2019 hearing to attachment issues, the fact that Kwok objected to the *admissibility* of the contracts as irrelevant to attachment while expressly stipulating to their *authenticity* is irreconcilable with his current position that they are forgeries. This \"agreement between [the] parties or their attorneys\" set forth \"in a writing\" is \"binding\" under CPLR 2104 and thus falls within another of the prototypical forms of formal judicial admissions specifically enumerated by the leading treatise. *See* CPLR 2104; Richardson on Evidence § 8- 215; *see also, e.g.*, *In the Matter of Daniel C*., 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dept. 1984) (holding that a concession \"deliberately made\" by an attorney \"for the express purpose of limiting and defining the facts in issue\" is an admission conclusive on the party.).\n\n7 *See Authentic*, Merriam-Webster, http /dictionary/authentic (\"[N]ot false or imitation: real, actual.\")\n\n3. *Kwok's other representations in court submissions.* Kwok made numerous additional representations to the motion court and to this Court with the requisite degree of \"formality and conclusiveness\" to qualify as formal judicial admissions. *Rahman*, 40 A.D.3d at 615. Kwok's repeated and unequivocal representations as to the contracts' authenticity in his *forum non conveniens* briefs before the motion court and on appeal, statements by his counsel at oral argument in support of that motion, and the Yu Affirmation's assertion that the attached contracts were \"true and correct,\" which have been described in detail in the context of the motion court's judicial estoppel ruling, *see supra* at 12-15, 27-28, also all qualify as judicial admissions. *See, e.g.*, *Bellino v. Bellino Constr. Co*., 75 A.D.2d 630, 630 (2d Dep't 1980) (\"Admissions by counsel, *as by any other agent*, are admissible against a party provided that the statements had been made by the attorney while acting in his authorized capacity.\" (emphasis added)).\n\nKwok's briefs at various stages of attachment proceedings likewise included judicial admissions of the contracts' authenticity. Kwok argued in those briefs that PAX would be unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim in light of Kwok's \"substantial performance of the April 19, 2013 Deed of Settlement … because purchase agreements for the three Beijing Pangu apartments were executed and the apartments were delivered to PAX LP's entities.\" R3110 (Aug. 1, 2017 brief); *see also* Dkt. 167 at 21 (in a May 16, 2018 brief, arguing that \"substantial performance of the April 19, 2013 Deed of Settlement may have occurred\" and stating that \"supplemental deeds were executed\"). Kwok's counsel then made the same representation at oral argument. *See* Dkt. No. 199 at 19:17–19.\n\nThese formal and deliberate representations bear the \"trappings of a formal judicial admission,\" such that Kwok is \"bound\" by them. *GJF Constr., Inc. v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co*., 89 A.D.3d 622, 624 (1st Dep't 2011) (concurring opinion); *see, e.g.*, *Catanese v. Lipschitz*, 44 A.D.2d 579, 580 (2d Dep't 1974) (\"statement of plaintiff's attorney, in his affirmation in opposition to [a] motion\" is \"a judicial admission\" with binding effect).\n\nThus, whether viewed through the lens of judicial estoppel, as a function of the binding effect of judicial admissions, or both, the motion court did not err in ruling that Kwok could not pursue his eleventh-hour contentions of forgery in light of his prior representations and conduct in this litigation.\n\n# **C. In The Alternative, This Court Should Impose Sanctions To Preclude Kwok From Relying On Perjured Testimony.**\n\nIn addition to arguing for preclusion on the grounds set forth above, PAX sought a sanction preventing Kwok from relying on his perjured testimony. While the motion court stated that it was not \"inclined\" to issue sanctions despite the \"questionable\" nature of Kwok's testimony and instead achieved the same outcome through the application of judicial estoppel, R.85, this Court may nevertheless affirm on this alternate basis.\n\n42\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 175 of 241\n\n\"[A] court has inherent power to address actions which are meant to undermine the truth-seeking function of the judicial system and place in question the integrity of the courts and our system of justice,\" including where the provision of false testimony has amounted to \"fraud on the court.\" *CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen*, 23 N.Y.3d 307, 318 (2014). Courts have taken strict measures where \"conduct … frustrates the purpose of the CPLR.\" *Honghui Kuang v. MetLife*, 159 A.D.3d 878, 881-82 (2d Dep't 2018) (sanctioning plaintiff by striking pleading where he engaged in \"willful and contumacious conduct in trying to frustrate the discovery process\"). The Appellate Division is \"vested with [the] … power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court\" in the sanctions context, *id.* at 881 (alterations omitted), and thus has the authority to impose sanctions in the first instance. *See Czajka v. Dellehunt*, 125 A.D.3d 1177, 1185 (3d Dep't 2015).\n\nSanctions are amply warranted in this case. The record is replete with evidence that Kwok's deposition testimony disavowing his signature on the contracts was false, such that permitting him to rely on that testimony would be to countenance a \"fraud on the court.\" *Creances*, 23 N.Y.3d at 318. In addition to the abundant judicial admissions and representations of authenticity detailed above, other documents in the record further discredit Kwok's uncorroborated assertions. Specifically, PAX produced from its files scores of emails between its representatives and Stevenson Wong, the law firm that had represented Kwok in his\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 176 of 241\n\ndealings with PAX. *See supra* at 19. These emails included, among other things, communications from Stevenson Wong (i) negotiating the contracts on Kwok's behalf; (ii) relaying that the firm was consulting with and taking direction from its client, Kwok, on the negotiations; and (iii) sending executed versions of the contracts that the lawyers represented had been \"signed by Mr. Kwok.\" *See* R.866-1080. For example, emails from Stevenson Wong stated that \"Mr. Guo's signature [on the Deed of Settlement and related documents] was witnessed [and that] Mr. Guo also confirmed his signature to [Aaron Xie of Stevenson Wong] personally,\" R.866; that an \"execution page signed by Mr. Kwok will be forwarded to [PAX],\" R.873; and that \"documents signed by Mr. Kwok Ho Wan\" were attached, R.877.8\n\n8 True to form, Kwok's response to these emails at his deposition was to testify that Stevenson Wong did not actually represent him in his dealings with PAX, but rather that the law firm had forged documents as part of the Chinese government's conspiracy to frame him. R.637, 730. But as PAX explained to the motion court, Kwok's and his former counsel Hodgson Russ's own documents and statements make plain that Kwok's disavowal of his relationship with Stevenson Wong was just more perjury. For example, when Kwok was applying to purchase the Residence, he provided the building's Board with a letter of recommendation from Hank Lo, the Stevenson Wong lead partner who had represented Kwok in his deals with PAX. In that 2015 letter, Lo represented to the Board on Kwok's behalf that (i) Kwok had \"engaged [Stevenson Wong] in one of [Kwok's] business transactions about seven years ago\" (the original PAX deal was in 2008, exactly seven years earlier); (ii) Kwok had \"established a long-standing relationship\" with Lo; and (iii) Stevenson Wong had \"acted for [Kwok] in various business transactions in different areas, including project financing, fund raising, corporate mergers and acquisitions, and acquisition of aircrafts, leisure boats and properties.\" R.1081. And in a November 2019 email to PAX's counsel, Hodgson Russ represented that \"Stevenson & Wong\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 177 of 241\n\nTogether with those communications, Kwok's prior conduct—on which he relied in asserting a substantial performance defense during attachment proceedings—further undermines any assertion of forgery. Kwok cannot explain why, if his signature on the contracts was forged and he never entered into the agreements in question, he and his companies nevertheless fulfilled several of the conditions precedent to the 2013 Deed of Settlement, including providing PAX with keys to the Apartments and executed Property Acceptance Confirmation Notices; executing Notices of Housing Delivery; and executing Property Purchase Contracts. *See supra* at 10; R.1433 ¶50.\n\nThe record thus readily supports the conclusion that Kwok's testimony was perjured. At minimum, this effort to mislead the court warrants a sanction precluding Kwok from relying on his testimony as to forgery.\n\n# **D. Even If Kwok Had Not Been Barred From Asserting Forgery, PAX Was Nevertheless Entitled To Summary Judgment.**\n\nEven setting aside these three independent bases justifying the motion court's ruling estopping Kwok from pursuing his made-up forgery defense, the grant of summary judgment should be affirmed because PAX would have been entitled to judgment even if Kwok had been permitted to argue forgery. Kwok failed to adduce\n\nis no longer counsel for Mr. Kwok,\" thus confirming the obvious fact that Stevenson Wong had previously represented Kwok. R.1083-84.\n\nevidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact on the issue of authenticity—and aside from his perjured, newly invented forgery defense, he had no other defense to summary judgment as to liability.\n\nAs set forth above, the evidence demonstrating the authenticity of the contracts—from Kwok's own submissions and representations to the court, to his conduct prior to the onset of litigation, to documentary evidence produced by PAX—is overwhelming. In the face of that mountain of evidence, all that Kwok mustered was his eleventh-hour, unsupported testimony disavowing his signature on the contracts, which lacks any evidentiary value because it is directly undermined by his own judicial admissions, *see Brown*, 98 N.Y.2d at 232 n.2, and would have been insufficient to defeat summary judgment in any event, *see Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgmt., Inc*., 1 N.Y.3d 381, 384 (2004) (\"Something more than a bald assertion of forgery is required to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity of a signature.\").Indeed, in opposing PAX's sanctions motion and in seeking reargument of the motion court's judicial estoppel ruling, Kwok never offered any corroborating evidence, such as handwriting expert analysis, and never requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue. *See* R.1283-1309, 3206-22. Kwok now says that the court should have \"held an evidentiary hearing or trial on the genuineness of the guarantee and other documents PAX relied upon.\" OB2. But Kwok waived that argument by failing to raise it below. And it is wrong in any event, because no evidentiary hearing was required—if a \"bald assertion of forgery\" did not suffice to create a genuine issue of fact, *Banco Popular*, 1 N.Y.3d at 384, then no hearing was necessary when the only \"evidence\" provided in support of forgery was just such a bald assertion.\n\nIn these circumstances, Kwok has not demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to authenticity. *See, e.g.*, *Peyton v. State of Newburgh, Inc*., 14 A.D.3d 51, 54 (1st Dep't 2004) (affidavit disavowing authenticity of a signature \"must be viewed as conclusory, self-serving and wholly insufficient to rebut defendants' entitlement to summary relief as a matter of law\"); *New Dance Grp. Studio, Inc. v. Seltzer*, 293 A.D.2d 298, 299 (1st Dep't 2002) (party's \"self-serving affidavit … was insufficient to create an issue of fact\"); *Matter of People v. Telehublink Corp*., 301 A.D.2d 1006, 1008-09 (3d Dep't 2003) (an \"unsubstantiated, self-serving assertion\" was \"insufficient to raise a question of fact\"). Accordingly, PAX was and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law even setting aside estoppel and his own binding admissions.\n\n# **II. THE MOTION COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED KWOK'S MITIGATION ARGUMENTS.**\n\nKwok's second contention is that the motion court erred in awarding damages because PAX failed to pursue what Kwok suggests was a potential opportunity to purchase the Apartments from the Beijing police, and because PAX's possession of keys, even without legal title, somehow conferred some unspecified value. The motion court correctly rejected these arguments.\n\n# **A. The Motion Court Correctly Determined That PAX Had No Duty To Pursue The Possibility Of Purchasing The Apartments From The Beijing Police.**\n\nOne of the conditions precedent to satisfying the 2013 Deed of Settlement was that PAX receive legal title to the Apartments at no net cost. *See supra* at 9. That indisputably never happened. But Kwok contends that PAX should have attempted to mitigate its damages by pursuing a potential opportunity to purchase the Apartments from the Beijing police for approximately \\$17 million. Kwok's argument fails for two reasons: (i) PAX was not subject to a duty to mitigate damages under any contract; and (ii) the opportunity to purchase the apartments from the Beijing police did not represent a reasonable mitigation opportunity in any event.\n\n# **1. PAX Was Not Subject To A Duty To Mitigate Damages.**\n\nKwok has not been consistent about which agreement he suggests imposed on PAX a duty to mitigate. At times, he has insisted that the duty to mitigate arose under the 2011 Personal Guarantee, *see* R.4254, while on other occasions he has attributed that duty to the 2013 Deed of Settlement, *see, e.g.*, R.4946-49, OB34-35. Either way, he cannot prevail.\n\n**2011 Personal Guarantee.** There was no duty to mitigate under the 2011 Personal Guarantee as a matter of uncontested, black letter Hong Kong law. Both\n\n48\n\nsides' experts agree that, under Hong Kong law, there is no duty to mitigate under that contract because it is a guarantee of a repayment of a debt.9 *See* R.4441 ¶10; R.4624 ¶7 (affirmation by Kwok's expert that \"I agree with [PAX's expert] that the principle of mitigation does not apply to a claim for repayment of a debt where that claim is made under a loan agreement or a personal guarantee\"). Kwok now concedes this point on appeal, acknowledging an \"exception to the duty to mitigate that exists under Hong Kong law where the sole obligation involved is repayment of a debt.\" OB35.\n\n**2013 Deed of Settlement**. For three reasons, it is clear as a matter of law that PAX was not subject to a duty to mitigate under the 2013 Deed of Settlement either.\n\nFirst, there was no duty to mitigate under the 2013 Deed of Settlement because, as a result of Kwok's failure to satisfy the conditions precedent by the extended deadline of June 30, 2015, the Deed of Settlement was null and void prior to the post-June 2015 Beijing Police contact. Contrary to Kwok's assertion on appeal, the Deed of Settlement was never \"breach[ed]\" (OB33); rather, Kwok failed to satisfy the conditions precedent set forth in Clause 3.2, such that the contemplated\n\n9 Kwok notes that the motion court, prior to being apprised of this controlling Hong Kong law, had originally stated that it would hold an evidentiary hearing on damages. *See, e.g.*, OB15 (citing Dkt. No. 647 at 4, 6-7). Following the parties' damages briefing, however, the court correctly determined that there was no triable issue of fact and ruled on the damages issue as a matter of law.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 182 of 241\n\nsettlement never became effective and never canceled Kwok's 2011 Personal Guarantee and the underlying debt—the 2011 Personal Guarantee, in other words, remained in effect. *See* R.2535 ¶3.4 (2013 Deed of Settlement) (\"In the event that all conditions precedent set out in Clause 3.2 for all Apartments have not been satisfied by 31 July 2013 (or such later date agreed by the Parties in writing\"—here, 30 June 2015, per the fourth and final supplemental Deed of Settlement)—\"then the entire settlement as contemplated under this Deed shall be terminated and the Parties acknowledge that the [2011] Facility Letter shall revert and be in full force and effect immediately\").\n\nA Hong Kong court would honor this plain and unambiguous language to hold that (i) the 2013 Deed of Settlement terminated on June 30, 2015, before the purported police contact, and (ii) the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee had reverted to be in full force and effect—that is, they were never canceled. R.1445-49 ¶¶9-18. Thus, there was never an opportunity, or obligation, to \"mitigate\" under the 2013 Deed of Settlement.\n\nKwok contends that there is a factual dispute as to the date of the Beijing police contact, but he has no evidence in support of that contention. The only documents Kwok cites that reference the purported mitigation opportunity are emails from July and August 2015—*after* the settlement had expired in June 2015. *See* R.4360-61, 4359. Kwok also points out that PAX stated in its complaint and two witnesses testified that the Apartments were seized in February 2015 (OB33). But that is irrelevant—the purported opportunity to mitigate arose not when the Apartments were seized, but when the police supposedly offered to sell PAX the Apartments. Unsurprisingly, Kwok blatantly mischaracterizes the testimony of PAX's General Counsel, Jon Lewis. Kwok says that Mr. Lewis \"testified that he learned of the mitigation opportunity in February 2015.\" OB32. In fact, Mr. Lewis testified that he had learned about the opportunity \"[a]fter the apartments had been seized by the police, which occurred sometime in February 2015, I believe.\" R.4345. Mr. Lewis quite clearly testified that the seizure occurred in February 2015, and that he learned of the opportunity sometime thereafter. And Mr. Lewis also made clear that this purchase opportunity was irrelevant because \"the settlement agreement has expired.\" R.4349. Kwok simply has no evidence that the mitigation opportunity arose before June 30, 2015.\n\nAccordingly, the motion court correctly concluded \"based on documentary evidence submitted by both parties … that the opportunity presented by the Beijing police only came up *after* June 2015 when the Deed of Settlement had already expired.\" R.14-15. Because there is no genuine dispute that only the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Personal Guarantee were in effect at the time of the purported Beijing police contact, the expired Deed of Settlement could not have imposed a duty on PAX to pursue that speculative opportunity.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 184 of 241\n\nSecond, even *assuming* that PAX had learned of the opportunity to obtain the apartments prior to June 30, 2015 (it did not), Kwok's argument would still fail. As shown above, Kwok could not have \"breached\" the Deed of Settlement because it was nullified in its entirety after June 30, 2015. But he likewise could not have \"breached\" the Deed of Settlement by failing to satisfy the conditions precedent *before* the June 30, 2015 expiration date, since he had, as a matter of contract, *until that date* to satisfy them. *See* R.2535 ¶3.4. Thus, if the Beijing police opportunity arose prior to June 30, 2015, Kwok would not have been in breach of the 2013 Deed of Settlement, and PAX accordingly could not have been under a duty to mitigate under that contract at that time. The timing of the opportunity to purchase the Apartments from the Beijing police is thus irrelevant—either way, there could not have been a duty to mitigate.\n\nThird, even setting all that aside, PAX could not have been subject to a duty to mitigate under 2013 Deed of Settlement for another reason: as with the 2011 Personal Guarantee, the 2013 Deed of Settlement was a guarantee of a repayment of a debt, and therefore the Hong Kong rule that there is no duty to mitigate under such contracts, *see supra* at 48-49, applies with equal force. Kwok contends that because the Deed of Settlement contemplated repayment of the debt with assets, rather than with cash, the contract does not count as a debt repayment guarantee. OB35. But that distinction is irrelevant on its face, and Kwok offers nothing to support that position other than his expert's conclusory testimony, which itself does not include a single citation. *See id.* (citing R.4624¶8). Because \"the construction of foreign law is a legal question,\" *Gusinsky v. Genger*, 74 A.D.3d 539, 540 (1st Dep't 2010), this court is free to reject that unsupported testimony and hold that the undisputed Hong Kong rule rejecting a duty to mitigate for debt-repayment contracts applies no matter how the debt is to be repaid, and thus applies to the 2013 Deed of Settlement.\n\n# **2. Kwok Has Not Identified A Reasonable Opportunity To Mitigate**\n\nEven assuming that PAX was subject to a duty to mitigate (which it plainly was not), Kwok's mitigation argument would still fail because, as the motion court found, the possibility of purchasing the apartments from the Beijing Police did not constitute a *reasonable* opportunity to mitigate, as required under Hong Kong law. Although Kwok contends in his brief that the motion court \"never ruled directly on this point\" (OB33), he is wrong: the court squarely and correctly rejected Kwok's argument because a \"plaintiff is only ever required to *reasonably* mitigate damages\" and \"[t]he proposal to purchase the apartments from the Beijing police for \\$17 M, when plaintiff was supposed have the apartments transferred to it for zero dollars (in satisfaction of a debt) is hardly receiving the benefit for which plaintiff had bargained.\" R.15. Kwok identifies no error in this determination.\n\nKwok does not and cannot dispute that (i) under the 2013 Deed of Settlement, PAX would have received the three apartments free of charge; (ii) to obtain the apartments via Beijing Police assistance (if that were even possible), PAX would have had to pay a total of RMB105 million, or nearly \\$17 million; (iii) PAX valued the apartments at RMB 167 million (approximately \\$27 million), such that it would recoup about \\$10 million if it were able to resell them, and (iv) Kwok's outstanding debt at that time was approximately \\$78 million. R.4359-60, 4402 ¶¶5-6. Moreover, Hong Kong law provides that to mitigate damages, a plaintiff is \"not expected to act unreasonably in incurring expense, taking on risk or other inconvenience,\" and is not required to \"take extreme steps outside the ordinary course of business.\" R.3618 ¶ 17.2. No reasonable factfinder could conclude that PAX should have spent (i.e., put at risk) \\$17 million for a chance at receiving title to the three apartments that it was supposed to receive for free in exchange for the possibility that it might be able to later (at some unspecified time) sell them for \\$27 million, and thus potentially clear \\$10 million—or, less than 13% of the approximately \\$78 million Kwok owed on the debt at the time. R.4402 ¶6.\n\nKwok offers no Hong Kong authority to the contrary. Instead, he relies solely on New York case law, which is neither applicable nor helpful to his position. *NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan*, 276 A.D.2d 443, 443 (1st Dep't 2000), stands only for the uncontroversial proposition that damages can be capped when some unreasonable lack of diligence on the part of the nonbreaching party amounted to a failure to mitigate, which is not true here for the reasons just explained. *Bibeau v.* *Ward*, 228 A.D.2d 943, 946 (3d Dep't 1996), is likewise inapposite—that case involved the question whether a plaintiff could recover costs he was \"required\" to incur as a result of the defendant's breach and says nothing about the kind of costs that would be reasonable to expect a plaintiff to undertake in order to mitigate.\n\nBelow, Kwok relied on a third New York decision that illustrates precisely how unreasonable the supposed mitigation opportunity was in this case. *See* R.4257 (citing *Nat'l Commc'ns Ass'n, Inc. v. AT&T*, 2001 WL 99856 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001)). There, the plaintiff claimed nearly \\$22 million in lost profits that could have been wholly avoided if the plaintiff had posted a deposit that it could have secured via a \"minimal\" out-of-pocket expense: paying the interest rate on a credit line. *Nat'l Cmmc'ns*, 2001 WL 99856, at \\*2 n.1, \\*8. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to mitigate because, among other things, (i) obtaining such a credit line was \"routine practice\" for the defendant; (ii) the interest payment was \"minimal\"; and (iii) it was undisputed that making the deposit would have avoided entirely the \\$22 million in claimed damages. *Id*. at \\*8–9. The situation here could not be more different. PAX would have had to pay \\$17 million, far from a \"minimal\" payment; PAX's payment would have guaranteed nothing because it is anybody's guess whether PAX would ever actually have received title to the apartments or successfully resold them; buying the apartments would not have been \"routine practice\" for PAX; and, perhaps most importantly, instead of spending a proportionately tiny sum to achieve a huge guaranteed reduction in damages, PAX would have had to go further out of pocket by \\$17 million for the entirely speculative possibility that it might achieve a relatively small reduction (\\$10 million) of Kwok's then-\\$78 million debt.\n\nFor these reasons, PAX was under no duty to mitigate—let alone to pursue the speculative Beijing police offer, which was not a \"reasonable\" mitigation opportunity as a matter of law.\n\n# **B. The Motion Court Correctly Rejected Kwok's Argument That PAX's Possession Of Keys To The Apartments Should Have Offset The Damages He Owes.**\n\nFinally, Kwok suggests that PAX \"received an additional benefit that should have resulted in a set-off against its alleged damages\"—namely, the keys to the Apartments, which Kwok speculates \"provided value to PAX.\" OB36. The motion court correctly rejected this unsupported assertion as insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. *See Freedman v. Chem. Constr. Corp.*, 43 N.Y.2d 260, 264 (1977) (\"[C]onclusory assertions will not defeat summary judgment.\"). Kwok never adduced any evidence of the actual value of PAX's possession of keys; instead, he simply asserted below, as he does on appeal, that \"such possession surely has value.\" R.4259. Without any supporting evidence, Kwok was not entitled to go before a jury on the damages issue. Moreover, mere possession of the keys to the apartments was, in point of fact, worthless to PAX. The only value the Apartments had to PAX was that it could likely have resold them, and what PAX needed to resell them were not keys but legal *title.* That is what PAX negotiated for and why the Deed of Settlement expressly provided as a condition precedent that PAX must possess title. R.2087-88. The motion court correctly held that PAX's possession of the keys to the Apartments had no effect on the damages amount as a matter of law.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nThis Cou11 should affirm the judgment below.\n\nDated: October 6, 202 1\n\nSTUART SARNOFF EDWARD Moss A NTON M ETLITSKY O 'MELVENY & M YERS LLP\n\nTimes Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, N.Y. 10036 (2 12) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys/or Plaintiff-Respondent Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund* L.P.\n\n# **APPELLATE DIVISION – FIRST DEPARTMENT PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT**\n\nI hereby certify pursuant to 22 N.Y. C.R.R. §§ 1250.8(f), (j) that the\n\nforegoing brief was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.\n\n*Type.* A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:\n\n| Name of typeface: | Times New Roman |\n|-------------------|-----------------|\n| Point size: | 14 |\n| Line spacing: | Double |\n\n*Word Count*. The total number of words in this brief, inclusive of point\n\nheadings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents,\n\ntable of authorities, proof of service, and this Statement, is 13,994.\n\nDated: New York, New York October 6, 2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 191 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 21**\n\n*To be Argued by:* **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 10/15/2021 02:10 PM** 2021-00740 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 192 of 241\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2021\n\nMARK C. ZAUDERER *(Time Requested: 15 Minutes)*\n\n# New York Supreme Court\n\nAppellate Division—First Department\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n*Plaintiff-Respondent,*\n\n– against –\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\n*Defendant-Appellant,*\n\n– and –\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n*Defendants.*\n\n# **REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT**\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP 360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 922-9250 mzauderer@ganfershore.com imatetsky@ganfershore.com jcohen@ganfershore.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant*\n\nNew York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/17\n\n**Appellate Case No.: 2021-00740**\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n# **Page**\n\n| | TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ii |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 |\n| | ARGUMENT2 |\n| POINT I | |\n| | THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS
BASED ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL
ESTOPPEL2 |\n| A. | The Elements of Judicial Estoppel Were Not Present2 |\n| B. | PAX's Judicial Admissions Theory, Which Was
Not
Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit
8 |\n| C. | PAX's \"Sanctions for Perjury\" Theory, Which Was
Not Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit
12 |\n| D. | PAX's Contention that It Was Entitled to Summary
Judgment
Apart
from the Judicial Estoppel Ruling Is
Meritless15 |\n| POINT II | |\n| | THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE
THE
MOTION COURT ERRED BY REJECTING THE
DEFENSE
THAT PAX FAILED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES16 |\n| | CONCLUSION20 |\n\n# **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n## **Page(s)**\n\n# **Cases:**\n\n| 35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC,
171 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dep't 2019)2 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon,
171 A.D.3d 197 (2d Dep't 2019)8 |\n| Barish v. Association of the Bar,
20 N.Y.2d 154 (1967)5 |\n| Bernstein v. Freudman,
180 A.D.2d 420 (1st Dep't 1992)18 |\n| Carr v. Caputo,
114
A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013)3 |\n| CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,
23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)
13, 14 |\n| D & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC,
287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep't 2001)3, 4 |\n| Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,
169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)5 |\n| Koch v. National Basketball Ass'n,
245 A.D.2d 230 (1st Dep't 1997)5, 6 |\n| MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,
182 A.D.3d 514 (1st Dep't 2020)3 |\n| Matter of Daniel C.,
99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984)11 |\n| Matter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P.,
181 A.D.3d 461 (1st Dep't 2020)8, 12 |\n| Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny,
189 A.D.3d 583 (1st Dep't 2020), leave to appeal granted,
36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021)7 |\n| Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst,
155 A.D.3d 1638 (4th Dep't 2017)

5-6 |\n\n| MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,
166 A.D.3d
13 (1st Dep't 2018)3 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| Napoli v. Bern,
171 A.D.3d 489 (1st Dep't 2019)14 | |\n| Nestor v. Britt,
270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000)6 | |\n| Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,
18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)7 | |\n| Orr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp.,
172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019) | 4, 5, 6 |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok,
160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)3 | |\n| Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc.
v. Mazl Bldg., LLC,
189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020)3, 4 | |\n| Peters v. Peters,
146 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dep't 2017)14 | |\n| Rahman v. Smith,
40 A.D.3d 613 (2d Dep't 2007)9 | |\n| Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.,
117 A.D.2d 796 (2d Dep't 1986)18 | |\n| Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,
113 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2014)3, 4 | |\n| Zanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp.,
193 A.D.3d 536 (1st Dep't 2021)5 | |\n\n# **Statutes & Other Authorities:**\n\n| CPLR 31239 | |\n|-------------|--|\n| CPLR 312612 | |\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nPAX argues that Mr. Kwok should be judicially estopped because he initially prevailed in this action when the motion court granted his *forum non conveniens* motion – and thus asks the Court to disregard the critical fact that on PAX's appeal, this Court reversed that very decision below and denied Mr. Kwok's motion. As a matter of New York law, a party whose temporary win is later overturned is not the prevailing party for the application of judicial estoppel. Because the motion court's granting of summary judgment was predicated entirely on its erroneous judicial estoppel ruling, the judgment should be reversed.\n\nPerhaps recognizing the flaws in the motion court's ruling, PAX suggests several other potential grounds for affirmance, which it admits the motion court did not discuss. PAX's alternative arguments fail. PAX's assertion that Mr. Kwok made \"formal judicial admissions\" that the documents were authentic is not borne out because the statements it cites – which were made not by Mr. Kwok himself, but by former counsel for this non-English-speaking litigant – are cited out of context. None of these statements was a clear, unequivocal, and definitive admission of fact – an essential characteristic of a formal judicial admission. Mr. Kwok's deposition, at which he testified that the documents did not bear his signature, was his first opportunity to speak for himself about the documents and their authenticity.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 197 of 241\n\nNor is there a basis for this Court to simply reject Mr. Kwok's testimony as a matter of law, as PAX also suggests. Consistent with this State's policies of affording litigants due process and resolving cases on their merits, Mr. Kwok should be allowed to present his factual defenses to PAX's claims – including evidence regarding whether the documents are authentic – to the trier of fact.\n\nFinally, even if summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly granted in PAX's favor – which it was not – then issues of fact existed on Mr. Kwok's defense that PAX failed to mitigate its damages, as required under both New York and Hong Kong law.\n\n# **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **POINT I**\n\n# **THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL**\n\n## **A. The Elements of Judicial Estoppel Were Not Present**\n\nPAX concedes, as it must in the face of this Court's precedents, that judicial estoppel applies only \"where the party 'obtained a favorable ruling or judgment . . . as a result' of [an allegedly] inconsistent position. (PAX Br. 9, quoting *35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC*, 171 A.D.3d 545, 545 (1st Dep't 2019)). Here, Mr. Kwok did not obtain a \"favorable ruling or judgment\" on the *forum non conveniens* issue, because after he initially prevailed before the motion court, this Court reversed the decision below, denied Mr. Kwok's motion to dismiss, and directed that this action proceed in New York. *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok*, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018). Nor did even the motion court's initial decision, much less this Court's reversal, make a determination on the authenticity of documents (which, contrary to PAX's assertion, did not come from Mr. Kwok's \"own files\").\n\nIn numerous decisions discussed in Mr. Kwok's initial Brief (*see* Kwok Br. 17-19), this Court has held that a party must have secured a judgment or other final relief in its favor through the benefit of its prior, allegedly inconsistent position, before judicial estoppel can be invoked. *See, e.g.*, *Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC*, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020); *MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith*, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020); *MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd*, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018); *Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.*, 113 A.D.3d 516, 516 (1st Dep't 2014); *Carr v. Caputo*, 114 A.D.3d 62, 71 (1st Dep't 2013). Here, Mr. Kwok obviously did not obtain a judgment in his favor in this action, given that this very appeal is taken from the judgment entered *against* him.\n\nPAX argues that a party need not have obtained a judgment in order to be judicially estopped, relying on *D & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC*, 287 A.D.2d 65, 71 (1st Dep't 2001). While the *D & L Holdings* court held that the document by which the party gained relief need not be *labeled* as a \"judgment,\" it reaffirmed, rather than negated, the rule that judicial estoppel applies only where \"a\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 199 of 241\n\nparty obtains relief by maintaining one position, and later, in a different action, maintains a contrary position.\" *Id.* at 71-72. To the contrary, judicial estoppel was applied in that case only because \"D & L actually achieved the relief it sought\" from the court in the earlier proceeding. *Id.* at 72.\n\nAs this Court has explained, to be estopped, a party must \"prevail\" and obtain a favorable ruling in the litigation by virtue of its alleged prior position. *See, e.g., Patmos*, 189 A.D.3d at 633 (\"The claim was not barred by judicial estoppel given that, even if contradictory, none of defendants' prior positions prevailed.\"); *Wells Fargo*, 113 A.D.3d at 516 (1st Dep't 2014) (\"As plaintiffs did not prevail on their contractual indemnification claim, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.\"). Here, PAX advances the remarkable argument that Mr. Kwok prevailed in obtaining a favorable ruling on *forum non conveniens* because the motion court initially granted his motion to dismiss – even though this Court, on PAX's appeal from that ruling, reversed the decision below and denied Mr. Kwok's motion.\n\nPAX's position – that a party is deemed to have prevailed on an issue even when an initial ruling in his favor is later reversed – is squarely at odds with recent decisions by this Court explaining what \"prevailing\" and obtaining a \"favorable ruling\" mean. This Court's decision in *Orr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp.*, 172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019), is directly on point. In that case, a party initially was granted relief in a bankruptcy proceeding, but the Bankruptcy Court later reopened\n\nthe case, thus negating that relief. This Court ruled that after that change, the Bankruptcy Court's initial ruling could not be the basis for a judicial estoppel:\n\nThe reopening of Kartsanis's bankruptcy case renders the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable as it \"nullif[ied] the final determination upon which . . . judicial estoppel could be predicated.\"\n\n*Id.* at 512 (quoting *Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc*. 169 A.D.3d 1010, 1013 (2d Dep't 2019); *Koch v. National Basketball Ass'n*, 245 A.D.2d 230, 230-31 (1st Dep't 1997)).\n\nPAX contends that cases such as *Goodman* are limited to the bankruptcy context, but suggests no reason that would support any such limitation. PAX argues that \"the reopening of a bankruptcy proceeding by the bankruptcy court 'nullif[ies] the final determination upon which . . . judicial estoppel could be predicated.'\" (PAX Br. 33 (quoting *Goodman*)). But precisely the same is true in this case: When this Court reversed the motion court's granting of Mr. Kwok's *forum non conveniens* motion and denied the motion, it \"nullif[ied]\" the prior determination in Mr. Kwok's favor and thereby negated it as a potential predicate for judicial estoppel. *Cf. Barish v. Association of the Bar*, 20 N.Y.2d 154, 158 (1967) (\"reversal of a conviction . . . nullifies it as if it had never been\"); *Zanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp.*, 193 A.D.3d 536, 538 (1st Dep't 2021) (where decision in defendant's favor was reversed, award of attorneys' fees to defendant under a prevailing-party clause \"must likewise be reversed, since the [defendant] is, at this juncture, not the prevailing party\"); *Micro-* *Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst*, 155 A.D.3d 1638, 1640 (4th Dep't 2017) (\"'where a court has vacated an earlier order, the doctrine of . . . law of the case no longer applies. . . . Indeed, 'a vacated judgment has no preclusive force either as a matter of collateral or direct estoppel or as a matter of law of the case.\") (citations omitted).\n\nAs discussed in our initial Brief, the motion court's and PAX's reliance on *Nestor v. Britt*, 270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000), is misplaced. (*See* Kwok Br. 21- 22). That decision did not even mention, let alone apply, the \"prevailing party\" or \"favorable ruling\" requirement for judicial estoppel; it cannot reasonably be read as overriding decades of this Court's precedents, both before and after *Nestor*, recognizing that requirement. And PAX's interpretation of *Nestor* cannot be reconciled with this Court's decisions in *Orr* and *Koch*, both of which held that a subsequent litigation development precludes the application of judicial estoppel where it \"nullif[ies] the final determination upon which . . . judicial estoppel could be predicated.\" *Orr*, 172 A.D.3d at 512; *Koch*, 245 A.D.2d at 231.\n\nFinally, the motion court's judicial estoppel ruling was inconsistent with this Court's holding that judicial estoppel applies only in the context of two or more separate actions or proceedings, while this case involves only a single action. As discussed in our initial Brief, this Court has squarely held that judicial estoppel requires two successive actions:\n\nWe also reject the employer's argument that the owners are judicially estopped from arguing that plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply here because first, the verdict against the owners cannot be considered a ruling in their favor, and second, the inconsistent positions are being asserted in the same action.\n\n*Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc*., 18 A.D.3d 349, 350-51 (1st Dep't 2005).\n\nContrary to PAX's urging, this Court's clearly stated holding that \"judicial estoppel does not apply . . . [where the allegedly] inconsistent positions are being asserted in the same action\" (*id.*) cannot be disregarded as mere dictum. Where the Court provides two bases for deciding an issue, both within the same sentence of its opinion, there is no basis for a litigant such as PAX to elevate one as the holding of the case while demoting the other to *obiter* status. *Cf. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny*, 189 A.D.3d 583, 583 (1st Dep't 2020) (\"We decline to overrule any of our alternative holdings in *Lavery*, which petitioner erroneously refers to as 'dicta.\"), *leave to appeal granted*, 36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021). Moreover, even assuming *arguendo* that judicial estoppel could sometimes arise from inconsistent positions taken within the same action – despite this Court's direct holding to the contrary in *Olszewski* – it still could not apply against Mr. Kwok, because as discussed above, his position on the *forum non conveniens* motion did not prevail even within the context of this action.\n\nThe motion court's granting of summary judgment on liability was based entirely on its judicial estoppel decision. Because that decision was erroneous, the judgment should be reversed.\n\n# **B. PAX's Judicial Admissions Theory, Which Was Not Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit**\n\nUrging alternative grounds to uphold its precipitously awarded judgment without any determinations on the merits, PAX also contends that Mr. Kwok made binding \"formal judicial admissions\" that the documents were authentic. As PAX itself acknowledges (PAX Br. 36), the motion court did not address or rely on Mr. Kwok's supposed \"admissions\" as a basis for its rulings, either orally or in its written decisions. In this case, this Court should not exercise its discretion to consider in the first instance arguments that the motion court did not reach or address.\n\nAlternatively, if this Court chooses to consider PAX's alternative contentions, it should reject them. \"To constitute a judicial admission, a statement must be 'deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.'\" *Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon*, 171 A.D.3d 197, 211 (2d Dep't 2019) (citation omitted); *accord Matter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P.*, 181 A.D.3d 461, 463 (1st Dep't 2020) (statement could not be considered a formal judicial admission where it \"was not sufficiently conclusive or unequivocal to quality\" as such). Even PAX acknowledges that \"[t]o be considered a formal judicial admission, a statement \"must be one of fact,\" \"must be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal,\" and must be \"made with sufficient formality and conclusiveness.\" (PAX Br. 36-37, quoting *Rahman v. Smith*, 40 A.D.3d 613, 615 (2d Dep't 2007)). The so-called admissions cited by PAX do not meet this standard.\n\nPAX relies primarily upon two alleged admissions, both of which were supposedly made by Mr. Kwok's former counsel. Notably, these \"admissions\" were not contained in Mr. Kwok's deposition testimony, in which he clearly testified that the documents did not bear his genuine signature, or in any writing signed by Mr. Kwok himself. First, PAX asserts that Mr. Kwok admitted the documents' authenticity in responding to a set of requests for admissions. He did not. PAX's voluminous requests for admissions (\"RFAs\") (*see* R411-99) included requests that Mr. Kwok admit having executed various documents. However, PAX did not annex those documents as exhibits to its requests for admission. (*Id*.). As a result, neither Mr. Kwok nor anyone on his behalf had the opportunity to review the specific documents at issue, as required by CPLR 3123.\n\nMr. Kwok's lawyers' responses to the RFAs included a general objection to the RFAs in their entirety as well as specific objections that Mr. Kwok was being asked to stipulate to the authenticity of documents that were not attached. (R411- 78; *see, e.g.,* Responses to Request Nos. 10, 13, 19, 30, 37, 44, and 51). Thus, Mr. Kwok did not admit the authenticity of any specific document, much less did he do so conclusively or unequivocally. How could he have done that, when no specific documents were presented for anyone to review? After receiving the responses and objections submitted by Mr. Kwok's then-counsel, PAX advised counsel that PAX would respond \"shortly\" in order to address his counsel's objections. But PAX never did so, and it never mentioned the so-called \"admissions\" again until it filed its sanctions motion.\n\nThe second document that PAX mischaracterizes as an \"admission\" was a cover letter to an exhibit list. (*See* NYSCEF Doc. 325). This document was created after the motion court had scheduled an evidentiary hearing on a motion by PAX to attach a New York apartment that it alleged belonged to Mr. Kwok. In advance of that hearing, the parties, through their counsel, entered into a formal stipulation designed to limit the scope of that specific hearing – not, of course, of the entire action – to the attachment-related issues. (NYSCEF Doc. 306). Thus, the parties stipulated that for purposes of the specific evidentiary hearing on the attachment, the court could assume that PAX had a cause of action against Mr. Kwok and a likelihood of success, so that PAX need not prove these elements at the hearing. (*Id.* at 3). The stipulation emphasized that it addressed only the proof that PAX must present at this particular hearing and that PAX was \"not relieved of its obligation to prove the merits of each of its claims in order to obtain a final judgment.\" (*Id*.).\n\nThe parties then prepared for the evidentiary hearing on the attachment. The motion court's practice rules required that in advance of the hearing, the parties submit exhibit lists, noting whether the admissibility of the exhibits was stipulated or disputed. On April 19, 2019, PAX's counsel submitted a cover letter to the motion court, \"writ[ing] jointly under Practice Rule 28 for Part 61 . . . to provide the Court with the . . . materials ahead of the April 26, 2019 evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's attachment motion\" and stating in that context only that, *inter alia,* Mr. Kwok was not disputing the authenticity of PAX's exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. 325 at 1).\n\nBoth the April 3, 2019 stipulation and the April 19, 2019 cover letter reflected the parties' efforts, through their counsel, to focus the upcoming evidentiary hearing on the attachment motion solely on attachment-related issues, it being understood that \"full merits discovery [would] be held\" later in the case. (NYSCEF Doc. 306 at 3). The statements in both documents plainly related solely to the admissibility of the listed exhibits for purposes of the impending attachment hearing. Mr. Kwok did not thereby admit in this cover letter that the exhibits were authentic for purposes of the subsequent merits proceedings, any more than he stipulated to the exhibits' admissibility at a merits trial or that he would not offer any exhibits of his own at that trial. *Matter of Daniel C.*, 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984), cited by PAX, is readily distinguishable, because in that case counsel's stipulation concerning the scope of the issues was made on the record at the trial on the merits, at which the represented party was present in court and testified under oath – not, as here, in a letter submitted in advance of a hearing on an ancillary procedural issue and submitted for purposes of that hearing.\n\nA litigant whose counsel entered into a stipulation governing a motion hearing should not be penalized by having the limited-purpose stipulation thrown in his face for a completely different purpose later in the case, and certainly not to the extent of having his main defense vitiated. This Court ought not conclude on the record before it that this cover letter, not signed by Mr. Kwok or even by his counsel, was \"sufficiently conclusive or unequivocal to qualify\" as a binding judicial admission on Mr. Kwok's behalf. *Matter of Daniel M. G.*, 181 A.D.3d at 463.\n\nThis is not a situation in which a party testifies as his or her deposition that \"the light was green\" and then later submits an affidavit stating \"the light was red.\" Here, Mr. Kwok's first opportunity to speak for himself, when shown the documents at issue, and to address whether they were authentic, was at his deposition. It is undisputed that during his deposition, Mr. Kwok clearly, definitely, and unequivocally stated that his signatures on the documents were *not* authentic. (*See* Kwok Br. 6-7). This Court should not reach out on a theory that the motion court neither discussed nor adopted in order to reject the most reliable evidence of Mr. Kwok's knowledge on a disputed issue of fact: his own deposition testimony.\n\n# **C. PAX's \"Sanctions for Perjury\" Theory, Which Was Not Adopted by the Motion Court, Lacks Merit**\n\nPAX also suggests that this Court itself grant sanctions against Mr. Kwok. PAX is not seeking sanctions under CPLR 3126 for discovery misconduct, such as failure to provide adequate document discovery or to appear for a deposition. Rather, PAX asks the Court to \"preclude[e] Kwok from relying on his testimony as to forgery\" because PAX says it does not believe the testimony. (PAX Br. 45). There is no basis for such a sanction.\n\nThe type of sanction sought by PAX is rarely sought and even more rarely granted. In *CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen*, 23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014), cited by PAX, the Court of Appeals held that courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for conduct that \"undermine the truth-seeking function of the judicial system and place in question the integrity of the courts and our system of justice.\" *Id.* at 318. But before imposing a sanction on this basis, the moving party \"must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the offending 'party has acted knowingly in an attempt to hinder the fact finder's fair adjudication of the case and his adversary's defense of the action.\" *Id.* at 320. The Court of Appeals emphasized that case-terminating sanctions such as dismissal are \"an extreme remedy that 'must be exercised with restraint and discretion,'\" and only \"where the conduct is particularly egregious, characterized by lies and fabrications in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court and the nonoffending party; where the conduct is perpetrated repeatedly and wilfully, and established by clear and convincing evidence\". *Id.* at 321 (citation omitted). It is only \"the rare case\" that could warrant such a sanction, and a court's basis for imposing it should be explained. *Id.* at 322.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 209 of 241\n\nIn *C.D.R. Créances* itself, the Court of Appeals affirmed the striking of pleadings as a sanction where, *inter alia*, there was testimony that defendants had instructed and conspired with witnesses that they provide false and misleading testimony, including providing them with a written \"script\" of false answers to be given at depositions; defendants \"created fictitious characters\" who were the subject of testimony; multiple individuals \"repeatedly perjured themselves at their depositions\"; and defendants had been criminally convicted for conduct at issue in the litigation. *Id.* at 316-18.\n\nThis case, in which the defendant testified that certain documents were inauthentic at his first opportunity to do so, cannot reasonably be analogized to *C.D.R. Créances.* A request that a party \"should forfeit his [defenses]\" in an action should be denied where it \"is unsupported by clear and convincing evidence that [he] engaged in a willful and pervasive scheme to defraud the court that prejudiced [PAX's] ability to [litigate its] claims.\" *Napoli v. Bern*, 171 A.D.3d 489, 490 (1st Dep't 2019); *see also Peters v. Peters*, 146 A.D.3d 503, 504 (1st Dep't 2017) (\"Plaintiff failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that defendants' alleged misstatements were particularly egregious and characterized by lies in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court.\"). To the extent PAX believes there is evidence that contradicts Mr. Kwok's version of the facts, its remedy is the one enjoyed by any litigant who disagrees with its adversary's case: to present its evidence to the trier of fact.\n\n# **D. PAX's Contention that It Was Entitled to Summary Judgment Apart from the Judicial Estoppel Ruling Is Meritless**\n\nAs the last of its alternative arguments for affirmance, PAX asserts that even if the motion court's order barring Mr. Kwok from disputing the documents' authenticity is overturned, summary judgment was still properly granted because in opposition to PAX's motion, Mr. Kwok did not present evidence or arguments to establish that the documents were forged. (PAX Br. 45-47).\n\nThis argument by PAX completely ignores the effect of the preclusion order that the motion court granted at PAX's request; the foundation for summary judgment was that very preclusion order. Purportedly as a sanction, the motion court directed that Mr. Kwok was \"judicially estopped from challenging, in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion or at trial, the authenticity of documents defendant Kwok previously sponsored in proceedings before this Court.\" (R59).\n\nIn opposing PAX's summary judgment motion, Mr. Kwok and his counsel were bound by the motion court's directive that they were \"judicially estopped from challenging\" the authenticity of the documents \"in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion\". (R59). As part of their opposition papers, Mr. Kwok moved to reargue the judicial estoppel ruling, but the motion court denied that request. (R52- 54). Unless and until the motion court's preclusion order was reversed, either by the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 211 of 241\n\nmotion court itself or by this Court, Mr. Kwok was bound by it, as he noted in his opposition papers. (*See* R3213 n.1, R3231 n.1, R3256 n.1). Therefore, he was barred by court order from disputing the authenticity of the documents, nor could he request an evidentiary hearing on that issue, as PAX also argues he should have done. (*See* PAX Br. 46-47). It is at best ironic, and at worst disingenuous, for PAX to fault Mr. Kwok for not challenging the authenticity of the documents in its summary judgment papers. That is the very thing that PAX had successfully convinced the motion court to preclude Mr. Kwok from doing.\n\n## **POINT II**\n\n# **THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE MOTION COURT ERRED BY REJECTING THE DEFENSE THAT PAX FAILED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES**\n\nThe judgment should also be reversed because the motion court improperly rejected, as a matter of law, Mr. Kwok's defense that PAX failed to mitigate its alleged damages. The motion court did so without conducting an evidentiary hearing or trial, just two months after it had specifically stated on the record that \"[w]e are going to have a hearing on the damages issue\" and that Mr. Kwok would \"be permitted to adduce whatever evidence they have [*sic*], if any, on that theory in connection with the damages hearing.\" (NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 6).\n\nPAX does not dispute on appeal that plaintiffs in contract actions are generally required to mitigate their damages, rather than seek to collect for losses that they\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 212 of 241\n\ncould have avoided, under both Hong Kong and New York law. Instead, PAX asserts that there could be no duty to mitigate under the alleged 2013 Deed of Settlement because that document had expired \"prior to the post-June 2015 Beijing Police contact.\" (PAX Br. 49). However, PAX acknowledges that it learned of this opportunity after the apartments were seized by the Beijing Police, which admittedly occurred in February 2015. (PAX Br. 51). An issue of fact exists as to how long afterwards PAX learned of the opportunity, and whether this occurred by June 30, 2015, *i.e.*, within a period of four or five months after the seizures.\n\nPAX also argues that it had no duty to mitigate because the 2013 Deed of Settlement did not obligate Mr. Kwok to cause the apartments to be turned over to PAX, but merely allowed him to do so as an alternative means of performance to payment of the moneys owed under the guarantee. (PAX Br. 51-52). However, as discussed in our initial Brief, PAX had agreed that delivery of the three apartments to it would represent an acceptable alternative performance in lieu of payment of the moneys allegedly owed under Mr. Kwok's guarantee. Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert opined that Hong Kong law would require a reasonable effort to mitigate under these circumstances (*see* R4355-58, R4623-26), and PAX supplies no contrary authority under the law of either jurisdiction. In particular, Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert explained, with citations of authority, that the duty to mitigate applies \"to situations, such as the one presented here, where the parties have entered into a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 213 of 241\n\nsubsequent agreement to settle the debt which involves alternative forms of repayment, such as the sale and purchase of property.\" (R4624). As Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong law expert observed, PAX's expert cited no authority in favor of PAX's contention that the duty to mitigate is inapplicable in this context. (*See* R4624-25). In the absence of such authority, the general rule under Hong Kong law (as under New York law) that a party must mitigate would apply.\n\nPAX disputes whether the Beijing Police offer represented a \"reasonable\" opportunity to mitigate. Under Hong Kong law, \"[w]hether or not a party has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss is primarily a question of fact, not law.\" (R4356 and R4627, citing authorities). \"What constitutes 'reasonable steps' for PAX to have taken must be considered and determined by the trier of fact in consideration of all the surrounding circumstances.\" (R4627). Under New York law also, \"[t]he question of whether that party acted reasonably to mitigate its damages is a question of fact.\" *Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.*, 117 A.D.2d 796, 797 (2d Dep't 1986) (citations omitted); *accord Bernstein v. Freudman*, 180 A.D.2d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 1992). The motion court did not rule directly on this question, which could not properly be resolved as a matter of law, especially given the evidence that PAX viewed the police offer as representing \"a good price\" (R4360), \"less than the market price\" (R4348), and a \"positive movement\" from PAX's point of view (R4361). If PAX had accepted the Beijing\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 214 of 241\n\nPolice offer, and thereby mitigated its damages by accepting a performance that it had agreed would discharge Mr. Kwok's alleged guarantee, then it could then have asserted a claim for its expenses incurred during the mitigation process.\n\nAs noted in our initial Brief, PAX's pursuing and accepting the police offer would not only have substantially reduced the principal amount claimed by PAX, either altogether or at least by tens of millions of dollars, but it also would have reduced PAX's claim for several years' worth of 15% annual interest on that sum, which now represents more than half of the judgment. Instead, PAX chose to litigate against Mr. Kwok, perhaps in pursuit of its animus against him and desire to enforce the alleged personal guarantee for \"the sheer satisfaction it would create.\" (R4579).\n\nFinally, PAX belittles Mr. Kwok's argument that its receipt of possession of the three apartments resulted in value to PAX that should have been offset against the amount of any judgment, to be determined at trial. PAX argues that full performance under the alleged Deed of Settlement required the conveyance of title to PAX, not only possession. Even if PAX's possession of the three apartments did not represent as much value as the conveyance of title would have, it must necessarily have had *some* value. The motion court erred by holding that as a matter of law it had no value at all.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 215 of 241\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor all the foregoing reasons, the judgment should be reversed.\n\nDated: New York, New York October 15, 2021\n\n## GANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP\n\n~c~ C. Zauder By:\n\nMark Ira Brad Matetsky Jason T. Cohen 360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 412-9500 mzauderer@ganfershore.com *Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Kwok Ho Wan a/kla Miles Kwok*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 216 of 241\n\n# **PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT**\n\nI hereby certify pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j) that the foregoing brief was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word.\n\n*Type.* A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:\n\n| Name of typeface: | Times New Roman |\n|-------------------|-----------------|\n| Point size: | 14 |\n| Line spacing: | Double |\n\n*Word Count.* The total number of words in this brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service and this Statement is 4,802.\n\nDated: October 15, 2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 217 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 22**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 218 of 241\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
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY
FUND L.P., | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| KWOK 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 | | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a
HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and
GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn September 30, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Skype, with counsel for all parties. On consent, the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Mr. Kwok 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\nThe Court will hear further argument, and if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing, on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file their opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm. Plaintiff must file their reply, if any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm. If either party intends to call witnesses, they must exchange witness lists with one another and e-file a witness list with the Court no later than October 13, 2020.\n\nAdditionally, the Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion 008 for damages and attorney's fees on October 15, 2020 at 10:00 am via Microsoft Teams. Defendants must file\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/30/2020 04:44 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 591 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 219 of 241\n\ntheir opposition to Motion 011 by October 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm and Plaintiff must file their reply,\n\nif any, by October 14, 2020 at 4:00 pm.\n\nAny violation of the temporary restraining order issued today shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\n\nDated: September 30, 2020\n\n![](_page_218_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 220 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 23**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2020 02:52 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 630 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 221 of 241\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 L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | | |\n| | -
v - | | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 011 | |\n| | GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE | | | |\n| | HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, | | | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS | | | |\n| CORPORATION, | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nOn October 15, 2020, the Court held oral argument via Microsoft Teams, with counsel for all parties participating, on plaintiff's motion for a post-judgment restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 (motion 011). On September 15, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on liability, with damages and the issue of whether the corporate defendants are defendant Kwok's alter egos to be determined at a later date. NYSCEF Doc. 549.\n\nPlaintiff's motion for a restraining order pursuant to CPLR 5229 is granted. Mr. Kwok is restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and 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, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020.\n\nSpecifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\n![](_page_221_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nPlaintiff is entitled, under CPLR 5229, to take discovery into the above-identified assets as well as to seek discovery into any other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\n\nThe next appearance will be a pre-trial conference on November 12, 2020 at 2:00 pm via Microsoft Teams.\n\n| October 15, 2020
DATE | | | | \\$SIG\\$
BARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C. | | |\n|--------------------------|---|------------------------------------|---|------------------------------------------|-----------|--|\n| CHECK ONE: | X | CASE DISPOSED
GRANTED
DENIED | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED IN PART | OTHER | |\n| APPLICATION: | | SETTLE ORDER | | SUBMIT ORDER | | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 223 of 241\n\n# **EXHIBIT 24**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2016 07:09 PM** INDEX NO. 653316/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2016 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM**INDEX NO. 652077/2017NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 224 of 241\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 225 of 241\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 226 of 241\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 227 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 228 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 229 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 231 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 232 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 233 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 234 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 236 of 241\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\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 238 of 241\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#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 239 of 241\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\n![](_page_239_Picture_0.jpeg)\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\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 764 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 241 of 241\n\nCITY OF Meseryqy COUNTY OF Ceno Gordo ) ) )\n\nss.:\n\nI, Linmag lds- being duly swom, depose and say that I aur fluent in both the English and Chinese languages. I hereby certiS that the attached document is an accurate hanslation of the Chinese version of \"Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan.\"\n\nSwomto before me this\n\nLou, ofl\\*qec|ts €ebr^-^-r1 gotb\n\nNotary Public\n\n![](_page_240_Picture_8.jpeg)","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 1 页，共 241 页\n证据附件 13\n\nDANIEL PODHASKIE（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基） 2019年12月11日\n\n原始文件 293035B.txt Min-U-Script® 附词语索引\nPACIFIC 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（郭浩云） 案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 3 页，共\n\n第 1 页　第 3 页\n\n1 纽约州最高法院　1 出庭人员：（续）\n2 纽约县\n\n3 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY　2　3 LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）\n4 FUND L.P.，　4 Genever Entities（杰尼弗实体）的代理律师\n5 原告，　5 55 Madison Avenue\n6 — 诉 —　6 Morristown, New Jersey 07960\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO\n7 WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO　7 代理人：AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.（亚伦·A·米切尔，律师）\nWEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名\n8 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，　8 电话 914-760-8963\n9 被告。　9 电子邮箱 aaron@lmesq.com\n10 案卷编号：652077/2017　10\n11 -----------------------------------------X　11\n12 605 Third Avenue　12 同时出席者：\n13 New York, New York　13 YVETTE WANG（王粤），Genever\n14 2019年12月11日\n下午2时56分　14 DAN MACOM（丹·梅科姆），录像师\n15　15\n16 DANIEL PODHASKIE 的庭前录像取证　16\n17 ，在 Melissa Gilmore（梅利莎·吉尔莫尔）面前进行，其系　17\n18 纽约州速记记录员兼公证人。　18\n19　19\n20　20\n21　21\n22　22\n23 ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO., LLC（艾伦·格劳尔法庭记录有限公司）　23\n24 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10022　24\n25 212-750-6434\n参考：293035B　25\n\n第 2 页　第 4 页\n\n1 出庭人员：　1 ------------------- 目录 -------------------\n2　2 证人　询问人　页码\n3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）　3 DANIEL PODHASKIE　MOSS 律师　8\n4 原告代理律师　4 MITCHELL 律师　119\n5 7 Times Square　5\n6 New York, New York 10036　6 指示：第 91、93 页\n7 代理人：EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（爱德华·莫斯，律师）　7\n8 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨尔诺夫，律师）　8\n9 ELI A. GROSSMAN, ESQ.（伊莱·A·格罗斯曼，律师）　9 ---------------- 证据附件 ----------------\n10 电话 212-728-5651　10 PODHASKIE　说明　供识别\n11 电子邮箱 emoss@omm.com　11 附件 1　公司代表　9\n12 ssarnoff@omm.com　12 Genever New York 的证词采集通知\n13 egrossman@omm.com　13\n14　14 附件 2　Genever BVI 的证词采集通知　9\n15　15\n16 HODGSON RUSS LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）　16 附件 3　公司文件汇编，　20\n17 被告代理律师　17 Bates 编号\n18 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300　18 KWOK143 至 194\n19 New York, New York 10158　19 附件 4　负担登记证明书　55\n20 代理人：JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ.（吉莉安·玛丽·瑟尔斯，律师）　20\n21 电话 646-218-7591　21 附件 5　已登记负担的履行或　56\n22 电子邮箱 jsearles@hodgsonruss.com　22 解除通知\n23　23 根据\n\n25　24\n25 第 165 条\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN 案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 4 页，共\n\n第 5 页　第 7 页\n\n1 ------------ 证据附件（续）-----------　1 程序\n2 PODHASKIE　说明　供识别　2\n3 附件 6　被告反对原告提出　58　3 录像师：这是由原告在\n4 的判决前　4 Pacific Alliance Asia\n5 扣押命令动议的法律　5 Opportunity Fund L.P. 诉 Wan 等人一案中对 Daniel T.\n6 备忘录　6 Podhaskie 先生进行的录像证词采集，\n7　7 该案在纽约州纽约县纽约州最高法院审理。\n8 附件 7　负担登记证明书　65　8 案卷编号为 652077/2017。\n9　9 本次证词采集在 Hodgson Russ 的办公室举行，\n10 附件 8　已登记负担的履行或　69　10 今日日期\n11 解除通知　11 为 2019年12月11日。\n12 负担　12\n13 附件 9　信托声明及　103　13 我叫 Dan Macom。\n14 协议　14 我来自 Ellen Grauer，一家美国法律支持\n15 附件 10　Stevenson Wong 于 2015年3月4日　112　15 公司。\n16 出具的信函　16\n17　17 今日的法庭记录员是\n18　18 Melissa Gilmore 女士，也来自 Ellen\n19 （待出示的证据附件）　19 Grauer，一家美国法律支持公司。\n20　20 今日在场的所有律师，\n21　21 其出庭信息将载于书面\n22　22 记录中。\n23　23 此时我将请求我们的\n24　24 法庭记录员为\n25　25 证人宣誓。\n\n第 6 页　第 8 页\n\n1 约定　1 D A N I E L\nP O D H A S K I E，\n作为\n2　2 证人被传唤，其经公证人宣誓后，\n3 特此约定并同意，双方　3 接受询问并作证如下：\n4 各自代理律师同意，免除　4\n5 密封及提交。　5\n6　6 由 MOSS 律师询问：\n7　7 问：\n8 进一步约定并同意，除对　8 Podhaskie 先生，您作为两个实体的\n9 问题形式提出的异议外，所有异议均　9 公司代表到场；对吗？\n10 保留至审判时提出。　10 答：\n11　11 是。\n12 进一步约定并同意，本证词　12 问：\n13 可在任何获授权主持宣誓的官员面前　13 其中一个实体是 Genever Holdings, LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），对吗？\n14 宣誓并签署，其效力与在　14 答：\n15 法院面前签署相同。　15 对。\n16　16 问：\n17　17 今天我将把该实体称为 Genever New York（杰尼弗纽约）。可以吗？\n18　18 答：\n19 - oOo -　19 可以。\n20　20 问：\n我说 Genever New York 时，您会理解我指的是\nGenever Holdings, LLC 吗？\n\n22　21\n22 答：\n23　23 是。\n24　24 问：\n25 您代表的另一实体是 Genever Holdings Corporation BVI（杰尼弗控股公司英属维尔京群岛）；对吗？\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN 案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 5 页，共\n\n第 9 页　第 11 页\n\n1 PODHASKIE　1 PODHASKIE\n2 答：\n是。　2 在该页上？\n3 问：\n我将把该实体称为 Genever BVI（杰尼弗英属维尔京群岛）。可以吗？　3 答：\n是。\n4 答：\n可以。　4 问：\n您今天准备好就这五项证词采集事项作证了吗？\n5 问：\n当我谈到 Genever BVI 时，您会理解我指的是 Genever Holdings Corporation 吗？　5 答：\n是。\n6 答：\n会。　6 问：\n您为就刚刚涉及的这些事项代表 Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 作证，做了什么准备？\n7 问：\n谢谢。　7 MITCHELL 律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n8 我假定没有任何理由使您不能在　8 您可以回答。\n9 今天在此作出真实准确的证词？　9 答：\n10 答：\n没有。　10 我审阅了每一份证词采集通知及\n11　11 其中指定的事项。我审阅了\n12 （Podhaskie 附件 1，Genever New York 的公司代表证词采集通知，标记供识别。）　12 Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 的公司记录。我\n13　13 与 Miles Kwok 交谈过。我与 Guo Qiang\n14 （Podhaskie 附件 2，Genever BVI 的证词采集通知，标记供识别。）　14 交谈过，也与 Yvette Wang 交谈过。\n15　15 MITCHELL 律师：也许，为了在记录中说明，\n16 录像师：现处于记录中。时间为下午2时59分。　16 仅因\n17 问：\nPodhaskie 先生，我已向您交付　17 Podhaskie 先生是一名律师，我\n18 我们标记为 Podhaskie 1 和　18 当然会允许您就\n19 Podhaskie 2 的文件。　19 他与这些人员所进行的 30(b)(6)\n20　20 讨论提出问题，\n21　21\n22　22\n23　23\n24 问：\nPodhaskie 先生，我已向您交付　24\n25 我们标记为 Podhaskie 1 和　25\n\n第 10 页　第 12 页\n\n1 PODHASKIE　1 PODHASKIE\n2 Podhaskie 2 的文件。编号 1 是 Genever New York 的公司　2 但除此以外，我将主张\n3 代表证词采集通知，　3 律师—当事人保密特权。\n4 而附件 2 是 Genever BVI 的证词采集通知。对吗——　4 MOSS 律师：当然。明白。\n5 对吗？　5 这很有帮助。\n6 MITCHELL 律师：对问题形式提出异议。　6 由 MOSS 律师继续询问：\n7 答：\n（文件审阅。）附件 1 是向 Genever New York 发出的证词采集通知，　7 问：\n那么先从 Kwok 先生说起。为准备您今天作为公司代表的证词，\n8　8 您与 Kwok 先生讨论了什么？\n9 附件 2 是向 Genever　9 答：\n我问他是否了解证词采集通知中\n10 BVI 发出的证词采集通知，如您先前所定义。　10 列出的事项。\n11 问：\n很好。谢谢。　11 问：\n他怎么说？\n12 现在，请您看一下，　12 答：\n13 我们可以从附件 1 开始。请看　13 他表示他不了解。\n14 该附件的最后一页。　14 问：\n15 您是否看到有五项　15 您与 Kwok 先生的谈话中，还有任何与您为今天公司\n16 证词采集事项？　16 代表事项作准备有关的内容吗？\n17　17\n18 答：\n是。　18\n19 问：\n您今天准备好就这　19\n20 五项事项作证了吗？　20 答：\n除此之外，我是否与他讨论过任何有关此事、有关准备的其他内容？没有。\n21 答：\n是。　21\n22 问：\n如您能查看　22 问：\nGuo Qiang 是谁？\n23 附件 2 的最后一页，您是否看到有五项　23 答：\n他是 Kwok 先生的儿子。\n24 证词采集事项　24 问：\n您是否通过\n25　25\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN 案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 6 页，共\n\n第 13 页　第 15 页\n\n1 PODHASKIE　1 PODHASKIE\n2 电话、当面？您如何与其沟通？　2 寻找什么？\n3 MITCHELL 律师：仅为　3 问：\n您说那是一次简短谈话。\n4 澄清，他的名字是 Qiang。　4 请说说您记得的关于那次简短\n5 MOSS 律师：抱歉。　5 谈话的任何内容。\n6 问：\nGuo 先生。我再问一次。　6 答：\n他告诉我，他们正在寻找\n7 当您与 Kwok 先生的儿子交谈时，　7 购买一处住所——您知道，在\n8 您们如何沟通？　8 纽约的某个地方，而且他曾与其父亲一同参加过\n9 答：\n通过电话。　9 与 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-荷兰酒店）举行的会议，他\n10 问：\n谁给谁打电话？　10 参加过许多会议，并与该酒店的总裁——或\n11 答：\n当时我与 Yvette Wang 在一起，　11 副总裁交谈过，我不确定其职务，\n12 她给 Guo Qiang 打了电话。　12 即 The Sherry-Netherland 的职务。\n13 问：\n您与 Guo Qiang 交谈时，他在哪里？　13\n14 答：\n我相信他在英格兰。　14 他曾代表 Genever New York 签署一些\n15 问：\n你们二人讨论了什么？　15 购买该住所的申请表，\n16 答：\n我们讨论了已通知的证词采集事项，　16 我想大致就是这些。\n17 以及 Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 的公司手续。　17 问：\n当您说他们在寻找\n18 问：\n您还记得他告诉您的任何事情吗？　18 购买住所时，您所指的“他们”是谁？\n19 答：\n记得。　19 答：\nGuo 家族。\n20 问：\n您能否仅说明您对 Guo Qiang 在那次谈话中为准备您的　20 问：\n是 Kwok 先生和他的儿子，还是\n21　21 范围比这更广？\n22　22 答：\n具体而言，是 Guo Qiang，\n23 问：\n您对 Guo Qiang 在那次谈话中为准备您的　23 Kwok 先生的儿子。\n24 公司代表证词所说内容的最佳记忆是什么？　24 问：\n您与其谈话是在何时\n25　25\n\n第 14 页　第 16 页\n\n1 PODHASKIE　1 PODHASKIE\n2 公司代表证词？\n答：\n我有多少时间？　2 与 Guo Qiang？\n答：\n我相信是在本周一，\n\n问：尽你所需。\n\n12月9日。\n\n答：嗯，我们逐一审阅了各个事项。我们讨论了 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛 Genever）和 Genever New York（纽约 Genever）的设立及商业目的。我们讨论了 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 的公司及所有权结构。我们讨论了 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 的人员管理及组织结构。我们讨论了 Genever BVI 与 Kwok先生以及 Genever New York 的关系。我们还讨论了目前由 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 持有的资产。\n\n问：你说你还与 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）女士谈话，以准备你的证言；这是否正确？\n\n答：她在场，当时我与 Guo Qiang（郭强）进行了谈话。\n\n问：除在场参与与 Guo Qiang 的谈话外，你还与她进行过其他谈话吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是为了准备本次证言笔录吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你们二人讨论了什么，请你说明？\n\n答：我认为，我们讨论了 Genever 的地址及由谁维护该地址——Genever New York，也就是位于纽约的 Genever，是否在这里设有办公室；Genever BVI 也是如此。\n\n问：你还记得其他事情吗？\n\n答：我认为，我们简要讨论了购买纽约 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店）住宅一事。\n\n问：你记得有关该讨论的任何事情吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你能告诉我你记得什么吗？\n\n答：你所指的具体是什么？\n\n问：还有其他的吗？\n\n答：没有。我认为就是这些。\n\n问：Wang女士在 Genever New York 中担任何种角色？\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）案，案号 22-50073，文档 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第 7 页，共\n\n第17页　第19页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：你所说的“角色”是什么意思？你能具体说明吗？\n\n问：Wang女士在 Genever BVI 中担任何种角色？\n\n问：我问你 Wang女士告诉了你什么，而你回答说她在 Genever New York 中没有正式角色。“角色”一词，你是什么意思？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n答：她并未受雇于 Genever New York。\n\n问：嗯，你已准备好就 Genever New York 的人员情况作证，对吗？这是附件1中的事项3；对吗？\n\n问：她是否具有与 Genever New York 有关的任何职责、责任或关联关系？\n\n答：是。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n问：你是否准备好就此作证？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n答：我准备好了。\n\n问：你没有问 Wang女士她在 Genever New York 中担任何种角色？\n\n问：你没有问她吗？\n\n答：我认为你是在假定她在 Genever New York 中有某种角色。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你是否问过她，她是否在 Genever New York 中担任何种角色？\n\n问：让我们——让我们把重点放在 Genever BVI 上。Podhaskie先生，我将交给你一套公司文件，该等文件在本案中由——由 Genever 实体中的一个向我们提供，我不确定是哪一个，但其上有 Kwok Bates 编号戳记；我将查阅——我将请你注意其中的各份文件。如果你认为需要查看其他文件以回答问题，或者你想翻阅这些文件，完全可以。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：她告诉你什么？\n\n答：她在 Genever New York 中没有正式角色。\n\n问：她在 Genever New York 中是否有非正式角色？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n第18页　第20页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。你可以回答。\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n如果有其他文件你认为需要查看以回答问题，或者你想翻阅这些文件，完全可以。\n\n答：你所说的“非正式角色”是什么意思？\n\n（Podhaskie附件3，公司文件汇编，已加盖 Bates 编号 KWOK143 至 KWOK194，标记供识别。）\n\n问：嗯，你作证称你不知道她是否在 Genever New York 中担任角色。这——这是你的证言吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：这是标记为 Podhaskie 3 吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\nMOSS先生：是的，我将这些文件一并标记为3。\n\n答：如果记录是如此反映的。\n\n问：那么，Podhaskie先生，正如我提到的，附件3是一份文件汇编。这些文件按连续 Bates 编号顺序排列，编号为 KWOK143 至 KWOK194。它们是有关两个 Genever 实体的各类公司文件。\n\n问：我问你，Wang女士在 Genever New York 中担任何种角色，而你回答说，我不知道。你记得该证言吗？\n\n因此，我想请你注意第——Bates 页码176。这份文件的标题为“Authorization to Date Director's Resolution”，其 Bates 编号为 KWOK176。你能识别这份文件吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这准确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。你是否知道她在 Genever New York 中担任任何正式或非正式角色？这里的“她”指的是 Yvette Wang女士。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你是否问过她，她是否在 Genever New York 中担任角色？\n\n答：（审阅文件。）其标题为“Authorization to Date Director's Resolution”，看起来其生效日期为 2015 年 2 月 12 日。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.诉 Kwok Ho Wan案，案号 22-50073，文档 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第 8 页，共\n\n第21页　第23页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n其标题为“Authorization to Date Director's Resolution”，看起来其生效日期为 2015 年 2 月 12 日。\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n你能识别这份文件吗？其——标题为“Territory of the British Virgin Island Acts, BVI Companies Act 2004, Certificate of Incorporation, Section 7 for Genever Holdings Corporation”。\n\n问：该文件与 Genever BVI 实体有关吗？\n\n你能识别这份文件吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n问：就你所知，这是否为该《授权为董事决议注明日期》的真实、正确副本？\n\n答：是。这看起来是 Genever BVI 的公司注册证书副本。\n\n答：基于我为今天作准备时审阅的文件，该文件看起来是真实且准确的。\n\n问：你是否有任何理由认为该文件不真实或不准确？\n\n问：底部的那个签名，是 Kwok先生的签名吗？\n\n答：基于我为今天作准备时审阅的文件，这看起来是一份准确副本。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n问：Genever BVI 是于 February 13, 2015 在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的，这是否正确？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n答：是，我相信这是正确的。\n\n问：Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），你看到签名栏下方打字写有“Kwok Ho Wan”吗？\n\n问：除 Kwok先生外，谁参与了 Genever BVI 的设立？\n\n答：是。\n\n答：Guo Qiang（郭强）。\n\n问：那是 Kwok先生的儿子？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：还有其他人吗？\n\n答：据我所知，没有。\n\n问：Genever BVI 为何设立？\n\n答：最初设立它，是为了持有一家将购买房地产的美国公司。\n\n问：该美国公司是 Genever New York 吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：该房地产是否为 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的公寓？\n\n答：那最终成为 Genever 所购买的房地产。\n\n问：所以，你的证言是，当时有购买某处美国房地产的想法，但他们当时并不确切知道该房地产会是什么？\n\n第22页　第24页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：不是。\n\nPODHASKIE\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。你可以回答。\n\n问：这里写道：“签署人正在根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立一家公司，该公司应称为 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司），即该公司。”\n\n答：他们想在美国投资房地产，但不知道他们将购买哪项资产，或将在何处购买。\n\n我读得正确吗？\n\n问：在设立时的计划是购买一项——你说他们将购买哪项资产。在设立时的计划是购买一项资产还是数项资产？\n\n答：你是在读第一段开头吗？\n\n答：我不知道计划是什么。我知道他们考察了数处不同物业，并最终选择了 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n问：是，第一句话。\n\n问：Genever BVI 的目的是否自其设立时的目的起有所改变？\n\n答：（审阅文件。）是。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。你可以回答。\n\n问：签署人是 Kwok先生；对吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n答：正确。正确。\n\n问：没有增加或减少任何目的？\n\n问：Kwok先生设立了 Genever Holdings Corporation，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：这是该文件所反映的内容。\n\n答：从我为今天作准备时审阅的文件及进行的谈话中，并无此种反映。\n\n问：你没有任何理由认为这份从 Kwok先生或 Genever 的档案中提供的文件不准确，对吗？\n\n问：Genever BVI 开展了什么业务？\n\n答：没有。\n\n答：它拥有 Genever New York，而 Genever New York 拥有 The Sherry-Netherland 的住宅。\n\n问：请看一下，Podhaskie先生，KWOK145 页。\n\n问：除拥有 Genever New York 外，Genever BVI 还开展过任何其他业务吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever BVI 是否曾订立任何合同？\n\n答：关于“合同”，你能更具体说明吗？我认为答案是肯定的。\n\n问：好的。你能详细说明吗？\n\n答：它订立了——抱歉——Genever BVI 与名为 Roscalitar 2 的实体，以及与名为 Blue Capital Limited（蓝色资本有限公司）的实体订立了质押协议。\n\n问：除那两份质押协议外，Genever BVI 是否还订立过任何——\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.诉 Kwok Ho Wan案，案号 22-50073，文档 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第 9 页，共\n\n第25页　第27页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n在美国的房地产，他们不知道将购买哪项资产，也不知道将在何处购买。\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：根据我为今天作准备时审阅的文件及进行的谈话，没有。\n\n问：在设立时的计划是购买一项——你说他们将购买哪项资产。在设立时的计划是购买一项资产还是数项资产？\n\n问：Genever BVI 是否有银行账户？\n\n答：我不知道计划是什么。我知道他们考察了数处不同物业，并最终选择了 The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever BVI 的目的是否自其设立时的目的起有所改变？\n\n问：Genever BVI 是否曾向任何其他个人或实体支付任何款项？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。你可以回答。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：没有。\n\n答：你所说的“任何其他个人或实体”，是指谁？\n\n问：没有增加或减少任何目的？\n\n问：除 Genever BVI 外的任何个人或实体。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：Genever BVI 是否曾向 Genever BVI 以外的任何其他个人或实体支付任何款项？\n\n答：从我为今天作准备时审阅的文件及进行的谈话中，并无此种反映。\n\n问：是的，向任何人。它是否曾产生过需要为之付款的债务？它是否曾开过支票？它是否曾为任何货物或服务支出款项？\n\n问：Genever BVI 开展了什么业务？\n\n答：它在英属维尔京群岛聘请了一名注册代理人，并向其支付秘书服务费用。\n\n答：它拥有 Genever New York，而 Genever New York 拥有 The Sherry-Netherland 的住宅。\n\n问：除此之外呢？\n\n问：除拥有 Genever New York 外，Genever BVI 还开展过任何其他业务吗？\n\n答：没有，并非——我未从我为今天作准备时审阅的文件及进行的谈话中看到这一点。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n第26页　第28页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：没有。\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：从我为今天作准备时审阅的文件及进行的谈话中，没有。\n\n问：Genever BVI 是否曾订立任何合同？\n\n问：你知道用于支付注册代理人秘书服务费用的资金来自何处吗？\n\n答：关于“合同”，你能更具体说明吗？我认为答案是肯定的。\n\n答：我相信来自 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运公司）。\n\n问：好的。你能详细说明吗？\n\n问：Genever BVI 是否曾从任何个人或实体收取任何款项？\n\n答：它订立了——抱歉——Genever BVI 与名为 Roscalitar 2 的实体，以及与名为 Blue Capital Limited 的实体订立了质押协议。\n\n答：没有，这一点并未从我为今天作准备时审阅的文件中显现。\n\n问：除那两份质押协议外，Genever BVI 是否还订立过任何——\n\n问：在 Genever BVI 设立时，Kwok先生是否是其唯一股东？\n\n答：是。你所说的 Kwok先生，是指 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）吗？\n\n问：是。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：为明确记录，谢谢你提及这一点；当我提到 Kwok先生时，我将指 Miles Kwok。当我提到 Guo Qiang 时，我将指 Kwok先生的儿子。这样可以吗？\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.诉 Kwok Ho Wan案，案号 22-50073，文档 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第 10 页，共\n\n第29页　第31页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：这就是您在本次证言录取过程中使用这些术语的方式，对吗？\n\n3　答：是的。可以。\n\n4　问：请您看下一页，Podhaskie先生，即标有 Bates 编号 KWOK147 的那一页。顶部写着“根据《2004年英属维尔京群岛商业公司法》注册成立”，中间写着“Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）”。\n\n5　答：是的。\n\n6　问：请您确认这份文件是什么？\n\n7　答：这似乎是 Genever BVI（Genever 英属维尔京群岛）的股票证书副本。\n\n8　问：据您所知，这是一份真实、正确、可信且准确的文件吗？\n\n9　答：同样，根据我为今天所作准备而审阅的文件，这似乎是一份准确的副本。\n\n10　问：这表明 Kwok先生拥有 1,000 股，这些股份的面值为 .001 cents；对吗？\n\n第 30 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　答：我认为是 .001 dollar，但对。\n\n3　问：是的。谢谢。001 dollar？\n\n4　答：是的。\n\n5　问：谢谢。\n\n6　因此，Kwok先生在 Genever Corporation（Genever 公司）——Genever BVI 中所持股份的总价值将为一美元；对吗？\n\n7　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n8　答：如果计算无误，那么是的。这看起来就是这里所写的内容。\n\n9　问：Kwok先生为其股份支付了一美元吗？\n\n10　答：根据我审阅的文件，未反映此事。\n\n11　问：您是否知道 Kwok先生是否为其股份支付过任何金额？\n\n12　答：我不知道。\n\n13　问：在 Genever BVI 存续的整个期间，Kwok先生是否一直是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东？\n\n14　答：根据我为今天所作准备而审阅的文件，是的。\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　Case 22-50073　Doc 183-3　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 11 页\n\n第 33 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：Genever BVI 在其成立时即如此；对吗？\n\n3　答：是的。再次说明，这是根据我今天审阅的内容。\n\n4　问：Genever BVI 在其存续期间，是否曾有过 Kwok先生以外的任何董事？\n\n5　答：有。\n\n6　问：那些其他董事是谁？\n\n7　答：有一名公司秘书，即英属维尔京群岛的一名注册代理人，其也担任董事。\n\n8　问：那是 Elian First Director（埃利安首任董事）吗？\n\n9　答：是的。\n\n10　问：该董事——Elian First Director 是否只担任了一天左右的董事，直到由 Kwok先生接任？\n\n11　答：我不知道其任职多久，但最初确实只是很短的一段时间。\n\n12　问：一天或几天？\n\n13　答：是的。\n\n14　问：除 Elian First Director 之外——其作为 Genever BVI 的董事任职了一天或几天——是否还有过任何其他董事？\n\n第 34 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：除 Kwok先生外，Genever BVI 是否还有过其他董事？\n\n3　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。您可以回答。\n\n4　答：没有。\n\n5　问：Kwok先生是否曾不再担任 Genever BVI 的董事？\n\n6　答：没有。\n\n7　问：他至今仍是董事吗？\n\n8　答：他目前仍是董事。\n\n9　问：他目前仍是唯一的董事吗？\n\n10　答：他是唯一的董事。Guo Qiang（郭强）是总裁。\n\n11　问：Genever BVI 是否曾有过任何办公场所？\n\n12　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n13　答：您所说的“办公场所”，是指商业办公室、公司办公室或类似场所吗？\n\n14　问：是的。\n\n15　答：它在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）有一个邮寄地址，但没有我们通常理解的像这里这样的办公室。\n\n第 32 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：这就是您在本次证言录取过程中使用这些术语的方式，对吗？\n\n3　问：Genever BVI？\n\n4　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n5　答：他是 Genever BVI 的唯一股东。\n\n6　问：您是否因为它是一家公司，而在股东和所有人之间作出区分？这是原因吗？\n\n7　答：是的。\n\n8　问：但没有其他人拥有 Genever BVI；对吗？\n\n9　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n10　答：除 Kwok先生以外？\n\n11　问：是的。\n\n12　答：根据我今天审阅的文件，除 Kwok先生外没有其他股东。\n\n13　问：Zhang Wei（张伟）是谁？\n\n14　答：他是 Kwok先生的一名同事，居住在中国，最终借出了用于购买 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的资金。\n\n15　问：他是 Kwok先生的家庭成员吗？\n\n16　答：那将是猜测，所以我不知道。\n\n第 35 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　MITCHELL先生：我提醒证人不要猜测。\n\n3　问：您说 Zhang Wei 最终借出了用于购买 The Sherry-Netherland 的资金时，Zhang Wei 把钱借给了谁？\n\n4　答：他把钱借给了 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克），该公司当时由 Kwok先生的儿子 Guo Qiang 所有，随后 Guo Qiang 通过 Bravo Luck 为购买 The Sherry-Netherland 提供了资金。\n\n5　问：Zhang Wei 先生是否拥有——持有 Genever BVI 的任何股份？\n\n6　答：根据我为今天所作准备而审阅的文件，其中未反映其持股情况。\n\n7　问：在 Genever BVI 存续期间的任何时候，Zhang Wei先生是否拥有 Genever BVI 的任何股份？\n\n8　答：根据我为今天所作准备而审阅的文件，未反映此事。\n\n第 36 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：Genever BVI 从未有过商业办公室或公司办公室？\n\n3　答：正确。\n\n4　问：Genever BVI 的邮寄地址是否是其在英属维尔京群岛负责送达法律文书的注册代理人的邮寄地址？\n\n5　答：在英属维尔京群岛？\n\n6　问：是的。\n\n7　答：是的。\n\n8　问：它是否还有任何其他——Genever 是否持有——撤回。\n\n9　Genever BVI 除其在英属维尔京群岛负责送达法律文书的注册代理人的邮寄地址外，是否还有其他邮寄地址？\n\n10　答：有。\n\n11　问：它还有哪些其他地址？\n\n12　答：在 Hong Kong（香港）还有一个地址，其在该处保存账簿和记录。\n\n13　问：那个地址是什么？\n\n14　答：我一时想不起来。如果我面前有记录，我就能找到。\n\n15　问：那个地址是什么？它是另一家公司的办公室吗？\n\n16　答：据我了解，它只是另一个邮寄地址，或者另一个——只是一个保存账簿和记录的办公室。\n\n17　问：谁负责保管账簿和记录？\n\n18　答：Guo Qiang。\n\n19　问：除英属维尔京群岛负责送达法律文书的注册代理人地址，以及保存账簿和记录的香港邮寄地址外，还有其他地址吗？\n\n20　答：据我所知，没有。\n\n21　问：Genever BVI 是否曾有过雇员？\n\n22　答：没有。\n\n23　问：Genever BVI 有电话号码吗？\n\n24　答：我认为注册代理人有一个电话号码，但除此之外没有。\n\n25　问：Genever BVI 有电子邮箱地址吗？\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　Case 22-50073　Doc 183-3　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 12 页\n\n第 37 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　答：没有。\n\n3　问：Genever BVI 有任何高级管理人员吗？\n\n4　答：有。\n\n5　问：您提到过 Guo Qiang。\n\n6　答：是的。\n\n7　问：他在 Genever BVI 中担任何种职务？\n\n8　答：他是总裁。\n\n9　问：他何时成为总裁？\n\n10　答：2015 年 5 月。\n\n11　问：从其于 2015 年 2 月成立起，到 Guo Qiang 于 2015 年 5 月成为总裁期间，Genever BVI 是否有任何高级管理人员？\n\n12　答：如果您将董事视为高级管理人员，那么有。\n\n13　问：那就是 Kwok先生？\n\n14　答：正确。\n\n15　问：以及 Elian 任职一天或两天？\n\n16　答：是的。\n\n17　问：除董事以及除——撤回。\n\n18　除董事外，在其于 2015 年 2 月成立至 Guo Qiang 于 2015 年 5 月成为总裁期间，Genever BVI 是否有任何高级管理人员？\n\n第 38 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：Genever BVI 有任何高级管理人员吗？\n\n3　答：没有。\n\n4　问：2015 年 5 月是谁任命或选举 Guo Qiang 担任总裁的？\n\n5　答：Kwok先生。\n\n6　问：是否曾——撤回。\n\n7　Genever BVI 是否曾有过任何其他高级管理人员？我指的不是董事，只是高级管理人员，除总裁 Guo Qiang 外？\n\n8　答：没有。\n\n9　问：Guo Qiang 仍是总裁吗？\n\n10　答：根据我为今天所作准备而审阅的文件，是的。\n\n11　问：从他于 2015 年 5 月由 Kwok先生任命为总裁至今，Guo Qiang 是否曾经——他是否曾在任何一段期间不再担任总裁？\n\n12　答：据我所知，没有。\n\n13　问：Kwok先生是否曾在 Genever BVI 担任高级管理职务？\n\n14　答：据我所知，没有。\n\n15　问：您不知道除 Guo Qiang 外还有任何其他高级管理人员？\n\n16　答：是的。正确。\n\n第 39 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：Genever BVI 是否曾召开过董事会会议？\n\n3　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n4　答：根据我审阅的文件，其中未反映此事。\n\n5　问：因此，根据您所见的一切，该问题的答案是否为否？\n\n6　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n7　答：如果 Genever BVI 召开过董事会会议，我为今天所作准备而审阅的文件中未反映该事实。\n\n8　问：Genever BVI 保存哪些文件？\n\n9　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n10　答：其成立时生成的公司文件、股票证书、董事和股东名册，以及一项任命 Guo Qiang 为总裁的决议。\n\n11　问：您知道这些文件有一个保存地址，但您不确定那里是办公室、房间，还是其他什么地方？\n\n第 40 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　答：是的。\n\n3　问：您是否知道——您是否知道谁拥有该地址，即保存记录的香港地址？\n\n4　答：我相信那是 UBS（瑞银）的一间办公室，但我是在猜测。\n\n5　MITCHELL先生：再次提醒证人不要猜测。\n\n6　问：UBS 是指那家投资银行？\n\n7　答：是的。\n\n8　问：是否有任何获授权代表 Genever BVI 行事的个人？\n\n9　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n10　答：有。\n\n11　问：谁？\n\n12　答：Kwok先生和 Guo Qiang。就本次证言录取而言，是我。以及他们任何一人指定代表公司行事的任何人。\n\n13　问：Kwok先生或 Guo Qiang 是否曾指定任何人代表 Genever BVI 行事，除您之外，就本次证言录取而言？\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　Case 22-50073　Doc 183-3　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 13 页\n\n第 41 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　问：证言录取？\n\n3　答：我不知道。\n\n4　MITCHELL先生：仅对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n5　问：具体是谁任命您在本次证言录取中代表 Genever BVI 行事？\n\n6　答：Guo Qiang。\n\n7　问：目前，除本次证言录取外，您是否获授权为其他目的代表 Genever BVI 行事？\n\n8　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n9　答：我不知道。\n\n10　问：Kwok先生代表 Genever BVI 采取过哪些行动？\n\n11　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。您可以回答。\n\n12　答：除签署公司成立文件外，我不知道。\n\n13　问：Guo Qiang 代表 Genever BVI 采取过哪些行动？\n\n14　MITCHELL先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n第 43 页\n\n1　PODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n2　号。\n\n3　MITCHELL先生：只是为了说明——他是在问您 Genever BVI 的情况。\n\n4　证人：哦，好。\n\n5　答：哦，那可能是针对 Genever New York（Genever 纽约）。\n\n6　因此，就 Genever BVI 而言——\n\n7　MOSS先生：感谢您的澄清。\n\n8　问：让我们回过头来。\n\n9　您先前回答说，他参与了成立，他参与了购买 The Sherry，并且您曾——如果您想回去查看该回答，可以，但我只是想确保记录清楚。\n\n10　该回答是关于 Genever New York，还是 Genever BVI？\n\n11　答：（审阅中。）那么我想，为明确起见，Guo Qiang 参与了 Genever BVI 的成立。在被任命为总裁后，我记得看过几份他以总裁身份为 Genever BVI 签署的文件。我不记得那些是什么，\n\n第42页\n\nPODHASKIE（波达斯基）\n\n答。我确实不太明白你所说的“哪些行为”是什么意思。你能更具体一些吗？\n\n问。据你所知，Guo Qiang（郭强）是否曾代表 Genever BVI（Genever BVI）做过任何事情、参加过任何会议、花过钱，或者从事过任何形式的业务往来？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。他参与了该实体的设立。\n\n他参与了购买 The Sherry-Netherland（雪利-尼德兰）的过程，包括审查他们曾考虑购买的不同房产。他为 Genever BVI 签署了各类文件。他就购买事宜与 The Sherry-Netherland 的代表进行沟通。他就购买事宜与房地产经纪人进行沟通。\n\n问。当你说他为 Genever BVI 签署了各类文件时，你指的是哪些文件？\n\n答。他签署了一份申请雇主识别号（EIN）的申请。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 14 of\n\n第44页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。就我此刻所知而言。\n\n除此之外，我想不出任何事情。\n\n问。Genever BVI 是 Genever New York（Genever New York）的唯一所有者；对吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。是。\n\n问。Genever BVI 也是 Genever New York 的唯一成员吗？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。Genever New York——撤回该问题。\n\nGenever BVI 设立了 Genever New York，这是否正确？\n\n答。是。根据我审阅的文件，我认为这是准确的。\n\n问。Podhaskie先生，请你注意证物3，第 KWOK193 页。这是一份题为“Genever Holdings Corporation 董事书面同意书”的文件。其 Bates 编号为 KWOK193 至 194。\n\n你能辨认这份文件吗？\n\n第45页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问。请予辨认。\n\n答。根据我为今天作准备而审阅的文件，这似乎是 Genever BVI 的唯一董事书面同意书副本，日期为 February 12, 2015。\n\n问。签名栏中的姓名是 Ho Wan Kwok。那是 Kwok先生吗？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。你是否有任何理由认为这不是一份准确且真实的文件？\n\n答。没有。\n\n问。这份文件提到了 Andrea Sanft（安德烈娅·桑夫特），S-A-N-F-T。她是谁？\n\n答。她是 Paul Weiss（保罗·韦斯）或 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利）律师事务所的律师。\n\n问。根据该书面同意书，她被授权作为代表 Genever BVI 的获授权人士；对吗？\n\n答。是，正确。\n\n第47页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问。你不知道 Genever BVI 是否了解 Genever New York 是否属于其资产之一？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。那么问题是什么？\n\n问。Genever New York 是 Genever BVI 的一项资产吗？\n\n答。Genever BVI 是否将 Genever New York 视为一项资产？\n\n问。是。\n\n答。是。\n\n问。Genever BVI 将 Genever New York 视为 Genever BVI 的资产之一？\n\n答。正确。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议，已问已答。\n\n问。除 Genever New York 外，Genever BVI 是否曾持有任何其他资产？\n\n答。根据我为今天作准备而审阅的文件，没有。\n\n问。除 Genever New York 外，Genever BVI 是否曾取得任何其他资产？\n\n答。再次根据我所审阅的材料，没有。\n\n第46页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问。她被授权作为获授权人士设立 Genever New York，并采取为使 Genever New York 得以存在以及获得在纽约州和纽约市开展业务之授权所必需的其他行为和事项；对吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n你可以回答。\n\n答。是，根据这份唯一董事书面同意书，该说法准确。\n\n问。Genever New York 是 Genever BVI 的一项资产吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。如果你假定对有限责任公司的所有权是一项资产，那么是。\n\n问。你的理解是，对有限责任公司的所有权是一项资产吗？\n\n答。那是我个人的理解。\n\n以我作为 Genever 代表的身份，我不知道。\n\n第48页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问。除 Genever New York 外，Genever BVI 是否曾出售任何资产？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。再次根据我为今天作准备而审阅的材料，没有。\n\n问。Genever BVI 的任何资产目前是否受到负担或质押？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。这些资产没有——我认为我无法回答，因为情况有些复杂。这些资产没有被质押。Genever BVI 的资产没有质押给任何人。\n\n问。让我们明确一下我们所说的“资产”是什么意思。Genever BVI 目前是否拥有除 Genever New York 外的任何资产？\n\n答。是，它们拥有其股份。\n\n问。谁的股份？\n\n答。Genever BVI 的股份。\n\n问。但不是 Kwok先生持有那些股份吗？\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.诉 KWOK HO WAN Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 15 of\n\n第49页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。是。\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n问。所以我的问题是，Genever BVI 自身是否持有除 Genever New York 外的任何资产？\n\n答。没有。\n\n问。Genever New York 目前是否受到负担？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。你所说的“受到负担”是什么意思？\n\n问。它目前是否质押给任何人？\n\n答。没有。\n\n问。是否有人目前对其享有留置权？\n\n答。没有。\n\n问。它是否已就任何可能的未来交易向任何人作出承诺？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。在该案中，Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格）作出的命令表明，如果 Genever New York 必须——订立出售 The Sherry-Netherland 住宅的合同，它必须向 PAX（PAX）提供书面通知。\n\n第51页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。其在 Genever BVI 中的股份。\n\n问。Genever BVI 将其自身的股份，即其100 percent的股份，质押给了 Roscalitar 2（Roscalitar 2）？\n\n答。是，我相信这是准确的。\n\n问。并且，通过质押其自身的100 percent股份，它也质押了 Genever New York 以及 Genever New York 持有的资产；对吗？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。为什么 Genever BVI——为什么 Genever BVI 的股份被质押给 Roscalitar 2？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。因为 Zhang Wei（张伟）要求 Genever 通过该笔贷款质押其股份。\n\n问。为什么 Zhang Wei 希望 Genever 质押其股份？\n\n答。作为他向 Genever 提供、最终用于购买该住宅的贷款的担保。\n\n问。是谁作出将 Genever BVI 的股份质押给 Roscalitar 2 的决定？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对提问形式提出异议。\n\n第50页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问。除 Ostrager大法官的命令外，Genever New York 是否以任何方式受到负担？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。据我所知，没有。\n\n问。你作证称，曾有一段时间 Genever BVI 的资产被质押——撤回该问题。\n\nGenever BVI 是否已转让给任何人？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。没有。\n\n问。你提到，曾有一段时间 Genever BVI 的资产被质押给一个名为 Roscalitar 2 的实体；对吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：对该问题的提问形式提出异议。\n\n答。我相信 Genever BVI 将其股份质押给了 Roscalitar 2，但对，是这样。\n\n问。质押了其在 Genever New York 中的股份？\n\n第52页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。代表 Genever？\n\n问。是。\n\n答。郭强。\n\n问。Kwok先生参与了该决定吗？\n\n答。我相信他参与了。我不确定。\n\n问。他在订立该质押时知道该质押吗？\n\n答。我相信是。\n\nMITCHELL先生：我只是提醒证人。他说的是“我相信”。不要猜测。如果你是在猜测，请不要这样做，但是——\n\n问。是否有任何董事会决议或任何正式活动，以记录向 Roscalitar 2 作出的质押？\n\n答。根据我为今天作准备而审阅的材料，没有。\n\n问。Roscalitar 2 是否由 Zhang Wei 所有？\n\n答。我不知道。\n\n问。它是否由 Zhang Wei 控制？\n\n答。我不知道。\n\n问。你知道谁拥有或控制 Roscalitar 2 吗？\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.诉 KWOK HO WAN Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 16 of\n\n第53页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。不知道。\n\n问。后来，向 Roscalitar 2 作出的质押被解除；对吗？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。那是在或大约在 May of 2015；对吗？\n\n答。质押被解除时？我得核对日期，但听起来大约是在那个时候。\n\n问。为什么向 Roscalitar 2 作出的质押被解除？\n\n答。我不知道。\n\n问。就此是否有任何董事会会议或活动、正式的公司决议？\n\n答。根据我为今天作准备而审阅的材料，没有。\n\n问。我认为你先前作证称，后来，在向 Roscalitar 作出的质押被解除后，Genever BVI 的股份被质押给了一家名为 Blue Capital（蓝色资本）的公司；对吗？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。为什么这些股份被质押给 Blue Capital？\n\n第55页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。是。\n\n（Podhaskie证物4，抵押登记证明，标记供识别。）\n\n问。Podhaskie先生，我已向你交付证物4。你能辨认这份文件吗？\n\n答。（审阅文件。）这似乎是 Genever BVI 向 Roscalitar 2 作出质押的副本。\n\n问。它是在 May 21, 2015 登记的；对吗？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。根据你为本次证言作准备所进行的工作，这份文件是否似乎是该抵押登记的真实准确副本？\n\n答。（审阅文件。）是。\n\n问。该抵押，即证物4，是否是 Genever BVI 会在其正常业务过程中保存的文件？\n\n答。是。\n\n问。我今天向你出示的其他证物是否也是如此，除证物1和2外，即证物3和4也都是 Genever BVI 会在其正常业务过程中保存的文件？\n\n第54页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答。郭强正在寻求获得一项贷款额度，他希望将 Genever BVI 的股份质押给 Blue Capital，作为贷款额度的担保。\n\n问。该贷款是用于什么的？\n\n答。他想进行投资，你知道，做其他种类的投资。\n\n问。你知道谁控制或拥有 Blue Capital 吗？\n\n答。不知道。\n\n问。Kwok先生参与了将 Genever BVI 的股份质押给 Blue Capital 的决定吗？\n\n答。我不知道。\n\n问。他知道该质押吗？\n\n答。我不知道。\n\n问。向 Blue Capital 作出的质押是否曾在某个时候被解除？\n\n答。是，我相信如此。\n\n问。为什么？\n\n答。我不知道。\n\n问。而且，目前并不存在对 Genever BVI 的任何质押；对吗？\n\n第56页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\nMITCHELL先生：我只想说明一下，为了记录在案，你问了他关于证物4的问题，他回答了是。所以你现在实际上只是在问他关于证物3的问题，对吗？\n\nMOSS先生：是。\n\n问。如果你能翻阅证物3。这些是否是 Genever BVI 或 Genever New York 在其正常业务过程中保存的文件？\n\n答。（审阅文件。）是。\n\n（Podhaskie证物5，根据Section 165作出的已登记抵押清偿或解除通知，标记供识别。）\n\n问。Podhaskie先生，你已获交付证物5，即一份根据Section 165作出的已登记抵押清偿或解除通知。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.诉 KWOK HO WAN Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 17 of\n\n第57页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n你能辨认这份文件吗，\n\n第59页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n带有“While Kwok”？\n\n3　请问？\n4　答：是。\n4　问：这似乎是一份日期为2017年5月——抱歉——3月17日的《登记担保的清偿或解除通知》副本。\n7　问：这是否似乎是一份真实、准确且经认证的担保清偿副本？\n10　答：根据我为今天所作准备中审阅的材料，是。\n12　问：这是否是Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛Genever公司）会在其正常业务过程中保存的文件？\n15　答：是。\n16　问：这是否与Genever BVI的证词一致，即其向Roscalitar 2（Roscalitar 2公司）提供的质押已于2017年3月17日解除？\n19　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n21　答：是。\n22　问：2017年3月17日之后，Genever BVI是否曾再次向Roscalitar 2提供质押？\n24　答：根据我为今天所作准备中审阅的文件，没有。\n\n3　答：\n“尽管Kwok（郭文贵）是Genever BVI的唯一股东，但自2015年5月起，Genever BVI的资产——包括因其拥有Genever USA（美国Genever公司）而包括的该公寓——已全部质押给Roscalitar 2，一家与Kwok无关的第三方。”\n11　你看到了吗？\n12　答：是。\n13　问：如果你看顶部，你是否看到该文件的日期为2018年5月16日？\n15　答：是。\n16　问：截至该日期，Genever BVI的资产实际上并未质押给Roscalitar 2；对吗？\n19　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n21　答：我认为我们已经确认，Genever BVI向Roscalitar 2提供的质押自2017年3月17日起已解除，如我没有记错的话。\n24　问：那么这不是一项真实陈述；对吗？\n\n第58页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　（波德哈斯基证物6，被告反对原告申请判决前扣押命令之法律备忘录，标记供识别。）\n7　问：波德哈斯基先生，你已收到证物6，即Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）代表被告提交的《被告反对原告申请判决前扣押命令之法律备忘录》。\n12　你以前见过这份文件吗？\n14　答：是。\n15　问：我想请你注意第9页，并且我想请你注意——你看到以“As explained”开头的那一段了吗？\n19　答：哪一页——哪个第9页？\n20　问：当然。是第30页中的第9页或第15页。\n21　答：好的。看到了。\n22　问：如果你往下看一、二、三、四、五——六行。\n25　答：嗯。\n问：你是否看到一句以……开头的话？\n\n第60页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n4　答：我不知道在Hodgson Russ提交这份简报时，该担保解除是否已公开可得。\n7　问：那么请集中回答问题。我并没有问你Hodgson Russ是否知道该陈述是虚假的。\n10　我只是问你，该陈述在2018年5月16日向法院作出时，是真实还是虚假。\n13　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n15　答：（审阅文件。）再次说明，如果担保解除并未公开可得，且Hodgson Russ并不知情，那么该陈述本会是准确的。\n19　问：让我再问一次。\n20　该陈述是真实还是虚假？\n21　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n23　问：在其于2018年5月16日作出时？\n25　米切尔先生：已问已答。\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　案号22-50073　文件183-3　提交日期04/06/22　录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45　第18页\n\n第61页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　答：你所指的陈述是？\n3　问：此处的表述是否是，自2015年5月起，Genever BVI的资产已全部质押给Roscalitar 2？\n6　答：再次说明，我引用我先前的回答。\n8　问：波德哈斯基先生，这是一项虚假陈述，对吗？\n10　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n12　答：你所说的“虚假陈述”是什么意思？\n14　问：我的意思是，截至2018年5月16日，Genever BVI的资产并未质押给Roscalitar 2，对吗？\n17　答：该质押于2017年3月17日生效解除。我不知道该文件何时提交至英属维尔京群岛记录处，或依照《英属维尔京群岛商业公司法》提交。\n21　所以，我不知道在2018年5月可获得什么资料，以反映该等资产是否仍被质押。\n24　问：截至2018年5月16日，Genever BVI的资产是否质押给Roscalitar 2？\n\n第63页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　问：截至2018年5月16日，Genever BVI的资产是否质押给Roscalitar 2？\n4　米切尔先生：异议，已问已答。\n6　答：再次说明，Genever BVI向Roscalitar 2提供的质押已于2017年3月17日生效解除。我认为这回答了你的问题。\n10　问：Genever BVI或Genever New York（纽约Genever公司）的任何人员是否在该简报提交法院前审阅过该简报？\n13　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。这超出了你在证词通知中就其所询问事项的范围。你没有问他任何已提交的法律文件或任何此类事项。\n19　因此，如果他能够回答该问题，我会允许他回答，但当然不能期待他具备该知识。\n23　问：你能回答吗？\n24　答：我不知道。\n25　问：顺便问一下，你是否知道Genever BVI何时——\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议，已问已答。\n5　你已经向他问了六次同一个问题。你没有得到你想要的答案。对此我很抱歉，但他已经回答了。\n8　莫斯先生：他没有回答。\n9　答：好的。那么问题是什么？\n10　问：截至2018年5月16日，Genever BVI的资产是否质押给Roscalitar 2？\n12　答：Genever BVI向Roscalitar 2提供的质押已于2017年3月17日生效解除。\n15　问：那么，我的问题的答案是否定的，对吗？\n17　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n19　答：你的问题是什么？\n20　问：请尽量听清问题，并回答我所问的问题。如果你试图回答它，你会知道我在问什么。\n25　米切尔先生：对刚才所说内容提出异议。\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　你先前证称，该担保清偿文件由Genever BVI在其正常业务过程中保存，对吗？\n6　答：是。\n7　问：你知道Genever BVI何时收到该文件的副本吗？\n9　答：不知道。\n10　问：你是否有理由认为Genever BVI花了一年时间才收到该文件的副本？\n13　答：我不知道他们花了多长时间才收到该文件。\n15　问：你最好的理解是否是，当你说Genever BVI在其正常业务过程中保存该文件时，其应当在2017年底前已在档案中拥有该文件？\n19　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n21　答：我不知道，但根据我与律师及英属维尔京群岛人士打交道的经验，他们做事比我们慢得多。\n25　问：你是否知道Roscalitar质押的担保清偿是否——\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　案号22-50073　文件183-3　提交日期04/06/22　录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45　第19页\n\n第65页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　在2017年是否公开可得？\n3　答：我不知道。\n4　问：Genever BVI的证词并不是说，在英属维尔京群岛登记的、与担保有关的文件，需要一年时间才能公开可得；对吗？\n8　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n10　而且，再次说明，这超出了30(b)(6)通知的范围。如果他知道，他可以回答，但当然不能期待他知道。\n14　答：我不知道需要多长时间。\n15　（波德哈斯基证物7，《担保登记证明书》，标记供识别。）\n18　问：波德哈斯基先生，你已收到证物7。\n20　你能识别这份文件吗？\n21　米切尔先生：抱歉。我们把这称为7吗？\n23　莫斯先生：是。\n24　答：（审阅文件。）这似乎是一份日期为2018年2月14日的《担保登记证明书》副本。\n\n第67页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　答：可能是Kwok先生。\n3　问：那么，你记得Kwok先生证称他对任何质押一无所知，对吗？你知道这一点吗？\n6　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n8　答：如果那是他的证词。我不确切记得他证称了什么。\n10　问：在订立该质押时，Kwok先生仍是Genever BVI的唯一股东和唯一董事，对吗？\n13　答：是。\n14　问：在Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的诉讼尚在审理期间订立该担保、该质押一事，Genever BVI内部是否有任何讨论？\n18　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n20　答：据我所知，没有。\n21　问：你先前证称，该Blue Capital（蓝色资本）质押在某个时候被解除或清偿；对吗？\n24　答：据我理解，是。\n25　问：那是否——你是否证称——让我——\n\n第66页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　问：这是否是你证称与Guo Qiang（郭强）的贷款有关而作出的、向Blue Capital提供的担保、质押？\n6　答：看起来是的。\n7　问：据你所知——据Genever BVI所知——这是否是一份真实准确的质押文件副本？\n10　答：（审阅文件。）是，看起来是。\n12　问：这是否是Genever BVI在其正常业务过程中保存的文件？\n15　答：这会是，是。\n16　问：Genever BVI的证词是否是，其不确定其唯一董事兼唯一股东Kwok先生在订立该质押时是否知悉该质押？\n20　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n22　你可以回答。\n23　答：我不知道。\n24　问：谁会知道该问题的答案？\n\n第68页\n\n1　波德哈斯基\n2　问：我只想问，解除它的原因是什么？\n4　答：我不知道。\n5　问：解除它是否——原因是否——删去。\n7　解除它是否与Pacific Alliance的诉讼有关？\n9　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n11　答：我不知道。\n12　问：解除它是否与The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）的专有租约有关？\n15　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n17　答：我不知道。\n18　问：这些质押是否违反Genever New York与The Sherry-Netherland之间的专有租约？\n21　米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。这要求作出法律结论。\n24　答：否。\n25　问：Genever——不。好的。\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　案号22-50073　文件183-3　提交日期04/06/22　录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45　第20页\n\n第69页　第71页\n\n波德哈斯基（Podhaskie）\n\n问：现向您出示第8号证物，波德哈斯基先生。请您辨认一下，好吗？\n\n答：这似乎是一份《已登记抵押权清偿或解除通知书》的副本。其生效日期为2018年6月12日。\n\n问：这是否就是我们刚才谈到的 Blue Capital 抵押权的清偿？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是否是一份真实、正确且经认证的抵押权清偿副本？\n\n米切尔先生（Mitchell）：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：看起来是的。\n\n问：这是否为 Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司）在其正常业务过程中保存的文件？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是，应当是。\n\n第70页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n问：您没有任何内容要补充说明与此有关的讨论，或者为何解除该质押，对吗？\n\n答：没有，我不知道为何解除该质押。\n\n问：您在为准备本次证言录取而与郭强（Guo Qiang）交谈时，是否问过他为何解除该质押？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever BVI——Genever BVI 的任何人，是否曾就将 Genever BVI 的所有权转让给郭先生以外的任何人进行过讨论？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。据我所知没有。\n\n问：Genever BVI 或代表 Genever BVI 的任何人，是否曾联系 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰人公司），询问是否可以重组 Genever BVI 的所有权并将其转让给郭先生的儿子？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n第72页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n答：没有，并非代表 Genever BVI。\n\n问：代表任何人？是否曾有人请求 The Sherry-Netherland 转让或让与 Genever BVI、Genever New York（Genever纽约公司）或 The Sherry-Netherland 的所有权给郭先生的儿子？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：曾向 The Sherry-Netherland 提出请求，要求将所有权从郭先生转让给其儿子郭强。\n\n问：转让什么的所有权？\n\n答：The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n问：何时提出该请求？\n\n答：我一时想不起具体日期。\n\n问：提出该请求是谁的主意？\n\n答：我相信是郭强。\n\n问：为什么提出该请求？\n\n答：因为他最初想亲自购买 The Sherry-Netherland，而 The Sherry 不喜欢让他在当时那个年龄，即二十多岁中段的人，拥有该住宅的想法。因此，他父亲成为所有人，后来他们想到，也许事后可以接洽董事会，看看郭强是否可以成为所有人。\n\n问：郭先生是否知道该请求？\n\n答：是，我想他知道。\n\n问：您知道是谁向 The Sherry-Netherland 提出该请求吗？\n\n答：具体是谁，我不知道。\n\n问：是否曾就将 Genever BVI、Genever New York 或 The Sherry-Netherland 的所有权转让给郭先生以外的任何人进行过其他讨论？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：除我们谈过的有关质押的讨论之外？\n\n答：是。\n\n米切尔先生：抱歉。为记录起见，我只是想确认一下。\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）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），案号 22-50073，文件 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第21页，共\n\n第73页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n米切尔先生：您理解他的问题是仅指有关质押的讨论，对吗？而不是回答“是，存在其他——”；记录不清楚。我只是想确认——\n\n莫斯先生（Moss）：让我重新问一遍。\n\n米切尔先生：好的。\n\n问：除我们谈过的向 Roscalitar 2 和 Blue Capital 作出的质押，以及将 The Sherry-Netherland 的所有权转让给郭先生儿子的请求之外，是否曾就 Genever BVI、Genever New York 或 The Sherry-Netherland 中任一者的质押、转让或让与进行过讨论？\n\n答：曾与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）签订一项信托协议，但除此之外，我不知道。\n\n问：郭先生在 The Sherry-Netherland 公寓中是否拥有所有权权益？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：没有，那不准确。\n\n问：郭先生是否拥有 The——\n\n第75页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n第二盘录像带开始。现恢复记录。时间为下午4:38。\n\n莫斯先生提问：\n\n问：波德哈斯基先生，您面前有 Yvette Wang（王燕平）的宣誓书，该宣誓书于2018年5月16日提交于本案，或者——其宣誓日期为5月15日，而 ECF 印章日期为5月16日。您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这是今天早些时候郭先生证言录取中的第24号证物。您是否记得，我曾问您郭先生是否通过一家有限责任公司在该公寓中拥有所有权权益，而您作证称没有？\n\n您记得该证言吗？\n\n答：记得。\n\n问：请看第2段。第一句写道：“郭先生通过一家有限责任公司在该公寓中拥有的所有权权益，并非不动产。”郭先生在 The——\n\n第74页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n问：Sherry-Netherland 公寓中是否通过其对 Genever BVI 的所有权而拥有该公寓的所有权权益；Genever BVI 继而拥有 Genever New York，后者继而拥有该公寓？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：没有，那不准确。\n\n问：好的。郭先生在该公寓中的所有权权益是否通过一家有限责任公司持有？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：那不准确。\n\n问：这是郭先生证言录取中的第24号证物。\n\n莫斯先生：抱歉。我们没有额外副本，但今天在郭先生的证言录取期间已将其分发。\n\n录像员：律师，我们这盘录像带还剩三分钟。\n\n现停止记录。时间为下午4:25。\n\n休庭。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN，案号 22-50073，文件 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第22页，共\n\n第76页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n问：Sherry-Netherland 公寓中通过一家有限责任公司拥有所有权权益，这一说法真实吗？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：郭先生在该公寓中没有所有权权益。他在 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation（雪莉-荷兰人公司）的所有权权益；该公司继而将该不动产出租给 Genever New York。\n\n问：那么，郭先生的所有权权益是在 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 中？\n\n答：他的所有权权益是 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 的股份；您指的是这个吗？\n\n问：您作证称，他在 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 中拥有所有权权益。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：没错，郭先生在 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 中拥有所有权权益？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而该所有权权益与18层的公寓有关？\n\n第77页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是，他拥有18层该公寓的专有租赁权。\n\n问：那与该所有权权益有关——\n\n答：是。\n\n问：——在 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 中，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而郭先生通过 Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 持有 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 股份中的该权益，对吗？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：除郭先生、Miles Kwok（郭文贵）以外，是否还有任何人就18层公寓拥有 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰人酒店）股份的所有权权益？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：作为 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 的公司代表，您今天坐在这里，能否指出其他任何人？\n\n第79页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：您所说的“居住”是指主要住所吗？\n\n问：我的意思是，他是否曾在该处长期居住？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 是否曾是郭强的主要住所？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：何时？\n\n答：我是在推测，但我认为是在2015年。\n\n问：自2015年以来，郭强是否曾经——撤回该问题。\n\n自2015年以来，The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 是否曾是郭强的主要住所？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：自2015年以来，他是否曾到访？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n莫斯先生：让我重新问一遍。撤回。\n\n问：郭强是否曾在 The——\n\n第78页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：坐在这个房间里？\n\n问：是。\n\n答：拥有所有权权益的——\n\n米切尔先生：那正是我的异议。\n\n莫斯先生：好吧。这就是你讯问律师时会发生的事。\n\n米切尔先生：为记录起见，房间里的几个人会很乐意接受 The Sherry 的一份所有权份额。\n\n问：作为 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 今日在场的公司代表，您能否指出除 Miles Kwok先生外，任何其他就18层公寓拥有 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 股份所有权权益的人？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：郭先生——撤回该问题。\n\n郭强是否曾住在18层的 The Sherry-Netherland 公寓？\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN，案号 22-50073，文件 183-3，于 04/06/22 提交，于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记，第23页，共\n\n第80页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n问：Sherry-Netherland 公寓自2015年以来睡过觉？\n\n答：我想是，但我不能肯定地说，你知道，我不——我不和他一起睡，所以。\n\n问：让我们回到第3号证物，波德哈斯基先生，我想请您注意第 KWOK193 页。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：您看，第一段中提到 Genever BVI 是 Genever New York 的唯一成员。\n\nGenever BVI 是否为 Genever New York 的唯一成员？\n\n答：为记录起见，上面写的是“作为 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）的唯一董事”。\n\n问：那么请看第一项决议。您看到“兹决议，Andrea Sanft（安德烈娅·桑夫特）”了吗？您看到了吗？\n\n答：是，是。\n\n问：再看该段最后一句。“在完成该等行动所必需的范围内，该公司”，其中“该公司”是指 Genever BVI？\n\n第81页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n答：嗯哼。\n\n问：“作为 Genever New York 的唯一成员。”您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Genever BVI 是否为 Genever New York 的唯一成员？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：自 Genever New York 成立以来，Genever BVI 是否一直是 Genever New York 的唯一成员？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是。\n\n莫斯先生：嗯，那是因为这是个糟糕的问题。\n\n问：自 Genever New York 成立以来，Genever BVI 是否一直是 Genever New York 的唯一成员？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：如果您看那里的第三项决议，其中有一项与 Michael O'Connor（迈克尔·奥康纳）有关的决议。\n\n答：嗯哼。\n\n第83页\n\n波德哈斯基\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：那是目的之一，是的。\n\n问：其他目的是什么？\n\n答：按其认为适当的方式投资其他不动产。\n\n问：Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 是在相隔数日内成立的，对吗？\n\n答：是，大约在同一时间。\n\n问：您说 Genever New York 还有其他目的，即按其认为适当的方式投资其他不动产。\n\nGenever New York 除 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 外，是否曾投资于任何其他不动产？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：那么，Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 都是为持有郭先生在 The Sherry-Netherland 公寓中的权益而成立的？\n\n米切尔先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：那不准确。\n\n问：好的。哪里不准确？\n\n答：最初，郭强，郭先生的\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n问：Michael O'Connor（迈克尔·奥康纳）是谁？\n\n答：他是 Paul Weiss（保罗·韦斯律师事务所）或 Williams & Connolly（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所）的律师。我不确定。我认为是 Paul Weiss，但不能肯定。\n\n问：那么，Sanft 女士获授权成立 Genever New York（Genever纽约有限责任公司），而 O'Connor 先生获授权使 Genever New York 在成立后与 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）订立购买协议；是否正确？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，自成立之初的计划是，一旦 Genever New York 成立，其将就第18层与 The Sherry-Netherland 订立购买协议；是否正确？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：成立 Genever New York 的目的，是为了与 The Sherry-Netherland 订立该协议？\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文件 183-3 于 04/06/22 提交 于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记 第24页，共\n\n第85页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n其子希望购买 The Sherry-Netherland 的公寓。他们成立了这些公司，并且理解其将为实际所有人，但 The Sherry-Netherland 不喜欢 Guo Qiang（郭强）作为所有人的想法，因为他们认为他太年轻。\n\n问：那么，你的证词是，Genever New York 和 Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司）成立是为了持有 Guo Qiang 在 The Sherry-Netherland 中的权益，但 Kwok 先生最终成为所有人，是因为 The Sherry-Netherland 希望如此？\n\n答：它们成立是为了拥有 Guo Qiang 及其家人希望投资的不动产。他们使 Kwok 先生成为 Genever BVI 的唯一成员，而作为 Genever BVI 的唯一成员，他成为 Genever New York 的所有人，因为 The Sherry-Netherland 认为 Guo Qiang 太年轻，不能成为该特定公寓的所有人。\n\n问：请你注意证据3第178页。你能识别这份文件吗？\n\n第87页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：（审阅文件。）这是一份——看起来是纽约州国务院公司公开查询系统中关于 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）的打印件。\n\n问：它显示——这就是我们一直称为 Genever New York 的实体，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：该文件提到 Genever New York 于 February 17, 2015 在纽约注册成立；是否正确？\n\n答：文件上是这样写的，是。\n\n问：这与 Genever 的理解一致，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，Genever New York 在 Genever BVI 成立约五天后成立？\n\n答：我不确切记得，但它们大约是在同一时间成立的。\n\n问：如果我告诉你，几分钟前我们审阅了显示 Genever BVI 于 February 12 成立的文件，这是否能帮助你恢复记忆？\n\n答：不能。我们当时看的是哪份文件？\n\n第86页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问：你为什么不看一下145页？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：证据3的第145页。\n\n答：（审阅文件。）是，根据该文件，它成立于 February 13, 2015。\n\n问：Genever BVI 于 February 13, 2015 成立，而 Genever New York 于 February 17, 2015 成立，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：是，根据这些文件。\n\n问：因此，相隔四天？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：Genever——Genever New York 的成立是为了与 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）订立协议，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议，已问及并已回答。\n\n答：是，这是目的之一。\n\n问：Genever New York 的经营目的是否随时间发生了变化？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：是否增加了任何目的？\n\n第88页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问：Genever New York 自 February 2015 成立以来开展了什么业务？\n\n答：它拥有 The Sherry-Netherland 公寓。\n\n问：还有其他业务吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否曾订立除其与 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的合同之外的任何合同？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否曾支出或支付任何款项？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：付给谁？\n\n答：The Sherry-Netherland。\n\n问：用于维护费？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：还有其他用途吗？\n\n答：我认为就这些。\n\n问：The Sherry-Netherland——Genever New York 除了向 The Sherry-Netherland 支付维护费外，是否曾将任何款项用于其他事项？\n\n答：据我所知，没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否有银行账户？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在哪家银行？\n\n答：Chase（大通银行）。\n\n问：该账户何时开立？\n\n答：2018。\n\n问：向 The Sherry-Netherland 支付的款项是否来自该银行账户？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：该银行账户如何获得资金？\n\n答：它从 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）收取款项。\n\n问：谁拥有 Golden Spring New York？\n\n答：China Golden Spring Group Hong Kong Limited（中国金泉集团香港有限公司）。\n\n问：谁拥有 China Golden Spring Group Hong Kong Limited？\n\n答：Guo Qiang。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN 案号 22-50073 文件 183-3 于 04/06/22 提交 于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记 第25页，共\n\n第89页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：在2018年之前，Genever New York 是否有银行账户？\n\n答：在哪一年之前？\n\n问：2018。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：在2018年之前，Genever New York 是否必须向 The Sherry-Netherland 支付维护费？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：该款项来自哪里？\n\n答：我相信来自 Golden Spring New York。\n\n问：除 Golden Spring New York 之外，是否曾有任何人向 Genever New York 的银行账户存入任何款项？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：那么，据你所知，Genever New York 在2018年之前没有任何银行账户？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n第90页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你知道 Genever New York 为什么在2018年开立了银行账户吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：除 Golden Spring 为支付 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的维护费而提供的款项外，是否曾有任何其他款项存入 Genever New York 的银行账户？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 是本诉讼的当事人。你知道这一点吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：直到几周前，Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 一直由 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）代理；是否正确？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：现在它们由 Mitchell 先生的律师事务所代理；是否正确？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：谁向 Hodgson Russ 支付 Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 的律师费？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n第91页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：谁向 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 支付给 Mitchell 先生律师事务所的律师费？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：我将指示他不要回答，享有特权。\n\nMOSS 先生：谁支付账单属于特权？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：有可能。我主张特权。你可以主张其不属于特权。\n\n问：你会遵从律师的指示吗？\n\n答：我会遵从律师的指示。\n\n问：你是否知道 Kwok 先生是否正在支付 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York 与本诉讼有关的律师费？\n\n答：他没有支付。\n\n问：但你不知道是谁在支付？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：几年前，Kwok 先生和 Genever New York 曾就其露台的维护争议起诉 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel。\n\n第92页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n该情况听起来熟悉吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在该诉讼中，Kwok 先生和 Genever New York 由同一家律师事务所代理——\n\n答：是。\n\n问：——对吗？谁支付了该律师事务所的律师费？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：仅为澄清记录，你有该律师事务所的名称吗？只是因为那不是我的律师事务所，我认为也不是 Hodgson Russ，我只是想确认——当你说同一家律师事务所时，你的意思是他们都有同一位律师，并不是说那是我们任何一家律师事务所中的一家，对吗？\n\nMOSS 先生：正确。\n\n问：所以我不知道——你知道该律师事务所的名称吗？\n\n答：在此前针对 The Sherry 的诉讼中代理 Genever 和 Kwok 先生的那家律师事务所？\n\n问：是。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN 案号 22-50073 文件 183-3 于 04/06/22 提交 于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记 第26页，共\n\n第93页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n答：我认为是 Stone Magnanini（斯通·马尼亚尼尼律师事务所）。\n\n问：你知道谁为 Genever New York 向 Stone Magnanini 支付律师费吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你知道 Stone Magnanini 在该诉讼中获得的律师费，是由一个人或实体支付，还是由两个人或实体支付吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：换言之，在 The Sherry-Netherland 诉讼中，是否由同一人或实体支付 Kwok 先生和 Genever 的律师费？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：在本诉讼中，是否由同一人或实体支付 Kwok 先生和两家 Genever 实体的律师费？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：我指示我的当事人不要回答。\n\nMOSS 先生：这是一个“是”或“否”的问题。\n\n问：在本诉讼中，是否由同一人或实体支付 Kwok 先生和 Genever 实体的律师费？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：这个问题，你可以回答。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever BVI 在 Genever New York 存续期间是否一直是 Genever New York 的唯一股东？\n\n答：不，这不准确。\n\n问：为什么不准确？\n\n答：Genever New York 是一家有限责任公司。它有成员，而不是股东。\n\n问：Genever BVI 在 Genever New York 存续期间是否一直是 Genever New York 的唯一成员？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Kwok 先生是否控制 Genever BVI？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：谁控制？\n\n答：Guo Qiang。\n\n问：Kwok 先生是否控制 Genever New York？\n\n答：否。\n\n问：谁控制？\n\n答：Guo Qiang。\n\n问：Kwok 先生不控制 Genever BVI，尽管他是唯一董事和唯一股东？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议，已问及并已回答。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Zhang Wei（张伟）就 Genever New York 而言是否具有任何角色？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Zhang Wei 是否拥有 Genever New York 的任何成员权益？\n\n答：这并未反映在我为今天作准备而审阅的文件中。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否有任何董事？\n\n答：没有，我认为没有。\n\n问：它是否曾有任何董事？“它”指的是 Genever New York。\n\n答：我认为它只有一名授权人和其唯一成员。除此以外，没有。\n\n问：唯一成员是 Genever BVI？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：谁是授权人？\n\n答：Guo Qiang。\n\n第94页\n\nPODHASKIE\n\n问：除 Guo Qiang 外，Genever New York 是否曾有其他授权人？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：除在成立决议中、为购买 The Sherry 而被提及的律师之外，没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否有办公室？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：它是否曾有办公室？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否有雇员？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否曾有雇员？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否有电话号码？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：由于 Genever New York 没有任何董事，我假定它从未设有董事会。\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n问：是在一次会面中，是这样吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nMITCHELL（米切尔）律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：这并未反映在我为今天作准备而审阅的文件中。\n\n问：Genever New York（杰内弗纽约）是否有任何地址？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：781 Fifth Avenue。\n\n问：那是什么地方？\n\n答：那是 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）。\n\n问：Genever New York 的——撤回该问题。18层是否属于该地址的一部分？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那么，Genever New York 的地址是 Kwok（郭文贵）先生居住在 The Sherry-Netherland 18层的公寓？\n\n答：那是 Genever New York 的邮寄地址。\n\n问：它是否有任何其他地址？\n\n答：据我所知，没有。实际上，其在 Albany 的送达诉讼文书登记代理人可能有一个地址，但除此之外，我不知道有任何其他地址。\n\n第98页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n问：Genever New York 持有哪些文件？\n\n答：其公司设立文件、股东名册以及其收到的邮件。\n\n问：是否有任何人获授权代表 Genever New York 行事？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议，已问及并已回答。\n\n答：你的意思是，除 Kwok 先生及其儿子之外的人吗？\n\n问：那么，Kwok 先生是否获授权代表 Genever New York 行事？\n\n答：Kwok 先生？我不知道。\n\n问：Guo Qiang（郭强）是否获授权代表 Genever New York 行事？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：谁授权他这样做？\n\n答：他获得了 Genever BVI 的授权。\n\n问：作为 Genever BVI 的唯一董事和唯一股东，Kwok 先生是否授权 Genever BVI 授权 Guo Qiang 代表 Genever New York 行事？\n\n第100页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n问：除登记代理人的地址外，Genever New York 除 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 外没有任何其他地址，是吗？\n\n答：不，据我所知没有。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否持有任何文件？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这些文件保存在哪里？\n\n答：我相信是在 The Sherry-Netherland，但我并不——我不确定。\n\n问：Genever New York 的任何文件是否保存在 Genever BVI 文件存放所在的 British Virgin Islands 地址？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever BVI 的任何文件是否保存在 The Sherry-Netherland？\n\n第98页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我想是这样。我不能确定，但我知道，在 May 2015 前后，Guo Qiang 被指定为 Genever New York 的获授权人。\n\n问：Genever New York 持有哪些资产？\n\n答：其拥有 The Sherry-Netherland Corporation 的股份，并在 JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）开设了一个银行账户。\n\n问：那就是由 Golden Spring New York（黄金泉纽约）注资、目的在于持有用于支付 The Sherry-Netherland 管理费的资金的银行账户吗？\n\n答：该银行账户的目的，我不知道是否是持有资金，但它——该银行账户用于支付 Genever New York 的管理费。\n\n问：除支付 The Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的管理费外，你无法指出该银行账户中还有任何其他款项支出，是吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n第100页\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）案，Case 22-50073，Doc 183-3，Filed 04/06/22，Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45，Page 28 of\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n问：Genever New York 是否曾持有任何其他资产——顺便说一下，撤回该问题。Genever New York 的那个 JPMorgan 账户，即 Chase 账户中曾存有的最高金额是多少？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：大致有概念吗？\n\n答：并没有，没有。\n\n问：超过 $3 million？\n\n答：The Sherry 的每月管理费约为 60,000。因此，你知道，足以每月支付该费用的金额。\n\n问：除 Chase 账户和对 The Sherry-Netherland 的所有权外，Genever New York 是否曾持有任何其他资产？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever New York 是否曾出售任何资产？\n\n答：据我所知没有。\n\n问：除银行账户和 The Sherry-Netherland 的股份外，你是否知道有任何其他收购？\n\n第101页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n（信托声明及协议，标记供识别。）\n\n问：Podhaskie 先生，已向你出示第9号证物。这是否是你一直提到的、与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）和 Genever 实体有关的信托协议？\n\n答：（审阅文件。）是，这似乎是该信托协议的副本。\n\n问：其日期为 February 17, 2015。那是其签订日期吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：如果你看左下角，你知道那是谁的签名吗？抱歉，是第一页，即543页的底部。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是谁的？\n\n答：Guo Qiang。\n\n问：右侧的签名呢，那是谁的签名？\n\n答：我不能确定，但看起来像是 Kwok 先生的。\n\n问：在544页上，也是一样吗，\n\n第103页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n答：这并未反映在我今天审阅的文件中。\n\n问：除 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官的命令外，Genever New York 是否以任何方式设有权利负担？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我相信，Genever New York、Bravo Luck、Kwok 先生和 Genever BVI 之间存在一项信托协议，涉及 The Sherry-Netherland 住宅，但除此之外以及 Ostrager 法官的命令之外，我不知道有任何其他权利负担。\n\n问：除信托协议和 Ostrager 法官的命令外，你是否知道 Genever New York 的资产过去是否曾设有权利负担？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我会说是我们先前讨论过的向 Roscalitar 2（罗斯卡利塔尔2）和 Blue Capital（蓝色资本）作出的质押协议。除此之外，我不知道有任何其他情况。\n\n（Podhaskie 第9号证物，信托声明及协议，标记供识别。）\n\n第102页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\nGuo Qiang 的签名在左侧，而 Kwok 先生的签名在右侧？\n\n答：看起来是这样，是。\n\n问：在545页上，Guo Qiang 的签名是第一个，而 Kwok 先生的签名是其后的三个吗？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：你是指除 Guo Qiang 的签名外、另外三个签名下面的那三个吗？\n\n问：是。\n\n答：是，看起来是这样。\n\n问：Guo Qiang 代表 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·勒克有限公司）签署，是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Kwok 先生代表 Genever New York、Genever BVI 以及他本人签署，是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：你是否知道是否有律师——是否有任何律师就本协议代理任何一方？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n第104页\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）案，Case 22-50073，Doc 183-3，Filed 04/06/22，Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45，Page 29 of\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n问：你知道这份协议保存在哪里吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：那么，我想请你注意背景部分。第2项——首先，你看到顶部在定义各方时，BVI 公司是 Genever Holdings Corporation 吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那就是我们一直称为 Genever BVI 的公司，是吗？\n\n答：我相信是。\n\n问：而 Genever Holdings LLC，即你我一直称为 Genever New York 的公司，在本文件中被称为 US SPV；是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：SPV 指特殊目的载体，是吗？\n\n答：我相信是，是。\n\n问：如果你看背景部分第2项，其中写道，“BVI company”的目的，即 Genever BVI 的目的，“是持有 US SPV 的特殊目的载体。”\n\n第105页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n答：那是目的之一，是。\n\n问：文件并未说这是目的之一。文件说这就是目的，是吗？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：文件说 US SPV 是一个持有位于 The Sherry-Netherland 18层房产的特殊目的载体。\n\n问：你说目的之一是持有该公寓，而我只是说，文件写明 US SPV 的目的，是吗？不是目的之一。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而文件写明 BVI Company 的目的在于持有 Genever New York，而不是目的之一，是吗？\n\n答：对。但那是目的之一。\n\n问：其在第4项中写道，“为免生疑问，受托人正在持有 BVI Company 和 US SPV，”这就是两个 Genever 实体，是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：“受托人以信托方式为所有人持有 Genever\n\n第107页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n你看到这一点吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而 US SPV 就是 Genever New York，是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，根据这份文件，Genever BVI 的目的在于持有 Genever New York，是吗？\n\n答：这份文件是这样写的，是。\n\n问：这准确吗？\n\n答：据我理解，这是目的之一，是。\n\n问：而在第3项中，“US SPV 的目的”，即 Genever New York，是吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，“Genever New York 的目的是一个持有位于”——随后列出了位于 The Sherry-Netherland 18层的数个单元——“房产的特殊目的载体。”是吗？\n\n答：这就是其所写内容，是。\n\n问：因此，Genever New York 的目的就是作为特殊目的载体持有18层住宅，是吗？\n\n第106页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n实体，以信托方式为所有人持有。”\n\n而所有人是 Bravo Luck；正确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：并且其中写道，所有人，即 Bravo Luck，是 New York——Genever New York 和 Genever BVI 的实益所有人，是吗？\n\n答：这就是其所写内容，是。\n\n问：这是否与 Genever 的理解一致？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Genever New York 或 Kwok 先生在申请租约时，是否曾向 The Sherry-Netherland 披露 Bravo Luck 将成为 Genever 实体的实益所有人？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你认为 The Sherry-Netherland 会想知道该公寓的实益所有人将是谁吗？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议，要求推测。\n\n问：你可以回答。\n\n第108页\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）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）案，Case 22-50073，Doc 183-3，Filed 04/06/22，Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45，Page 30 of\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n答：我不知道 The Sherry-Netherland 会想知道什么，但我知道他们知道资金来自 Bravo Luck。\n\n问：在你为本次证言作准备而审阅文件的过程中，你是否看到任何文件证明 The Sherry-Netherland 知道 Bravo Luck 将成为该公寓的实益所有人？\n\n答：我在今天的准备工作中没有看到任何此类文件。\n\n问：你看到第3节中受托人作出的承诺了吗？看到那些承诺了吗？\n\n答：我们还在第1页吗？\n\n问：抱歉。第3节，“受托人进一步向所有人承诺。”你看到这一点吗？\n\n答：哦。是，是，是。\n\n第109页\n\nPODHASKIE（波德哈斯基）\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：是否——\n\n答：抱歉。我不知道共同所有人是谁。所有人被定义为 Bravo Luck。\n\n问：是。受托人 Kwok 先生在将 Genever BVI 的股份质押给 Roscalitar 2 或 Blue Capital 之前，是否取得了所有人 Bravo Luck 或任何共同所有人的事先书面批准？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你是否见过任何文件表明已取得该等书面批准？\n\nMITCHELL律师：对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：我在今天的准备工作中没有看到任何。\n\n第111页\n\n22　问：\n您看到第一页写明受托人是 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n那么请看第 3.4 条：“受托人承诺，其不会在未经所有人和共同所有人事先书面批准的情况下，在 BVI 公司、美国 SPV 和／或由 BVI 公司和／或美国 SPV持有的资产上设定或允许设定任何收费、抵押或留置权。”\n\n您看到了吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n根据本协议，对 Blue Capital（蓝色资本）和 Roscalitar 2 的质押将需要所有人和共同所有人的事先书面批准，对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n而所有人是 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n共同所有人是谁？如果您查看背景部分第 1 页第 543 页第 6 节，“所有人已告知受托人，某些当事人”——“第三方可根据合作计划通过所有人共同拥有该财产，且受托人亦为该等第三方担任受托人。”\n\n您知道这些共同所有人第三方是谁吗？\n\n问：\n截至 2015 年初，当 Kwok 先生申请加入 The Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰）董事会时，谁拥有 Bravo Luck？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：\n我认为，截至 2015 年 1 月，Bravo Luck 由 Guo Qiang（郭强）拥有。\n\n问：\nKwok 先生本人也是 Bravo Luck 的 50% 所有人，这是否属实？\n\n答：\n我认为，郭强在大约那个时候将 Bravo Luck 50% 的所有权转让给了其父亲。\n\n问：\n顺便问一下，郭强从事什么行业？\n\n答：\n金融业。\n\n（Podhaskie 证物 10，Stevenson Wong（史蒂文森·黄）于 March 4, 2015 出具的信函，标记供识别。）\n\n问：\nPodhaskie 先生（波德哈斯基），您已收到证物 10，即 Stevenson Wong 于 March 4, 2015 致 The Sherry-Netherland 董事会的一封信，内容涉及 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）先生申请成为 The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-内德兰公司）股东一事；Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·拉克有限公司）为该公司。\n\n您看到了吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交于 04/06/22　录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 31 页，共\n\n问：\nStevenson Wong 是否在 Kwok 先生申请成为 The Sherry-Netherland 股东一事中代表 Kwok 先生？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n此外，这超出了 30(b)(6) 通知的范围。如果他知情，我会允许他回答，但请记录我的异议。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n嗯，Genever New York（Genever纽约）是一个——\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n如果您是在问 Genever New York。您具体问的是 Kwok 先生的律师是谁。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n当然。但 Kwok 先生是代表一个实体，即 Genever New York，购买该项资产。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n您是在问该实体吗？\n\nMOSS 先生提问：\n\n问：\n我问的是，Stevenson Wong 的角色是什么——Stevenson Wong 在 The Sherry-Netherland 的申请事项中代表谁？\n\n答：\n我不知道。根据这封信，看来他们代表 Kwok 先生或其家人，但我不知道。\n\n问：\n如果您看第二页，SN74，Stevenson Wong 写道：“我们确认，A，公司”，该公司在前一页被定义为 Bravo Luck，“在法律上和实益上分别由 Kwok Ho Wan 先生持有 50%，由 Guo Qiang 先生持有 50%。”\n\n您看到了吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n截至 March 4, 2015，Kwok 先生拥有 Bravo Luck 的 50%，这是否正确？\n\n答：\n这就是该信函所反映的内容。我今天并未准备就 Bravo Luck 的所有权进行说明。\n\n问：\n您是否有任何理由认为该文件不准确？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n您是否知道 Bravo Luck 的所有权权益自 March 4, 2015 以来是增加、减少，还是保持不变？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。再次指出，我认为这超出了范围。如果他知情，我会允许他回答，但是——\n\n答：\n据我了解，郭强目前是 Bravo Luck 的 100% 所有人。\n\n问：\n您是否了解 Kwok 先生如何失去其 50% 所有权？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n同样提出异议。\n\n答：\n我不知道。\n\n问：\n您知道那是什么时候发生的吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n同样提出异议。\n\n答：\n我不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否看过与该转让有关的任何文件？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n同样提出异议。\n\n答：\n在我为今天的证言所作的准备中没有。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n我们现在休息一下怎么样？让我们停止记录。\n\n录像员：\n现停止记录。时间为下午 5:27。\n\n（休庭。）\n\n录像员：\n现恢复记录。时间为下午 5:36。\n\nMOSS 先生提问：\n\n问：\nPodhaskie 先生，您今天回答了许多“是”或“否”的问题，依据是我在审阅中能够查阅到的文件。您是否查阅了 Genever New York 和 Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛）的完整文件？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n我不知道这是否正是他所说的，但我知道您是在转述，不过——\n\nMOSS 先生：\n好。\n\n答：\n无论他们有什么，我都审阅了，所以。\n\n问：\n您是否曾要求查看任何未向您提供的文件？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n您是否有任何理由认为在您的审阅中缺少了任何材料？\n\n答：\n我不知道。我没有理由认为缺少了任何东西，我不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否看过任何提及郭强控制 Genever BVI 的文件？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：\n有一份文件表明他是 Genever BVI 的总裁。除此之外，没有。\n\n问：\n您是否知道该文件是否已在本诉讼中向我们出示？\n\n答：\n我不知道。我相信已经出示了，但我不知道。\n\n问：\n您是否曾看过任何文件，表明 Genever BVI 授权郭强代表 Genever New York 行事？\n\n答：\n有一份文件表明郭强成为 Genever New York 的获授权人。我不记得是谁签署的，或具体情况是什么，但我记得看过一份文件，表明他是获授权人；并且郭强签署了一份为 Genever New York 申请 EIN 的申请表。\n\n问：\n您是否曾看过任何文件，或在审阅过程中是否看过任何文件，表明 Yvette Wang（王伊薇）在 Genever BVI 或 Genever New York 中担任任何角色？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：\n我知道她就该诉讼签署了一份宣誓书，其中就 Genever 和 The Sherry-Netherland 作出了陈述。除此之外，我不记得。\n\n问：\n您知道她从何处获得其宣誓书中关于 Genever 和 The Sherry-Netherland 的信息吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议，我认为这超出了 30(b)(6) 的范围。如果他知情，我很愿意让他回答。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n好。\n\n答：\n我不知道。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n目前没有更多问题。谢谢您，Podhaskie 先生。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n在您停止记录之前，我想向 Podhaskie 先生提几个问题，仅为澄清记录。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n当然。\n\nMITCHELL 先生询问：\n\n问：\nPodhaskie 先生，今天向您出示了若干证物。其中一份是 Podhaskie 3——更准确地说，是证物 3。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n请注意，在提问时，这些文件是以贝茨编号标识的，即 Kwok，后接一个编号。您看到了吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n现在看 Podhaskie——您是否理解，这些文件是 Kwok 先生的律师就本诉讼出示的？\n\nMOSS 先生：\n异议，诱导性提问。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n看 Podhaskie 证物 4，您是否看到任何此类贝茨编号？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n在今天之前，您是否记得见过这份文件？\n\nMOSS 先生：\n哪份文件？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n我们正在谈论的证物 4。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n好。\n\n答：\n我想，我可能曾将其作为与本诉讼有关提交的文件之一见过，但除此之外，没有。\n\n问：\n在您对文件的审阅中，今天此处所称的 Genever BVI 和 Genever New York，在为本次证言作准备的审阅中，您是否在其记录中看到了那些文件？\n\nMOSS 先生：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n\n答：\n我是否看到了证物 4？\n\n问：\n证物 4，正确。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n我不知道“那些文件”指什么。\n\n问：\n证物 4，即构成证物 4 的这组页面。\n\n答：\n那么，我是否在为今天证言所审阅的文件中看到过证物 4？\n\n问：\n正确。\n\n答：\n我是在——如果我记得没错——审阅在纽约诉讼中提交的文件时看到它的。\n\n问：\n它是否包含在您为今天作准备而审阅的记录中？\n\n答：\nGenever New York 保存的记录？\n\n问：\n正确。\n\n答：\n以及 Genever BVI？我认为没有。\n\n问：\n证物 5，您是否看到该文件上有贝茨编号？\n\n答：\n（审阅文件。）没有。\n\n问：\n现在，这份文件看来是在本诉讼或某个诉讼中提交的。无论如何，我相信那是本案的案卷编号。\n\n答：\n是的，看来如此。\n\n问：\n您是否记得在今天之前见过这份文件？\n\n答：\n再次说明，我想我可能是在审阅诉讼档案时，将其作为在诉讼中提交的文件见过。\n\n问：\n您是否记得在 Genever New York 保存的账簿和记录中见过该文件？\n\n答：\n我不记得，没有。\n\n问：\nGenever BVI 呢？\n\n答：\n我不记得。\n\n问：\n证物 6，即该备忘录？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n您是否看到上面有任何贝茨编号？\n\n答：\n（审阅文件。）没有。\n\n问：\n但上面有案卷提交编号，对吗？\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n您是否记得在 Genever New York 保存的账簿和记录中见过该文件？\n\n答：\n证物 6？\n\n问：\n正确。\n\n答：\n（审阅文件。）没有。\n\n问：\n您知道吗——在顶部，您是否看到它是在 eCourt 的提交系统中于本程序中提交的？\n\n答：\n您说的“本程序”是指本诉讼？\n\n问：\n正确。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n在您审阅 Genever New York 的账簿和记录时，您是否记得见过该文件？\n\n答：\n我不记得。\n\n问：\n在您审阅 Genever BVI 的账簿和记录时，您是否记得见过该文件？\n\n答：\n我不记得。\n\n问：\n证物 8，您是否看到上面有贝茨编号？\n\n答：\n没有。\n\n问：\n至于证物 8，在顶部，您是否看到——您是否同意它是在本诉讼中向纽约县书记官提交的？\n\nMOSS 先生：\n异议，诱导性提问。\n\n答：\n是。\n\n问：\n在今天之前，您是否记得见过该文件？\n\n答：\n我想我会是在审阅诉讼档案时见过它。\n\n问：\n在您审阅 Genever New York 的账簿和记录时，您是否记得见过该文件？\n\n答：\n我不记得。\n\n问：\n在您审阅 Genever BVI 的账簿和记录时，您是否记得见过该文件？\n\n答：\n我不记得。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：\n没有更多问题。\n\nMOSS 先生：\n没有问题。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：\n谢谢。\n\n录像员：\n今天的证言至此结束。现停止记录。时间为下午 5:46。谢谢。\n\n23　答：\n不是。\n问：\nGenever BVI？\n23　你。\n（记录时间：下午5:46）\n24　答：\n不是。　24\n25　问：\n证物7，你是否看到一个贝茨编号戳记　25\nPacific 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）　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第34页，共\n\nKWOK HO WAN　December 11, 2019\n\n第125页　第127页\n1　确 认 书　1　更 正 表\n2　2　ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO., LLC（艾伦·格劳尔法庭记录有限责任公司）\n126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor\n3　州\n)　3　New York, New York 10022\n212-750-6434\n4　:ss　4\n5　县\n)　5　案件名称：PACIFIC ALLIANCE v. KWOK HO WAN\n证言记录日期：DECEMBER 11, 2019\n6　6　证人姓名：DANIEL PODHASKIE\n7　本人，DANIEL PODHASKIE（丹尼尔·波达斯基），特此证明　7　页码　行号\n自\n至\n理由\n8　本人已阅读本人在证言记录中宣誓作出的证词文字记录；　8　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n9　该文字记录　9　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n10　是本人证词真实、完整且正确的　10　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n11　记录，并且本人在记录中作出的答复　11　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n12　均真实且正确。　12　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n13　13　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n14　14　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n15　15　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n16　________________________　16　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n17　DANIEL PODHASKIE　17　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n18　18　____ _____ ___________ ___________ _____________\n\n20　于本人面前签署并确认　19\n21　本________年________月________日。　20　__________________________\n22　21　于本人面前签署并宣誓\n23　22　本____年____月____日。\n24　________________________________________　23　24　___________________\n25　___________州公证人　______________________\n25　（公证人）\n本人任期届满日期：\n\n2　第126页\n证 明 书\n3　NEW YORK（纽约州）)\n4　:ss\n5　RICHMOND（里士满县）)\n\n7　本人，MELISSA GILMORE（梅丽莎·吉尔莫尔），纽约州境内及为该州执业的公证人，\n8　特此证明：\n10　上述载明其证言记录的证人 DANIEL PODHASKIE（丹尼尔·波达斯基）\n11　已由本人依法宣誓，\n12　且该证言记录\n13　是该证人所作证词的真实记录。\n15　本人进一步证明，本人并非\n16　因血缘或婚姻关系与本案任何一方当事人有关联；\n17　且本人对本案结果\n18　不具有任何利益关系。\n19　特此为证，本人\n20　于2019年12月16日签字。\n\n24　_________________________\n25　MELISSA GILMORE（梅丽莎·吉尔莫尔）\n\nDANIEL PODHASKIE（丹尼尔·波达斯基）\nPacific 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）　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第35页，共241\n\n113:7　60:24;62:3,7,8;63:5;　59:5,16;61:4,15,23,24;　不良（1）\n\n$　地址（22）　86:20;95:5;99:11;　62:10;63:2;100:8;　81:17\n16:19;34:24;35:7,8,　116:7　101:3,17,21;102:16;　银行（17）\n$3（1）　16,16,21,23;36:3,6,14,　分离（2）　110:3　27:4;40:12;88:5,7,\n101:12　25;39:24;40:6,6;97:8,　86:14;98:6　转让（1）　13,15;89:6,19,22;90:4,\n16,18,21,25;98:4,20　公寓（24）　71:5　7;100:11,13,17,19,22;\nA　地址（4）　24:14;59:8;73:21;　被指派（2）　101:24\n35:20;36:12;97:23;　74:2,5,10;75:16,22;　50:13;70:23　基于（13）\n98:6　增加（1）　78:18,25;80:2;83:20;　转让事项（1）　21:10;23:16;29:19;\nAARON（1）　30:11　84:2,22;87:7;97:19;　73:14　31:17;32:16;33:4;39:8;\n3:7　管理（1）　107:11;108:22;109:11　假定（5）　46:11;55:15;64:21;\naaron@lmesqcom（1）　6:15　明显（1）　96:25;100:4　9:11;46:17;80:3;　86:13;114:4;116:8\n3:9　宣誓书（3）　28:10　假定（1）　19:24;20:7,15,20,22;\n能够（1）　75:6;118:9,15　出现（8）　17:15　29:8;44:23;119:14,25;\n36:2\n接受（1）　78:13　关联（1）　7:21;21:12;29:21;　附件（2）　121:14;122:11,25;\n访问（2）　19:12　55:15,17;57:7;66:6;　58:5,10　123:19\n116:9,10　再次（16）　69:19　出席（3）　成为（4）\n依照（1）　13:6;29:19;33:4;　出庭（1）　15:8,10;42:6　37:13,25;72:3;\n110:21　40:10;47:25;48:7;　7:21　注意（9）　117:21\n根据（3）　57:23;60:15,19;61:6;　显示（17）　20:2,20;29:6;44:19;　成为（5）\n45:22;86:6;106:7　63:6;65:10;73:7;79:23;　21:2;23:10,17;29:15;　58:15,17;80:8;84:23;　37:9;65:6;72:5;\n账户（17）　115:6;121:24　30:12;45:4;55:9;57:4;　105:5　112:21;113:4\n27:5;88:5,13,15;　反对（2）　65:24;66:10;69:8;　律师（5）　开始（2）\n89:6,19,22;90:4,7;　49:17;92:23　103:10;104:4,13;　11:22;82:3;92:17;　22:9;75:2\n年龄（1）　114:5;121:17,21　申请（5）　113:17;119:20　代表（21）\n100:12,13,19,23;101:5,　71:24　15:14;112:21;113:3;　律师（3）　8:24;11:8;15:15;\n6,17,24　代理人（9）　114:3;117:25　3:4;6:4;96:7　40:15;41:16,23;42:8;\n账户的（1）　27:22;28:5;33:12;　适用（2）　真实的（5）　45:21;52:2;58:11;\n100:17　35:9,17;36:13,23;98:2,　23:14;29:18;45:12;　70:19;71:2,3;99:8,15,\n准确的（19）　5　108:16;111:23　57:8;69:16　18,25;104:14,17;\n9:12;18:17;21:12;　前（3）　指定（5）　权限（1）　113:19;117:19\n23:15,18;29:18,21;　85:22;90:17;91:24　38:4,16;40:24;41:6;　46:5　下方（1）\n44:18;45:12;46:12;　同意（1）　43:22　授权（3）　104:10\n51:6;60:18;66:9;73:24;　123:23　指定（1）　20:21,25;21:8　受益的（4）\n74:8,14;83:23;94:8;　同意（3）　39:23　授权（2）　108:7,17,21;109:10\n106:11　6:4,9,13　指定（1）　99:24,24　受益地（1）\n取得（1）　协议（14）　40:22　获授权的（21）　114:11\n47:23\n收购（1）　26:20;73:17;82:10,　接近（1）　6:15;40:15;41:9;　旁边（1）\n101:23　17,24;86:17;102:9,17;　70:20　45:20,21,25;46:2;82:7,　78:19\n法案（13）　103:2,6,10;104:24;　正在接近（1）　9;95:19,24;96:3;99:8,　此外（8）\n23:4;29:10;40:15,22,　105:2;110:12　72:4　14,17,20,21;100:6;　23:23;31:18;34:2;\n24;41:7,9;61:20;99:8,　协议（2）　批准（4）　117:18,21,24　36:12;38:24;83:15;\n15,17,25;117:19　26:24;102:21　110:5,11;111:8,16　可获得的（5）　101:17;104:11\n行为（1）　al（1）　论点（1）　60:5,17;61:21;65:2,7　最佳（2）\n33:12　7:7　91:12　大道（2）　13:23;64:15\n行为（1）　Albany（1）　大约（8）　3:5;97:11　账单（1）\n110:22　98:2　53:7,11,16;70:3;　规避（1）　91:8\n行为（4）　Alliance（1）　83:10;85:20;100:5;　107:21　区块（1）\n41:15,22;42:3;80:24　7:6　112:10　知悉（18）　45:7\n活动（2）　Alliance的（2）　Asia（1）　24:5;36:16;38:19,22,　Blue（14）\n52:17;53:16　67:17;68:8　7:6　23;50:9;67:20;70:17;　26:22;53:23;54:2,5,\n法案（2）　允许（5）　主张（1）　72:8;90:13;97:24;98:3,　11,14,19;66:4;67:21;\n23:4;46:3　11:23;63:20;109:25;　12:3　8;101:22,23;102:14,15,　69:12;73:10;102:22;\n实际的（1）　113:9;115:7　主张（1）　23　110:9;111:11\n84:5　金额（1）　91:11　资产（10）　B　董事会（8）\n事实上（1）　30:18　25:3,6,9;46:13,18,　后面（5）　39:2,12;52:16;53:15;\n97:24　和/或（2）　22;47:8,11,24;48:3　43:11,15;75:3;80:6;　72:4;96:25;111:23;\n增加（1）　110:3,4　资产（29）　116:4　112:19\n70:2　Andrea（2）　14:14;25:10;47:4,15,　背景（3）　账簿（10）\n增加（2）　45:15;80:19　19;48:9,13,15,16,18,　105:6,22;110:17　35:22;36:7,10,14;\n25:21;86:25　回答（12）　20;49:6;50:11,19;51:9;　124:9,12\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）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第36页，共241\n\n双方（10）　64:2,4,7,11,16,22;65:6;　29:24　11,14,24;107:16,22;　74:18\n\n13:19;14:7,9,11,15;　66:13;67:12,15;69:21;　某些（4）　110:3,4;112:23;114:9　副本（18）\n83:19;92:17;93:13,17,　70:11,12,13,19,20,22;　52:8;100:5;103:23;　汇编（1）　21:7;23:10,18;29:15,\n24　71:2,6;72:14;73:15;　110:19　20:14　21;45:5;55:10,17;57:4,\n底部（3）　74:3;77:14,23;80:11,　当然（3）　完整的（2）　8;64:8,12;65:25;66:9;\n21:14;103:14,16　13,25;81:7,10,18;83:8,　11:23;63:21;65:12　80:24;125:10　69:8,15,16;103:10\nBravo（26）　18;84:10,18,19;85:18,　确定性（1）　复杂的（1）　公司（21）\n28:7;32:9,13;73:18;　23;86:8;90:11,15;91:3,　80:4　48:14　8:9;9:15;10:2;11:16;\n102:10;103:7;104:14;　18;94:5,12,16;95:2,22;　证书（7）　得出结论（1）　12:10,18;13:18;14:2,8;\n108:3,7,16;109:5,9;　98:24;99:21,23,24;　23:5,11;29:16;39:21;　124:19　19:21;20:7,17;33:11;\n110:14;111:5,8,24;　102:11;104:18;105:9,　55:3;65:15,25　结论（1）　34:21;35:5;39:19;\n112:3,6,9,23;114:10,　12,23,24;106:8;107:15,　证明（1）　68:23　41:20;53:16;77:24;\n17,20,24;115:2,10　22;108:8;110:3,4;　125:7　进行（3）　78:15;99:5\n休息（1）　111:10;117:7,11,18;　变更（2）　26:5,9;87:5　公司（23）\n115:23　118:6;120:13;121:13;　25:16;86:23　确认（1）　8:24;9:8;22:4,5,6,17;\n简要的（4）　122:7,23;124:13　收费（21）　114:8　23:6;29:11;30:7;31:9;\n15:3,4;60:6;63:11　英属维尔京群岛的（19）　36:9;55:4,18,20;　关联（18）　44:22;76:8,12,14,17,\n简要地（1）　14:13;28:13;30:22;　56:20,24;57:6,9;60:5,　12:8;16:14;19:12;　21;77:9,12;80:17,24,\n14:18　32:19;45:5;47:15;48:9,　16;64:3,25;65:16;66:2,　40:25;49:20;66:5;　25;100:11;105:9\n英国的（4）　15;50:19;54:14;57:17;　3;67:16;69:4,10,12,16;　91:19;93:9;104:23;　公司（2）\n22:5;23:4;34:25;　65:4;66:8,16;78:14;　110:2　113:3;114:2;118:10;　84:4;85:4\n\n98:19　90:23;98:20;116:11;　收费（1）　120:10,25;121:2,5,6;　正确地（1）\n较广泛的（1）　123:15　65:6　124:6　22:8\n15:22　Chase（4）　Connolly（2）　律师（4）\n经纪人（1）　C　88:8;100:12;101:5,　45:19;82:4　7:20;74:20;104:22,\n42:19　称为（7）　17　同意（4）　22\n业务（20）　8:1;13:10,12;26:21,　核对（1）　44:22;45:5,22;46:11　律师的（2）\n14:7;26:4,8;29:9;　22;50:20;53:23　27:20　考虑（2）　91:14,15\n34:21;35:4;42:7;46:6;　称呼（1）　中国（4）　37:15;47:10　县（3）\n55:23;56:6,16;57:14;　65:22　31:22;88:19,21,25　考虑（1）　7:9;123:24;125:5\n61:20;64:5;66:14;　呼叫（2）　选择（1）　47:14　夫妻（3）\n69:22;86:22;87:4,8;　68:22;108:24　25:13　一致的（3）　33:21,25;119:3\n112:11　来到（6）　市（1）　57:16;85:14;108:11　过程（12）\n购买（5）　28:4,7;53:4;89:15;　46:7　包含（1）　29:3;33:6;55:22;\n15:7,18;24:18;25:6;　109:4;115:11　澄清（3）　121:8　56:5,15;57:14;64:4,17;\n51:21　能够（41）　13:4;43:10;92:12　续（1）　66:13;69:22;109:6;\n购买（1）　10:14,15,23;11:13;　澄清（1）　3:1　118:4\n113:19　13:23;14:24;16:17;　119:5　合同（3）　法院（6）\nBVI（203）　18:3;19:2;20:23;21:9;　清晰度（1）　26:16;50:2;87:11　6:17;7:8,17,24;\n8:24;9:4,7,20;10:5,　23:2,7;24:24;25:19;　28:19　合同（3）　60:11;63:12\n12;11:9,17;13:19;14:7,　26:16,18;29:6,13;34:5;　明确的（4）　26:15,25;87:11　契约（4）\n9,12,15;16:22;17:5;　41:19;42:3;44:19,24;　43:17,21;48:17;73:5　控制（4）　109:14,15,18,25\n19:19;21:4;23:4,12,19,　46:10;48:14;55:8;　书记员（1）　94:16,20,25;117:6　涵盖（1）\n20,24;24:6;25:15;26:4,　56:13;57:2;63:19,23;　123:24　被控制的（1）　101:15\n8,14,20,24;27:4,7,14,　65:12,20;66:22;69:7;　客户（1）　52:23　被涵盖的（1）\n15,17,23;28:8;29:9,16;　77:24;78:15;84:25;　93:19　控制（2）　11:10\n30:8,21;31:2,6,12;　91:11;94:2;108:25　同事（1）　52:25;54:10　创建（1）\n32:15,21;33:2,6,12,24;　能力（2）　31:21　谈话（5）　109:25\n34:2,8,16;35:4,8,10,15,　43:24;46:24　收集（2）　12:17;13:25;15:25;　创建（1）\n18;36:14,17,20,24;　资本（14）　19:21;20:6　16:9,12　110:2\n37:3,7,11;38:2,8,21;　26:22;53:23;54:2,5,　纪念（1）　谈话（4）　目前（11）\n39:2,12,15;40:15,24;　11,15,19;66:4;67:22;　52:17　16:10;26:2;27:3;　14:15;34:11,12;\n41:7,10,16,23;42:9,16,　69:12;73:10;102:23;　沟通（2）　28:2　41:11;48:10,19;49:9,\n22;43:4,8,19,22,24;　110:9;111:11　13:2,8　合作（1）　14,16;54:24;115:10\n44:5,10,15;45:21;　案件（4）　沟通（2）　110:21　切割（1）\n\n46:14;47:3,9,10,14,19,　19:22;49:25;75:7;　42:16,19　共同拥有（1）　27:20\n23;48:3,19,23;49:5;　121:20　公司（3）　110:20\n50:11,13,23;51:3,4,12,　原因（1）　23:4;29:9;61:20　共同所有人（1）　D\n13,24;53:22;54:5,25;　82:9　公司（25）　110:24\n55:10,21;56:5,14;　注意（3）　7:16,19;22:7;24:8,　共同所有人（6）　DAN（2）\n57:13,23;59:5,6,17,22;　32:3;40:10;52:12　10;32:10;36:4;40:22;　110:6,11,16,17;　3:14;7:14\n61:4,15,19,20,24;　分（1）　46:18,21;53:23;74:11;　111:5,9　Daniel（3）\n62:10,12;63:2,7,10;　75:16,23;76:3;105:9,　副本（1）　7:4;125:7,17\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）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第37页，共241\n\n日期（7）　11,13,14;37:15;44:22;　美元（4）　结束（1）　69:2,5;74:15;75:12;\n\n7:12;20:21,25;21:8;　45:6;46:12;66:17;　30:2,3,8,13　64:18　80:6;84:24;86:4; 59:16;61:18;71:16　67:12;80:16;95:2;　完成 (1)　结束 (3)　102:25;103:5;112:14, 注明日期 (9)　99:23　42:6　24:15;32:12;84:12　18;119:11,24;120:6,19, 21:2;45:6;57:6;　董事 (10)　怀疑 (1)　从事 (1)　20,23,24,25;121:14; 59:14;66:2;69:10;　33:7,10;37:21,23;　107:21　42:7　122:9,20,25;123:19,22 103:11;112:15,19　38:9;39:21;95:15,17;　向下 (3)　England（英格兰） (1)　证物 (5) 日期 (1)　96:25;112:20　58:22,23;105:6　13:15　56:2,3,3;119:10,11\n\n53:10　董事的 (3)　期间 (5)　足够 (1)　存在 (1) 日 (7)　20:21,25;21:8　13:25;29:3;32:19;　101:14　46:5 21:3;33:17,21,24;　支付 (1)　33:6;74:19　录入 (4)　存在 (5) 34:10;37:19;125:21　87:15　职责 (1)　82:10,17,24;86:17　30:22;32:20;33:7; 日 (5)　披露 (1)　19:11　已录入 (10)　94:7,14 33:21,25;83:9;85:18;　108:15　26:14,19,20,24;　预期 (2) 86:14　讨论 (3)　E　52:10;66:19;67:10,16;　63:21;65:13 债务 (1)　12:8,20;13:16　87:10;103:12　经验 (1)\n\n27:19　已讨论 (10)　较早 (6)　录入 (1)　64:22 December（十二月） (2)　13:17;14:6,8,10,12,　43:12;53:20;64:2;　50:2　已解释 (1) 7:13;16:4　14,18;16:18,19;102:22　67:21;75:13;102:22　整体 (5)　58:18 决定 (3)　讨论 (3)　早期 (1)　30:21;59:9;61:5;　延长 (1) 51:23;52:6;54:14　14:22;15:3,5　111:22　94:7,13　79:7 声明 (1)　讨论 (8)　ECF (1)　实体 (12)　范围 (1) 102:25　11:25;67:14;70:3,12;　75:8　3:4;8:9,12;19:23;　80:23\n\n减少 (1)　72:13,20;73:3,13　eCourt 的 (1)　20:18;93:8,18,25;　额外 (1) 115:3　争议 (1)　123:6　103:8;107:23;108:2,18　74:18 视为 (2)　91:25　效力 (1)　有权获得 (3) 83:7,13　区分 (1)　6:16　20:21,24;44:21　F 被告 (1)　31:7　有效 (7)　实体 (19) 58:11　案卷 (2)　21:2;59:23;61:18;　8:16,23;9:4;21:5;　设施 (2)\n\n被告的 (2)　121:20;122:14　62:13;63:7;69:10;　26:21,22;27:8,12,13,　54:4,6 58:2,8　文书 (74)　85:12　16;28:9;50:20;85:7;　事实 (4) 定义 (3)　10:9;20:23,24;22:12,　EIN（雇主识别号码） (2)　93:8,13,16,23;113:19,　59:17;67:15;72:4; 10:12;111:5;114:9　18,20;23:2,14;29:14,　42:25;117:25　22　117:6\n\n定义 (1)　18;44:21,24,25;45:13,　任一 (7)　ESQ (1)　不实 (5) 105:8　15;55:8,9,19,21;56:17;　40:21,23;45:18;　3:7　60:9,12,20;61:8,12 部门 (1)　57:2,12;58:12;59:14;　73:15;82:3;92:18;　已设立 (1)　熟悉 (1) 85:4　60:15;64:3,8,12,14,17,　111:10　59:21　92:3 作证 (1)　18;65:20,24;66:9,10,　详述 (1)　遗产 (11)　家庭 (4) 78:10　12;69:20;84:25;85:2,　26:18　24:9,13,16,19,20,25;　15:20;31:24;84:16;\n\n存入 (1)　10,25;86:5;103:9;　当选 (1)　42:19;83:6,12,15;　114:6 90:6　105:17;106:7;107:3,6,　38:4　84:16　远 (2) 证言 (33)　12;109:8;114:22;　Elian（埃利安） (4)　等 (1)　21:9;29:17 6:13;7:4,11;9:16,20;　117:5,10,14,17,20,23;　33:14,16,23;37:19　7:7　父亲 (3) 10:3,5,10,11,18,25;　118:3,4;120:4,5;　Ellen（艾伦） (2)　甚至 (1)　15:9;72:2;112:10 11:5,15;12:13;13:17;　121:15,16,17,22;122:3,　7:15,18　95:2　February（二月） (13) 16:15;29:4;40:21;41:2,　13,17;123:2,3,13,17;　其他 (11)　证明 (1)　21:3;23:20;37:12,24; 7,11;55:16;63:16;70:8;　124:4,10,14　12:16,20;14:17;　109:8　45:6;66:2;85:12,24; 74:16,19;75:13;109:8;　文书 (61)　16:23;24:4;31:11;　确切地 (4)　86:7,9,10;87:5;103:11\n\n115:22;120:15;121:3;　19:21;20:2,3,7,14,　77:18,25;78:16;87:21,　24:20;67:9;85:19;　感觉 (1) 124:20;125:9　17;21:10;23:16;26:2;　25　116:14　20:3 指定 (1)　27:2;28:2,11;29:19;　E-MAIL（电子邮件） (2)　询问 (2)　费用 (12) 11:16　30:15,23;31:17;32:16,　3:9;36:24　8:6;119:7　87:19;88:2;90:23; DI (2)　18,22;38:13;39:6,13,　受雇 (1)　被询问 (1)　91:4,19;92:9;93:4,7,13, 91:10;93:19　15,19,25;41:21;42:16,　19:9　8:3　17,24;100:16 不同 (2)　22,22;43:23;44:17;　雇员 (3)　除外 (1)　感到 (2) 25:12;42:14　45:3;47:21;56:4,14;　36:18;96:16,19　6:9　84:7,20\n\n直接 (9)　57:24;63:17;65:5;　雇主 (2)　已签署 (1)　少数 (3) 19:25;20:19;29:6;　85:23;86:13;95:13;　42:25,25　117:22　85:22;90:17;91:24 44:19;58:15,16;80:7;　97:5;98:10,18,20,25;　受担保 (6)　证物 (47)　第五 (1) 84:23;105:5　99:3,5;102:2;109:7;　48:10;49:10,13;50:6;　9:15,19;10:4,9,11,15,　97:11\n\n董事 (23)　111:15;115:18;116:9,　20,25;119:19;120:10, 32:25;33:13,14,16,　13,16,22;121:2　负担 (1) 17,17,23,24;34:2,8,10,　102:14　44:20;55:3,7,20;56:18, 22;58:2,8;65:15,18;　121:25;124:7\n\n已提交 (10) 太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业（PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.）诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 38 页，共 241 页 Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波达斯基） December 11, 2019\n\n58:10;60:6;61:19; 72:17;73:22;74:6,12;　12,12,13,14,15,16;　6,11,16;120:13,13;　12:5\n\n63:11,17;120:10;　76:4,25;77:15;78:2,20;　15:15;16:20,21,22,25;　121:10,13;122:5,7,18,　HEREBY（特此） (3) 121:18;122:2;123:5,23　79:2,22;81:13;82:8,12,　17:4,8,14,16,18,22,24;　23;123:11,15;124:8,13　6:3,6;125:7 文件 (3)　20;83:2,21;86:11,19;　18:7,13,20,25;19:6,9,　Genever 的 (3)　本文中 (1) 22:21;64:18;116:11　89:2,24;90:24;93:10;　13,19,23;20:18;21:4;　22:21;85:14;108:11　6:5\n\n提交 (3)　95:4;96:5;97:3,9;　22:6,16;23:6,11,19,24;　Gilmore（吉尔莫） (1)　其本人 (3) 6:6;122:14;123:6　98:11,21;99:10;100:2;　24:6,10,16;25:15;26:4,　7:18　71:23;104:19;112:6 提交文件 (1)　101:7;102:7,19;104:8;　6,8,9,14,19,24;27:4,7,　已给出 (1)　雇用 (1) 121:6　107:5;108:23;111:12,　14,15,16;28:8,13;　125:12　27:22 财务 (1)　18,25;113:5;115:5;　29:10,16;30:7,7,21,22;　高兴 (1)　Ho（何） (5) 112:13　116:12,21;117:8;　31:2,6,12;32:15,19,21;　118:20　21:18,20;45:7; 查找 (2)　118:7,17;120:18　33:2,6,24;34:2,8,16;　欣然 (1)　112:21;114:12 36:2;123:2　正式 (1)　35:4,7,14,15;36:17,20,　78:12　Hodgson（霍奇森） (8)\n\n罚款 (5)　53:16　24;37:3,7,11;38:2,8,21;　Golden（戈尔登） (9)　7:12;58:11;60:5,8, 8:18;9:5;28:25;29:5;　手续 (1)　39:2,12,15;40:15,24;　88:16,18,19,21,25;　17;90:16,23;92:15 43:16　13:18　41:7,10,16,23;42:8,16,　89:15,17;90:8;100:14　持有 (12) 律师事务所 (10)　成立 (13)　22;43:4,6,8,18,19,22,　货物 (1)　35:14;48:24;49:6; 45:18;82:4;90:16,20;　14:6;25:6,9,16;　24;44:5,6,10,11,13,15,　27:21　83:19;84:10;100:9,15, 91:5;92:6,13,14,16,21　28:14;41:21;42:12;　16,21;45:5,21;46:2,4,　Grauer（格劳尔） (2)　18;106:8,24;107:11,16 律师事务所 (1)　43:13,21;81:20;82:15;　13,14,25;47:3,4,8,9,10,　7:15,19　持有 (6) 92:18　96:8;99:5　10,14,14,15,19,20,23,　Great（大） (1)　30:7;105:25;106:18; 律师事务所的 (1)　成立 (27)　24;48:3,4,9,15,19,20,　10:13　107:7,21,25\n\n92:9　22:16;24:6,7;33:2;　23;49:5,6,9,25;50:6,11,　Group（集团） (3)　Holdings（控股） (13) 首次 (13)　37:12,24;39:20;44:16;　13,19,23,25;51:3,4,9,9,　88:19,21,25　8:13,21,24;9:8;22:6, 13:4;22:10,11;33:14,　82:10,16;83:9,19;84:3,　猜测 (1)　16;23:6;29:10;44:21; 17,23;75:21;80:10,18;　10,15;85:17,18,20,23;　43:20　80:16;85:5;105:9,14 103:16;104:6;105:7;　86:6,6,8,10,17;87:5;　Guo（郭） (71)　Hong（洪） (6) 109:21　88:9;90:4　57:12,16,22;59:5,6,7,　11:18;12:23;13:6,12,　35:21;36:15;40:6; 适合 (2)　形成 (3)　17,22;61:4,15,24;　13,24;15:20,23;16:2,9,　88:19,22,25 酒店 (13) 83:7,13　22:4;23:24;82:23　62:10,12;63:2,7,10,10,　12;23:25;28:22;32:11,　14:20;24:14;77:21; 五 (6)　形式 (1)　25;64:4,7,11,16;65:4;　11;34:14;36:11;37:5,　78:18;79:9,18;83:16; 10:17,21,25;11:5;　15:14　66:8,12,16;67:12,15;　13,25;38:4,10,12,17,　86:18;87:12;90:9; 58:23;85:18　基金会 (1)　68:19,25;69:21;70:11,　24;39:23;40:20,23;　91:24;98:7;100:24\n\n翻转 (2)　81:12　11,13,19,20,22;71:2,6,　41:8,22;42:5;43:21;　百 (1) 20:4;56:13　四 (2)　6;72:14,14;73:15,15;　52:4;54:3;66:5;70:7;　51:7 楼层 (11)　58:23;86:14　74:3,4;76:9;77:13,13,　71:12,20;72:5;78:24; 76:24;77:4,21;78:18,　前面 (2)　23,23;78:14,14;80:11,　79:10,15,18,25;83:25; 25;82:18;97:15,20;　35:25;75:5　12,13,14,16,25;81:3,7,　84:6,11,16,20;88:23;　I 106:20,25;107:8　完全 (1)　8,10,11,11,18,19,19;　94:19,24;95:25;96:4; 聚焦 (2)　116:11　82:8,9,16,23;83:8,8,11,　99:17,24;100:6; 19:19;60:7　基金 (1)　14,18,18;84:9,10,18,　103:20;104:2,5,11,14;　想法 (4) 跟随 (2)　7:7　19,19;85:5,7,10,17,18,　112:4,8,11;114:12;　71:18,24;72:3;84:6 91:13,15　获资助 (2)　23;86:8,9,16,16,22;　115:9;117:6,18,20,24　识别 (11) 随后 (1)　88:15;100:14　87:4,10,14,24;88:4;　9:18,21;20:8;42:25; 8:4　资金 (1)　89:5,10,18,21;90:3,7,　H　55:5;56:21;58:6;65:17; 强制 (1)　32:12　11,11,15,15,22,23;　已识别 (1)　69:4;103:3;112:16 6:16　FURTHER（进一步） (5)　91:3,4,18,18,23;92:5,　手 (1)　119:14 形式 (113)　6:8,12;109:18;　22;93:4,14,17,24;94:5,　19:20　识别 (13) 6:10;10:7;11:11;　118:24;124:16　6,7,10,12,13,13,16,20,　交给 (8)　20:23;23:2,7;29:13; 17:25;18:9;19:14;　未来 (1)　25;95:8,11,14,18,22;　9:24;55:6;56:22;　44:24;55:8;57:2;65:20; 21:15;23:8;24:22;　49:20　96:3,10,15,18,21,24;　58:7;65:18;69:5;74:18;　69:7;77:25;78:16; 25:17,23;26:11;27:9;　G　17,18,20,24,24;99:3,8,　112:17　84:25;100:21 30:9;31:3,13;34:3,18;　39:4,10,17;40:16;41:5,　给予 (1)　15,18,21,23,24,25;　发生 (1)　不准确 (3) 12,17,24;42:10;44:7;　51:21　100:7,8,20;101:2,6,16,　115:15　22:21;83:24;114:22 46:2,8,15;47:5,17;48:5,　生成 (1)　20;102:5,10,11,15;　发生 (1)　Inc（公司） (1)\n\n11;49:3,11,22;50:7,15,　39:20　103:8;104:18,18;　负责人 (2)　112:22 21;51:14,25;57:19;　Genever（杰尼弗） (416)　105:9,12,14,16,24;　35:25;71:17　包括 (1) 59:19;60:2,13,21;　3:4,13;8:12,16,20,21,　106:4,8,8,15,17,23;　持有 (8)　59:7 61:10;62:2,17;63:13;　24;9:4,7,7,17,20;10:4,　107:16,23,25;108:8,8,　7:11;14:15;47:19;　已注册成立 (3) 64:19;65:8;66:20;67:6,　5,10,11;11:8,9,17,17;　14,17;111:10;113:12,　51:9;98:20;101:2,16;　23:20;29:9;85:11 18;68:9,15,21;69:17,　Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co. LLC（艾伦·格劳尔法庭记录有限责任公司） (4) 文件－增加 太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业（PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.）诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 39 页，共 241 页\n\n115:2　112:3　KWOK147 (1)　责任 (6)　102:10;103:7;104:15;\n\n发生（1）　泽西（1）　29:8　46:18,21;74:11;　108:3,7,16;109:5,9;\n27:19　3:6　KWOK176（1）　75:16,23;76:3　110:14;111:6,9,24;\n索引（1）　JPMorgan（摩根大通）（2）　20:22　留置权（2）　112:4,7,9,23;114:10,\n7:9　100:12;101:5　KWOK193（3）　49:16;110:2　17,20,25;115:2,10\n表明（2）　法官（1）　44:20,23;80:8　有限（12）\n12:15;117:23　49:24　KWOK194（1）　26:22;46:18,21;　M\n表明（1）　跳跃（1）　20:16　74:11;75:16,22;76:2;\n117:10　58:22　Kwok's（郭文贵的）（26）　88:20,22,25;104:15;　MACOM（2）\n指出（1）　六月（1）　12:24;13:7;15:24;　112:23　3:14;7:14\n49:25　69:10　21:14;22:21;24:2;　行（1）　Madison（麦迪逊）（1）\n个人（2）　司法部（4）　28:23;30:6;31:21;　21:19　3:5\n11:25;40:14　50:5;102:4,13,17　32:11;70:23;71:7;　行数（1）　Magnanini（马格纳尼尼）（2）\n信息（1）　73:13;74:9,15,19;　58:23　93:2,7\n118:15　K　75:12,21;76:11;83:19,　列明（1）　Magnanini's（马格纳尼尼的）（1）\n最初（4）　25;103:24;104:3,6;　12:12　93:4\n24:7;33:20;71:22;　保留（1）　114:25;119:20　听（1）　邮件（1）\n83:25　36:7　62:20　99:6\n询问（1）　保留（1）　L　诉讼（12）　邮寄（8）\n85:5　36:15　117:14;118:10;　34:24;35:7,8,16,16;\n指示（2）　种类（1）　着陆（1）　119:21;120:11;121:7,　36:6,14;97:21\n91:6;93:19　54:9　103:4　18,19,25;122:2;123:8,　维持（1）\n指示（2）　知道（4）　最后（3）　24;124:6　39:16\n91:14,16　60:9;66:18;109:4,9　10:16,24;80:22　少量（1）　维持（14）\n互动（1）　知情（9）　以后（1）　48:14　39:25;40:7;56:15;\n42:8　12:12;42:5;63:22;　53:21　居住（2）　57:13;64:3,16;69:21;\n利息（21）　66:7,8;89:21;113:9;　78:24;79:4　98:14,19,25;105:3;\n73:20;74:10;75:15,　115:8;118:20　法律（4）　生活（2）　121:10;122:4,18\n22,25;76:7,8,11,13,17,　已知（3）　58:3,9;92:6,9　31:22;97:19　维持（1）\n20,23;77:6,11,20;78:6,　22:6;60:17;110:18　LAWALL（1）　LLC（有限责任公司）（6）　36:9\n17;83:19;84:11;88:24;　知道（1）　3:3　3:3;8:13,21;85:5;　维持（3）\n115:2　65:12　法律（1）　94:10;105:15　16:20;35:22;66:13\n权益（1）　香港（6）　诉讼（10）　LLP（有限责任合伙企业）（1）　维护（9）\n95:11　35:22;36:15;40:7;　67:17;68:8;90:12;　58:11　87:19;88:2;89:11;\n进入（17）　88:19,22,25　91:19;92:8,23;93:9,14,　贷款（6）　90:9;91:25;100:15,19,\n26:14,19,20,24;50:2;　Kwok（郭文贵）（100）　18,25　51:17,20;54:4,6,7;　23;101:13\n52:10;66:19;67:11,16;　11:18;12:7,8,17;　律师（2）　66:5　管理（1）\n82:10,17,24;86:17;　14:13;15:21;19:24;　45:18;78:10　位于（1）　14:11\n87:11;89:18;90:7;　21:18,20,22;22:13,16;　律师（1）　13:13　三月（11）\n103:12　23:23;28:14,15,16,21,　64:22　长期（3）　57:6,18,22;59:23;\n投资（5）　22;29:22;30:13,18,20,　主导（2）　33:19;64:13;65:14　61:18;62:13;63:8;\n24:25;54:8;83:6,12;　25;31:15,19,24;32:25;　119:22;123:25　查看（18）　112:15,19;114:16;\n84:17　33:8,18;34:2,7;37:17;　租赁（4）　10:14,16,23;19:25;　115:3\n已投资（1）　38:6,16,20;40:20,23;　68:14,19;77:3;　20:4;22:24;43:15;　标记（11）\n83:14　41:15;45:8,9;48:24;　108:16　59:13;75:20;80:18,22;　9:17,20,25;20:8;\n投资（1）　52:5;54:13;59:2,4,10;　租赁（1）　81:22;86:3;103:14;　55:4;56:20;58:5;65:16;\n40:12　66:18;67:2,3,11;70:14;　76:9　105:22;109:24;110:17;　69:4;103:2;112:15\n投资（1）　71:12;72:6,16;73:19,　离开（2）　114:7　标记（2）\n54:9　25;75:15,24;76:6,19;　74:21;104:2　查看（2）　20:9,11\n涉及（8）　77:11,19,19;78:19,23;　左手（1）　25:12;85:22　标记（1）\n23:23;42:12,13;　84:12,17;88:24;91:17,　103:15　查看（7）　74:25\n43:13,13,21;52:5;　23;92:5,23;93:13,17,　法律（13）　15:2,6,17;54:3;　数学（1）\n54:13　24;94:16,20,25;97:19;　7:15,19;63:17;68:22;　85:25;119:18,24　30:11\n涉及（1）　99:12,14,16,22;102:10;　90:23;91:4,18;92:9;　看起来（2）　事项（1）\n102:11　104:17,18;108:14;　93:4,7,13,17,24　85:2;103:24　7:6\n岛（1）　丢失（1）\n109:22;111:7,22;　合法地（1）　可以（26）\n23:4　112:5,21;113:3,16,18;　114:10　115:12　6:13;37:10,13,24;\n群岛（3）　114:5,11,17;115:12;　出借（1）　很多（2）　38:5,15;53:7;55:12;\n22:5;34:25;98:19　119:15　32:7　15:10;116:7　57:6;59:5,14;60:12,23;\nKWOK143（2）　借出（3）　LP（有限合伙企业）（1）　61:5,15,22,25;62:11;\nJ　20:7,16　31:22;32:6,9　7:7　63:3;75:7,8,9;100:6;\nKWOK145（1）　Letter（信函）（4）　Luck（拉克）（26）　110:20;120:9;121:24\n一月（1）　22:25　112:14,18;114:4,18　28:7;32:9,13;73:18;　也许（2）\nPACIFIC 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）　Case 22-50073　Doc 183-3　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45　Page 40 of 241\n\n11:20;72:4　11;49:3,11,22;50:7,15,　姓名（4）　13:18　3,5;36:4,7;40:2,8\n\n意思是（17）　21;51:14,25;52:12;　7:14;13:4;92:13,21　通知（2）　官员（3）\n8:19;9:7;18:4;19:2,　56:7;57:19;59:19;60:2,　性质（1）　11:15;63:16　6:14;37:16;38:20\n7;34:20;42:3;49:13;　13,21,24;61:10;62:2,　63:18　编号（19）　官员（6）\n61:12,14;73:2;79:4,6;　17,24;63:4,13;64:19;　必要（2）　7:10;10:2;36:21,22;　37:3,11;38:2,9,10,24\n92:16;99:12;104:10;　65:8,21;66:20;67:6,18;　46:4;80:23　43:2;58:19;75:2;96:22;　办公室（5）\n120:22　68:9,15,21;69:17,23;　需要（2）　105:7,23;106:14;　7:12;34:17,20;96:11,\n含义（1）　70:15,24;71:8;72:17,　14:4;20:3　107:20;119:10,15,15;　13\n40:12　23;73:8,22;74:6,12;　所需（1）　121:20;122:14;123:2,　正式（4）\n意指（1）　76:4,25;77:15;78:2,7,　27:19　20　17:21;18:20;19:5;\n90:8　11,20;79:2,22;81:13;　纽约（191）　52:17\n会议（5）　82:12,20;83:2,21;　3:6;7:8,9;8:16,20;　O　一次（2）\n39:3,12;42:6;53:15;　86:11,19;89:2,24;　9:17;10:4,10;11:8,17;　宣誓（2）　82:9,16\n97:2　90:24;91:6,10;92:11;　13:19;14:8,10,12,14,　一个（27）\n会议（2）　93:10,19;94:2;95:4;　16,20;15:8,16;16:21,　6:15;125:9　8:12;11:14;14:6,6;\n15:8,10　96:5;97:3,9;98:11,21;　21;17:2,8,14,16,18,22,　异议（107）　19:22,23;25:6,9;30:8;\nMelissa（梅利莎）（1）　99:10;100:2;101:7;　24;18:7,13,21,25;19:6,　10:7;11:11;17:25;　40:21;47:4,15;58:22;\n7:18　102:7,19;104:8;107:5;　9,13;24:11;26:6,9;　18:9;19:14;21:15;23:8;　83:4;86:21;92:18;93:7;\n成员（13）　108:23;111:12,18,25;　43:7,19;44:6,11,13,16;　24:22;25:17,23;26:11;　94:2;106:12;107:2,3,\n31:24;44:10;80:11,　113:5,14,21;115:5,13,　46:2,4,6,6,13;47:4,8,　27:9;30:9;31:3,13;　10,13,16,18;119:10;\n13;81:3,7,10,18;84:17,　16,20;116:12,21;　11,14,20,24;48:4,20;　34:3,18;39:4,10,17;　120:9\n18;94:12;95:20,22　117:8;118:7,17;119:2,　49:6,9;50:2,6,25;51:9,　仅（5）\n成员（1）　8;120:6;124:16　10;56:14;63:11;68:19;　33:17;34:12,14;\n94:11　Mitchell's（米切尔的）（2）　71:6;72:14;73:15;74:4;　56:10;73:2\n成员资格（1）　90:20;91:4　76:10;77:13,23;78:14;　oOo（1）\n95:11　星期一（1）　80:12,14;81:3,8,11,11,　6:19\nMemorandum（备忘录）（3）　16:3　19,19;82:8,9,16,24;　机会（1）\n58:3,8;122:9　金钱（24）　83:8,11,14,18;84:10,　7:7\n提及（3）　27:7,15,19,21;28:4,　19;85:3,7,11,11,17;　反对（2）\n20:14;37:5;50:18　9;30:18;31:22;32:6,8,　86:9,16,23;87:4,10,14,　58:3,9\n提及（1）　9;42:7;87:15,24;88:11,　24;88:4,17,18;89:5,10,　命令（8）\n28:20　16;89:14,18;90:6,8;　16,18,18,21;90:3,7,11,　20:15;49:24;50:5;\n提及（1）　100:15,18;101:4;109:4　15,22;91:4,18,23;92:5;　58:4,10;102:4,13,18\n45:15　月份（1）　93:4;94:6,7,10,13,14,　普通（8）\nMichael（迈克尔）（2）　101:15　20;95:8,11,14,18;96:3,　55:22;56:5,15;57:13;\n81:23;82:2　每月（1）　10,15,18,21,24;97:7,　64:4,17;66:13;69:21\n中（1）　101:13　14,18,22;98:5,9,17,18;　组织（1）\n71:25　更多（5）　99:3,8,15,18,25;100:7,　14:11\n中间（1）　19:3;20:5;26:16;　8,14,20;101:2,6,16,20;　Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）（1）\n29:11　42:3;101:12　102:5,10,15;104:18;　49:25\n可能（2）　Morristown（莫里斯敦）（1）　105:16;106:4,8,15,17,　Ostrager's（奥斯特拉格的）（4）\n43:6;97:25　3:6　23;107:16;108:7,8,14;　50:5;102:4,13,18\nMiles（迈尔斯）（6）　抵押（1）　113:12,15,20;116:10;　异议（12）　出（2）\n11:18;21:22;28:16,　110:2　117:19,21;118:2,6;　62:2,24;63:4;67:18;　74:18;100:22\n22;77:19;78:19　MOSS（莫斯）（34）　120:13;121:7,11;　78:8;113:10;115:13,　外部（6）\n百万（1）　8:7;12:4,6;13:5;　122:5,19;123:11,23;　16,20;119:22;120:18;　12:2;63:14;65:10;\n101:12　20:11;43:9;56:12;62:8;　124:8　123:25　113:7;115:7;118:18\n分钟（2）　65:23;73:7;74:17;75:4;　下一个（2）　异议（1）　结束（1）\n74:21;85:22　78:9;79:23;81:16;91:8;　29:7;104:6　6:9　86:23\n缺失（2）　92:19;93:21;113:12,　无人（1）　取得（2）　自己的（8）\n116:25;117:4　18,23;115:23;116:6,　31:11　46:5;54:3　24:7;32:14,20;51:4,\n错误（1）　17;118:22,24;119:6,　公证人（2）　已取得（2）　8;73:25;84:15;95:10\n59:23　22;120:5,8,18,21;　8:2;125:25　111:17;118:14　拥有（7）\nMITCHELL（米切尔）（141）　123:25;124:17　注释（2）　O'Connor（奥康纳）（3）　32:10;52:21;59:10;\n3:3,7;10:7;11:11,20;　最多（1）　113:10;119:13　81:24;82:2,8　111:24;112:4;114:11,\n13:3;17:25;18:9;19:14;　101:4　注明（1）　关闭（21）　17\n20:9;21:15;23:8;24:22;　动议（2）　124:23　35:24;53:5,9,13,22;　所有者（27）\n25:17,23;26:11;27:9;　58:4,9　通知（15）　54:20;57:18;67:22;　29:23;30:25;44:5;\n30:9;31:3,13;32:3;　很多（3）　9:16,19;10:3,4,10,　68:3,5,7,12;70:4,6,9;　72:3,5;84:5,7,12,19,21;\n34:3,18;39:4,10,17;\n40:10,16;41:4,12,17,　14:3,4;64:23　11;12:13;50:4;56:18,\n23;57:5;65:11;69:2,9;　N　113:8　25;119:3;124:20\n办公室（10）　109:10,18;110:5,11,14,\n18,20;111:5,8;112:6;\n46:8,15;47:5,17;48:5,　注意到（1）　16:21;34:21,21;35:2,　115:10\n\n太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业诉郭文贵　Case 22-50073　Doc 183-3　Filed 04/06/22　Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45　Page 41 of 241\n\n所有者（1）\n31:8　付款（2）\n88:12;100:22　质押（3）\n51:7,8;111:9　121:9\n准备（6）　14:19;15:15;24:8;\n25:3,4,7,9;31:23;32:6,\n\n所有权（34）　支付（1）　下午（7）　11:7;13:25;16:6;　12;42:13,18,20;43:14;\n\n14:9;32:18;46:17,21;　91:8　9:23;74:23;75:3;　55:16;70:8;109:7　71:23;82:10,17;84:2;\n59:7;70:13,22;71:6,11,　待决（1）　116:2,5;124:21,23　已准备（5）　96:9\n13;72:13;73:12,20;　67:17　Podhaskie（波德哈斯基）（157）　10:20;11:4;17:7,11;　购买（1）\n74:3,10;75:15,21,25;　人员（4）　7:5;8:8;9:1,15,19,24,　114:19　24:16\n76:6,7,11,13,16,20,23;　64:22;78:12;93:8;　25;10:1,2;11:1,22;　准备（1）　购买（1）\n77:5,19;78:6,13,16;　99:7　12:1;13:1;14:1;15:1;　12:9　42:15\n101:18;112:9;114:19;　百分比（9）　16:1;17:1;18:1;19:1,　出席（3）　目的（21）\n115:2　51:5,8;112:6,9;　20;20:1,6,10,13;21:1;　3:12;16:8,11　14:7;25:15,16;41:10;\n拥有（2）　114:11,12,17;115:10,　22:1,24;23:1;24:1;　总裁（16）　82:23;86:22;100:14,\n26:9;72:2　12　25:1;26:1;27:1;28:1;　15:11,12;34:15;37:8,　17;105:19,23,25;106:8,\n拥有（13）　期间（2）　29:1,7;30:1;31:1;32:1;　9,13,25;38:5,10,12,16,　14,17,18,23,24;107:4,\n26:6,6;31:11;40:6;　33:20;38:18　33:1;34:1;35:1;36:1;　18;39:23;43:23,25;　7,12,15\n52:25;54:10;74:3,4;　期间（1）　37:1;38:1;39:1;40:1;　117:11　目的（14）\n77:11;87:6;88:18,21;　79:7　41:1;42:1;43:1;44:1,　此前（1）　25:21;28:19;83:4,5,\n100:10　允许（1）　20;45:1;46:1;47:1;　114:10　12;86:21,25;106:12;\n\n46:4　个人（17）　48:1;49:1;50:1;51:1;　先前（1）　107:2,4,10,13,17,19\nP　13:2;27:8,11,13,16;　52:1;53:1;54:1;55:1,3,　10:12　依照（2）\nPacific（太平洋）（3）　28:9;45:21;46:2;93:7,　6;56:1,18,23;57:1;　主要（3）　56:20,25\n7:6;67:17;68:8　12,16,23;95:20,24;　58:1,2,7;59:1;60:1;　79:5,10,19　放置（3）\n页（21）　100:7;117:21,24　61:1,8;62:1;63:1;64:1;　打印件（1）　55:12;89:18;118:15\n10:16,24;11:2;20:20,　个人（1）　65:1,15,19;66:1;67:1;　85:3\n20;22:25;29:7;44:20;　46:23　68:1;69:1,2,6;70:1;　先前（8）　Q\n58:16,19;80:8;84:23;　人员（2）　71:1;72:1;73:1;74:1;　61:6;89:22;92:23;\n103:17,25;104:5;　14:10;17:8　75:1,5;76:1;77:1;78:1;　110:5,10;111:8;120:3;　Qiang（强）（64）\n109:16,21;110:17;　人员（1）　79:1;80:1,7;81:1;82:1;　124:3　11:18;12:23,25;13:4,\n114:7,8,10　96:3　83:1;84:1;85:1;86:1;　特权（3）　12,13,24;15:23;16:2,9,\n页数（1）　PHONE（电话）（5）　87:1;88:1;89:1;90:1;　12:3;91:7,11　12;23:25;28:22;32:11,\n120:23　3:8;13:2;36:20,22;　91:1;92:1;93:1;94:1;　享有特权（1）　11;34:14;36:11;37:5,\n已支付（6）　96:21　95:1;96:1;97:1;98:1;　91:9　13,25;38:4,10,12,17,\n27:7,15,23;30:17;　Ping（平）（1）　99:1;100:1;101:1;　可能（1）　24;39:23;40:20,23;\n92:9;93:7　75:6　102:1,25;103:1,4;　67:2　41:8,22;42:5;43:21;\n同等（1）　原告（1）　104:1;105:1;106:1;　程序（2）　52:4;54:3;70:7;71:12,\nENGLISH\n\n29:24　7:5　110:1;111:1;112:1,14,　程序 (4)　25;83:25;84:7,16,21;\n段落 (5)　原告的 (2)　17;113:1;114:1;115:1;　35:9,17;36:13;98:2　88:23;94:19,24;95:25;\n22:10;58:17;75:20;　58:4,9　116:1,7;117:1;118:1,　出示 (4)　96:4;99:17,24;100:6;\n80:10,23　计划 (5)　25;119:1,4,9,11,18,24;　19:22;22:20;117:14;　103:20;104:14;112:4,\n释义转述 (1)　25:5,8,11;82:15;　120:1;121:1;122:1;　119:20　8,12;114:12;115:9;\n116:16　110:21　123:1;124:1;125:7,17　承诺 (1)　117:6,18,20,24\n部分 (1)　请 (12)　要点 (3)　49:19　Qiang（强）的 (7)\n97:15　7:24;10:14,15,23;　50:10;54:20;67:22　不动产 (2)　66:5;79:10,18;84:11;\n特定的 (2)　16:18;22:24;29:7,13;　积极的 (1)　25:13;42:14　104:2,5,11\n15:23;84:22　45:2;52:14;57:3;69:7　82:6　财产 (5)\n当事人 (8)　质押 (32)　占有 (2)　75:23;76:9;106:18;　R\n6:5;90:12;104:23;　26:20,23;51:17,19,　98:9;99:4　107:7;110:20\n105:8;110:19,19,23,25　23;52:9,17;53:4,9,12,　可能的 (1)　专有的 (3)　而非 (1)\n当事方 (1)　21;54:4,14,17,19,24;　49:20　68:13,19;77:3　119:11\n59:10　55:10;57:17;59:22;　潜在地 (1)　提供 (1)　阅读 (2)\n过去 (2)　61:17;62:12;63:6;　91:10　50:4　22:8;125:8\n16:3;102:17　64:25;66:3,9,19;67:10,　判决前 (2)　已提供 (2)　正在阅读 (1)\nPaul（保罗） (3)　16,22;70:4,9;102:21　58:5,10　116:20;119:9　22:9\n45:19;82:4,5　已质押 (21)　准备 (30)　规定 (1)　写明 (1)\nPAX (1)　48:10,15,16;49:14;　12:18,21;16:14;　29:22\n75:21\n50:4　50:12,19,23,25;51:4,　21:11;23:17;26:3;27:3;　提供 (2)　真实的 (13)\n支付 (11)　13;53:22,25;57:23;　28:3,11;29:20;30:24;　117:18;118:5　24:9,13,16,18,20,25;\n27:19;28:5;30:13;　59:8,17;61:4,16,23,25;　32:17,23;38:14;39:14;　公众 (3)　42:19;75:23;76:9;83:6,\n89:10;90:8;93:13,16,　62:11;63:3　45:4;47:22;48:2,8;　8:3;85:4;125:25　12,15;84:15\n23;100:15,19,23　质押物 (7)　52:20;53:19;57:10,25;　公开地 (4)　确实 (3)\n付款 (4)　67:4;68:18;72:21;　95:13;97:6;109:13;　60:5,16;65:2,7　42:2;56:10;101:11\n90:22;91:3,18;93:3　73:3,9,14;110:9　111:20;115:21;120:15;　购买 (19)　理由 (11)\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 42 页，共 241 页\n\n9:11;21:24;22:19;　11:24;67:15;112:20　15:18　26:21;50:20,24;51:5,　送达 (4)\n\n23:13;45:11;64:10;　登记 (2)　决议 (9)　13,24;52:18,21;53:2,5,　35:9,17;36:13;98:2\n68:2,6;114:21;116:24;　39:21;99:6　20:22,25;21:9;39:22;　12,21;55:11;57:17,23;　服务 (3)\n117:3　已登记 (15)　52:16;53:16;80:19;　59:9,18,22;61:5,16,25;　27:21,23;28:6\n回忆 (27)　27:22;28:5;33:12;　81:22,23　62:11,13;63:3,6;64:25;　确定 (2)\n14:21;18:15;43:23,　35:8,17;36:13,23;　决议 (1)　73:10;102:22;110:10;　116:11;120:23\n25;67:3,9;71:16;75:14,　56:19,24;57:5;65:5;　已决议 (1)　Russ（拉斯） (8)　若干 (5)\n18;85:19;117:22;　69:3,9;97:25;98:5　80:19　7:12;58:11;60:5,8,　25:9,12;43:23;78:12;\n118:13;121:6,22;　登记 (4)　尊重 (4)　17;90:16,23;92:15　106:19\n122:3,6,8,17;123:12,　55:4,18;65:16,25　20:17;77:21;78:18;　应当 (1)\n14,16,18;124:3,9,11,　有关的 (1)　95:8　6:10\n13,15　77:5　各自的 (1)　S　份额 (4)\n收到 (2)　有关 (3)　6:5　相同的 (18)　29:16;30:7;39:20;\n64:11,14　12:17;21:4;76:23　分别地 (1)　6:6,16;16:22;55:25;　78:13\n已收到 (3)　有关 (8)　114:13　62:4;83:10;85:20;92:6,　股东 (12)\n28:8;64:2,8　43:18;65:6;81:23;　责任 (1)　16,17;93:12,16,23;　28:14;30:21;31:5,18;\n收到 (2)　82:18;91:25;103:7;　19:12　103:25;115:3,13,16,20　59:4;66:18;67:11;94:6;\n88:16;99:6　115:18;118:15　重组 (1)　Sanft（桑夫特） (3)　95:3;99:23;112:22;\n休庭 (2)　关系 (1)　70:22　45:15;80:19;82:7　113:4\n74:24;116:3　119:20　保留 (2)　S-A-N-F-T (1)　股东 (3)\n回忆 (3)　关系 (1)　55:22;56:4　45:16　31:8;39:22;94:11\n13:24;85:21;120:4　14:13　审查 (28)　SARNOFF（萨诺夫） (2)　股份 (30)\n记录 (23)　解除 (7)　10:9;20:24;22:12;　86:4;124:18　29:23,23;30:14,18;\n7:22;9:23;11:21;　56:19,24;57:5;60:4,　44:25;53:10;55:9,19;　满意 (10)　32:15,20;48:21,22,25;\n18:11;28:20;43:17;　16;69:3,9　56:17;60:15;63:11;　56:19,24;57:5,9;　50:24,25;51:3,4,5,8,13,\n56:8;72:24;73:4;74:22;　已解除 (3)　65:24;66:10;85:2;86:5;　64:3,25;69:3,9,11,16　17,19,24;53:22,25;\n75:3;78:11;80:15;　61:17;62:13;63:7　103:9;109:7;116:9;　已满足 (1)　54:5,14;76:13;77:12,\n92:12;113:11;115:24;　记得 (5)　117:2;118:5;120:12;　67:23　20;78:17;100:10;\n116:2,5;119:3,5;　13:20;14:17,24;15:4;　121:16;122:13;123:3,　看见 (2)　101:24;111:10\n124:21;125:11,12　117:23　11,15;124:6,8,12　121:5,6　Sherry（雪莉） (7)\n记录 (17)　移除 (1)　已审查 (31)　说 (2)　42:13;43:14;71:24;\n11:16;35:22,25;36:8,　59:22　11:14,16;21:11;　107:11;116:8　78:13;92:24;96:9;\n10,15;40:7;61:19;　替换 (1)　23:17;28:11;29:20;　范围 (5)　101:14\n120:17;121:8,10;　33:18　30:15,23;31:17;32:17,　63:15;65:11;113:8;　Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰） (83)\n122:4,18;123:12,16;　记录员 (2)　22;33:5;38:13;39:6,14;　115:7;118:19　14:20;15:9,13;24:14;\n124:9,13　7:17,24　44:17;45:3;47:21,25;　密封 (1)　25:14;26:7;31:23;32:7,\n提及 (4)　陈述 (1)　48:7;52:19;53:18;　6:5　13;42:18;50:3;68:20;\n8:15;9:3;28:21;61:6　61:3　57:10,24;95:13;97:5;　第二 (1)　70:21;71:5,7,11,14,23;\n被提及 (1)　代表 (9)　102:3;116:18;121:2,9,　114:7　72:10,15;73:12,16,20;\n96:8　8:9;9:16;10:3;12:10,　25　秘书的 (2)　74:2;76:2,8,12,14,17,\n提及 (1)　19;14:2;46:24;77:24;　审查 (3)　27:23;28:6　20;77:8,12,20;78:17,\n107:8　78:15　42:14;43:20;120:15　秘书 (1)　25;79:9,18;80:2;82:11,\n指称 (1)　代表 (1)　权利 (39)　33:11　18,25;83:16,20;84:3,6,\n117:5　42:17　8:13;17:8,9;22:14;　章节 (7)　11,13,20;86:18;87:6,\n被称为 (2)　被代表 (5)　29:4;30:8;53:8;61:16;　23:5;56:20,25;105:6;　12,18,23,25;88:12;\n105:16;120:14　90:16,19;92:6,22;　62:16;64:5;67:5,12;　109:15,17;110:18　89:11;90:9;91:24;\n指称 (16)　104:23　70:4;77:9,14;83:9;　担保 (2)　93:14;97:13,20;98:7,\n8:20;15:19;18:21;　代表 (3)　85:8,15;86:10;90:17;　51:20;54:6　15,25;100:11,16,24;\n27:12;28:16,21,22,23;　113:2;114:2,5　97:2;104:3,15,19;　看见 (12)　101:18,25;102:12;\n42:23;60:25;76:15;　请求 (9)　105:12,17,20;106:5,9,　43:23;72:5;117:23;　106:20;107:9;108:15,\n85:7;103:7;105:12,15;　42:24;71:4,10,15,19,　15,21,25;107:4,12,17,　120:4;121:22;122:3,　20;109:3,9;111:23;\n123:8　21;72:7,9;73:11　18,23;108:9;110:12　17;123:12,16;124:4,9,　112:20,22;113:4;\n指的是 (3)　要求 (1)　右侧 (1)　13　Sherry-Netherland 的 (1)\n80:11,25;85:10　110:10　103:21　出售 (1)　68:13\n反映 (10)　保留 (1)　角色 (20)　50:3　简短的 (1)\n25:25;30:16;32:18,　6:10　16:25;17:4,14,16,18,　意义 (1)　33:20\n24;39:7,13;61:22;　居住 (1)　21,23;18:5,7,12,20,25;　101:10　显示 (1)\n95:12;97:4;102:2　79:6　19:2,5,8;37:7;38:21;　判决 (4)　85:23\n反映 (3)　住所 (12)　95:7;113:25;118:5　22:11;58:25;75:21;　已显示 (1)\n18:11;22:18;114:18　14:19;15:7,15;26:7;　房间 (3)　80:22　56:2\n刷新 (1)　50:3;51:22;72:2;79:5,　40:2;78:4,12　连续的 (1)　显示 (1)\n85:21　10,19;102:12;106:25　Roscalitar（罗斯卡利塔尔） (30)　20:15　85:6\n关于 (3)　住所 (1)\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 43 页，共 241 页\n\n一方 (2)　具体的 (3)　99:6　9,21;75:17;76:16　71:5,11,13;73:11;\n\n103:15,21　14:25;19:3;42:4　Stone（斯通） (3)　作证 (6)　115:19\n签名 (9)　具体而言 (3)　93:2,3,6　10:20;11:4,8;17:7,　已转让 (1)\n21:13,14,19,25;45:7;　41:6;72:11;113:16　停止 (1)　11;67:25　112:8\n103:15,22;104:2,6　指定 (1)　38:17　证词 (15)　转让 (2)\n\n签名 (1)　26:16　已停止 (1)　9:12;12:9;14:2;16:6;　70:13;72:13\n104:11　推测 (3)　34:7　18:8,15;24:17;57:17;　转让 (1)\n已签署 (12)　32:4;40:11;52:14　删除 (11)　65:4;66:16;67:8;75:18;　73:14\n6:14,16;15:14;42:15,　推测 (4)　35:14;37:22;38:7;　84:9;125:8,11　审判 (1)\n21,24;43:24;104:14,　31:25;40:9;52:14;　44:14;50:12;68:6;　第三 (5)　6:11\n17;117:25;118:9;　79:13　78:23;79:16,24;97:14;　59:9;81:22;110:19,　真实的 (18)\n125:20　推测 (1)　101:3　23,24　21:7,12;29:18;55:17,\n签署 (1)　108:24　结构 (2)　尽管 (1)　25;57:7;59:24;60:12,\n\n41:20　花费 (4)　14:9,11　95:2　20;61:14;66:8;69:15;\n坐 (1)　27:21;42:7;87:14,24　提交 (1)　认为 (2)　73:19;74:9;75:24;\n44:2　交谈 (7)　75:7　24:18;42:15　112:5;125:10,12\n坐着 (2)　11:18,18,19;13:14;　认购 (1)　三 (5)　信托 (7)\n77:25;78:4　15:10;16:5;70:8　125:20　58:23;74:21;104:7,　73:17;102:9,17;\n位于 (2)　Spring（斯普林） (9)　扣除 (2)　10,11　103:2,6,10;108:2\n106:19;107:8　88:16,18,19,21,25;　25:22;87:2　次 (1)　受托人 (10)\n六 (2)　89:15,17;90:8;100:14　被起诉 (1)　62:5　107:21,25;109:15,\n58:23;62:5　SPV (10)　91:23　标题 (2)　17,22,24;110:19,22,22;\n\n睡觉 (1)　105:17,19,25;106:4,　暗示 (1)　15:12;23:3　111:7\n80:4　15;107:6,12,22;110:3,4　111:16　今天 (47)　如实的 (1)\n睡过 (1)　ss (1)　支持 (2)　7:17,20;8:16;9:13;　9:12\n79:25　125:4　7:15,19　10:21;11:5;12:9,19;　尝试 (6)\n较慢地 (1)　印章 (4)　最高 (1)　21:11;23:17;26:3;27:3;　13:6;60:7,19;62:20;\n64:23　75:8;121:14;122:25;　7:8　28:3,12;29:20;30:24;　73:7;79:23\nSN74 (1)　123:19　当然 (14)　31:18;32:17,23;33:5;　试图 (1)\n114:8　盖章 (4)　12:4;15:12;19:23;　38:14,16;45:4;47:22;　62:22\n\n出售 (2)　20:7,22;29:8;44:23　40:2;43:17;58:20;　48:2,8;52:20;53:19;　轮次 (2)\n48:3;101:20　印章 (4)　66:17;72:24;73:6;82:5;　56:2;57:11,25;74:18;　74:3,4\n唯一的 (31)　19:24;119:15,25;　92:15;98:16;113:18;　75:13;77:25;78:15;　两 (10)\n28:14;30:20,25;31:5;　122:11　119:6　95:13;102:3;109:13;　8:9;13:16;16:17;\n32:25;44:5,10;45:5;　成立 (1)\n\n宣誓 (1)　111:21;114:20;116:8;　20:17;26:23;37:19;\n46:12;59:4;66:17,18;　105:19　7:24　119:10;120:3,14;　58:22;75:2;93:8;\n67:11,12;80:11,13,16;　开始 (3)　已宣誓 (3)　121:9,23;124:3　107:23\n81:3,7,10,18;84:17,18;　10:15;12:7;119:2　6:14;8:2;75:8　今天的 (6)　类型 (1)\n94:5,12;95:2,3,20,22;　开始 (2)　系统 (2)　7:12;39:14;97:5;　42:7\n99:22,23　58:17,25　85:5;123:6　115:21;121:3;124:20　打字的 (1)\n某人 (1)　州 (6)　一起 (1)　21:20\n71:24　7:8;46:6;85:3,4;　T　20:11　通常 (1)\n某处 (2)　125:3,25　告知 (5)　35:2\n15:7;53:11　陈述 (9)　13:20,24;15:6;19:4;\n谈话 (1)\n儿子 (13)　59:24;60:9,11,18,20,　114:19　85:22　U\n12:24;13:7;15:21,24;　25;61:9,13;75:24　交谈 (2)　拿走 (2)\n24:2;28:23;32:11;　陈述 (1)　72:21;73:10　64:11,13　UBS（瑞银） (2)\n70:23;71:7,12;73:13;　118:11　谈论 (6)　顶部 (7)　40:8,12\n84:2;99:13　州 (2)　9:7;38:9;48:18,18;　29:8;35:24;59:13;　最终 (5)\n抱歉 (10)　24:19;25:2　69:12;120:7　71:16;105:8;123:4,22　24:15;25:13;31:22;\n13:5;26:19;57:6;　停留 (1)　录音带 (2)　主题 (1)　32:5;51:21\n62:6;65:21;72:23;　115:3　74:21;75:2　17:9　根据 (4)\n74:17;103:16;109:17;　Stevenson（史蒂文森） (6)　电话 (1)　主题 (10)　22:4;29:9;110:11;\n\n111:4　112:15,18;113:2,24,　13:9　10:18,21,25;11:5,9,　125:9\n声音 (1)　25;114:8　条款 (2)　15;12:12,19;13:17;　下方 (1)\n92:3　仍然 (7)　29:3;63:15　14:6　21:18\n听起来 (1)　34:10,11,12;38:12;　露台 (1)　总数 (1)　下列签署人 (2)\n53:10　61:23;67:11;109:16　92:2　30:6　22:3,13\n说话 (2)　约定 (3)　领地 (1)　交易 (1)　明白 (2)\n12:25;13:7　6:3,8,12　23:3　49:21　12:4;73:2\n特别的 (5)　约定事项 (1)　作证 (11)　笔录 (2)　United（联合） (2)\n105:19,24;106:18,\n24;107:7　6:1\n股票 (1)　8:3;18:6;50:10;\n53:20;64:2;66:4;67:3,　125:8,10\n转让 (5)　24:19;25:2\n单位 (1)\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 诉 KWOK HO WAN　案号 22-50073　文件 183-3　提交日期 04/06/22　录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45　第 44 页，共 241 页\n\n106:19　75:6,6　15:8,16;16:21,21;17:2,　29:23　112:3,15,19;114:17;\n\n除非 (1)　方式 (6)　8,14,16,18,22,24;18:8,　10 (2)　115:4\n110:4　29:2;50:6;63:25;　13,21,25;19:6,10,13;　112:14,18　2017 (9)\n非正式的 (3)　101:3;102:6;112:11　24:11;26:6,10;43:7,19;　100 (2)　57:6,18,22;59:23;\n17:23;18:4,20　周 (1)　44:6,11,14,16;46:2,5,6,　51:5;115:10　61:18;62:14;63:8;\n无关的 (1)　90:17　6,13;47:4,8,11,15,20,　11 (1)　64:18;65:2\n59:9　Wei（魏） (11)　24;48:4,20;49:7,9;　7:13　2018 (17)\n向上 (6)　31:20;32:5,7,14,20;　50:2,6;51:2,9,10;　12 (3)　59:14;60:12,23;\n24:15;30:11;32:12;　51:16,18;52:21,23;　56:15;63:11;71:6;　45:6;69:10;85:24　61:15,22,25;62:11;\n84:12;90:16;123:4　95:7,10　72:14;73:15;74:4;　12th (1)　63:3;66:2;69:10;75:7;\n\n美国（1）　Weiss（韦斯）（3）　76:10;77:13;80:12,14;　21:2　88:10;89:5,8,12,23;\n59:7　45:19;82:4,5　81:4,8,11;82:8,9,16,24;　13（3）　90:4\n总部位于美国的（2）　欢迎（1）　83:8,11,14,18;84:10,　23:20;86:7,9　2019（1）\n24:8,10　20:5　19;85:3,8,11,11,17;　14（1）　7:13\n使用（1）　不是（1）　86:9,16,23;87:4,10,14,　66:2　20岁的（1）\n100:19　116:20　24;88:4,17,18;89:5,10,　145（1）　71:25\n使用（1）　什么是（2）　16,18,22;90:3,11,15,　86:3　21（1）\n29:3　83:24;101:4　22;91:23;92:5;93:4;　15（2）　55:12\n谁是（2）　94:6,10,13,21;95:8,11,　58:20;75:8　24（2）\nV　36:9;95:24　14,18;96:3,10,15,18,　16（9）　74:15;75:12\n谁的（6）　21,24;97:7,22;98:5,9;　59:14;60:12,23;\n价值（2）　48:22;71:18;100:14;　99:3,9,15,18,25;100:7,　61:15,25;62:11;63:3;　3\n29:24;30:6　103:15,19,22　8,14,20;101:2,6,16,20;　75:7,9\n各种（4）　Williams（威廉斯）（2）　102:5,10;104:18;　165（2）　3（17）\n20:2,16;42:15,21　45:19;82:4　105:16;106:4,9,15,17,　56:20,25　17:9;20:6,10,12,13;\n车辆（5）　在……之内（6）　23;107:16;108:8,8,14;　17（10）　44:20;56:3,11,13;80:6;\n105:20,25;106:18,　6:13;20:2;83:9;　113:12,15,20;116:11;　57:6,18,22;59:23;　84:24;86:4;106:14;\n24;107:7　120:16;121:8;122:4　117:19,22;118:2,6;　61:18;62:13;63:8;　109:15,17;119:11,11\n对（1）　证人（6）　120:13;121:7,11;　85:12;86:10;103:11　3.4（1）\n7:7　7:25;8:2;32:3;40:11;　122:5,19;123:24;124:9　176（1）　109:24\n通过（1）　43:5;52:13　York's（18）　20:20　30（1）\n\n51:17　Wong（黄）（5）　68:19;77:24;78:15;　178（1）　58:20\n副（1）　112:15,19;113:2,25;　81:11,19,19;89:19;　84:23　30b6（4）\n15:11　114:8　90:7;91:4,18;94:7,14;　18th（11）　11:24;65:11;113:8;\n摄像师（8）　Wong's（黄的）（1）　97:14,18;98:17,18;　76:24;77:4,21;78:18,　118:19\n3:14;7:3;9:22;74:20,　113:25　102:16;123:11　25;82:18;97:15,19;\n25;115:25;116:4;　词语（1）　年轻（2）　106:20,25;107:8　4\n124:19　19:7　84:8,21　194（2）\n被录像（1）　词语（2）　YVETTE（伊薇特）（7）　20:8;44:23　4（17）\n7:4　21:19;93:12　3:13;11:19;13:11;　55:3,7,20;56:3,9;\n违反（1）　工作（1）　16:6;18:22;75:6;118:5　2　107:20;112:15,19;\n68:18　55:15　114:16;115:3;119:24;\nVirgin（维京）（4）　写（1）　Z　2（37）　120:6,19,20,23,24,25\n22:5;23:4;34:25;　114:8　9:19;10:2,4,11,24;　4:25（1）\n98:19　书面（10）　Zhang（张）（11）　26:21;50:20,24;51:5,　74:23\n美德（2）　7:21;44:22;45:5,22;　31:20;32:5,7,14,20;　13,24;52:18,21;53:2,5,　4:38（1）\n51:7;59:6　46:11;50:4;110:5,10;　51:16,18;52:21,23;　12;55:11;56:3;57:17,　75:3\n访问过（1）　111:8,16　95:7,10　23;59:9,18,22;61:5,16,\n79:21　25;62:11,13;63:3,6;　5\nY　0　73:10;75:20;102:22;\nW　105:7,23;110:10;　5（3）\nYan（严）（1）　001（3）　111:11　56:18,22;121:14\n放弃（1）　75:6　29:24;30:2,3　2:59（1）　5:27（1）\n6:7　年（3）　07960（1）　9:23　116:2\nWan（万）（6）　64:11;65:5;89:7　3:6　2004（2）　5:36（1）\n\n7:7;21:18,20;45:7;　年（1）　23:5;29:10　116:5\n112:21;114:12　91:24　1　2015（32）　5:46（2）\nWANG（王）（8）　是或否（1）　21:3;23:21;37:10,12,　124:21,23\n3:13;11:19;13:11;　93:21　1（9）　14,24,25;38:5,15;45:6;　50（6）\n16:6;17:13;18:22;19:4;　York（约克）（172）　9:15,25;10:2,9,15;　53:8;55:12;59:5;61:5;　112:6,9;114:11,12,\n118:5　7:9,9;8:16,20;9:17;　17:9;56:3;109:16;　79:14,15,17,21;80:2;　17;115:12\nWang's（王的）（5）\n16:25;17:4;18:12;　10:4,10;11:8,17;13:19;\n14:8,10,12,14,16,20;　110:17\n1,000（1）　85:12;86:7,9,10;87:5;\n100:6;103:11;111:22;　543（2）\n103:17;110:18\n\n544（1）\n\n103:25\n545（1）\n104:5\n55（1）\n3:5\n6（5）\n58:2,8;110:18;122:9,\n\n60,000（1）\n101:14\n652077/2017（1）\n7:10\n7（5）\n23:5;65:15,18,22;\n122:25\n781（1）\n97:11\n8（4）\n69:2,5;123:19,22\n9（6）\n16:4;58:16,19,20;\n102:25;103:5\n914-760-8963（1）\n3:8\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 46 页，共 241 页\n证据14\n\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC\n\nONE BOLAND DRIVE WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052\n\nLEE VARTAN（李·瓦尔坦）lvartan@csglaw.com （办公）973.530.2107 （传真）973.530.2307\n\n2021年6月7日\n\n通过电子邮件及普通邮件发送——emoss@omm.com Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）律师 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n事由：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）等案。索引号 652077/2017。Superior Court of the State of Delaware（特拉华州高等法院）传票 K21M-04-001 NEP\n\n尊敬的莫斯先生：\n\n兹就贵方针对我的当事人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司，以下简称“HK International”）发出的传票，与我们此前的谈话进行后续说明。正如我们所讨论，HK International 于2018年9月作为一家特拉华州有限责任公司设立。其唯一成员为 Mei Guo（郭梅）女士，其唯一资产为 Lady May（“五月女士”）游艇，该公司自2020年4月起拥有该游艇。随函附上 Bates 编号为 HKI-0001 至 HKI-0013 的文件，反映上述情况。该等文件回应了贵方传票中的请求14至16。\n\nHK International 正在继续搜寻回应贵方传票的文件，但迄今所发现的文件甚少。正如我们所讨论，HK International 没有董事、高级职员或雇员；没有专用电子邮件服务器或电子邮件后缀；不提交纳税申报表；没有银行账户，亦未以其他方式“资本化”。（见请求17。）如先前承诺，我确实努力查明，在没有银行账户的情况下，HK International 如何能够维护 Lady May 并支付其工作人员及船员的费用。我可以确认，Lady May 游艇的一切费用，包括工作人员、船员和维护费用，均由 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）支付。我从我们的谈话中了解到，Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官已命令 Golden Spring New York 允许贵方当事人查阅其账簿和记录；HK International 无法查阅该等账簿和记录。\n\n最后，尽管 HK International 没有专用电子邮件服务器或电子邮件后缀，但如 HK International 与 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）（见请求2）或与债务人（见请求4）就其唯一资产 Lady May 有任何通信，HK International 将提供该等通信。\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）律师 2021年6月7日 第2页\n\n如对本函有任何疑问，请与我联系。\n\n谨致，\n\n/s/ Lee Vartan\n\nLee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）成员\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 49 页，共 241 页\n证据15\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\n出席：　HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（尊敬的巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）　庭　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n索引号　652077/2017\n原告，\n—\n诉　动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），亦称 KWOK HO，亦称 GWO WEN GUI，亦称\nGUO WENGUI，亦称 GUO WEN-GUI，亦称 WAN GUE HAOYUN，\n亦称 MILES KWOK，亦称 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS\nLLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），　动议序号　007\n关于动议的裁定及命令\n\n被告。\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（尊敬的巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n本院审理的是原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“Pacific Alliance”）针对被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），亦称 Miles Kwok（“Kwok”）提出的经修正起诉书第一罪名项的部分简易判决动议，以及被告 Kwok 就第006号动议提出的重新辩论交叉动议。本院于2020年9月14日通过 Skype 听取了口头辩论。基于所提交的书面材料及2020年9月14日庭审记录中的辩论，并基于以下理由，准许 Pacific Alliance 的部分简易判决动议，并驳回 Kwok 就第006号动议提出的重新辩论动议。\n\n背景\n\n2008年，Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 的商业实体之一 Spirit Charter Investment Limited（“Spirit”）签订协议，据此 Pacific Alliance 向 Spirit 提供本金金额为 $30 million 的贷款额度。Kwok 签署了该贷款的个人保证。2009年9月，Spirit 签署了一份契据，据此 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（“Shiny Times”）——一家将 Kwok 列为其唯一股东和董事的企业——承担了 Spirit 欠 Pacific Alliance 的贷款债务。Kwok 再次签署了一份有利于 Pacific Alliance 的个人保证，以担保 Shiny Times 的偿还义务。\n\n2011年3月，Pacific Alliance 与 Shiny Times 签订了一份新的贷款额度协议（“2011年贷款额度协议”），该协议明确取代并替换了2009年和解契据及2010年函件协议。同时，Kwok 签订了一份新的个人保证（“2011年个人保证”），该保证明确取代了2009年保证。2011年个人保证是本案中的有效协议。\n\n2013年4月，各方签订了一份和解契据，据此，如 Pacific Alliance 从 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（“Beijing Pangu”）——Kwok 的另一商业实体——购买若干公寓，且 Shiny Times 向 Pacific Alliance 支付若干分期款项，则未偿贷款金额将不再到期应付给 Pacific Alliance。就 Pacific Alliance 购买每一套公寓而言，Beijing Pangu 必须满足十项先决条件。如任何该等条件未于2013年6月前得到满足，该和解契据将整体终止。Pacific Alliance 与 Kwok 随后对该和解契据签署了四份延期协议，仅变更了先决条件须获满足的日期。最新的和解契据要求先决条件须于2015年6月前得到满足。\n\nPacific Alliance 就经修正起诉书第一罪名项寻求简易判决，该罪名项主张 Kwok 未能于2015年6月前满足先决条件，因此，依照协议条款，和解契据整体终止，2011年个人保证再次适用。\n\n本院最近就 Pacific Alliance 的制裁动议裁定，Kwok 不得通过司法禁反言对其此前在本院程序中曾确认的文件真实性提出异议。见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 404。具体而言，在其2019年11月的证言录取中，Kwok 否认曾签署上述数份协议，包括2011年贷款额度协议、2011年个人保证、2013年和解契据及四份补充契据。Kwok 证称，该等文件系伪造。在藐视法庭动议中，Pacific Alliance 主张且本院认定，该等否认与 Kwok 在本2017年案件期间始终持有的立场不一致。因此，本院裁定，Kwok 不得通过司法禁反言，在反对 Pacific Alliance 的简易判决动议时或在审判中对该等协议的真实性提出异议。\n\nKwok 的交叉动议\n\n首先处理被告 Kwok 就本院2020年7月7日作出的裁定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 404）提出的准许重新辩论交叉动议，该动议予以驳回。如上所述，本院裁定，Kwok 不得通过司法禁反言对其此前在本案中向本院确认真实的协议之真实性提出异议。Kwok 主张，本院作出该裁定时误解了法律。本院完全驳回该主张。\n\n在本案开始时，Kwok 以不方便法院为由提出驳回本案的动议（第001号动议）。本院准许了 Kwok 的动议（NYSCEF Doc. No. 102），该裁定随后被 First Department（第一上诉部门）撤销并发回（NYSCEF Doc. 121）。Kwok 在提出驳回动议时主张，争议合同受香港法律管辖。具体而言，Kwok 随其动议附上了当事人之间数份协议的“真实且正确”副本，包括其现今提出异议的2011年个人保证（NYSCEF Doc. No. 17）及2013年和解契据（NYSCEF Doc. No. 18）。\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/15/2020 案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 53 页，共 241 页\n\nKwok 现主张，由于其驳回动议中的论点及本院裁定的主旨涉及不方便法院，(1) 其实际上并未改变其对文件真实性的立场，且 (2) 本院实际上并未确定文件的真实性。该主张不正确。Kwok 主张本案应予驳回，以便在香港解决，理由是该等协议从表面上看受香港法律管辖，这必然要求 Kwok 主张且本院接受该等协议是真实而非伪造的，正如 Kwok 现今所声称的那样。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）进一步主张，无论如何，司法禁止反言均不适用，因为就合同是否真实这一问题并无实体上的最终裁决，原因是第一部门推翻了本院关于驳回动议的裁定。第一部门的判例法并不支持该主张。司法禁止反言是一项衡平法原则，用于防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场。参见，例如，Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (2000)（“[依]据司法禁止反言原则，或针对不一致立场的禁止反言原则，当事人不得不公平地采取与其在同一程序中先前所持立场直接相反或不一致的立场。”）。事实上，由于司法禁止反言用于防止当事人在同一诉讼中改变其立场，最终裁决不可能成为适用司法禁止反言的前提条件。参见同上（禁止房东在上诉中依赖与其在同一程序审判法院阶段所依赖的不同租约）。\n\n此外，本院注意到，Kwok 从未在其任何一份答辩状中主张该等文件系伪造，而这是一项积极抗辩。参见，例如，Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C., 214 A.D.2d 460, 461 (First Dept. 1995)（准许修改诉辩文书以增加伪造这一积极抗辩的许可动议）；Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Giardino, 71 A.D.2d 836, 836 (Fourth Dept. 1979)（认定“鉴于被告提出伪造这一积极抗辩，对被告笔迹的证明具有重要意义”）。\n\nKwok 最近未经佐证地声称协议系伪造，这与其在本诉讼中先前的立场不一致，因此构成适用司法禁止反言的适当依据。因此，驳回 Kwok 提出的要求重新辩论的交叉动议，并为评估原告关于部分简易判决的动议之目的，接受此前由 Kwok 提交支持的协议为真实协议。\n\nPacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的动议\n\n本院对原告 Pacific Alliance 作出简易判决，认定被告 Kwok 应就违反 2011 Personal Guarantee（2011 年个人担保）承担合同违约责任。根据 2013 Deed of Settlement（2013 年和解契据）的明确条款，未能于 June 30, 2015 前满足和解的先决条件，将导致 2011 Personal Guarantee 恢复完全有效。参见 NYSCEF Doc. 461。\n\n第 3.4 条：2013 年 7 月 31 日后 Facility Letter（授信函）的恢复。若截至 31 July 2013（或双方书面约定的较晚日期[在此为 30 June 2015，依据第四份亦为最后一份补充和解契据]），未能满足第 3.2 条为所有公寓规定的全部先决条件，则本契据所设想的全部和解应予终止，双方确认，Facility Letter 应于 31 July 2013（或双方书面约定的较晚日期）后立即恢复并完全有效，且 Shiny Times 应依照 Facility Letter 的条款和条件清偿 Total Outstanding Amount（未偿总额）及其应计利息。（强调系后加。）\n\n另参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 472 “Fourth Supplemental Deed of Settlement”（“第四份补充和解契据”）（将满足先决条件的日期变更为“30 June 2015”）。\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance 已证明，而被告 Kwok 未能反驳，2013 Deed of Settlement 中的若干先决条件未获履行。具体而言，被告 Kwok 未能交付无瑕疵产权，未能向原告提供购买公寓的发票，\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 NYSCEF 收到：09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 55 of 241\n\n未能向原告提供有关支付与公寓买卖相关的全部税费和收费的证据，且未能向原告交付任何一套公寓的房屋所有权证书。参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 461 ¶ 3.2 (e)(g)(h)(i)。\n\nKwok 不争议这些条件从未得到满足。相反，在提出异议时，Kwok 主张，原告 Pacific Alliance 据称未借助北京警方采取可能查封三套公寓的机会，因而未能减轻其损失。\n\n第一，即使将 Kwok 所述的事件版本视为真实，减轻损失涉及的是损害赔偿，而非责任，因此这些事件并不妨碍就责任作出部分简易判决。第二，如双方提交支持的书证所示，据称借助警方取得三套公寓占有的机会，直至 June 2015 后才出现，因此 2013 Deed of Settlement 当时已整体失效，且 2011 Personal Guarantee 已完全有效。第三，Kwok 从未在其任何一份答辩状中主张减轻损失，而这是一项积极抗辩。参见，例如，Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 72 A.D.3d 1012, 1014 (2d Dep't 2010)（提及“未能减轻损失这一积极抗辩”）。\n\n最后，根据香港法律，当事人仅须以合理方式减轻损失。参见 Vishal Prakash Melwani（维沙尔·普拉卡什·梅尔瓦尼）的宣誓陈述 ¶17.2（NYSCEF Doc. No. 535），以及 Phillip Loukis Georgiou（菲利普·卢基斯·乔治乌）的宣誓陈述（NYSCEF Doc. No. 498）¶¶ 18.3 和 21。现有记录表明，为利用北京警方据称提出的方案，Pacific Alliance 需为使每套公寓获释而支付 RMB35m [approximately USD\\$5.5 million]。参见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 519 PAX-KWOK-017288。为清偿一笔债务而支付约 \\$16 million 取得双方约定应无偿转让的资产，这一前景根据香港法律很可能不构成合理的减轻\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 549 NYSCEF 收到：09/15/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 56 of 241\n\n损失的机会。尽管如此，本院保留对损害赔偿问题的裁决。\n\n根据 2011 Personal Guarantee，\n\nKwok“不可撤销且无条件地……向 PAX [Pacific Alliance] 保证，[Shiny Times] 在 [2011 Facility] 项下的义务得到适当且按时履行，并同意在 PAX 提出要求后立即向 PAX 支付所有到期但未付的义务”；\n\nKwok“不可撤销且无条件地同意（作为主债务人而非仅作为保证人），按 PAX 要求，就因任何 [Shiny Times 的] 义务因任何原因而无效、可撤销、不可执行或对 Shiny Times 不发生效力所致 PAX 产生的任何及全部损失，对 PAX 作出赔偿并使其免受损害……”；\n\nKwok 同意，其“在本保证项下的义务……构成并应持续构成持续性义务，该等义务不应因 [Shiny Times] 的 [2011 Loan Facility] 项下义务或其中任何义务的任何中间付款而获解除或清偿，并应持续完全有效，直至[该等]义务被无条件且不可撤销地全额支付及清偿；该等义务为对 PAX 可能在任何时候就[该等]义务或其中任何义务持有的任何其他担保（或任何抵销权）的补充且独立于该等担保，不应损害或与该等担保合并”；\n\nPAX 获准在不先对 Shiny Times 强制执行债务的情况下，向作为主债务人的 Kwok 追偿；以及\n\nKwok 同意全面放弃基于“任何其他可能导致保证人或任何义务，或本保证或法律赋予 [PAX LP] 的任何权利、权力和救济被解除、减损或以其他方式受影响的行为、事件或不作为”的任何抗辩。\n\nKwok 未主张其本人或 Shiny Times 曾根据 2011 Loan Facility 或 2011 Personal Guarantee 作出任何付款以清偿债务。因此，本院认定 Kwok 应就违反 2011 Personal Guarantee 承担责任。\n\n结论\n\n本案剩余争议事项，即修正起诉书的罪名项 II，寻求以另我实体为由，令 Kwok 的两家公司，即 Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司），对 Kwok 对 Pacific Alliance 所负债务承担责任。本案原定于 October 5, 2020 进行陪审团审判。由于 Covid-19 疫情，本院无法于该日进行陪审团审判，审判改期至 January 15, 2021。\n\n据此，兹命令，\n\n命令：驳回被告 Kwok 要求重新辩论的交叉动议；并进一步\n\n命令：准许原告关于修正起诉书罪名项 I 的部分简易判决动议，由 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）胜诉并针对 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名 Kwok Ho（郭浩）、又名 GWO Wen Gui（郭文贵）、又名 Gui Wengui（桂文贵）、又名 Guo Wen-Gui（郭文贵）、又名 Wan Gue Haoyun（万贵浩云）、又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）、又名 Haoyun Guo（浩云郭），但仅限于认定被告 Kwok 应就合同违约承担责任；并进一步\n\n命令：原告应不迟于 October 14, 2020，通过可在 Submissions Part（提交材料庭）审理的动议通知提出动议，以通过提交基于亲身知情的宣誓书及以可采形式提出的证据，确定罪名项 I 的损害赔偿；该等材料应说明 2011 Personal Guarantee 项下到期应付的本金金额、2011 Personal Guarantee 项下适用的利率，以及利息开始累计的日期，以便法院书记员计算截至登记判决书之日到期应付的总金额；并进一步\n\n命令：原告应同时申请裁定律师费及费用，并列明原告所依赖的文件及附上已提供服务的发票；并进一步\n\n命令：各方应于 December 22, 2020 at 10:20 am 出席案件状态会议。\n\n日期：September 15, 2020\n\n选择一项：　案件终结　X　非终局性处置\n\n准许　驳回　X　部分准许　其他\n\n申请：　达成裁定　提交裁定\n\n如适用则勾选：　包括移送/重新分配　受托人指定　转交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 59 of 241\n\n附件 16\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 685 NYSCEF 收到：12/18/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 60 of 241\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出庭法官：　HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R.·奥斯特拉格法官）　庭别　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，　案号　652077/2017\n\n原告，　动议日期\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名　动议序号　009\n\nGUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE\n\nHAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS\n\nCORPORATION，　关于动议的裁决及命令\n\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n本院于 December 18, 2020 通过 Microsoft Teams 就原告关于损害赔偿的第 009 号动议进行了口头辩论。根据所提交的文件及记录在案的程序，本院准许原告的动议，但仅限于判令原告获得 \\$46,426,489.00（未付本金）的损害赔偿，加上依据 2011 Personal Guarantee 自 December 31, 2010 生效日起按年利率 15% 计算的合同利息。参见 Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯）基于亲身知情作出的宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 563）。\n\n程序经过\n\n2020年9月15日，本院就第007号动议，即原告提出的简易判决动议（NYSCEF Doc. No. 549），作出裁定和命令。本院认定，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，以下简称“Kwok”）应对违约承担责任，具体而言，即当事人双方签订的2011年个人担保书。在该裁定和命令中，本院对Kwok新近提出的减损论点表示怀疑，但在本院确定损害赔偿金额之前，对该问题保留裁决。本院指示原告提交一项动议，列明依据2011年个人担保书应支付的损害赔偿金，以及本院明确认定原告根据合同有权获得的律师费。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 61 页，共 241 页\n\n根据合同。损害赔偿问题，以及本院是否应当刺破公司面纱并认定Genever被告承担责任，仍未解决。\n\n由于刺破公司面纱问题将需要由陪审团审理，本院要求原告撤回第009号动议中请求律师费的部分，并在整个诉讼结案时重新提出该请求。原告同意这样做，因此本动议仅处理第009号动议中有关损害赔偿的部分。\n\n本动议最初的书面陈述包括被告Kwok提出的一项交叉动议，请求修改其答辩状，以将减损列为积极抗辩。本院在其2020年11月12日状态会议命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 648）中指示，Kwok无需修改其答辩状即可提出其减损抗辩。因此，本裁定和命令处理原告损害赔偿动议以及Kwok减损抗辩的实体理由。\n\n讨论\n\n鉴于本院已认定Kwok应依2011年个人担保书承担责任，原告提出了一项直接的动议，依据协议条款列明未偿还本金应付的利息。被告提出异议称，原告负有减轻其损害的义务，具体而言，应当跟进北京警方提出的、可能向原告出售公寓的提议——即Kwok本应转让给原告以清偿其对原告所负债务的同一批公寓。\n\n如第007号动议裁定和命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 549）所述：\n\n2013年4月，当事人双方签订了一份和解契据，据此，如Pacific Alliance（太盟）从Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资有限公司，以下简称“Beijing Pangu”）——Kwok的另一商业实体——购买若干公寓，且Shiny Times（辉煌时代）向Pacific Alliance支付若干期款，则未偿贷款金额将不再应付给Pacific Alliance。就Pacific Alliance购买每套公寓而言，Beijing Pangu须满足十项先决条件。若任何该等条件未于2013年6月前满足，和解契据将整体终止。Pacific Alliance\n\n此后，Pacific Alliance与Kwok四次签署和解契据的延期协议，仅变更先决条件须获满足的日期。最新的和解契据要求先决条件须于2015年6月前满足。……2013年和解契据中的若干先决条件未获履行。具体而言，被告Kwok未能交付无瑕疵产权，未能向原告提供购买公寓的发票，未能提供\n\n原告关于支付与公寓买卖有关的所有相关税款及费用的证据，且未能向原告交付任何一套公寓的房屋所有权证书。……\n\n由于先决条件未于2015年6月30日前满足，和解契据整体终止，2011年个人担保书再次完全有效并具效力。\n\n被告首先主张，原告在“和解契据被违约后”负有减轻其损害的义务。然而，和解契据从未被“违约”，因为和解契据从未生效，原因是先决条件未于2015年6月30日前满足。被告主张，上述条件并非先决条件，因为“和解契据并不以任何事情在其能够完全生效之前发生为条件”（见被告补充答复，第7页）。本院驳回被告首次在其补充答复中提出的该论点。被告至2015年6月30日止均可满足先决条件。未在2015年6月30日前满足条件并不构成违反协议；而在2015年6月30日，未满足先决条件导致和解契据失效并恢复适用2011年个人担保书，而非构成对协议的“违约”。\n\n被告继而主张，存在真实且重大的事实争议，足以表明原告在和解契据届满前有机会减轻其损害。首先，本院已根据双方提交的书面证据认定，北京警方提出的机会仅在2015年6月之后才出现。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 63 页，共 241 页\n\n届时和解契据已经届满。见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 549，第6页。第二，作为法律问题，北京警方何时向原告提出该机会并无区别。若在2015年6月30日之前提出，则原告不知道Kwok是否会履行先决条件并向原告转让公寓，因此不存在需要减轻的损害，也没有理由寻求取得公寓的替代方式。若在2015年6月30日之后提出，则2011年个人担保书已生效，并且根据香港法律，减损原则不适用于债务偿还请求。原告和Kwok的香港法律专家均确认这一点。见Melwani宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 640）第¶ 10段（“终审法院……已确认……减损原则不适用于债务偿还请求”）以及Georgiou宣誓书（NYSCEF Doc. No. 667）第¶ 7段（“我同意Melwani先生的意见，即减损原则不适用于依据……个人担保书提出的债务偿还请求。”）。\n\n被告进一步主张，原告有义务跟进北京警方的提议，因为据称原告获得了其在和解契据下约定取得利益的机会——即该等公寓。如上所述，原告没有义务减轻债务偿还请求所涉损害。然而，即使原告负有减损义务，如本院已认定，原告也仅须合理减轻损害。北京警方提出以$17 M购买公寓的方案，而原告本应以零美元获得该等公寓的转让（以清偿债务），很难说是获得了原告所约定取得的利益。\n\n最后，被告主张，原告持有公寓钥匙，而该等钥匙必定具有某种价值，可用于抵销2011年个人担保书项下的合同损害赔偿。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 64 页，共 241 页\n\n被告未援引任何法律依据支持该主张。尽管此类结论性主张不足以在法律上阻止作出判决，本院指出，即使依照和解契据，原告约定取得的也并非仅仅是对公寓的占有，而是无瑕疵产权，以便其能够合法出售公寓来清偿Kwok对原告所负债务。见原告答复备忘录，第11页。\n\n综上，Kwok的减损论点毫无依据，原告有权获得2011年个人担保书项下的合同损害赔偿及利息。\n\n本院指出，原告针对Genever被告提出的刺破公司面纱第二项诉因仍须审理。剩余请求的审判原定于2021年1月15日进行。当事人双方已提交一项约定，请求无限期延期审判，鉴于：(1) 因Covid-19疫情，纽约州目前禁止陪审团审判；以及(2) 针对其中一名Genever被告的破产中止。本院准许该请求。定于2021年5月4日上午10:00举行状态会议，以报告Genever破产案的进展情况。\n\n据此，特此，\n\n命令，书记员应当就原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）对被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）作出金额为$46,426,489.00的判决，另按2011年个人担保书的合同利率，自生效日December 31, 2010起按年利率15%计息，并自本裁定和命令登记之日起按法定年利率9%计息。\n\nDecember 18, 2020 $SIG$\n\n日期 BARRY R. OSTRAGER，J.S.C.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 12/18/2020 04:45 PM 案卷号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 685 NYSCEF 收件日期：12/18/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 65 页，共 241 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 66 页，共 241 页\n\n附件17\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 141 提交日期 10/08/21 登记日期 10/08/21 14:04:00 主文件 第 1 页，共 2 页 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 67 页，共 241 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区破产法院）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------x 关于：第11章\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司），案件编号 20-12411 (JLG)\n\n债务人。\n\n准许债务人第二次续提动议以批准修订后和解协议的命令\n\n鉴于债务人Genever Holdings LLC（以下简称“债务人”）提出的续提动议（ECF No 131）（以下简称“续提动议”），请求批准债务人、Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，以下简称“PAX”）与Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck有限公司，以下简称“Bravo Luck”）之间的某项和解协议（ECF No. 62）；并鉴于美国受托人办公室通过一项请求任命负责运营的第11章受托人的动议（ECF No. 64）提出的对续提动议的异议（以下简称“UST异议”）；并鉴于债务人、PAX及Bravo Luck就UST异议提交的补充答复（ECF Nos. 76, 81, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105 and 106）；且已在署名法官面前举行一系列听证会；并鉴于在该等听证会上形成的记录；且本院已审议UST异议；并鉴于2021年9月1日的裁决（以下简称“2021年9月1日裁决”），署名法官在该裁决中认定重述和解协议符合合理性标准，并得到第11章案件中债权人及主要利益相关方的支持，但因与拟议聘任Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq.（Melanie L. Cyganowski律师）及其律师事务所Otterbourg, P.C.（Otterbourg专业公司）的某些方面有关的问题，驳回了续提动议；并且，其后，和解各方已同意债务人、PAX与Bravo Luck之间的第二次修订和重述和解协议（以下简称“修订后和解协议”），该协议解决了本院在其2021年9月1日裁决中提出的关切，以及美国受托人的异议；美国受托人现已不再对修订后的提出任何异议\n\n20-12411-jlg 文件 141 提交日期 10/08/21 登记日期 10/08/21 14:04:00 主文件 第 2 页，共 2 页 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 68 页，共 241 页\n\n和解协议以及Melanie L. Cyganowski作为债务人销售官的聘用条款；法院已同意通过提交通知审议对续订和解协议的最终批准；并基于在各次听证会上汇编的完整记录；且有充分理由据此；现特此\n\n命令如下：\n\n1. 续订和解动议按本命令所载予以准许。\n\n2. 经修订的和解协议在各方面均获批准，并应于本命令录入后立即生效。\n\n3. 对债务人拟聘用Melanie L. Cyganowski担任销售官一事，应通过另行发出通知并与本命令同时录入的命令予以批准。\n\n4. UST请求指定运营受托人的动议无限期延期。\n\n5. 准许解除自动中止，以允许PAX提起诉讼，并允许债务人就目前在纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）以案卷号652077/2017待决的州法院诉讼（以下简称“州法院诉讼”）进行抗辩；但除前述目的外，中止仍继续有效，包括与执行或收取州法院诉讼中针对债务人作出的任何判决有关的事项，直至破产法院（Bankruptcy Court）在向全体当事方进一步通知后另行作出命令为止。\n\n6. PAX提出的解除中止动议和转换动议，因经修订的和解协议获得批准而不再具有实际意义，现予撤回。\n\n日期：New York, New York October 8, 2021\n\n/s/ James L. Garrity, Jr.\n\n尊敬的James L. Garrity, Jr.法官\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 69 of 241\n\n附件18\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 70 of 241\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）\n\n纽约县（COUNTY OF NEW YORK）\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\n案号652077/2017\n\n上诉通知书\n\n尊敬的Barry Ostrager法官\n\n— 诉 —\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）等，\n\n被告。\n\n兹通知，被告Kwok Ho Wan特此就纽约州纽约县最高法院于February 3, 2021作出、并于February 3, 2021录入纽约县书记官办公室（NYSCEF Doc. No. 716）的判决，以及该判决的每一部分，向上诉分院第一司法部门（Appellate Division, First Judicial Department）提起上诉。\n\n日期：New York, New York 谨此提交，March 2, 2021\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ John Siegal\n\nJohn Siegal\nMelissa Carvalho\nErica Barrow\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n212-589-1400\njsiegal@bakerlaw.com\nmcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\nebarrow@bakerlaw.com\n被告Kwok Ho Wan的代理律师\n\n送达至：纽约县书记官（通过NYSCEF）\n全体登记在案律师（通过NYSCEF）\n\n纽约州最高法院上诉分院：第一司法部门\n\n民事信息陈述书（根据22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]）\n\n案件名称：填写案件在传票、上诉通知、申请书或启动该事项的说明理由令上所显示的案件名称。请附加续页。\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.　原审法院\n\n诉　上诉通知提交日期\n\nKwok Ho Wan等　上诉分院\n\n案件类型\n\n民事诉讼\n\nCPLR第75条仲裁　□ CPLR第78条程序\n\n□ 特别程序　□ 其他\n\n□ 人身保护令程序　■ 上诉\n\n原始程序\n\n□ CPLR第78条\n\n□ 征收\n\n□ Labor Law 220 or 220-b\n\n□ Public Officers Law § 36\n\n□ Real Property Tax Law § 1278　□ 移送程序\n\n□ CPLR第78条\n\n□ Executive Law § 298\n\n□ CPLR 5704审查\n\n诉讼性质：（在最能反映案件性质的下列类别中最多勾选三项。）\n\n□ 行政审查　■ 商业关系　■ 商事　■ 合同\n\n□ 确认判决\n\n□ 家事关系　□ 选举法　□ 遗产事项\n\n□ 家庭法院\n\n□ 抵押品止赎　□ 杂项　□ 服刑人员纪律及假释\n\n□ 不动产\n（止赎除外）　□ 成文法　□ 税务　□\n侵权\n\n民事信息陈述书\n\n上诉\n\n被上诉文书（仅勾选一项）：如通过提交本上诉通知对一项以上命令或判决提起上诉，请在单独纸张上就每一项被上诉的命令或判决列明以下信息。\n\n□ 经修订法令　□ 裁定　□ 命令　□ 经重新安置的命令\n\n□ 经修订判决　□ 认定　□ 命令及判决　□ 裁决\n\n□ 经修订命令　□ 中间法令　□ 部分法令　□ 其他（请说明）：\n\n□ 决定　□ 中间判决　□ 经重新安置的法令\n\n□ 法令　■ 判决　□ 经重新安置的判决\n\n法院：最高法院\n\n县：■ New York\n\n日期：02/03/2021　录入：02/03/2021\n\n法官（全名）：尊敬的Barry R. Ostrager法官　案号：652077/2017\n\n□ 中间　■ 终局　□ 终局后\n\n审理阶段：□ 是　□ 否\n\n审判：如是：□ 陪审团　□ 非陪审团\n\n先前未完善的上诉及关联案件信息\n\n是否有源自同一诉讼或程序的任何上诉目前正在本院待决？■ 是　□ 否\n\n如是，请列明分配给每一该等上诉的上诉分院案号：\n\n2020-04180 and 2021-00138\n\n如适当，请说明本辖区或其他任何辖区的任何法院目前是否存在相关诉讼或程序；如有，请说明案件状态：\n\nGTV Media Group v. Pacific Asia Alliance Fund LP., Supreme Court, New York County (Ostrager, J.), Index No. 150823/2021。已在不妨碍再次提起的情况下驳回。\n\n原始程序\n\n依据CPLR 7804(g)移送的程序\n\n选择法院\n\n法院：\n\n法官（全名）：\n\n对单方命令的CPLR 5704审查：\n\n选择法院\n\n法院：　县：　选择县\n\n法官（全名）：　日期：\n\n上诉、程序或申请的说明及争议事项陈述\n\n说明：如为上诉，简要说明被上诉文书。如上诉针对命令，请说明所请求的救济以及动议是获准还是被驳回。如为在本院提起或依据CPLR 7804(g)移送的原始程序，请简要说明该程序的目的。如为根据CPLR 5704提出的申请，请简要说明拟审查的单方命令的性质。\n\n被告—上诉人Kwok Ho Wan就本案于February 3, 2021录入的判决提起上诉。根据CPLR 5501(a)(1)，对该判决的上诉使包括任何必然影响终局判决的非终局判决或命令在内的事项得以接受审查。\n\n民事信息陈述书\n\n争议事项：请说明拟在上诉、程序或CPLR 5704审查申请中提出的争议事项、拟主张的撤销或变更理由，以及在上诉中请求的具体救济。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 73 of 241\n\n在不限制上诉中可能提出的论点的前提下，被告—上诉人Kwok Ho Wan陈述：该判决应被全数撤销；最高法院作出的命令，包括但不限于对其施加制裁及司法禁止反言、准许原告针对其提出的简易判决动议以及判令其承担损害赔偿的命令，均属错误，应予撤销；且就责任和损害赔偿均存在众多真实的重大事实争议，因此本不应就责任或损害赔偿作出简易判决。\n\n当事人信息\n\n说明：逐行填写诉讼或程序中每一当事人的名称，每行一个名称。如本表拟为上诉而提交，请注明该当事人在原审法院中的身份及其在本院中的身份（如有）。如本表拟为在本院提起的程序而提交，则仅填写当事人的名称及其在本院中的身份。\n\n编号　当事人名称　原审身份　上诉分院身份\n\n1　Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.　原告　■ 被上诉人\n\n2　Kwok Ho Wan　被告　■ 上诉人\n\n3　Genever Holdings LLC　被告　■ 无\n\n4　Genever Holdings Corporation　被告　■ 无\n\n律师信息\n\n说明：填写各当事人的律师或律师事务所名称。如本表拟随在上诉分院启动特别程序的请愿通知或说明理由令一并提交，则仅须提供申请人律师的姓名。如诉讼当事人为其本人代理，必须勾选标注为“自行代理”的方框，并在所提供的空栏中填写该当事人的适当信息。\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Edward Moss，O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\n地址：7 Times Square\n\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10036　电话：212-326-2000\n\n电子邮件地址：emoss@omm.com\n\n律师类型：□ 指派\n\n□ 聘请　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n\n□ 临时出庭代理\n\n所代理当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Stuart Sarnoff，O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\n地址：7 Times Square\n\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10036　电话：212-326-2000\n\n电子邮件地址：ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n律师类型：□ 指派\n\n□ 聘请　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n\n□ 临时出庭代理\n\n所代理当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Robert W. Seiden\n\n地址：1120 Avenue of the Americas\n\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10036　电话：212-626-6708\n\n电子邮件地址：rseiden@seidenlegal.com\n\n律师类型：□ 指派\n\n□ 聘请　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n\n□ 临时出庭代理\n\n所代理当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：John Siegal，Baker & Hostetler LLP\n\n地址：45 Rockefeller Center\n\n城市：New York　州：New York　邮政编码：10111　电话：212-589-1400\n\n电子邮件地址：jsiegal@bakerlaw.com\n\n律师类型：□ 指派\n\n□ 聘请　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n\n□ 临时出庭代理\n\n所代理当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Aaron Mitchell，Lawall & Mitchell, LLC\n\n地址：99 Church Street, 4th floor\n\n城市：White Plains　州：New York　邮政编码：10601　电话：973-285-3280\n\n电子邮件地址：aaron@lrnesq.com\n\n律师类型：□ 指派\n\n□ 聘请　□ 政府　□ 自行代理\n\n□ 临时出庭代理\n\n所代理当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n\n地址：\n\n城市：　州：　邮政编码：　电话：\n\n电子邮件地址：\n\n律师类型：□ 指派\n\n□ 聘请　□ 政府　□ 临时出庭代理\n\n□ 自行代理\n\n所代理当事人（列出上表中的当事人编号）：\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2021 04:42 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 725 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 74 of 241\n\n民事信息陈述书\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 241\n\nWEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAO YUN，又名\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，及\n\n被告。\n\nMILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n纽约州最高法院\n\n纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY\nFUND L.P.，　17 652077\n\n原告，\n\n诉　案号652077/2017\n\nKWOK HOW AN，又名KWOK HO，又名GWO\nWEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO　[拟录入] 判决书\n\n鉴于，原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.于April 18, 2017对被告Kwok Ho Wan（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，以下简称“Kwok”）提起诉讼，主张被告Kwok构成违约。\n\n鉴于，2019年4月18日，原告对Kwok（郭文贵）以及Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）和Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）（连同Genever Holdings LLC，合称“Genever被告”）提交了第一次修订起诉状，主张：（i）针对被告Kwok的违约诉因；及（ii）针对Genever被告的揭开公司面纱诉因。\n\n鉴于，2020年7月24日，原告就其针对Kwok的违约请求提出部分简易判决动议；该动议已完成书面陈述并由Barry R. Ostrager法官（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）审理。该法官于2020年9月15日作出决定和命令，并于2020年9月16日录入纽约县书记官办公室（New York County Clerk's Office，纽约县书记官办公室），准许原告就修订起诉状中第一项违约罪名项提出的动议，并指示原告至迟于2020年10月14日通过动议通知提出动议，以确定第一项罪名项的损害赔偿。提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号 725 NYSCEF接收日期：03/02/2021 第6页，共9页 案件22-50073 文件183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第75页，共\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号 716 NYSCEF接收日期：02/03/2021 17 652077 241\n\n鉴于，（i）2020年9月21日，原告通过动议通知提出动议，以确定损害赔偿、律师费及费用；（ii）原告同意，在不妨害权利的情况下，并经法院许可及其他当事方理解其将在日后重新提出的前提下，暂时撤回其申请中有关律师费及费用（即执行成本）的部分；及（iii）该动议已完成书面陈述并由Barry R. Ostrager法官审理。该法官于2020年12月18日作出决定和命令（“损害赔偿命令”），并于2020年12月18日录入纽约县书记官办公室，指示法院书记官录入有利于原告且针对被告Kwok的判决，金额为$46,426,489.00，另加自2010年12月31日生效日起按年利率15%计算的合同利息，以及自该决定和命令录入之日起按法定年利率9%计算的利息。提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号 725 NYSCEF接收日期：03/02/2021 第7页，共9页 案件22-50073 文件183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第76页，共\n\n现根据原告代理律师事务所O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）的动议，裁定如下：\n\n裁定，营业地址位于香港皇后大道东1号太古广场三座33楼的原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）对住所位于纽约州纽约市第五大道781号18层，NY 10022的被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）取得判决，并向被告追偿$46,426,489.00，另加金额为$69,448,939.71的合同利息，另加按9%法定利率计算、金额为$526,590.86的判决后利息，总计\n\nX $116,402,019.57，原告有权据此执行。\n\n于　!OH年Ja5月　日作出判决\n，\n\n已提交　1/lt;tlk\nH　~~--\n-\n2021年2月3日\n纽约　第三　书记官\n2021年2月\n县书记官办公室　2\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）\n纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HOW AN，亦称KWOK HO，亦称GWO WEN GUI，亦称GUO WENGUI，亦称GUO WEN-GUI，亦称WAN GUE HAO YUN，亦称MILES KWOK，亦称HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，提交：纽约县书记官 03/02/2021 04:42 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号725 NYSCEF接收日期：03/02/2021 第8页，共9页 案件22-50073 文件183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第77页，共\n\n案卷编号652077/2017\n\nEDWARD MOSS，ESQ.（爱德华·莫斯律师）的宣誓陈述\n\n被告。\n\n本人Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），一名经正式准许在纽约州法院执业的律师，特此根据《纽约州民事诉讼法和规则》\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/03/2021 12:28 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号716 NYSCEF接收日期：02/03/2021\n\n第2106条，在伪证处罚的约束下，陈述如下：\n\n1. 本人系本院律师协会成员，亦为O'Melveny & Myers LLP律师事务所的合伙人；该所为本案原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n（“PAX”）的登记代理律师。\n\n2. 本人完全熟悉本诉讼的事实及情形。为录入本判决之目的，本人提交本宣誓陈述，并放弃诉讼费用及支出。\n\n日期：2021年1月25日 纽约州纽约市 签署人：/s/ Edward Moss Edward Moss\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.，\nKWOK HO WAN，亦称KWOK HO，亦称GWO WEN\nGUI，亦称GUO WENGUI，亦称GUO WEN-GUI，\n亦称WAN GUE HAO-YUN，亦称MILES KWOK，\n亦称HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS\nCORPORATION，以及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n已提交\n判决书\n2021年2月3日\n判决录入\n纽约\n县书记官办公室\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n代理律师\nTIMOTHY SQUARETOWER\nTIMS SQUARE\n纽约州纽约市10016\n(212) 326-2000\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity\nFund, L.P.的代理律师　241\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\n案卷编号：652077/2017\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第79页，共241页\n附件19\n\n出庭辩论律师：提交：上诉分庭—第一部门 09/02/2021 04:31 PM 2021-00740 NYSCEF文件编号12 NYSCEF接收日期：09/02/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第80页，共241页\n\nMARK C. ZAUDERER（马克·C·扎德勒）（请求时间：15分钟）\n纽约州最高法院\n\n上诉分庭—第一部门\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，\n\n原告—被上诉人，\n\n— 诉 —\n\nKWOK HO WAN，亦称Kwok Ho，亦称Gwo Wen Gui，亦称Guo Wengui，亦称Guo Wen-Gui，亦称Wan Gue Haoyun，亦称Miles Kwok，亦称Haoyun Guo，\n\n被告—上诉人，\n\n— 及 —\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION和GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n\n被告。\n被告—上诉人辩护状\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP 纽约州纽约市列克星敦大道360号 NY 10017 (212) 922-9250 mzauderer@ganfershore.com imatetsky@ganfershore.com jcohen@ganfershore.com\n\n被告—上诉人代理律师\n\n纽约县书记官案卷编号652077/17\n\n上诉案件编号：2021-00740\n目录\n页码\n\n权威资料目录　ii\n\n初步陈述\n\n提出的问题　5\n事实背景　5\nA. 基础交易及存在争议的文件\n\nB. 被放弃的减轻损失机会\n\nC. 诉讼　10\n论证　16\n论点一\n动议法院不应基于司法禁止反言而禁止\nKWOK先生\n对文件真实性提出争议　16\nA. 司法禁止反言的要件并不具备\n\n1. 动议法院忽略了“胜诉”\n要求　17\n2. 动议法院忽略了\n“先前诉讼”\n要求　19\nB. 动议法院援引司法禁止反言并不公正\n\nC. PAX的其他主张亦不支持司法\n禁止反言　24\n论点二\n动议法院错误地驳回了\nPAX未能减轻其\n损害赔偿的抗辩　27\n结论　37\n\n权威资料目录\n页码\n判例：\n\nAll Terrain Props. v. Hay，\n265 A.D.2d 87 (2000)　19\n\nAnonymous v. Anonymous，\n156 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep't 2017)　17\n\nAssouline Ritz 1 LLC v. Edward I. Mills & Associates, Architects, PC，\n91 A.D.3d 473 (1st Dep't 2012)　29\n\nBajaj v. General Assurance Co.，\n18 Misc. 3d 25 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007)　25\n\nBaje Realty Corp. v. Cutler，\n32 A.D.3d 307 (1st Dep't 2006)　19\n\nBernstein v. Freudman，\n180 A.D.2d 420 (1st Dep't 1992)　29, 31\n\nBibeau v. Ward，\n228 A.D.2d 943 (3d Dep't 1996)　34\n\nBronson v. Jacobs，\n195 A.D.3d 550 (1st Dep't 2021)　16\n\nCarr v. Caputo，\n114 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013)　18\n\nCDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen，\n23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)　24\n\nCharles v. Charles，\n296 A.D.2d 547 (2d Dep't 2002)　23\n\nEpk Brand v. Leret，\n194 A.D.3d 644 (1st Dep't 2021)　16\n\nFeliciano-Delgado v. New York Hotel Trades Council，\n281 A.D.2d 312 (1st Dep't 2001)　26\n\nFerreira v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.，\n24 Misc. 3d 91 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2009), aff'd，\n81 A.D.3d 587\n(2d Dep't 2011)\n21, 23\n\nFord Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp.，\n215 A.D.2d 435 (1995)　19\n\nGoodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.，\n169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)　19\n\nHouston v. McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc.，\n124 A.D.3d 1205 (4th Dep't 2015)\n\nJones Lang Wootton USA v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae，\n243 A.D.2d 168 (1998), leave dismissed, 92 N.Y.2d 962 (1998)　18\n\nKapchan v. 31 Mt. Hope, LLC，\n111 A.D.3d 530 (1st Dep't 2013)　26\n\nLorenzo v. Kahn，\n100 A.D.3d 1480 (4th Dep't 2012)\n\nLowinger v. Lowinger，\n303 A.D.2d 723 (2003)　19\n\nMacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith，\n182 A.D.3d 514 (1st Dep't 2020)　17\n\nMack-Cali Realty, L.P. v. Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc.，\n110 A.D.3d 680 (2d Dep't 2013)　29\n\nMass v. Cornell Univ.，\n253 A.D.2d 1 (1999), aff'd，\n\nN.Y.2d\n\n(1999)\n\nMatter of Aho，\n39 N.Y.2d 241 (1976)　16\n\nMPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd，\n166 A.D.3d 13 (1st Dep't 2018)　18\n\nNapoli v. Bern，\n187 A.D.3d 510 (1st Dep't 2020)　16\n\nNestor v. Britt，\n270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000)　21, 22\n\nNYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan，\n276 A.D.2d 443 (1st Dep't 2000)　34\n\nOlszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.，\n18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)　20\n\nOuziel v. Baram，\n305 A.D.2d 564 (2d Dep't 2003)　26\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Kwok，\n160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)　3, 11, 19\n\nPatmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC，\n189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020)　3, 17, 20, 21\n\nProner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C.，\n214 A.D.2d 460\n(1st Dep't 1995)　26\n\nRothstein & Hoffman Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Gong Park Realty Corp.，\n37 A.D.3d 206 (1st Dep't 2007)　23\n\nSeaboard Sur. Co. v. Nigro Bros., Inc.，\n222 A.D.2d 574 (2d Dep't 1995)　26\n\nTynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.，\n117 A.D.2d 796 (2d Dep't 1986)　29\n\nWalsh v. Pisano，\n190 A.D.3d 535 (1st Dep't 2021)　16\n\nWells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.，\n113 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2014)　18\n\nWhite v. Farrell，\n20 N.Y.3d 487 (2013)　29, 33\n\nWilmot v. State of N.Y.，\n32 N.Y.2d 164 (1973)　29\n\nZelik v. Rubashkin，\n2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6844, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33760(U)\n(Sup. Ct. Kings Co. Dec. 11, 2019)　26\n法规及其他权威资料：\n\n22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130.1-1\nCPLR 327　10\n初步陈述\n\n原告—被上诉人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）起诉被告—上诉人Kwok Ho Wan，亦称Miles Kwok（“Kwok先生”），要求其就据称由Kwok先生签署、向某公司实体发放贷款所作担保的本金和利息支付逾$100 million。Kwok先生在其证言记录中明确作证称，该担保及数份相关文件上的签名并非其本人签署，而是伪造的。\n\n原告—被上诉人PAX是一家在开曼群岛设立、在中国拥有大量持股的投资基金。被告—上诉人Kwok先生是一名个人，先前居住于中国，但在公开揭露中国政府腐败后，于数年前被迫迁往美国，并在此申请政治庇护。作为致力于推翻中国执政党中国共产党（“CCP”）的知名直言异见人士，Kwok先生已遭受CCP迫害逾30年，包括曾被逮捕、在天安门广场杀戮后服刑22个月，以及其弟弟被谋杀。（参见，例如，R574, 622）。\n\n作为原告，PAX负有证明其赖以支持其请求的文件真实、可靠的举证责任。PAX没有试图履行该责任，反而通过错误适用司法禁止反言原则，说服动议法院禁止Kwok先生对关键文件的真实性提出争议，从而剥夺Kwok先生就PAX请求进行实体抗辩的权利。\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第86页，共241页\n\n动议法院从未就PAX所依赖的保证书及其他文件的真实性举行证据听证会或审判。相反，动议法院在一份未援引任何法律依据的两页命令中认定，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生受司法禁止反言约束，因为两年前，另一名个人曾就郭先生提出的一项未获支持的不方便法院动议提交宣誓书，并随附该等文件的副本。郭先生并未在该宣誓书上签字，并且他作证称自己甚至从未见过该宣誓书。郭先生后来试图调查该宣誓书是在何种情形下提交时，得知该宣誓人已经失踪，且无法找到。此事尤其可疑，因为郭先生长期严厉批评中国政府，并被中国政府视为敌人；中国政府迫使他逃离中国，并在美国寻求政治庇护。\n\nPAX并未证明其所依赖文件的真实性，而是试图通过让动议法院宣告该等文件应被视为真实文件，来规避证明其主张实体依据的义务，尽管郭先生作证称文件上“他的”签名系伪造。动议法院禁止郭先生就一项基于他否认签署的文件、金额逾$100 million的请求权为自己辩护，是不公正的。\n\n动议法院关于司法禁止反言的裁定不仅在事实方面毫无根据，而且在法律上也是错误的。早已确立的是，司法禁止反言只有在一方当事人通过其先前立场的益处而在经诉讼争议的问题上胜诉时方可产生。参见，例如，Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020)（“该请求并未因司法禁止反言而被禁止，因为即使存在矛盾，被告先前的任何立场均未获支持。”）。在本案中，PAX所依赖的宣誓书是为支持郭先生以不方便法院为由驳回本案的动议而提交的，但本院驳回了该动议，裁定本案将在纽约继续进行，且不会被驳回。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Kwok, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)。郭先生并未在该动议中胜诉，因此，除其他理由外，司法禁止反言并不适用。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 87 页，共 241 页\n\n动议法院完全以其关于司法禁止反言的裁定为依据，就责任问题作出对郭先生不利的简易判决。在一宗主张损害赔偿逾$100 million的案件中，保证书的真实性是至关重要的事实问题。动议法院本应要求PAX履行其证明真实性的举证责任，并应允许郭先生就该等文件缺乏真实性及所有相关情形作证并提交证据。动议法院不应基于一份并非由郭先生签署、见过或认可，且由前任律师就一项未获支持的程序性动议提交的宣誓书，作出实际上终结案件的制裁。因此，本院应撤销对郭先生作出的判决书。\n\n尽管该判决书应因动议法院错误地免除了PAX证明其所依赖文件真实性的义务而被撤销，即便为论证起见假定该等文件已被认定为真实，动议法院还独立地犯了错误，即在同样未举行听证会或审判的情况下，以简易方式裁决损害赔偿问题。根据PAX所依赖的文件，双方约定，如果PAX取得位于中国北京一个项目中的三套豪华公寓（“北京公寓”）的所有权，则所称贷款及郭先生对该贷款所作的保证将被取消。郭先生提交了证据，其中大量证据来自PAX自身的电子邮件和承认，表明作为中国政府组成部分的北京警方于2015年初查封了这些公寓，并提出以远低于其市场价值的价格将其转让给PAX。PAX本可以通过接受该提议，实现其在基础交易中的目标，同时抵销，或者至少大幅减轻其所称损失，但其未如此行事。根据香港法（该法管辖所称贷款文件和保证书）及纽约州法，PAX均负有减轻其所称损失的义务。对于PAX是否未履行该义务，以及如是，其所称损失是否全部或大部分本可以且应当避免，均存在事实争议。因此，即使维持对郭先生就责任作出的判决书——而本不应如此——仍应撤销并发回审判，以确定在考虑PAX未减轻损失的情形后，PAX应获判的损害赔偿金额（如有）。\n\n争点\n\n1. 动议法院是否犯错：其援引司法禁止反言原则，禁止郭先生对一项他未签署的保证书项下逾$100 million的责任提出争议，仅因本案早些时候另一名个人提交了一份宣誓书，附有据称载有郭先生签名的文件副本，尽管郭先生并未因该宣誓书的提交而获得任何有利结果？\n\n2. 动议法院是否在法律上驳回郭先生关于PAX未减轻其损失的证据时犯错？\n\n事实背景\n\nA. 基础交易及存在争议的文件\n\n本案所涉的基础交易涉及北京一项名为盘古广场（Pangu Plaza）的房地产开发项目。PAX的修正起诉书称，2008年，PAX与一家香港公司Spirit Charter Investment Limited（Spirit Charter）就盘古广场达成贷款及投资交易。(R144)。2009年，一家香港公司Shiny Times Limited（Shiny Times）据称订立了一项协议，据此承担Spirit Charter的若干义务。(R144-45)。PAX称，郭先生就这些交易签署了保证书。(同上)。郭先生在其证言中作证称，他记得仅曾就一笔于2008年或前后作出的$30 million贷款订立过一项个人保证，且该贷款已获全额偿还，从而解除该保证。(R532-33, 540-42, 624-25)。PAX在本案中的请求并非直接源于这些2008年和2009年的交易。\n\nPAX称，2011年3月16日，Shiny Times与PAX就一项新的信贷额度订立协议，该协议取代并替换了2009年协议。(R145-46)。然而，在其证言中被出示所称2011年信贷额度函副本(R264-72)时，郭先生明确否认自己曾签署该函，并表示：“我可以百分之百地告诉你，这不是我的签名。”(R673-74)。在被出示一份日期同为2011年3月16日的所称保证书副本(R253-63)时，郭先生作证称：“我以生命担保，这不是我的签名。”(R679)。PAX还称，2013年4月19日，PAX、Shiny Times、郭先生及北京盘古订立了一项与2011年信贷额度有关的协议，称为2013年和解契据。(R273-90)。郭先生作证称，该文件同样未载有其真实签名。(R747-51)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 90 页，共 241 页\n\n根据PAX的说法，所称2013年和解契据载明，PAX尚未收回的款项现为$52 million，但规定，如Shiny Times促使PAX取得盘古宫的三套豪华公寓，即北京公寓的所有权，则作为回报，Shiny Times对PAX的债务及郭先生的保证义务将获解除。(R147-48)。更具体地说，根据PAX的修正起诉书，双方约定PAX将以$15 million从北京盘古购买三套北京公寓，Shiny Times将予以偿付。(见同上)。如于2013年7月31日前完成，该所称交易将消灭2011年信贷额度函项下的债务及保证。(同上)。PAX还称，双方同意对2013年和解契据作出一系列延期，最后一期于2015年6月30日终止。(R148-49, 291-316)。郭先生否认签署过任何这些文件。(R753-61)。\n\n郭先生在其证言中作证称PAX据以起诉他的关键文件系伪造时，还为该主张提供了重要背景。他作证称，他相信多名个人与CCP（中国共产党）共同设局，通过伪造文件来耗尽他的精力，以使他停止揭露中国共产党的腐败行为。(见R565-71, 587)。郭先生还指出，在其证言中向他出示的文件中，“有些有见证人，有些没有；有些有公证人，有些没有。”(R627)。郭先生主张，“该诉讼是假的。文件，它们全都是伪造的”，且中国共产党很可能是这些伪造行为的幕后者。(R729；另见R604, R607-27, R658-59)。郭先生要求PAX允许对该等文件进行法证鉴定，以协助确定其真实性。(R748-50)。\n\n在就文件真实性举行的证据听证会或审判中，郭先生还本可提交大量证据，证明作为中国政府及中国共产党的主要反对者，他一直受到持续且广泛的骚扰和针对，从而使事实裁判者在审议时能将其伪造指控置于完整背景中。如后文所示，PAX试图避免任何调查，并将本诉讼引向一条截然不同的路径。\n\nB. 被放弃的减损机会\n\n如上所述，PAX称，其同意如果在指定日期前发生某些事项，所称文件项下义务将终止；根据最后一份所称延期协议，该日期为2015年6月30日。(R147-49)。关键条件是，PAX将有机会购买并取得三套豪华北京公寓的所有权。换言之，如果PAX提交的交易文件是真实的，则PAX在其中同意接受三套北京公寓的所有权，视为其价值等同于偿还其未偿贷款。\n\n2015年2月，作为中国政府组成部分的北京市公安局查封了北京公寓。(R 149 ¶ 41)。PAX承认，该查封发生在一种“政治局势”的背景下。(R4532)。北京警方知悉PAX有意取得这些公寓，具备转让这些公寓所有权的能力，并提出通过将这些公寓转让给PAX来协助PAX。涉及数名不同PAX员工的电子邮件显示，PAX知悉有机会取得所称和解契据及相关文件标的的北京公寓。PAX如接受该提议，将须作出初始现金支出，但该支出将远低于公寓的公认价值。PAX官员承认，这仍是“一个好价格”，将使PAX立即获利。(R4360)。\n\n多名PAX员工——包括首席运营官Derek Crane（德里克·克兰）(R4328-33)、总法律顾问Catherine Yang（凯瑟琳·杨）(R4339-40)，以及集团总法律顾问兼董事总经理Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯）(R4344-46)——均在2015年北京警方提出该提议之时或前后知悉北京警方提出将这些公寓转让给PAX。所有这些PAX员工均无法确认是否有人可能就该提议与北京警方进行后续跟进、任何该等讨论的实质内容为何，或是否采取了任何步骤来寻求这一机会。\n\n相反，PAX（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund，太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）选择不通过接受 Beijing Police（北京市公安局）提出的协助而减轻损失。换言之，尽管 Beijing Police 向 PAX 提供了取得作为所谓和解契据及相关文件标的之 Beijing Apartments（北京公寓）的机会——从而消除或至少大幅减少其所称损失——PAX 却选择无视该机会，转而在纽约以个人名义起诉 Mr. Kwok（郭文贵）。2012 年，PAX 的一名高级职员曾提及，如果 PAX 以个人名义起诉 Mr. Kwok，将会产生“极大的满足感”。（R4579）。PAX 有义务采取向其提供的合理机会以减轻其所称损失，而非通过就本可避免的损失起诉 Mr. Kwok 来寻求某种不当的“极大满足感”。\n\nC. 诉讼程序\n\nPAX 于 2017 年 4 月 18 日在 Supreme Court, New York County（纽约县最高法院）对 Mr. Kwok 提起诉讼并提交起诉状。（R96-127）。在提交答辩状、否认起诉状中大部分指控后（R128-38），Mr. Kwok 提出答辩前 CPLR 327 驳回诉讼动议，依据不方便法院原则主张，Hong Kong（香港）较纽约是更便利的诉讼地。（NYSCEF Docs. 7-24）。为支持该动议，Mr. Kwok 提交了一份一页纸的宣誓书，说明其在不同时期的居住地。（NYSCEF Doc. 24）。该由 Mr. Kwok 签署并宣誓的宣誓书以普通话写成，并附有英文译本。（同上）。Mr. Kwok 的宣誓书未涉及任何其他问题。（同上）。\n\n为支持不方便法院原则动议而提交的还有 Fiona Yu（菲奥娜·余）签署的一份宣誓书。（R3166-68）。该宣誓书将 Yu 女士描述为 Mr. Kwok 的“一名受任人员”，但未解释其含义。（R3166）。Yu 女士的宣誓书称，其提交目的在于向法院提交各种交易文件。当时，这些文件位于香港或中国（R3166），而 Mr. Kwok 已离开中国前往纽约寻求庇护。该宣誓书套用了格式化措辞，称所附文件为“真实且正确”的副本，但未说明 Yu 女士如何知悉此事，或其从何处取得该等文件。（同上）。\n\n在完成充分书面陈述后，动议审理法院批准了 Mr. Kwok 基于不方便法院原则提出的驳回动议。（NYSCEF Doc. 102）。PAX 提起上诉，本院撤销该裁定，并指示诉讼将在纽约继续进行。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金） v. Kwok（郭文贵）, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)。随后，PAX 提交了修正起诉状（R139-352），Mr. Kwok 对此作出答辩，再次否认 PAX 的大部分指控。（R357-71）。\n\n双方进行了广泛的证据开示，包括 PAX 对 Mr. Kwok 进行证言录取。在证言录取中，Mr. Kwok 被出示了 PAX 据以提出主张的文件副本，包括 2011 年贷款额度函、2011 年保证书以及其后一系列延期协议。Mr. Kwok 证称，其未在这些文件上签字。\n\nMr. Kwok 关于向其出示的签名并非其本人签名的证言明确且毫不含糊。例如，就 2011 年 3 月 16 日的贷款额度文件，他证称：“我可以百分之百地告诉你，那不是我的签名。”（R673-74）。就 2011 年 3 月 16 日的保证书，他证称：“我以生命保证，这不是我的签名。”（R679）。与 PAX 所依赖的其他文件相同，当被出示以英文写成并载有据称为其签名的文件时，Mr. Kwok 证称其“百分之百是伪造的”（R753-54）、“百分之百不是”（R757），以及“百分之百，它们是假的”（R756）。他就这些文件补充道：“我从未做过这个……从未签署过这个，而且我不懂英语。”（R679）。\n\n值得注意的是，尽管这些文件是 PAX 对 Mr. Kwok 提出主张的依据，且连同利息现已超过 $100 million，PAX 并未寻求就这些文件或 Mr. Kwok 据称在其上的签名的真实性进行任何进一步的证据开示。相反，为以非常手段避免履行其举证责任，PAX 对 Mr. Kwok 及其当时代理律师提出了一项不寻常的“费用及制裁动议”。PAX 在其动议通知中寻求的唯一救济，是根据 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130.1-1 裁定费用及制裁。（R372-73）。然而，在随附于该动议的法律备忘录中，PAX 还请求动议审理法院认定，依据司法自认或司法禁止反言原则，Mr. Kwok 不得否认该等文件及其在文件上签名的真实性。（R374-400）。\n\nPAX 请求适用司法禁止反言，主要基于 Mr. Kwok 的前代理律师曾将该等文件副本作为 Yu 女士具结陈述的附件提交这一事实。在证言录取中，Mr. Kwok 强调，在该具结陈述于证言录取时向其出示之前，他从未见过该陈述。（R801-02）。Mr. Kwok 进一步证称，他不知道附于 Yu 女士具结陈述的文件如何落入其手中，亦不知道该等文件如何被其当时代理律师用于不方便法院原则事项。（R757-58）。Mr. Kwok 还始终表示其不能阅读英文。（例如，R609, 619-20）。此外，Mr. Kwok 在 2019 年的证言录取中证称，截至当时，Yu 女士已“失踪很长时间”，且情况令人担忧。（R802；另见 R804-05）。因此，无法询问她从何处取得附于其具结陈述的文件，或询问有关其签署该具结陈述的任何其他事实和情况。\n\nPAX 还主张，Mr. Kwok 的当时代理律师在一封附函中承认了该等文件的真实性；该函转交了一份 PAX 拟在即将举行的关于判决前扣押动议的证据听证会上使用的证物清单。（NYSCEF Doc. 325）。该封来自 PAX 代理律师的附函，仅在双方约定将听证会严格限于与扣押有关的问题、而非 PAX 主张实体问题之后才提交。（NYSCEF Doc. 306）。该附函同样仅涉及该等证物在该特定听证会上的可采性，而非其在其他目的下的可采性。PAX 还主张，Mr. Kwok 据称在其代理律师对 PAX 承认请求书（“RFAs”）的答复中承认了该等文件的真实性，但 PAX 甚至未将文件附于 RFAs 以供任何人审阅，而该等附具为所要求。（见 R411-99）。\n\n动议审理法院拒绝依 PAX 所请求，对 Mr. Kwok 或其当时代理律师裁定费用或金钱制裁。（R59-60）。然而，在一份简略的两页裁定中，动议审理法院裁定，“被告 Kwok 在反对原告的简易判决动议时或在审判中，不得对被告 Kwok 先前在本院程序中作为提交方的文件的真实性提出质疑，尽管被告 Kwok 在其证言录取期间试图否认其在该等文件上的签名。如本案进入审判，该等文件将作为证据采纳。”（R59）。关于司法禁止反言的全部论述仅载于一段文字中。（同上）。动议审理法院的裁定未说明为何 Mr. Kwok 受到司法禁止反言的约束，未讨论司法禁止反言的法律要件，亦未讨论该等要件在本案中是否得到满足，未载明任何具体事实认定，并且甚至未援引任何一项法律依据。（R59-60）。\n\nPAX 的对方当事人因而被非自愿地解除抗辩能力后，PAX 随即申请针对 Mr. Kwok 作出简易判决。（R1388-89）。Mr. Kwok 反对该动议，并交叉提出动议，请求动议审理法院重新考虑其关于司法禁止反言的裁定。（R3204-55）。Mr. Kwok 还在反对意见中尤其主张，无论如何，PAX 无权获得简易判决，因为在 Beijing Police 扣押 Beijing Apartments 后拒绝其提供的协助时，PAX 未能减轻其所称损失。（R3224-28）。\n\n2020 年 9 月 15 日，动议审理法院批准 PAX 针对 Mr. Kwok 提出的部分简易判决动议。（R50-58）。作出该裁定时，动议审理法院拒绝重新考虑其关于司法禁止反言的裁定。（R52-54）。动议审理法院还表示，其并不认为 Mr. Kwok 会在其未减轻损失的论点上“很可能”胜诉，但最终认定，减轻损失问题涉及尚未提交法院审理的损害赔偿数额问题，而非责任问题。（R54-57）。动议审理法院表示，其必须就损害赔偿问题举行证据听证会，并称：“我们将举行损害赔偿听证会，在损害赔偿听证会上，你将能够就减轻损失问题提出你希望提出的任何证言或希望引入的任何文件。”（NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 4, 6-7）。\n\n随后，PAX 提出动议，请求确定依 Mr. Kwok 据称作出的保证所欠金额。（R4121-33）。在反对意见中，Mr. Kwok 提出了补充论证和证据，表明 PAX 本有明确机会通过从 Beijing Police 取得 Beijing Apartments 而减轻其贷款损失，但其明知且故意放弃该机会，转而寻求对 Mr. Kwok 作出巨额金钱判决。（R4269-4382, 4529-4957）。\n\n在日期为 2020 年 12 月 18 日的判决和命令中，动议审理法院再次支持 PAX，并依法认定 PAX 没有义务减轻其损失。（R12-17）。动议审理法院未举行其仅在两个月前明确表示有必要举行的证据听证会，即处理了该问题。动议审理法院驳回减轻损失抗辩，并认定 Mr. Kwok 应就据称保证中的超过 $46 million 本金向 PAX 承担责任，另加自 2011 年以来按年利率 15% 计算的利息。（R16-17）。2021 年 2 月 5 日，书记员登记了针对 Mr. Kwok 的金钱判决，合计金额为 $116,402,019.57。Mr. Kwok 及时向本院提起上诉。（R3-9）。1\n\n论证\n\n论点一\n\n动议审理法院不应基于司法禁止反言禁止 MR. KWOK 对文件真实性提出争议\n\n动议审理法院认定，Mr. Kwok 受司法禁止反言约束，不得对构成 PAX 针对其全部案件基础的文件真实性提出争议。动议审理法院随后就 PAX 所请求的全部金额作出有利于 PAX 的简易判决，并针对 Mr. Kwok 作出超过 $100 million 的判决，完全以其裁定为依据，即 Mr. Kwok 关于其未签署该等文件的宣誓否认将被忽略。其通过一份两页裁定作出该决定，该裁定未认定司法禁止反言的必要要件已获满足，未指明法院认为足以适用司法禁止反言的具体事实，且未援引任何法律依据。（R59-60）。这是错误的。\n\n1 Mr. Kwok 此前曾就两项中间裁定及时提交上诉通知。见案卷号 2020-04180 和 2021-00138。对该等中间裁定的上诉已被判决及由此提起的上诉所取代。见 Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248 (1976); Bronson v. Jacobs, 195 A.D.3d 550, 550 (1st Dep't 2021); Epk Brand v. Leret, 194 A.D.3d 644, 644 (1st Dep't 2021); Walsh v. Pisano, 190 A.D.3d 535, 536 (1st Dep't 2021); Napoli v. Bern, 187 A.D.3d 510, 511 (1st Dep't 2020)。因此，本次上诉已就该判决完成上诉手续；经本院许可，先前已被取代的中间裁定上诉在不妨碍再行提出的情况下被撤回（见动议号 2021-02347 和 2021-02348）。\n\nA. 司法禁止反言的要件并不存在\n\n1. 动议审理法院忽视了“胜诉”要件\n\n在认定Kwok先生（郭文贵）受司法禁反言约束时，法院忽视了该原则的一项基本且确立已久的要件：仅当一方当事人在先前诉讼中提出了据称相互矛盾的立场，且该方基于该先前相互矛盾的立场获得胜诉时，方可禁止该当事人在本案中采取某一立场。本院在跨越多年的一系列判决中，反复且明确地裁定，如缺少该要件，司法禁反言不适用：\n\n鉴于即使存在矛盾，被告此前的任何立场均未获胜诉，该项请求不受司法禁反言阻却。\n\nPatmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020)。\n\n原告主张当事人在1998年于最高法院提起的诉讼中被告所持的立场应具有决定性作用，该主张不能成立。……原告亦未举出任何事例，表明[被告先前的]理论曾被成功用于取得有利于被告的判决，而司法禁反言对此有所要求（见Anonymous v. Anonymous, 156 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep't 2017)）。\n\nMacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020)。\n\n原告援引司法禁反言原则，要求被告受其在最高法院诉讼中所持立场约束，实属不当。该原则“禁止在先前法律程序中采取某一立场并据此获得有利于其的判决的一方当事人，仅因其利益发生变化，而在另一诉讼中采取相反立场。”由于被告未就其在最高法院提出的主张获得胜诉，司法禁反言原则不适用。\n\nMPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018)\n\n（引文略）。\n\n司法禁反言原则“‘禁止在先前法律程序中采取某一立场并据此获得有利于其的判决的一方当事人，仅因其利益发生变化，而在另一诉讼中采取相反立场。’”由于原告未就其合同赔偿请求获得胜诉，司法禁反言原则不适用。\n\nWells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp., 113 A.D.3d 516, 516 (1st\n\nDep't 2014)（原文强调；引文略）。\n\n司法禁反言原则“禁止在先前法律程序中采取某一立场并据此获得有利于其的判决的一方当事人，仅因其利益发生变化，而在另一诉讼中采取相反立场。”尽管Carr在对其有利时选择性地寻求执行1969年协议的条款，却拒绝执行对其无益或降低其自身权益价值的条款和交易，但Carr并未在先前动议中“取得”有利于其的判决，因此该原则不适用于本案所呈现的情形。\n\nCarr v. Caputo, 114 A.D.3d 62, 71 (1st Dep't 2013)（引文略）。\n\n“司法禁反言原则或立场不一致原则‘禁止在先前法律程序中采取某一立场并据此获得有利于其的判决的一方当事人，仅因其利益发生变化，而在另一诉讼中采取相反立场。’”（Jones Lang Wootton USA v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & Macrae, 243 A.D.2d 168, 176 (1998), leave dismissed, 92 N.Y.2d 962 (1998), quoting Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp., 215 A.D.2d 435, 436 (1995)）。由于第三方被告并未基于Sakow先前的陈述取得任何正式的救济准许，该陈述不涉及立场不一致原则（Lowinger v. Lowinger, 303 A.D.2d 723, 724 (2003); cf. All Terrain Props. v. Hay, 265 A.D.2d 87, 93 (2000); Mass v. Cornell Univ., 253 A.D.2d 1, 5 (1999), aff'd, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999)。\n\nBaje Realty Corp. v. Cutler, 32 A.D.3d 307, 310 (1st Dep't 2006)（原文强调）。\n\n本案中，司法禁反言不适用，因为在不方便法院动议中，动议审理法院从未就文件的真实性作出任何认定。（NYSCEF Doc. 102）。因此，Kwok先生并未在该问题上获胜诉，而这是可能产生司法禁反言所必需的条件。同样重要的是，当PAX就动议审理法院以香港法院为宜而驳回本案的裁定提起上诉时，本院撤销了动议审理法院的裁定，并指示诉讼应在纽约继续进行，之后亦确实如此。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)。如果据称可能支持司法禁反言的初步认定在后续程序中被推翻，则司法禁反言不可适用。见Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc. 169 A.D.3d 1010, 1012-13 (2d Dep't 2019)。\n\n2. 动议审理法院忽视了“先前诉讼”要求\n\n此外，本院裁定，司法禁反言仅在一方当事人在先前诉讼中而非在同一\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第104页，共241页\n\n诉讼中取得有利于其的终局认定时方可适用。在Olszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)一案中，本院撤销了一项基于司法禁反言作出的审判法院命令，因为相互矛盾的立场并非出自先前诉讼。在撤销审判法院命令时，本院解释道：“我们亦驳回雇主的论点，即业主受司法禁反言约束，不能主张原告未遭受严重伤害。司法禁反言原则在此不适用，因为第一，对业主不利的陪审团裁决不能被视为有利于其的裁定；第二，相互矛盾的立场是在同一诉讼中提出的。”同上，第350-51页。\n\n即使为论证起见，司法禁反言有时可源于在同一诉讼中采取的相互矛盾立场——尽管本院在Olszewski案中已有与此相反的直接裁定——其仍不能适用于Kwok先生，因为其在不方便法院动议中所持的立场即使在本案中也未获胜诉。上文所引Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC一案中，两个据称相互矛盾的立场均是在同一诉讼内采取的，本院裁定：“鉴于即使存在矛盾，被告此前的任何立场均未获胜诉，该项请求不受司法禁反言阻却。”189 A.D.3d，第633页。\n\n其他部门的一些判例（第一部门并未遵循）允许在两个据称相互矛盾的立场均于同一案件中提出时适用司法禁反言，但仅限于应受禁反言约束的一方凭借其较早立场在某一问题上获胜诉的情形。见Houston v. McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc., 124 A.D.3d 1205, 1208 (4th Dep't 2015)（裁定司法禁反言可适用于同一诉讼中的相互矛盾立场，但仅限于“‘当事人就较早立场已获胜诉’”时）；Lorenzo v. Kahn, 100 A.D.3d 1480, 1483 (4th Dep't 2012)（同）；Ferreira v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr., 24 Misc. 3d 91, 96 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2009)（即使司法禁反言可在同一诉讼中适用，该原则“在纽约仅于应受排除的一方基于所采取立场取得有利于其的裁定时适用”）, aff'd, 81 A.D.3d 587, 588 (2d Dep't 2011)（被告主张司法禁反言“毫无依据”，因为“原告从未因采取该立场而取得有利于其的判决”）。\n\n动议审理法院拒绝重新审议其关于司法禁反言的裁定时，未处理如下要求：应受禁反言约束的一方必须在先前诉讼中——或者至少在同一诉讼的先前阶段（尽管这并非第一部门的法律）——从其先前相互矛盾立场中受益并获得胜诉。（R52-54）。动议审理法院仅援引了一项权威，即本院在Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000)一案中的判决。Nestor案亦未讨论该要求，且不能胜过本院大量讨论并适用该要求的判决，包括最近的Patmos案，189 A.D.3d，第633页。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第106页，共241页\n\nNestor案亦有可区分之处，因为该案中受禁反言约束的申请人所采取的先前立场——适用争议租赁关系的是1983年租约而非1970年租约——是在“基础业主自住程序审理之前、审理期间及审理之后……作为其申请所寻求救济的唯一合同依据”提出的。Nestor, 270 A.D.2d，第193页。这与本案相去甚远：本案中，某个人仅在一次情形下而非整个诉讼期间，提供了从未知来源取得的文件副本，且该行为发生在Kwok先生败诉的一项初步程序性动议的背景下。\n\nB. 动议审理法院援引司法禁反言并不公正\n\n动议审理法院关于司法禁反言的指示完全依赖于Kwok先生在法院面前“提交”了该等文件，推定系指该等文件作为Yu女士声明的附件提交。该声明旨在支持Kwok先生在答辩前提出的动议，即以不方便法院为由驳回本案，主张在香港而非纽约审理本案将更为便利。尽管该声明表示其基于Yu女士的个人知情及对记录的审阅，但其并未表明她实际上具有任何该等个人知情，或其在何种程度上基于该等个人知情。（R3166-68）。没有证据表明Yu女士参与了基础交易，且PAX从未主张她参与其中。令人不安的是，到Kwok先生接受证言录取时，Yu女士——与许多曾与Kwok先生有商业或个人联系的人一样——已经失踪。（见R802-05）。\n\nKwok先生作证称，在其接受证言录取时该声明向其出示之前，他从未读过Yu女士的声明。（R801-02）。Kwok先生还作证称，他不知道作为Yu女士声明附件的文件如何进入她的持有，或如何被用于不方便法院动议。（R757-58）。即使不考虑未满足司法禁反言技术要件这一点——其本身即足以支持撤销——禁反言是一项衡平原则，在此等情形下援引该原则并不公正。见Rothstein & Hoffman Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Gong Park Realty Corp., 37 A.D.3d 206, 206 (1st Dep't 2007)（将司法禁反言描述为一项“衡平原则”）；Charles v. Charles, 296 A.D.2d 547, 550 (2d Dep't 2002)（“禁反言是用于促进公平与正义的衡平原则。”）。\n\n此外，PAX有充分机会在证言录取中就真实性问题询问Kwok先生，并在此后就争议文件的真实性进行其希望进行的任何其他证据开示。见Ferreira v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr., 24 Misc. 3d 91, 96 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2009)（“鉴于[当事人]在原告改变其立场后已获充分机会进行证据开示，[被告]不会因原告改变立场而受到不利影响”）, aff'd, 81 A.D.3d 587 (2d Dep't 2011)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第108页，共241页\n\n郭文贵先生（Mr. Kwok）还在其证言录取中作证称，作为中国政府及执政党的直言反对者，他一直受到中国共产党（CCP）长期、持续且广泛的恶意骚扰和针对性攻击。（例如，见 R565-71, 622）。倘若动议法院没有援引司法禁止反言而略过对该问题的审查，而是就文件真实性举行证据听证或审判，则郭文贵先生也会就此提出大量证据。因此，郭文贵先生本可将其关于伪造的主张置于完整的背景之中，从而使事实裁判者能够作出充分知情的决定。相反，司法禁止反言裁定实际上在本案中充当了终局性制裁，以有争议的程序性理由阻止郭文贵先生向法院或陪审团提出其抗辩。参见 CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)（诸如删除诉状等终结案件的制裁，只有在存在明确且令人信服的证据支持时才应予准许）。\n\nC. PAX 的其他主张同样不足以支持司法禁止反言\n\nPAX 在其寻求包括司法禁止反言在内制裁的动议中还主张，郭文贵先生已在判决前扣押听证会前提交的一封附函（NYSCEF Doc. 325）以及郭文贵先生当时律师对 PAX 的承认请求（RFA）的答复（R411-99）中承认争议文件的真实性。动议法院的司法禁止反言裁定并未提及 PAX 关于附函或 RFA 答复的主张，更遑论将其作为司法禁止反言的依据予以接受。（见 R5254, 59-60）。无论如何，这些材料均不能导致司法禁止反言，因为郭文贵先生并未基于这些材料在任何争点上胜诉。（见上文 Point I.A）。\n\nPAX 所援引的附函，是就 PAX 的判决前扣押动议所举行的证据听证会而提交的。（NYSCEF Doc. 325）。双方此前已约定，该听证会仅审理 PAX 是否具有申请扣押的依据，而不审理本案实体问题；对于实体问题，证据开示将在之后进行。（NYSCEF Doc. 306）。PAX 律师随后提交的附函向动议法院提供了即将举行的扣押听证会的证物清单，同时说明郭文贵先生不对 PAX 证物的真实性提出异议。（NYSCEF Doc. 325）。该语境涉及的是扣押听证会中证物的可采性，而非之后进行的实体程序；在后者中，郭文贵先生一经看到这些文件，便直接对其真实性提出了异议。\n\nPAX 还主张，郭文贵先生在答复 PAX 的 RFA 时承认了这些文件的真实性。（见 R411-99）。郭文贵先生当时的律师基于数项理由对 RFA 提出异议，其中包括争议文件的副本并未如要求那样附于其中。见 Bajaj v. General Assurance Co., 18 Misc. 3d 25, 27 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007)（“除非文件副本已经提供，否则文件副本必须随承认通知一并附上。”）。郭文贵先生对 RFA 的答复并未承认任何特定文件的真实性。他们怎么可能\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 110 页，共 241 页\n\n承认呢，在没有向任何人出示任何特定文件以供审阅的情况下？并且，如上所述，郭文贵先生并未基于其对 RFA 的答复或附函在任何争点上胜诉，因此它们不能构成司法禁止反言的依据。\n\n最后，动议法院在拒绝重新考虑其司法禁止反言裁定的决定中指出，郭文贵先生对修订后起诉书的答辩状并未将伪造列为积极抗辩。（R53-54）。该法院未援引任何权威依据，表明当事人不得以此为由对文件真实性提出争议。恰恰相反，Ouziel v. Baram, 305 A.D.2d 564, 565 (2d Dep't 2003) 判定，“[尽]管被告未将伪造列为积极抗辩，他仍被适当地允许就签名的真实性提出证据。”另见 Kapchan v. 31 Mt. Hope, LLC, 111 A.D.3d 530, 530-31 (1st Dep't 2013)（判定未在诉状中提出的积极抗辩提出了阻却简易判决的事实争议）；Feliciano-Delgado v. New York Hotel Trades Council, 281 A.D.2d 312 316 (1st Dep't 2001)（“在审查简易判决动议中的诉状时，[法院]可以考虑未在诉状中提出的抗辩”）；Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Nigro Bros., Inc., 222 A.D.2d 574, 575 (2d Dep't 1995)（判定在对方当事人“未感到意外”的情况下，未在诉状中提出的伪造抗辩可以驳回简易判决动议）；Proner v. Julien & Schlesinger, P.C., 214 A.D.2d 460, 460-61 (1st Dep't 1995)（维持准许修改答辩状以增加伪造抗辩的命令）；Zelik v. Rubashkin, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6844, at \\*3-4, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33760(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. Dec. 11, 2019)（准许被告增加其首次在证言录取中提出的伪造抗辩）。在本案中，郭文贵先生对起诉书和修订后起诉书的答辩状否认了 PAX 几乎所有主张，包括有关争议文件的主张，使 PAX 自诉讼初期即知悉其将需要证明这些主张。（R128-38, 357-71）。因此，动议法院随口指出郭文贵先生未在其答辩状中明确主张“伪造”一词，并未为其阻止郭文贵先生就 PAX 的请求进行抗辩的决定提供任何额外支持。\n\n第二点\n动议法院驳回 PAX 未减轻其损害的抗辩，属于错误\n\n如第一点所述，下级判决应予撤销，因为动议法院不当地免除了 PAX 对其据以起诉的文件真实性负有的举证义务，并阻止郭文贵先生提出其抗辩。但即使姑且假定动议法院关于司法禁止反言的裁定正确，并且已就责任问题适当地作出简易判决，即便如此，该判决就其向 PAX 判给损害赔偿的部分仍应予撤销。动议法院通过简易方式解决损害赔偿问题并对郭文贵先生作出判决，属于错误。该法院在未举行听证或审判的情况下，在错误驳回郭文贵先生关于 PAX 未减轻其损害的抗辩后，判令郭文贵先生承担 PAX 请求的全部\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 登记于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 112 页，共 241 页\n\n金额。\n\n即使据称合同已被违约，PAX 这样的原告也不得寻求使其损害赔偿最大化（包括十年的 15% 利息），而不寻求合理机会以消除或减少由此产生的损害。在本案中，法院错误地作为法律问题驳回了郭文贵先生的抗辩，即 PAX 的损害大部分系其自身造成，因为 PAX 明知而未减轻本可避免的损失。该错误因动议法院未举行证据听证即对此问题作出裁定而进一步加重；仅在两个月前，该法院还曾在记录中明确表示，证据听证是必要的并将予举行。（NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 4, 6-7）。\n\n原告必须减轻其损害，而非寻求收取其本可避免的损失，这是香港法下的一项基本原则；PAX 所依赖文件援引的正是香港法，纽约法下亦是如此。正如郭文贵先生的香港法律专家宣誓书所证明（R3260-68, 4622-28，其中援引并附有大量香港法权威依据），“请求人必须采取一切合理步骤，以减轻因被告的不法行为对其造成的损失；对于其本可如此避免、但因不合理作为或不作为而未能避免的任何此类损失，请求人不得获得损害赔偿。简言之，请求人不得就可避免的损失获得赔偿。”（R4356）。正如该香港法律专家所证明，“当事人是否已采取一切合理步骤减轻其损失，主要是事实问题，而非法律问题。”（同上）。\n\n纽约法体现相同原则。在违约案件中，“受损害方负有减轻损害的义务。”White v. Farrell, 20 N.Y.3d 487, 499 (2013)。“[因]违约而产生的减轻损害义务，是一项源自普通法的义务。”Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. v. Everfoam Insulation Sys., Inc. 110 A.D.3d 680, 682 (2d Dep't 2013)。“[假定存在责任，][被告]如有的话，应有权限制损害赔偿，若原告未能作出‘合理努力以使因被告所称违约而造成的损害最小化。’”同上。“‘寻求损害赔偿的一方负有积极义务，即作出合理努力，使损害尽可能轻微。’”Wilmot v. State of N.Y., 32 N.Y.2d 164, 168 (1973)（引文略）；另见 Assouline Ritz 1 LLC v. Edward I. Mills & Associates, Architects, PC, 91 A.D.3d 473, 474 (1st Dep't 2012)（如被告证明原告未通过转售涉案财产减轻其损害，则被告有权获得损害赔偿的减少）。\n\n“因违约而受损害的一方必须作出合理努力以减轻其损害。该方是否采取合理行动以减轻其损害，是一个事实问题。”Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 117 A.D.2d 796, 797 (2d Dep't 1986)（引文略）；同见 Bernstein v. Freudman, 180 A.D.2d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 1992)。因此，无论香港法还是纽约法，均不允许原告无视减轻据称因违约所致损害的机会，然后向原告收取其本可避免的损失。\n\n但这正是 PAX 在本案中所为，也是动议法院错误允许其所为。2015 年，北京警方扣押了三套北京公寓。（R149）。在这种扣押程序下——其在美国法中似乎没有明确的对应制度——警方有权转让被扣押资产的所有权。（R3530-35）。北京警方提出协助 PAX，将北京公寓的所有权转让给 PAX。这些正是 PAX 所称 Shiny Times 已同意根据和解契据转让给 PAX 的公寓，以完全清偿其偿还据称由郭文贵先生担保的贷款的义务。\n\nPAX 明知而拒绝通过北京警方取得北京公寓的机会，转而选择向郭文贵先生个人提出巨额损害赔偿请求——此前 PAX 的一名人员曾出于明显的个人敌意，表示支持此举，因为“这会带来纯粹的满足感。”（R4579）。在这种情况下允许 PAX 根据一项九位数判决向郭文贵先生追偿，将是显失公平的。\n\nPAX 主张其曾协商取得北京公寓的权利。更具体而言，PAX 提交的文件规定，PAX 将以总计 \\$15 million 从 Beijing Pangu 购买北京公寓。（见 R147）。作为交换，原始 2011 Loan Facility 下的借款人 Shiny Times 将向原告偿还该 \\$15 million。（同上）。该交易将完全消灭据称根据 2011 loan facility letter 及相关担保所欠的债务。（R147）。换言之，在 PAX 提交的文件中，其同意其取得北京公寓所有权的价值等同于其所称应付给其的未偿金额。\n\n此后，PAX 获得了取得 Beijing Apartments（北京公寓）的机会——这正是其一直寻求实现的结果。Beijing Police（北京警方）自 February 2015 起扣押了北京公寓，并至少保留至 February 2017；在此期间，北京警方有权将产权转让给 PAX。(R3530-31)。北京警方提出解除任何转让限制，并将 PAX 登记为该等公寓的产权持有人。(See R4248-52)。PAX 人员报告称，北京警方“似乎热衷于这样做，因为这与他们为其他人所做的事情一致。”(R4360-61)。\n\nPAX 的内部电子邮件及其自身证人的证言表明，PAX 知道其有机会取得北京公寓的产权；其曾主张这正是其在基础交易中的目标，但其却选择起诉 Kwok（郭文贵）先生。例如，PAX 的首席运营官 Derek Crane（德里克·克兰）自 2007 年起即直接参与 Pangu Plaza（盘古广场）开发交易，并于 2015 年在 PAX 内部报告称：“警方表示，他们可以将该等单元转让给我们，任何付款将由我们与 Pangu 之间处理。他们说会回复提供更多详情，但似乎热衷于这样做，因为这与他们为其他人所做的事情一致。”(R4360-61)。Crane 在其证言中承认，尽管他知悉 PAX 有机会取得该等公寓的占有——他是“从与中国团队、法务团队以及可能还有财务团队的讨论中”得知此事——但他对此未采取任何行动，且不知道 PAX 的其他任何人曾采取行动。(R4328-31)。Crane 承认，在 mid-2015，PAX 决定不寻求减轻损失，转而“利用任何可能获得的资源，无论是法律顾问、警方，还是任何人，试图帮助直接从 Kwok 先生处追回”款项。(R4333)。\n\nPAX 的总法律顾问 Catherine Yang（凯瑟琳·杨）同样承认，PAX 从未寻求中国有关部门就北京公寓所提出的协助。(R4339-40)。组建并运营 PAX 的投资集团的集团总法律顾问兼董事总经理 Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯）亦作证称，他于 February 2015 得知该减轻损失机会，并得知北京警方曾提出协助转让该等公寓的产权，但无论当时或其后，他从未与警方交谈，也不知道有其他任何人曾与警方交谈。(R4344-46)。\n\nPAX 高级人员之间的大量内部电子邮件反映出，他们对于原告可以通过替代方式取得北京公寓感到热切。一封电子邮件称：“北京方面也有积极进展。警方不是说过他们会帮助我们取得该等单元吗？”(R4361)。这些承认表明，PAX 未能善意履行其考虑并采取合理减轻损失措施的义务。\n\n动议法院认定，由于所称最后一份延期协议已于 mid-2015 到期，因此在该日期之后不存在减轻损失的义务。(R12-14)。动议法院并未援引任何香港或纽约法律来支持该命题。期限届满并未终止 PAX 的减轻损失义务，因为缔约一方在违约后负有持续减轻损失的义务。(R4355-58, 4623-25)。See White v. Farrell, 20 N.Y.3d at 499。无论如何，若认为减轻损失机会出现的时间具有重要性，则关于该机会是在所称最后一次延期中的 July 31, 2015 截止日期之前还是之后出现，存在事实争议。PAX 在其修正起诉状中主张，该扣押发生于 2015，且两名 PAX 证人作证称其发生于 February 2015。(See R149, R3530-31, 4344-46)。\n\n动议法院表示，PAX 很“可能”没有通过取得该等公寓产权来减轻其损害的义务，因为这样做将使其产生自付费用，但其从未就此问题直接作出裁定。(R54-57)。然而，香港法律承认，在事实使此举合理的情况下，原告有时可能被要求支出款项以减轻损失。(R4628)。\n\n纽约州法院同样承认，受损害一方可能被要求支出款项以减轻其损害。例如，在 NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan, 276 A.D.2d 443 (1st Dep't 2000) 一案中，本院认定，被告卖方未能支付截至出售日期的房地产税，因而违反了公寓买卖合同；但原告买方未支付税款以取得该公寓的无瑕疵产权，故未遵守其合理减轻损失的义务。Id. at 443。正如 Malihan 案中的买方被要求通过支出费用解除税收留置权以减轻损失一样，本案中，PAX 的减轻损失义务要求其支付转让该等公寓产权所需的款项，以便原告获得其交易利益并减轻损害。See also Bibeau v. Ward, 228 A.D.2d 943, 946 (3d Dep't 1996)（认定被告未将财产登记在原告名下而违反合同后，原告通过支付本应由被告依合同承担的费用来减轻损失，作出了适当回应）。PAX 为减轻损失而合理支出的自付费用，仍可作为其合同损害赔偿的一部分获得追偿。See id.\n\n动议法院还认定，减轻损失义务不适用，因为 PAX 对 Kwok 先生的请求权源于一项所称的个人付款保证。但假定 PAX 提交的和解契据真实，PAX 同意接受贷款金额的偿还或北京公寓的产权，以清偿未履行义务。2015 年经延长的期限届满时，北京公寓产权转让的条件未得到满足，该和解契据即被违反。(R4626)。PAX 在该协议下负有减轻损失的义务，正如其在任何其他协议下所负的义务一样。(R4623-25)。尽管动议法院援引香港法律中减轻损失义务的一项狭窄例外，即所涉唯一义务为偿还债务时存在该例外，但 Kwok 先生的香港法律专家援引权威资料解释称，该限制“并不适用于本案所呈现的情形，即双方订立了一项后续协议以清偿债务，该协议涉及替代性偿还方式，例如不动产的买卖。”(R4624)。\n\n在 PAX 所依赖的所称协议中，PAX 已同意，北京公寓产权对其的价值足以清偿所称债务。因此，若 PAX 接受北京警方转让产权的提议，所称义务本应得到全额清偿，或许仅需补偿 PAX 为取得产权而支出的自付费用。或者，至少，PAX 已承认，若其取得北京公寓的产权，将获得可观的内在利润。一名 PAX 雇员指出，即使 PAX 为取得北京公寓需承担某些初始成本，“但那仍然是一个好价格”(R4360)，“低于市场价格”(R4348)，并将为 PAX 带来“即时增值”。(R4359)。这不仅会将 PAX 所主张的本金金额大幅降低，或者完全消除，或者至少减少数千万美元，而且还会减少 PAX 对该金额数年期年利率 15% 利息的请求——正是这种高利率的判决前利息，导致针对他的 \\$116 million 判决中的大部分金额。\n\n除 PAX 未通过接受北京警方转让北京公寓产权的提议来减轻其损害外，PAX 还获得了一项额外利益，该利益本应导致对其所称损害予以抵销。PAX 获得了北京公寓的钥匙——从而获得了该等公寓数年的占有。(See, e.g., R4336-38)。该等占有为 PAX 提供了价值，亦应导致对其所称损害予以抵销；动议法院作为法律问题认定其毫无价值，属于错误。(R15-16)。\n\n若动议法院曾就损害赔偿举行证据听证会或审判，证据本会证明，PAX 有充分机会通过取得北京公寓来减轻其损害，且若 PAX 如此行事，其请求将被消除或大幅减少。动议法院本应给予 Kwok 先生提出该等证据的机会，以证明 PAX 未减轻其损害的行为并不合理。由于其未如此行事，该判决应被撤销。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述全部理由，该判决应被撤销。\n\n日期：New York, New York September 2, 2021\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹及扎德勒律师事务所）\n\n360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 412-9500 mzauderer@ganfershore.com 被告上诉人 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok 的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 122 of 241\n\n印刷规格声明\n\n本人特此依据 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j) 证明，上述上诉状系使用 Microsoft Word 在计算机上制作。\n\n字体。使用的字体为比例间距字体，具体如下：\n\n字体名称：Times New Roman\n\n字号：14\n行距：双倍\n\n字数。该上诉状的总字数为 9,147，计入要点标题和脚注，不计入包含目录、引证目录、送达证明及本声明的页面。\n\n日期：September 2, 2021\n\n依据 CPLR § 5531 作出的声明\n\nNew York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）\n\nAppellate Division—First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告—被上诉人，\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—上诉人，\n\n—及—\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n1. 下级法院案件的索引号为 652077/17。\n\n2. 原始当事人的全名如上所列，未发生任何变更。\n\n3. 本诉讼在 New York County（纽约县）最高法院提起。\n\n4. 本诉讼约于 April 18, 2017 通过提交传票及起诉状而提起。约于 April 25, 2018 通过送达答辩状而形成争议。\n\n5. 本诉讼的性质和标的涉及违反合同。\n\n6. 本上诉针对本案于 February 3, 2021 登记的判决，并请求审查任何及所有必然影响终局判决的先前判决或命令。\n\n7. 本上诉基于完整复制的案卷提出。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 125 of 241\n\n证据附件 20\n\n拟由以下人员进行辩论：已提交：上诉分庭—第一部门 10/06/2021 12:42 PM 2021-00740 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 126 of 241\n\nANTON METLITSKY（安东·梅特利茨基） NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/06/2021\n\n（申请时间：15 Minutes）\n\nNew York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）\n\nAppellate Division—First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告—被上诉人，\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—上诉人，\n\n—及—\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n原告—被上诉人上诉状\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥麦文律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 (212) 326-2000 ssarnoff@omm.com emoss@omm.com ametlitsky@omm.com\n\n原告—被上诉人代理律师\n\nNew York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/17\n\n上诉案件编号：2021-00740\n\n目录　Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 127 of 241\n页码\n\n初步陈述　1\n\n提交的问题　5\n\n案件性质　6\n\nA.　事实背景　6\n\n1.　当事人之间的关系及PAX的初始贷款　6\n\n2.　2011年信贷安排及2011年个人保证　7\n\n3.　PAX与Kwok（郭文贵）努力解决未偿债务　8\n\n4.　PAX为追收债务所作的努力　10\n\nB.　Kwok一再依赖合同　11\n\n1.　Kwok自诉讼伊始即主张合同真实　11\n\n2.　Kwok在证据开示及重新扣押程序期间始终坚持其关于真实性的立场　15\n\nC.　Kwok突然否认合同的真实性　17\n\nD.　PAX关于简易判决及损害赔偿的动议　20\n\nE.　作出有利于PAX的判决及Kwok随后采取的规避策略　23\n\n论证　25\n\nI.　动议法院适当地禁止KWOK放弃其在整个诉讼期间所持的、合同真实这一长期立场。　26\n\nA.　动议法院基于司法禁止反言，在其自由裁量权范围内禁止Kwok在最后关头提出伪造主张。　26\n\n目录（续）　Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 128 of 241\n页码\n\nB.　Kwok亦因受其先前司法承认约束，而被禁止改变立场。　36\n\nC.　作为替代，本院应施加制裁，以禁止Kwok依赖伪证。　42\n\nD.　即使Kwok未被禁止主张伪造，PAX仍有权获得简易判决。　45\n\nII.　动议法院正确驳回了KWOK关于减轻损失的主张。　47\n\nA.　动议法院正确认定，PAX没有义务寻求从北京警方购买该等公寓的可能性。　48\n\n1.　PAX不负有减轻损失的义务。　48\n\n2.　Kwok未指出任何合理的减轻损失机会。　53\n\nB.　动议法院正确驳回了Kwok关于PAX持有公寓钥匙应抵销其所欠损害赔偿的主张。　56\n\n结论　57\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 129 of\n\n判例目录\n页码\n判例\n\n35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC,\n171 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dep't 2019)　27, 30\n\nAh Quin v. Cnty. of Kauai Dep't of Transp.,\n733 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 2013)　34\n\nBajaj v. Gen. Assurance Co.,\n18 Misc. 3d 25 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007)　38\n\nBaje Realty Corp. v. Cutler,\n32 A.D.3d 307 (1st Dep't 2006)　31\n\nBanco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgmt., Inc.,\n1 N.Y.3d 381 (2004)　46, 47\n\nBellino v. Bellino Constr. Co.,\n75 A.D.2d 630 (2d Dep't 1980)　41\n\nBibeau v. Ward,\n228 A.D.2d 943 (3d Dep't 1996)　55\n\nCafferty v. Thompson,\n223 A.D.2d 99 (3d Dep't 1996)　34\n\nCarr v. Caputo,\n114 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013)　31\n\nCasper v. Cushman & Wakefield,\n74 A.D.3d 669 (1st Dep't 2010)　29\n\nCatanese v. Lipschitz,\n44 A.D.2d 579 (2d Dep't 1974)　42\n\nCDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen,\n23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)　43\n\nCity of New York v. Black Garter,\n179 Misc. 2d 597, 685 N.Y.S.2d 606 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999), aff'd, 273\nA.D.2d 188 (2d Dep't 2000)　35\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 183-3\nFiled 04/06/22\nEntered 04/06/22 17:07:45\n\n判例目录\n（续）\n页码\n\nCorkran v. Orics Indus., Inc.,\n62 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 2018 WL 7568231 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) 27\n\nCzajka v. Dellehunt,\n125 A.D.3d 1177 (3d Dep't 2015)　43\n\nD&L Holdings v. Goldman Co.,\n287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep't 2001)　27, 28, 30\n\nEnv't Concern v. Larchwood Constr. Corp.,\n101 A.D.2d 591 (2d Dep't 1984)　3, 30\n\nFord Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp.,\n215 A.D.2d 435 (2d Dep't 1995)　35\n\nFreedman v. Chem. Constr. Corp.,\n43 N.Y.2d 260 (1977)　56\n\nGenger v. TPR Inv. Assocs., Inc.,\n182 A.D.3d 417 (1st Dep't 2020)　29\n\nGJF Constr., Inc. v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co.,\n89 A.D.3d 622 (1st Dep't 2011)　42\n\nGoodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,\n169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)　33\n\nGusinsky v. Genger,\n74 A.D.3d 539 (1st Dep't 2010)　53\n\nHartsdale Fire Dist. v. Eastland Constr., Inc.,\n65 A.D.3d 1345 (2d Dep't 2009)　29\n\nHonghui Kuang v. MetLife,\n\n99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dept. 1984)　40\n\nInter–Power of N.Y. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,\n208 A.D.2d 1073 (3d Dep't 1994)　27\n\n159 A.D.3d 878 (2d Dep't 2018) ......................................................................... 43\n\n判例目录　241\n（续）\n页码\n\nKarasik v. Bird,\n104 A.D.2d 758 (1st Dep't 1984)　29\n\nLorenzo v. Kahn,\n100 A.D.3d 1480 (4th Dep't 2012)　29\n\nMaas v. Cornell Univ.,\n253 A.D.2d 1 (3d Dep't 1998), aff'd, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999)　29\n\nMacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,\n182 A.D.3d 514, (1st Dep't 2020)　31\n\nMatter of People v. Telehublink Corp.,\n301 A.D.2d 1006 (3d Dep't 2003)　47\n\nMontefiore Med. Ctr. v. Crest Plaza LLC,\n24 Misc.3d 1201, 2009 WL 1675994 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009), aff'd, 83\nA.D.3d 1016 (2d Dep't 2011)　30\n\nMPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,\n166 A.D.3d 13 (1st Dep't 2018)　31\n\nNat'l Commc'ns Ass'n, Inc. v. AT&T,\n2001 WL 99856 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001)　55\n\nNestor v. Britt,\n270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000)　27, 28, 32, 33\n\nNew Dance Grp. Studio, Inc. v. Seltzer,\n293 A.D.2d 298 (1st Dep't 2002)　47\n\nNYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan,\n276 A.D.2d 443 (1st Dep't 2000)　54\n\nOlszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,\n18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)　29, 30\n\nPac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan,\n160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)　15\n\nPatmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC,\n189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020)　31\n\n判例目录　241\n（续）\n页码\n\nPeople v. Brown,\n98 N.Y.2d 226 (2002)　36, 46\n\nPeyton v. State of Newburgh, Inc.,\n14 A.D.3d 51 (1st Dep't 2004)　47\n\nRahman v. Smith,\n40 A.D.3d 613 (2d Dep't 2007)　37\n\nTozzi v. Long Island R.R. Co.,\n170 Misc. 2d 606 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996), aff'd, 247 A.D.2d 466 (2d Dep't\n1998)　35\n\nWells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,\n113 A.D.3d 513 (1st Dep't 2014)　31\n\n成文法\n\nCPLR 2104　40\n\nCPLR 3123(a)　37, 38\n\nCPLR 3212(b)　25\n\nCPLR 327(a)　12\n\n其他权威资料\n\nAuthentic, Merriam-Webster, http>/dictionary/authentic　40\n\n新闻稿，SEC Charges Three Media Companies with Illegal Offerings\nof Stock and Digital Assets (Sept. 13, 2021),\nhttp　24\n\n论著\n\nPrince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-215 (11th ed.)　36, 37, 40\n\n初步陈述\n\n本次上诉延续了被告—上诉人Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）（“Kwok”）在本案诉讼全过程中所采取的模式：由于对原告—被上诉人Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）提出的违约请求没有任何善意抗辩，Kwok试图通过嘲弄司法制度来逃避其债务。本院应当制止这一行为。\n\n2011年3月，Kwok就其一家公司欠付PAX的逾$46 million债务签署了一份个人保证。多年来，Kwok规避PAX的追收努力，该债务从未偿还过任何部分。尽管动议法院于2020年9月就实体问题判决PAX胜诉，并于2021年2月3日裁定损害赔偿逾$116 million——该金额包括持续累积的利息，是目前应付PAX的金额——此类努力至今仍在继续。Kwok未提供担保以在上诉期间中止该判决，但同时拒绝向PAX支付动议法院认定其所欠款项中的哪怕一分钱（甚至拒绝回复PAX的判决催款函）。相反，Kwok采取了令人不安的不诚实及拖延策略模式，以阻挠PAX的追收能力，包括利用空壳公司隐匿其资产，在公然蔑视动议法院命令的情况下将其游艇（“Lady May”）藏匿于本辖区之外，以及阻挠PAX与追收相关的正当证据开示工作。动议法院在四年诉讼中已对Kwok的种种伎俩极为熟悉，曾多次谴责Kwok的“空壳把戏”、“诉讼花招”和“欺瞒”，以及其多次“误导法院”的企图。R.4425, 4428.\n\n在实体问题上没有任何合理的法律或事实抗辩，Kwok遂将精力投入于逃避债务及嘲弄动议法院的管辖权。如其上诉状所充分显示，Kwok的违约显而易见。因此，一如既往，Kwok转而采用荒诞手段，在本案进行数年后突然于其实体问题证言中作证称，构成本案基础的合同——他从自己的文件中将其提交入案卷、其一再承认真实性、且其在诉讼早期积极加以依赖的合同——实际上是伪造的，甚至一头“猪”也能看出这一点。\n\nKwok关于涉案合同实际上系伪造的主张，或许是其操纵——实际上也是嘲弄——本州司法机关的最肆无忌惮的努力。自本案诉讼开始以来，Kwok始终向动议法院及本院表示，涉案合同真实无误。诉讼伊始，他便向动议法院提交了同一批合同的副本，并主张其中包含的香港法律选择条款要求法院以不方便法院为由驳回案件——动议法院接受了该主张。本院基于法律理由撤销了动议法院的裁定，但从未怀疑——Kwok也从未请求本院质疑——由Kwok本人提交的合同的真实性。事实上，多年来，依赖合同真实性一直是Kwok诉讼策略的标志：他一再主张该等合同已得到实质履行，在答复PAX的承认请求时承认合同的真实性，在证据听证会前另行约定合同的真实性，并作出许多其他明确的司法承认，这些承认使其受一项始终显而易见的事实立场所约束：即，该等协议——其副本由Kwok从自己的文件中提供，并作为合法文件向法院提交——确实真实有效。不出所料，亦有大量书面证据——包括PAX与Kwok的香港律师之间数十份同期往来函件——证明该等合同确实真实存在，且由Kwok签署。\n\n此类行为显然与有效运作的司法制度不相容，这正是动议法院完全有理由依据司法禁止反言原则，禁止Kwok改变立场并质疑合同真实性的原因。Kwok的行为是该原则旨在防止的那类不公平行为的夸张版本——其体现的原则是，“不应允许诉讼当事人……引导法院以某种方式认定某一事实”，继而主张“同一事实应以其他方式认定”。Env't Concern v. Larchwood Constr. Corp., 101 A.D.2d 591, 593 (2d Dep't 1984)（引文略）。Kwok已成功说服动议法院，该等合同真实到足以要求法院以不方便法院为由驳回案件；如今仅因如果合同以某种方式成为伪造品会对其更有利，他便不得获准推翻该立场。Kwok对该直接结论提出的法律异议——其中主要包括其荒谬主张，即司法禁止反言仅适用于试图在先前程序中操纵法院的当事人，而不适用于试图操纵其仍在其面前进行诉讼的该同一法院的当事人——毫无根据。即使动议法院可能选择了最显而易见的原则——司法禁止反言——来驳回Kwok的图谋，PAX在动议法院提出的其他众多原则亦独立要求同一结果，且下文将对此作详细阐述。动议法院就实体问题作出的简易判决应予维持。\n\n郭文贵的唯一另一项论点——仅涉及损害赔偿问题，而非责任问题——同样毫无根据。根据双方为尝试解决其持续数年的贷款纠纷而订立的一项协议，如果郭文贵无偿将北京三套公寓的所有权转让给PAX，令PAX随后可以转售该等公寓，则郭文贵即可清偿其债务。郭文贵主张，法院应当降低合同损害赔偿金额，因为PAX未能寻求一项所谓的减轻损害机会，即可能与北京警方合作，以$17 million的成本取得三套公寓单元；根据双方合同，PAX本可无偿取得该等公寓单元。该主张因多项理由而错误，包括根据香港法律的明确规则及无争议事实，PAX并无减轻损害的义务。郭文贵就减轻损害提出的唯一其他论点——即持有公寓钥匙对PAX具有某种未具体说明的价值，而PAX实际需要并明确约定取得的是使其能够出售公寓的合法产权——同样不足以抵御简易判决。\n\n下述裁判应予维持。\n\n争议问题\n\n1. 动议审理法院在禁止郭文贵对某些合同的真实性提出争议时，是否滥用其自由裁量权；此前郭文贵在多年诉讼中始终坚持该等合同真实，曾在多份诉状中作为该等合同真实的保证人，并基于该等陈述获得法院作出的有利裁定；且无论如何，仅作出伪造这一毫无依据的主张亦不足以抵御简易判决。\n\n答：动议审理法院未滥用其自由裁量权。\n\n2. 动议审理法院认定PAX没有义务寻求一项推测性的机会，即向北京警方购买房地产以减轻其损害，此项认定在法律上是否有误；其中，(1) PAX不受任何有效合同项下减轻损害义务的约束；且(2) 所谓的减轻损害机会将要求PAX作出不合理的支出。\n\n答：动议审理法院并无错误。\n\n案件性质\n\nA. 事实背景\n\n1. 双方关系及PAX的初始贷款\n\na. 2008年初，郭文贵与PAX的代表会面，讨论取得资金以完成北京盘古广场的建设；该房地产项目由郭文贵及其公司开展。R.1420 ¶1. PAX同意分两期向郭文贵的公司出借$100 million——2008年2月的一笔$30 million贷款，以郭文贵的个人保证为条件；以及(ii) 2008年3月的一笔$70 million贷款，PAX据此取得该房地产项目的股权作为担保。R.1420 ¶2.\n\nb. 在随后两年中，双方订立了一系列还款延期及相关协议。R.1422-1424 ¶¶11-18. 2009年末，郭文贵的实体偿还了应付PAX的$148 million中的约三分之二，并同意其余余额尚未偿还且将继续计息。R.1423 ¶15. 截至2011年，包括累计利息在内的未偿债务总额超过$46 million。R.1425 ¶23.\n\n2. 2011年贷款授信协议及2011年个人保证\n\na. 2011年3月16日，PAX与一家由郭文贵控制、名为Shiny Times Limited（以下简称“Shiny Times”）的实体订立了一项新的融资安排（“2011年贷款授信协议”），郭文贵再次为该协议提供保证（“2011年个人保证”）。这些合同明确取代并替换了双方此前的合同，约定应付款项为$46,426,489，且在2012年6月30日还款日之前按年利率15%计息。R.2377 ¶¶3-6. 根据2011年个人保证，郭文贵“不可撤销且无条件地……向PAX保证[Shiny Times]在[2011年贷款授信协议]项下的[义]务得到适时、按期履行，并同意在PAX提出要求后，他将立即向PAX支付所有到期但未支付的[义]务。”R.2388 ¶2.1. 个人保证还赋予PAX获得补偿的权利，包括其为执行该保证所支出的律师费。R.2390 ¶5.3.\n\n2011年贷款授信协议由郭文贵代表Shiny Times签署，其中载有法律选择条款，规定其受香港法律管辖。R.2380 ¶20, R.2382. 2011年个人保证由郭文贵以其本人名义签署，同样载有规定其受香港法律管辖的条款。R.2393 ¶10, R.2395. 郭文贵和Shiny Times就该等协议由外部法律顾问——香港律师事务所Stevenson, Wong & Co.（以下简称“Stevenson Wong”）——代理。R.1432 ¶83.\n\nb. Shiny Times和郭文贵分别未能在2012年6月30日截止日前，依据2011年贷款授信协议和2011年个人保证作出任何付款。R.1427 ¶¶29-30.\n\n3. PAX与郭文贵尝试解决未偿债务\n\na. 为解决未偿债务，双方订立了一系列和解协议；由于郭文贵及其公司未能履行义务，每一项协议最终均未成功。R. 1428-35. 与2011年贷款授信协议和2011年个人保证一样，这些合同受香港法律管辖，Stevenson Wong再次就该等合同代理郭文贵及其实体。R.1432 ¶83, R.1433 ¶49.\n\n与本案相关的是，2013年4月19日，PAX、Shiny Times、郭文贵以及另一家由郭文贵控制、名为Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资公司，以下简称“Beijing Pangu”）的实体订立了《就2011年3月16日融资函所作的和解契据》（“2013年和解契据”）。R.2530. 根据2013年和解契据，双方同意，Shiny Times在2011年贷款授信协议项下对PAX的债务——当时已达$52 million——将予以解除，以换取PAX无需净支付任何款项即可取得北京盘古广场三套公寓（“该等公寓”）的所有权。R.2531-42. PAX拟出售该等公寓以收回其应收债务。R.2087-88.\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 141 页，共 241 页\n\n然而，至关重要的是，2013年和解契据规定，只有在2013年7月21日前满足十项先决条件，和解才会生效。R.2534-35 ¶3.2. 先决条件包括，除其他事项外，双方订立购买协议；抵押权得到完全解除；以及最重要的是，北京盘古交付合法产权转让的证明，即“房屋所有权证”。同上；见R.1431 ¶43. 如任何先决条件未在截止日前得到满足，2013年和解契据规定，“本契据所设想的全部和解应予终止，双方确认，[2011年贷款授信协议]应恢复并完全有效。”R.2535 ¶3.4. 届时，“Shiny Times应按照[2011年贷款授信协议]的条款和条件，负责清偿[债务的]全部未偿[金]额及其累计的任何利息。”同上。因此，根据其条款，2011年个人保证亦将恢复效力。R.2388 ¶2.1\n\nb. 截至2013年7月31日，并非所有先决条件均已满足。R.1431 ¶46. 但在双方对2013年和解契据作出四次延期期间，郭文贵继续拖延PAX，其中包括于2013年12月3日、2014年5月15日、2014年7月11日和2015年2月10日订立的补充契据。R.1432 ¶47. 其中最后一项协议规定，先决条件必须在2015年6月30日前满足。R.2720 ¶2.1(a).\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 142 页，共 241 页\n\n在此过程中，郭文贵确实满足了部分先决条件。例如，2013年11月，PAX取得了该等公寓的钥匙并签署了《物业验收确认通知》；北京盘古签署了《房屋交付通知》；双方共同签署了《物业购买合同》。R.1433 ¶50. 然而，截至最终延展的截止日2015年6月30日，其他先决条件仍未满足——且至今仍未满足——其中最关键的是合法产权的转让。R.1434-5 ¶¶55-60; R.2691.\n\nc. 因此，根据2013年和解契据第四次延期的条款，自2015年6月30日起，和解契据终止，2011年贷款授信协议和2011年个人保证恢复生效。R.2719- 21. 随后，于2015年8月3日，一名PAX员工在内部报告称，北京警方曾就可能协助完成该等公寓转让一事与PAX沟通。R.1433 ¶63; R.3165.\n\n4. PAX收取债务的努力\n\na. 由于Shiny Times未能偿还2011年贷款授信协议项下任何到期款项，PAX于2015年10月16日向郭文贵发送书面催款通知，寄送至2011年个人保证中载明的其地址，要求其立即支付当时的未偿债务$71,818,633.44。R.2392 § 9.2; 见R.3128- 3129. 郭文贵从未作出回应。R.1436 ¶66.\n\n2016年2月19日，PAX按照2011年贷款授信协议规定的程序，向Shiny Times发送催款函，要求支付当时到期应付的$82,219,404.08。R.2380 ¶9, R.2383, R.3130-32. Shiny Times同样从未作出回应。R.1436 ¶66.\n\nb. 2016年2月29日，为收回其债务，PAX在英属维尔京群岛提起诉讼，要求将Shiny Times进行清算。R.1436 ¶69. 但郭文贵比PAX先行一步。尽管PAX成功使Shiny Times被清盘，但其无法收回2011年融资函或个人保证项下任何应付款项，因为事实证明，至少在当时，Shiny Times是一家没有资产的空壳公司。R.1436 ¶70.\n\nB. 郭文贵对合同的反复依赖\n\n郭文贵就实体问题提出的唯一论点（在上诉中再次提出）是，上述PAX、郭文贵及郭文贵实体之间的合同实际上是不真实的伪造文件。该立场与郭文贵自诉讼开始以来反复且一贯采取的立场相悖。\n\n1. 郭文贵自诉讼开始即主张合同真实\n\na. PAX得知郭文贵已在纽约市居住，而郭文贵在该市拥有大量资产后，于2017年4月18日在下级法院提起诉讼，主张其因未履行2011年个人保证而构成违约。R.98. 当时，未偿债务约为$88 million。R.107 ¶48.\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 183-3 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 144 页，共 241 页\n\nb. 郭文贵当时由Boies Schiller Flexner LLP代理，他并未答复起诉状，而是于2017年6月29日根据CPLR 327(a)提出以不方便法院为由驳回案件的动议。Dkt. No. 8.1 该动议以郭文贵在多年诉讼中持续坚持的立场为基础：该等合同是真实的。事实上，郭文贵关于不方便法院的书状细致列明了他订立所有争议合同的行为——从PAX于2008年提供的$30 million贷款，到2011年贷款授信协议和2011年个人保证，再到2013年和解契据及其后续延期，id. at 1, 3-5——并主张本案应在香港审理，因为除其他原因外，“双方在香港或中国订立了每一项该等协议”，且“每一项该等协议均含有法律选择条款，规定该等协议受香港法律管辖”，id. at 4; 亦见id. at 5, 9. 郭文贵的律师亦在该动议的口头辩论中向法院陈述：“争议合同主要在香港签署，所有合同均受香港[法律]管辖。该等合同还载有法律选择条款，[规定]有关[该等合同项下]的争议应在香港提起……。”Dkt. No. 106 at 4:12–19.\n\n为支持该动议，Kwok（郭文贵）还提交了一整套当事人之间的协议，其中包括但不限于2011 Loan Facility（2011年融资协议）、2011 Personal\n\n1 除非另有说明，对“Dkt. No. _”的引用均指下级法院案卷，即 NYSCEF Index No. 652077/2017。\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 已于 04/06/22 提交 已于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记 第 145 页，共 241 页\n\nGuarantee（2011年个人保证）以及2013 Deed of Settlement（2013年和解契据）及其延期协议。R.3166-67.2 该等文件作为Kwok的“指定人员”Fiona Yu（俞菲奥娜）所作书面声明的附件提交；她表示，该提交材料“支持郭先生基于其对2008年订立的融资安排及其‘相关交易’的‘个人知情’和对相关记录的审阅而提出的驳回动议”。R.3166（下称“Yu书面声明”）。该书面声明称，该等文件副本“真实且准确”。同上。Kwok在其证言中明确承认，他“授权[Yu女士]代表[其本人]提交该宣誓书”。R.801。\n\nc. 于2017年7月7日，在Kwok依据不方便法院原则提出的动议尚待裁决期间，PAX提出了判决前扣押动议，希望防止Kwok通过出售或转让其位于Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的纽约豪华公寓（下称“该住宅”），或持有该住宅的Genever空壳公司，来逃避其合同义务，并将所得款项隐匿至其众多离岸账户或控股公司之一。Dkt. No. 28.3 在对该动议的反对意见中，Kwok重申其立场，即有关合同\n\n2 Kwok还在证据开示中提交了上述每一份合同，并以“KWOK”Bates编号加盖标记。R.1085-1180。\n\n3 Kwok于2015年3月初以约$67.5 million现金购买该住宅，当时Kwok对PAX的债务超过$70 million。R.2508, 2516 ¶8。\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 已于 04/06/22 提交 已于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记 第 146 页，共 241 页\n\n是真实的；其主张，PAX不太可能在实体问题上胜诉，因为Kwok已实质履行2013 Deed of Settlement——该抗辩与Kwok关于不方便法院原则的论点一样，均以合同真实以及Kwok已履行合同中规定的若干先决条件为前提。见R.3110（主张“2013年4月19日Deed of Settlement可能已获‘实质履行’……因为三套北京盘古公寓的购买协议已签署，且该等公寓已交付给PAX LP的实体”）。\n\nd. 于2017年9月20日，动议法院依据Kwok多次就合同真实性作出的陈述，准许了Kwok基于不方便法院原则提出的动议。Dkt. No. 102。法院对合同中的法律选择条款给予重大权重，并认定纽约对裁决该争议缺乏足够利益，因为该交易尤其“受香港法律管辖”。同上，第1页。因此，法院驳回该诉讼，并以无实际意义为由驳回PAX的扣押动议。同上，第2页；Dkt. No. 103。\n\ne. PAX向本院提起上诉。Dkt. No. 107。Kwok的上诉状再次以合同中法律选择条款的有效性为前提，多次陈述合同真实，并应在裁定不方便法院原则动议时予以依赖。见Kwok FNC Appeal Br.（Appellate Division, First Department, Jan. 26, 2018），第2、5-8、20页（向本院陈述，“本案所涉违约合同请求源于几乎完全在香港或中国谈判并签署的合同和协议”，同上，第2页；且“上述每一份协议均载有法律选择条款，规定适用香港法律”，同上，第6-7页）。\n\n于2018年4月5日，本院撤销了动议法院准许不方便法院原则动议的裁定。Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)。本院撤销并非基于否定Kwok关于合同真实的立场。相反，本院接受合同真实为本案的基础前提，并确认“本违约合同诉讼中所涉协议涉及一个中国房地产开发项目，且其中大多数（尽管并非全部）是在香港或中国谈判并签署”。同上，第453页。尽管如此，本院认定应基于其他理由撤销——即本诉讼与纽约之间具有足够联系，因此纽约并非不方便法院。同上。\n\n2. Kwok在整个证据开示及重新进行的扣押程序中坚持其关于真实性的立场\n\na. 随着本案恢复列入动议法院的案卷，当事人进行了证据开示。于2018年6月11日，Kwok提交了对PAX承认请求的答复，其中承认其“签署”了多份协议；这些协议的日期及当事人与作为Fiona Yu为支持Kwok驳回动议所作书面声明附件的协议相同。R.411。Kwok的答复再次明确承认其签署了目前争议中的每一份关键协议。见R.424（关于2011 Loan Facility，承认“Shiny Times和PAX于2011年签署了一项协议”）；R.427（关于2011 Personal Guarantee，承认“其于2011年签署了一项协议”）；R.433（关于2013 Deed of Settlement，承认“其、Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu和PAX签署了一项日期为2013年4月19日的协议”）；R.445, 453, 461, 469（关于Deed of Settlement的延期协议，承认“其、Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu和PAX签署了一项日期为2013年12月3日的协议”；“其、Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu和PAX签署了一项日期为2014年5月15日的协议”；“其、Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu和PAX签署了一项日期为2014年7月11日的协议”；以及“其、Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu和PAX签署了一项日期为2015年2月10日的协议”）。\n\nb. 随后，PAX重新提出动议，要求扣押该住宅及持有该住宅的空壳公司。Kwok再次在对该动议的反对意见中主张，判决前扣押并无依据，因为其已遵守2013 Deed of Settlement的部分先决条件，“2013年4月19日Deed of Settlement可能已获实质履行”。Dkt. 167 at 21。Kwok还主张，“尽管PAX\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 已于 04/06/22 提交 已于 04/06/22 17:07:45 登记 第 149 页，共 241 页\n\n实体已正式接受该等公寓，现有案卷仍不清楚为何仍签署补充契据”。同上（原文强调）。同样，在口头辩论中，Kwok的律师主张，PAX未能解释，为何“不可能存在通过交付公寓以偿还债务的协议之实质履行”。Dkt. No. 199 at 19:17–19。\n\nKwok还在当事人为2019年4月关于扣押的证据听证会预先提交给法院的一封联合信函中，明确约定合同真实性。Dkt. No. 325。在该信函中，Kwok表示其“并不争议原告任何证据的真实性”，同上——其中包括所有关键合同，包括2011 Loan Facility、2011 Personal Guarantee和2013 Deed of Settlement，见Dkt. No. 326。\n\n因此，在两年多的诉讼期间，Kwok始终维持并正式向动议法院及本院陈述其关于合同真实的立场，从而塑造了证据开示的进程，并据此从动议法院获得有利裁定。\n\nC. Kwok突然否认合同真实性\n\na. 在本案提起两年半后，Kwok于2019年11月25日就实体问题接受讯问。在该讯问中，Kwok首次声称所有关键合同均为其从未见过的伪造文件，其在其中的签名均系伪造。例如，就2011 Loan Facility而言，Kwok声称“百分之百不是我的签名”。R.674。同样，就2011 Personal Guarantee而言，Kwok断言：“我以生命保证，这不是我的签名。”R.679。至于2013 Deed of Settlement——正是其曾连续两年主张已获实质履行的同一协议——Kwok抗议称：“任何中国人，甚至任何中国猪——我是说，这太荒谬了。太荒谬了。你伪造这样的东西，试图指控我。”R.748。关于2013年12月3日的Deed of Settlement延期协议，Kwok宣称其“[b]百分之百是伪造的。你疯了吗？连猪都能看出这不是同一个人签的。”R.754。同样，就2014年7月11日的延期协议，他称：“百分之百，它们是假的。对我来说，这是震惊。这是我第一次见到这种文件。哇。”R.757。他就另外两份Deed of Settlement延期协议作出了类似证言。见R.756, 761。\n\nb. 针对Kwok突然改变立场，PAX致函Kwok当时的律师Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所），要求其纠正明显属于伪证的证言。R.500-03。PAX在信中详细说明，鉴于Kwok先前的陈述和行为，该证言为何显然为虚假，并要求Hodgson Russ通过不在法院文件中主张新编造的伪造抗辩，以及劝告Kwok撤回虚假证言，来处理其客户的伪证问题。同上。\n\nHodgson Russ拒绝后，PAX提出制裁动议。R.372。PAX请求对Kwok及Hodgson Russ施加金钱制裁，并进一步主张，应基于三项独立理由禁止Kwok在后续程序中主张其伪证性的伪造主张：第一，作为对误导行为的制裁；第二，因为Kwok不得否认其先前的司法承认；第三，基于司法禁止反言原则。R.395-99。\n\n为支持其动议，PAX指出案卷中存在压倒性证据证明Kwok的证言属于伪证，包括上述在不方便法院原则动议及扣押程序中作出的先前陈述和承认（包括对真实性的明示约定），以及Kwok对PAX承认请求的答复。R.383-86。PAX还向动议法院提交了大量来自Stevenson Wong（黄史蒂文森）的通信；Stevenson Wong是Kwok的香港律师，曾就该等协议代表Kwok，而该等通信确认合同的真实性。R.386-88。\n\n动议法院于2020年7月7日就PAX的制裁动议举行听证，并于当日稍后作出裁定。R.59。虽然法院未对Kwok施加制裁，但法院裁定，Kwok“受司法禁止反言约束，不得在反对原告简易判决动议时或在审判中，对被告Kwok此前在本院程序中曾支持的文件真实性提出异议”。同上。法院未裁决Kwok是否还会因其本人先前司法承认的拘束效力而被禁止主张伪造。\n\nD. PAX的简易判决及损害赔偿动议\n\na. 随后，PAX就其违约合同请求提出简易判决动议。4 R.1390。值得注意的是，Kwok就责任问题的唯一答复，是请求动议法院重新考虑其司法禁止反言裁定。R.3218-22。Kwok还主张，由于PAX减轻损害方面存在所谓事实争议，因此不应就损害赔偿作出简易判决。R.3224-28。\n\n2020年9月15日，在前一日进行口头辩论后，动议审理法院作出命令，就违约请求的责任问题准予PAX简易判决。R.50。法院首先重申其关于司法禁止反言的裁定，并说明：“Kwok（郭文贵）近期未经佐证地声称该等协议系伪造，这与其在本案诉讼中先前的立场不一致”——法院在就不方便法院动议作出有利于Kwok的裁定时，必然采纳了该立场，因为“Kwok主张本案应予驳回，转而在香港解决，理由是该等协议表面上受香港法律管辖，这必然要求Kwok提出论点并要求法院接受：该等协议真实有效而非伪造，尽管Kwok现主张其为伪造。”R.53-54。\n\n4 PAX并未就其起诉书中的第二项罪名项请求简易判决，该项涉及针对Kwok的两家Genever空壳公司的揭开公司面纱请求。\n案号22-50073 文档183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第153页，共241页\n\n随后，法院适用双方协议中明确无歧义的条款，并认定：(i) PAX“已证明，而被告Kwok未能反驳，2013年《和解契据》中的若干先决条件未获满足”，因此2011年《贷款融资协议》和2011年《个人担保》恢复生效；以及(ii)“Kwok并未主张其本人或Shiny Times曾根据2011年《贷款融资协议》或2011年《个人担保》支付任何款项以清偿债务”，因此，Kwok根据2011年《个人担保》应就违约向PAX承担责任。R.54-56。\n\n最后，法院对Kwok的减损论点表示重大怀疑，并指出，“双方当事人提交的书面证据”表明，“在警方协助下取得三套公寓占有的所谓机会，仅在2015年6月之后才出现”，而此时“2013年《和解契据》已整体失效，2011年《个人担保》完全有效。”R.55。无论如何，由于减损论点“涉及损害赔偿，而非责任”，法院保留对该问题的裁决。R.55-56。\n\nb. 在就责任问题获得有利判决后，2020年9月21日，PAX基于双方无歧义合同条款所决定的简单算术，提出了一项直接的损害赔偿动议。R.4121。作为回应，Kwok重提其减损论点。R.4254。\n\n案号22-50073 文档183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第154页，共241页\n\n动议审理法院驳回了Kwok的论点。R.12。法院重申其先前的认定，即“根据双方提交的书面证据……北京市警方提供的机会仅在2015年6月之后才出现，当时《和解契据》已经届满”，并说明：“《和解契据》从未被‘违反’，因为《和解契据》从未生效，原因是截至2015年6月30日先决条件尚未满足。”R.14-15。无论如何，法院认定，无论北京市警方提供该机会的时间为何，Kwok均不能胜诉，并说明：\n\n从法律上讲，警方何时向原告提供该机会并无区别。若是在2015年6月30日之前，原告并不知道Kwok是否会履行先决条件并向原告转让该等公寓，因此并无需要减损的损失，也没有理由寻求取得该等公寓的替代方法。若是在2015年6月30日之后，2011年《个人担保》已经生效，且根据香港法律，减损原则不适用于债务偿还请求[]。\n\nR.15。法院还以进一步理由驳回Kwok的论点，即“在原告本应以零美元取得该等公寓转让（以清偿债务）的情况下，提议以\\$17 M向北京市警方购买该等公寓”，并不构成合理的减损义务。Id.。最后，法院认定，Kwok关于鉴于PAX持有该等公寓钥匙而应减少损害赔偿的“结论性主张”，“不足以从法律上阻却判决”，且无关紧要，因为PAX协商取得的并非仅是该等公寓的占有，而是为转售所必需的无瑕疵产权。R.16。由于Kwok的每项减损论点均无依据，动议审理法院裁定PAX有权依2011年《个人担保》获得合同损害赔偿及利息。Id.。\n\nE. 作出有利于PAX的判决及Kwok随后采取的规避策略\n\na. 2021年2月3日，动议审理法院对Kwok作出总额为\\$116,402,019.57的判决，其中包括：(i) 根据合同应付的约\\$46.4 million，(ii) 约\\$69.4 million的合同利息，以及(iii) 按法定利率计算的约\\$526.6 thousand判决后利息（仍在继续累积）。R.6-7。如上所述，PAX还依合同有权获得为执行合同而产生的律师费。R.2390 §5.3；见R.7。\n\nb. 当然，迄今为止Kwok已竭尽所能避免支付该判决。尽管他未提交保证金以在上诉期间中止该判决，Kwok仍公然无视并拒绝支付其所欠款项的任何部分，甚至公开在社交媒体上表示其无意如此。见Dkt. Nos. 754, 755（详述Kwok在YouTube视频中吹嘘PAX“won't a get a dime” of his money）。相反，Kwok将其时间和精力用于阻挠PAX正当的追偿工作。他的主要策略是将资产隐藏在由家庭成员持有的空壳公司中，使其声称个人没有资产，同时又可随意动用数百万美元资助其奢华生活方式及\n\n案号22-50073 文档183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第156页，共241页\n\n巨额法律费用。见，例如，Dkt. No. 750 at 2, 6-7；Dkt. No. 833 at 9:35-10:3；Dkt. Nos. 764-68（记载Kwok将空壳公司Golden Spring New York Ltd.作为个人钱袋使用）。\n\n事实上，在就针对其尚待处理的政府调查援引《第五修正案》反对自证其罪的权利之前，5 见Dkt. No. 760，Kwok——尽管自称为亿万富翁——表示除拥有其住所的空壳公司外，他没有任何资产。Dkt. No. 756 at 9；另见Dkt. No. 580 at 101:3-5（Kwok证言称，“实际上，根据法律”，其在“美国”“没有”“资产。”）。Kwok为避免履行该判决所采取的其他手段包括：为其持有该住所所通过的一家空壳公司申请存在疑问的破产；阻挠——并使其关联人士及空壳公司阻挠——PAX正当的与追偿有关的证据开示请求；以及公然违反动议审理法院明确的限制令，将其游艇“Lady May”秘密转移出本辖区。见Dkt. Nos. 757, 728, 846。\n\n在整个诉讼期间目睹这一不当行为模式后，动议审理法院多次认定Kwok实施了“大量的\n\n5 三家与Kwok有关联的媒体公司近期同意支付逾\\$539 million，以和解美国证券交易委员会（SEC）提出的指控。见新闻稿，SEC Charges Three Media Companies with Illegal Offerings of Stock and Digital Assets (Sept. 13, 2021), http\n案号22-50073 文档183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第157页，共241页\n\n投机取巧、大量的欺瞒，以及对法院命令的一些公然蔑视，”R.4428；见，例如，Dkt. No. 728 at 2（在一项命令中称，“显然，在本院就游艇‘Lady May’的所在地和所有权进行的程序中，存在不可容忍的大量投机取巧、欺瞒和欺诈”）；R.4425（称“Kwok先生曾试图误导法院”，且“正如原告所主张，Kwok先生正在就其资产玩一场空壳游戏”）；Dkt. No. 833 at 9:2-3（称“Kwok先生认为这些法院程序是一场他想要玩的规避游戏。”）。\n\nc. 2021年3月2日，Kwok在其持续进行的规避和拖延游戏中又部署了一项策略：本次上诉。R.3。基于下文所述理由，Kwok的每项上诉论点均无依据。\n\n论证\n\n如“诉因……已充分确立，足以使法院依法指示作出有利于任何一方当事人的判决”，则“应准予”简易判决动议。CPLR 3212(b)。PAX显然满足该标准——毕竟，Kwok未履行其在目前有效的2011年《个人担保》项下明确无歧义义务一事不存在争议。见上文第10页。因此，动议审理法院基于Kwok明确的违约行为，适当地准予简易判决，R.57，并依合同的明文条款裁定损害赔偿，R.12。\n案号22-50073 文档183-3 提交日期04/06/22 录入日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第158页，共241页\n\nKwok就责任提出的唯一论点是，其本人向法院提交并在书状、诉状及口头辩论中反复援引的合同，实际上是Kwok从未见过甚至从未听说过的伪造文件。动议审理法院适当地禁止Kwok采取该不诚实立场。Kwok还质疑动议审理法院关于损害赔偿的裁定，但该法院完全正确地根据无争议且具有决定性的香港法律驳回了Kwok的减损论点，该法律明确表明PAX不负有减损义务。下级法院的裁定应予维持。\n\n一、动议审理法院适当地禁止Kwok放弃其在整个诉讼中长期持有的、认为合同真实有效的立场。\n\n动议审理法院正确认定，Kwok因司法禁止反言而不得质疑构成本案基础的合同真实性。此外，存在数项可直接适用的替代依据以维持该认定——即基于Kwok先前的司法承认；作为对Kwok伪证证词的制裁；以及由于Kwok未提出足以在合同真实性问题上抵御简易判决的证据。\n\nA. 动议审理法院基于司法禁止反言禁止Kwok在最后关头提出伪造论点，完全在其自由裁量权范围内。\n\n1. “根据司法禁止反言原则，或禁止采取不一致立场的禁止反言原则，当事人不得不公平地采取与其在同一程序中先前采取的立场直接相反或不一致的立场，”Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192, 193 (1st Dep't 2000)，或在“先前程序”中采取该等立场，Inter–Power of N.Y. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 208 A.D.2d 1073, 1075 (3d Dep't 1994)。当当事人因该不一致立场“获得有利裁定或判决……”时，司法禁止反言适用。*35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC*, 171 A.D.3d 545, 545 (1st Dep't 2019)。为“防止滥用司法制度”，法院可自行裁量援引这一“衡平法原则”，Corkran v. Orics Indus., Inc., 62 Misc. 3d 1225(A), 2018 WL 7568231, at \\*3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（引文略），D&L Holdings v. Goldman Co., 287 A.D.2d 65, 71 (1st Dep't 2001)。\n\n动议法院正确认定，司法禁止反言原则禁止 Kwok（郭文贵）否认其曾多次向法院呈交并主张为真实的合同之真实性，因为 Kwok 先前的陈述已说服法院作出有利于 Kwok 的不方便法院原则动议裁定。如上所述，见上文第 12-15 页，Kwok 就不方便法院原则动议所提交的书面材料及所作辩论一再主张相关文件真实，并附上该等文件“真实且正确”的副本，且敦促法院依据合同中的法律选择条款予以驳回。Kwok 暗示，“动议法院从未就文件的真实性作出任何认定。”被告—上诉人开篇陈述（“OB”）第 19 页。此说错误。正如动议法院自己在其简易判决命令中所解释的那样，R.53，该法院必然依赖并接受了 Kwok 关于合同真实的陈述。毕竟，该法院在很大程度上正是基于协议载有香港法律选择条款这一事实，准许了 Kwok 的动议。6 见同上。该等法律选择条款显然仅在合同真实且适用于本争议的范围内才具相关性。因此，法院在禁止 Kwok 依赖其新近编造的伪造抗辩时，完全是在其自由裁量权范围内行事。\n\n2. Kwok 的相反论点毫无根据。\n\na. Kwok 错误地认为，司法禁止反言原则仅在不一致立场是在“先前程序”中提出时才适用。OB 19-21。诚然，本院通常在不一致立场已在一项独立的先前司法程序中被采纳时适用该原则。参见，例如，D&L, 287 A.D.2d at 71。但本院一再判定，在同一程序中采纳不一致立场时，司法禁止反言原则同样适用。见 Nestor（内斯特）, 270 A.D.2d at 193（在某一立场“与同一程序中先前采取的立场不一致”时，适用司法禁止反言）；同见 Genger（根格）诉 TPR Inv. Assocs., Inc.（TPR 投资合伙公司）案，\n\n6 在下级法院，Kwok 曾暗示，动议法院未必采纳了与其新提出的伪造论点不一致的立场，因为他在证词笔录中承认部分合同是真实的。见 R.3220 n.19。并非如此。由于 PAX（PAX公司）依据 2011 Personal Guarantee 提起诉讼，法院关于不方便法院原则的裁定必然涉及该合同，而 Kwok 在其证词笔录中主张该合同系伪造。见 R.679。\n\n182 A.D.3d 417, 418 (1st Dep't 2020); Casper（卡斯珀）诉 Cushman & Wakefield（高纬物业顾问公司）案, 74 A.D.3d 669, 670 (1st Dep't 2010); Karasik（卡拉西克）诉 Bird（伯德）案, 104 A.D.2d 758, 758-59 (1st Dep't 1984)。这也是其他每一上诉分庭的规则。参见，例如，Hartsdale Fire Dist.（哈茨代尔消防区）诉 Eastland Constr., Inc.（伊斯特兰建筑公司）案, 65 A.D.3d 1345, 1346 (2d Dep't 2009); Maas（马斯）诉 Cornell Univ.（康奈尔大学）案, 253 A.D.2d 1, 5 (3d Dep't 1998), aff'd, 94 N.Y.2d 87 (1999); Lorenzo（洛伦佐）诉 Kahn（卡恩）案, 100 A.D.3d 1480, 1482 (4th Dep't 2012)。事实上，Kwok 在下级法院实际上已承认这一点，承认“司法禁止反言原则已被适用于禁止一方当事人‘不公平地采取与其在同一程序中先前采取的立场直接相反或不一致的立场。’”R.3219（引自 Maas, 253 A.D.2d at 5）。\n\n一如既往，Kwok 现在试图在上诉中放弃该项承认，援引 Olszewski（奥尔谢夫斯基）诉 Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.（公园露台花园公司）案, 18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)。但 Kwok 对该案的过度宽泛解读经不起审查。在其对司法禁止反言原则的两句论述中，Olszewski 法院首先认定，司法禁止反言原则不适用，因为与本案不同，没有任何法院曾接受该当事人先前不一致的立场。Id. at 350。该法院继而指出，“不一致的立场是在同一诉讼中提出的。”Id. at 351。但该法院的表述不应被解读为确立一项法律先例，将司法禁止反言原则限制于先前程序中的不一致陈述，至少有三个理由。第一，该表述属于附带意见，因为该法院已明确表示，司法禁止反言原则不适用的原因是没有任何法院曾接受先前立场。见 id. at 350。第二，对 Olszewski 案作此种解读，将使其与本院及其他每一上诉部门的其他先例产生不可调和的冲突。见上文第 28-29 页。第三，该规则毫无道理。该原则的要旨是防止对司法系统进行不公平操纵——“不应允许诉讼当事人……引导法院以某种方式认定某一事实”，随后又主张“同一事实应以其他方式认定。”Env't Concern, 101 A.D.2d at 593（引文省略）。该原则同样适用于在同一诉讼中采取的先前立场和在先前诉讼中采取的先前立场，正如本院及其他法院一再判定的那样。\n\nb. Kwok 所称动议法院忽视了司法禁止反言原则的“‘胜诉’要求”的主张，同样毫无根据。OB 17。正如本院已确认，先前不一致的立场无须导致作出有利于受禁止反言当事人的终局判决，见 D&L, 287 A.D.2d at 72；只要该当事人因该不一致立场而获得“一项有利裁定……”即可，35 W. Realty Co., 171 A.D.3d at 545；另见 Montefiore Med. Ctr.（蒙特菲奥里医疗中心）诉 Crest Plaza LLC（克雷斯特广场有限责任公司）案, 24 Misc.3d 1201, 2009 WL 1675994, at *14 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)（解释称，“先前不一致的立场必须以某种方式被审裁机构采纳”）, aff'd, 83 A.D.3d 1016 (2d Dep't 2011)。在本案中，动议法院就 Kwok 的不方便法院原则动议作出的有利于 Kwok 的裁定，已充分满足该要求；如上所述，该裁定以法院接受 Kwok 最初所持的、其本人所提交的合同真实这一立场为基础。\n\n与此相反，Kwok 所援引的案件均涉及在任何时候均未被审裁机构接受的不一致立场。见 Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc.（帕特莫斯第五房地产公司）诉 Mazl Bldg., LLC（马兹尔大厦有限责任公司）案, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020)（动议法院驳回了提出不一致立场的动议，本院予以维持，见 Index No. 108421/11 Dkt. No. 16 at 4）；MacArthur Props. I, LLC（麦克阿瑟地产I有限责任公司）诉 Galbraith（加尔布雷思）案, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020)（维持 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官拒绝适用司法禁止反言原则的决定，因为从未就不一致立场的是非作出裁定）；MPEG LA, LLC（MPEG LA有限责任公司）诉 Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd（三星电子有限公司）案, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018)（被告不受其在被动议法院驳回的动议中所采取立场的约束）；Wells Fargo Bank N.A.（富国银行全国协会）诉 Webster Bus. Credit Corp.（韦伯斯特商业信贷公司）案, 113 A.D.3d 513, 516 (1st Dep't 2014)（动议法院已驳回合同赔偿请求，因此原告并未就该等请求下律师费是否可得的任何立场胜诉）；Carr（卡尔）诉 Caputo（卡普托）案, 114 A.D.3d 62, 69, 71 (1st Dep't 2013)（不存在基于在被动议法院驳回的简易判决动议中提出论点的司法禁止反言）；Baje Realty Corp.（巴杰房地产公司）诉 Cutler（卡特勒）案, 32 A.D.3d 307, 310 (1st Dep't 2006)（动议法院未基于先前陈述给予救济）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 164 页，共 241 页\n\n本院其后推翻动议法院关于不方便法院原则的认定——同时仍接受 Kwok 持续作出的有关合同真实性陈述作为基础前提，见上文第 15 页——并不改变结论。Nestor 诉 Britt（布里特）案直接切中要点。在该案中，申请人房东在一项业主自住程序中依赖一份 1983 年租约，获得了一项有利于其的占有判决书。270 A.D.2d at 192-93。随后，有利于房东的判决书在上诉中被推翻，被申请人租户依据同一租约申请律师费裁定。Id. at 192。本院认定，由于房东在获得其最初胜诉但最终被推翻的判决书时依赖该份 1983 年租约，房东被禁止质疑该租约的有效性。Id. at 193。本院拒绝允许房东“仅在上诉庭作出不利命令后抛弃 1983 年租约”，并解释称，其不能“现在基于其法律境遇的逆转，寻求使该租约条款无效。”Id.。本案亦然：Kwok 在获得有利于其的裁定时依赖合同的真实性，故其不能因本院在上诉中推翻裁定所导致的“其法律境遇的逆转”，而“寻求使”这些同一合同“无效”，从而“抛弃”该等合同。Id.\n\nKwok 暗示 Nestor 案有所不同，因为该案中受禁止反言约束的当事人是在“审判前、审判中及审判后”主张其先前立场。OB 22。但本案同样如此。尽管 Kwok 竟称其关于合同真实的立场仅在“单一场合”表达过，id.，但事实上，在两年多的诉讼期间，他始终陈述该等合同真实，包括其为支持不方便法院原则动议而向动议法院和本院提交的书面材料、所作辩论及其他文件中，在其反对 PAX 的扣押动议时，在其回应 PAX 的要求承认请求时，以及在一份真实性约定中。见上文第 11-17 页。因此，Nestor 案与本案完全相同。\n\nKwok 为主张本院其后裁定会影响司法禁止反言分析而援引的唯一权威是 Goodman（古德曼）诉 Skanska USA Civil, Inc.（斯堪斯卡美国土木公司）案, 169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)，但该案不适用。Goodman 案认定，为基于未在破产程序中披露请求而适用司法禁止反言原则，“破产程序中必须作出一项终局认定，认可当事人就其资产所持的不一致立场。”Id. at 1013（引文省略）。但该判决明确限于破产情形；在该情形中，法院已认定，破产法院重新开启破产程序将“消除……可据以适用司法禁止反言原则的终局认定。”Id.（引文省略）。该特别规则基于破产所特有且在此不适用的政策考量。禁止债务人追诉其未在破产程序中披露的请求的司法禁止反言原则，体现了一种审慎平衡。一方面，禁止债务人\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 166 页，共 241 页\n\n追诉该等请求是可取的，因为“若允许占有财产的债务人在破产中遗漏请求，随后又主张对其享有权利，则可能会产生这样做的诱因，损害债权人的利益。”Cafferty（卡弗蒂）诉 Thompson（汤普森）案, 223 A.D.2d 99, 102 (3d Dep't 1996)。另一方面，在破产程序已重新开启的情形下严格适用司法禁止反言原则以阻止该等请求（该程序允许纳入最初遗漏的请求），将会“主要损害无辜债权人的利益”，因为这会剥夺其“一项潜在追偿”，同时使被指控的不法行为人——即原本将面临该请求的被告——获得意外利益。Ah Quin（阿奎因）诉 Cnty. of Kauai Dep't of Transp.（考艾县运输局）案, 733 F.3d 267, 275 (9th Cir. 2013)。这些破产特有的政策考量与司法禁止反言原则的一般适用无关。\n\nc. 郭文贵认为，动议法院在其不方便法院原则动议及其为支持该动议提交的宣誓陈述（OB22）中对其赋予任何权重均属“不公”的备选论点，荒谬至极。尽管郭文贵现试图攻击其自身证人Fiona Yu（余菲娜）的可信度，但郭文贵曾在宣誓后承认，他明确“授权[余女士]代表[其本人]提交该宣誓书”。R.801。更重要的是，郭文贵本人——通过其在Boies Schiller（博伊斯·席勒律师事务所）和Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的卓越律师——在其就不方便法院原则动议向动议法院（及上诉法院）提交的书面陈述中，援引了余女士的宣誓书及所附文件。此处唯一的不公，是允许郭文贵在别无选择后，再次通过放弃其先前赖以胜诉的立场来操纵司法机关。司法禁止反言原则正是为此类案件而设，因为司法体系“不能容忍这种对法院反复无常、投机取巧的做法”。Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp., 215 A.D.2d 435, 436 (2d Dep't 1995) (quotation omitted).\n\n与此同时，郭文贵坚称PAX并未因其改变诉讼立场而受到损害（OB23），这一主张既无关紧要，也属错误。其无关紧要，因为不存在损害要求：“有害信赖并非适用司法禁止反言的前提条件，因为该原则的目的并非保护个别诉讼当事人，而是保护司法体系本身的完整性。”Tozzi v. Long Island R.R. Co., 170 Misc. 2d 606, 613 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996), aff'd, 247 A.D.2d 466 (2d Dep't 1998); see also City of New York（纽约市） v. Black Garter（黑袜带）, 179 Misc. 2d 597, 599, 685 N.Y.S.2d 606, 607 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999), aff'd, 273 A.D.2d 188 (2d Dep't 2000)。其属错误，是因为郭文贵的行为显然已对PAX造成损害。其一，PAX被迫耗费时间和资源反对该不方便法院原则动议——并就动议法院准许该动议提出上诉——而该动议在很大程度上以合同的真实性为依据。并且，若动议法院未在简易判决前禁止郭文贵改变立场，PAX无疑会受到损害。郭文贵近十年来一直拖延PAX，而进一步的不当延误——包括为反驳郭文贵关于合同系伪造这一站不住脚的主张所浪费的时间和资源，见下文第43-45页——必将进一步损害PAX。\n\nB. 郭文贵亦因受其先前司法承认的约束而不得改变立场。\n\n鉴于其关于司法禁止反言的认定，动议法院无须裁定PAX的备选主张，即郭文贵受其先前关于合同真实的司法承认所约束。见R.397。本院同样无须审理该论点，因为动议法院关于司法禁止反言的裁定正确。但法院的判决亦可基于另一理由予以维持，即郭文贵受其多项关于合同真实的正式司法承认所约束。\n\n“正式司法承认，是指一方当事人在司法程序中作出的行为，其通过为诉讼目的承认对方主张的事实为真实，免除了证据的提出。”People v. Brown, 98 N.Y.2d 226, 232 n.2 (2002) (quoting Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-215 (11th ed.))。不同于仅作为所承认事实之证据的非正式承认，“正式司法承认取代证据，并对其作出承认的诉讼中所承认的事实具有决定性效力。”Id. (quotation omitted)。要被视为正式司法承认，一项陈述“必须是事实陈述”，“必须经过审慎作出、明确且毫不含糊”，并且必须“以具有充分正式性和终局性的方式作出”。Rahman v. Smith, 40 A.D.3d 613, 615 (2d Dep't 2007)。正式司法承认的典型例子包括：“(1) 法定承认，例如依据CPLR 3123项下通知对事实作出的承认；(2) 依据CPLR 3222、2104项下约定事实陈述或其他约定所承认的事实；……(3) 在公开法庭上正式承认的事实，例如刑事案件中正式作出的有罪答辩”，以及“(4) 诉状中承认的事实，[见] CPLR 3018(a)”，等等。Richardson on Evidence § 8-215.\n\n如上文第11-17页所详述，郭文贵在本诉讼过程中反复且毫不含糊地承认争议合同真实，这些陈述构成正式司法承认，包括：(1) 其对PAX承认请求（“RFA”）的答复；(2) 其在扣押听证会前向法院提交的联合信函中的约定；以及(3) 在不方便法院原则动议和扣押程序中于书面陈述、提交文件及公开法庭陈述中作出的其他表示。\n\n1. 郭文贵对RFA的答复。如上文第15-16页所述，2018年6月11日，郭文贵依据CPLR 3123提交了对PAX承认请求的答复，其中承认关键合同的真实性，R.411——这是典型的正式司法承认。见Richardson on Evidence § 8-215.\n\n郭文贵坚称，这些承认无效，因为PAX未在其RFA中附上合同副本。但对于“已提供”的文件，并无须提供副本的要求。CPLR 3123(a); Bajaj v. Gen. Assurance Co., 18 Misc. 3d 25, 27 (App. Term 2d Dep't 2007) (cited at OB25)。因此，PAX没有义务附上郭文贵已从其自身档案中出示并为支持其不方便法院原则动议而提交给法院的文件副本。\n\n郭文贵也不能通过援引其套话式的一般异议来规避这些承认的约束力，因为郭文贵在其RFA答复中毫不含糊地承认其签署了关键协议。涉及2013年《和解契据》的一个例子清楚表明了这一点。在RFA 19中，PAX要求郭文贵“[承]认，您、Shiny Times（闪耀时代）、Beijing Pangu（北京盘古）及PAX LP签署了一份日期为2013年4月19日的《和解契据》（“原《和解契据》”），该契据尤其确认，在签署原《和解契据》时，Shiny Times欠付PAX LP \\$52,000,000。”R.433。如CPLR 3123(a)明确允许，PAX未将《和解契据》附于其RFA中，因为郭文贵此前已将该文件作为余菲娜宣誓陈述的证据7提交，该宣誓陈述宣誓称，该文件是同一份“PAX LP、Shiny Times、郭先生与Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.（北京盘古投资公司）……于2013年4月19日订立的《和解契据》”的“真实且正确副本”。R.3167。郭文贵答复如下：\n\n在不放弃权利保留和一般异议，并受其约束的前提下，如须作出答复，郭文贵仅承认其本人、Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu及PAX签署了一份日期为2013年4月19日的协议；此外，其对该请求提出异议，认为该请求系复合且不当，因为其超出了CPLR 3123所设想的承认通知的预定范围和目的；该条本允许PAX将争议文件副本作为证据附上，并就其真实性寻求承认。然而，PAX并非仅就争议文件的真实性寻求承认（其并未附上该文件副本），而是试图基于PAX对该文件的描述，就争议文件的法律含义取得承认。郭文贵进一步反对PAX试图使用这些请求来代替其他披露手段，例如证词录取或书面质询，以取得信息。\n\nR.433-34（着重号为原文所加）。换言之，郭文贵声称，RFA唯一适当的目的在于认证文件，并因其认为PAX试图作出超出该范围的行为而提出异议（同时还以PAX未向郭文贵发送其自身已先前提供的文件副本这一毫无根据的理由提出异议）。但毫无疑问，郭文贵在其RFA答复中承认，他已“签署”余菲娜宣誓陈述作为证据7向动议法院提交的同一文件。如上文第16页所述，郭文贵就其他每一份相关合同作出了同样的承认，包括2011年贷款安排、2011年个人保证以及《和解契据》的四份延期协议。R.424, 427, 445, 453, 461, 469。这些正式司法承认本身，即足以支持动议法院禁止郭文贵提出其后不真诚的伪造主张的决定。\n\n2. 郭文贵在致动议法院的联合信函中的约定。郭文贵在2019年4月扣押听证会前向动议法院作出书面陈述，再次正式承认了合同的真实性；该陈述毫无保留地称，其“并不争议原告任何证据的真实性”——其中包括他后来虚假作证称系伪造或虚假的特定合同。Dkt. No. 325; see Dkt. No. 326。郭文贵主张，该承认并非如其字面所言，因为其“涉及的是该特定听证会中证据的可采性，而非其他目的”。OB13; see also id. at 25（称该承认是在“扣押听证会中证据可采性”的“语境”下作出的，而非在随后将进行的实体程序中作出的）。该所谓区别毫无意义：文件不可能为一个程序的目的而“真实”，却不为另一程序的目的而真实。7 而且，尽管各方已同意将2019年4月听证会的范围限制于扣押问题，但郭文贵反对以合同与扣押无关为由接纳合同，同时明确约定其真实性，这与其当前主张合同系伪造的立场无法调和。该由“当事人或其律师之间”达成并载于“书面文件”中的“协议”，根据CPLR 2104具有“约束力”，因此属于权威论著明确列举的另一种典型正式司法承认形式。见CPLR 2104; Richardson on Evidence § 8- 215; see also, e.g., In the Matter of Daniel C., 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dept. 1984)（认定律师为“明确限制和界定争议事实”的目的而“经审慎作出”的让步，对当事人构成具有决定性效力的承认）。\n\n7 见Authentic, Merriam-Webster, http://dictionary/authentic（“[N]ot false or imitation: real, actual.”）。\n\n3. 郭文贵在向法院提交文件中的其他陈述。郭文贵还向动议法院及本院作出了多项其他陈述，具备构成正式司法承认所需的“正式性和终局性”程度。Rahman, 40 A.D.3d at 615。郭文贵在向动议法院提交的不方便法院原则书面陈述及上诉书面陈述中，就合同真实性反复且毫不含糊作出的陈述；其律师在支持该动议的口头辩论中作出的陈述；以及余菲娜宣誓陈述中关于所附合同“真实且正确”的主张——均已在动议法院司法禁止反言裁定的语境中于上文第12-15、27-28页详述——亦均构成司法承认。见，例如，Bellino v. Bellino Constr. Co., 75 A.D.2d 630, 630 (2d Dep't 1980)（“律师作出的承认，如同任何其他代理人作出的承认，只要该等陈述是律师在其获授权身份下作出的，即可作为对当事人不利的证据。”（着重号为原文所加））。\n\n郭文贵（Kwok）在扣押程序各阶段提交的书面文件同样包含对相关合同真实性的司法承认。郭文贵在该等书面文件中主张，鉴于其已“实质履行2013年4月19日的《和解契据》……，因为已就三套北京盘古公寓签署购买协议，且该等公寓已交付给PAX LP的实体”，PAX不太可能在其请求权的是非问题上胜诉。R3110（2017年8月1日书面文件）；另见Dkt. 167第21页（在2018年5月16日的书面文件中，主张“2013年4月19日《和解契据》的实质履行可能已经发生”，并称“已签署补充契据”）。郭文贵的律师随后在口头辩论中作出了相同陈述。见Dkt. No. 199第19:17–19页。\n\n这些正式且审慎的陈述具有“正式司法承认的特征”，因此郭文贵受其“约束”。GJF Constr., Inc. v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co., 89 A.D.3d 622, 624 (1st Dep't 2011)（协同意见）；另见，例如，Catanese v. Lipschitz, 44 A.D.2d 579, 580 (2d Dep't 1974)（“原告律师在其反对[a]动议的确认书中的陈述”构成“具有约束力的司法承认”）。\n\n因此，无论是从司法禁止反言的角度看，还是从司法承认的约束力出发，或二者兼而有之，鉴于郭文贵先前在本诉讼中的陈述和行为，动议法院认定其不得提出其在最后关头提出的伪造主张，并无错误。\n\nC. 作为替代，本院应施加制裁，禁止郭文贵援引伪证证言。\n\n除基于上述理由主张排除外，PAX还请求施加一项制裁，禁止郭文贵援引其伪证证言。尽管动议法院表示，尽管郭文贵证言的性质“可疑”，其并不“倾向于”施加制裁，而是通过适用司法禁止反言实现相同结果，R.85，本院仍可基于这一替代理由维持原裁定。\n\n案号22-50073 文件183-3 提交于04/06/22 录入于04/06/22 17:07:45 第175页，共241页\n\n“[A]法院拥有固有权力处理旨在破坏司法制度查明真相功能，并使法院及我们的司法制度完整性受到质疑的行为”，包括提供虚假证言已构成“对法院的欺诈”的情形。CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 N.Y.3d 307, 318 (2014)。当“行为……挫败CPLR宗旨”时，法院已采取严格措施。Honghui Kuang v. MetLife, 159 A.D.3d 878, 881-82 (2d Dep't 2018)（原告从事“故意且顽抗的行为，试图挫败证据开示程序”时，以删除其诉状的方式制裁原告）。在制裁情境下，上诉分庭“被赋予……以其自身裁量取代动议法院裁量的权力”，id. at 881（删改符号略），因而有权首次施加制裁。见Czajka v. Dellehunt, 125 A.D.3d 1177, 1185 (3d Dep't 2015)。\n\n本案完全有理由施加制裁。案卷中充满证据表明，郭文贵在证言录取中否认其在合同上的签名的证言系虚假；允许其援引该证言，将是纵容“对法院的欺诈”。Creances, 23 N.Y.3d at 318。除上述详述的大量关于真实性的司法承认和陈述外，案卷中的其他文件进一步削弱了郭文贵未经佐证的主张。具体而言，PAX从其档案中提供了数十封其代表与Stevenson Wong（史蒂文森·黄律师事务所）之间的电子邮件；该律师事务所在郭文贵与PAX的\n\n案号22-50073 文件183-3 提交于04/06/22 录入于04/06/22 17:07:45 第176页，共241页\n\n交易中曾代理郭文贵。见上文第19页。这些电子邮件包括但不限于Stevenson Wong发出的通信，该等通信：(i) 代表郭文贵就合同进行谈判；(ii) 转达该所就谈判正与其客户郭文贵协商并接受其指示；以及(iii) 发送已签署的合同版本，律师称其已“由郭文贵先生签署”。见R.866-1080。例如，Stevenson Wong的电子邮件称，“郭先生[在《和解契据》及相关文件上的]签名已获见证[且]郭先生亦亲自向[Stevenson Wong的Aaron Xie]确认其签名”，R.866；“由郭文贵先生签署的签署页将转交给[PAX]”，R.873；以及，随附了“由郭文贵签署的文件”，R.877.8\n\n8 一如既往，郭文贵在证言录取中对这些电子邮件的回应是作证称，Stevenson Wong实际上并未在其与PAX的交易中代理他，而是该律师事务所作为中国政府陷害他的阴谋的一部分伪造了文件。R.637, 730。但正如PAX向动议法院说明的，郭文贵及其前任律师Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）自身的文件和陈述清楚表明，郭文贵否认其与Stevenson Wong的关系不过是又一项伪证。例如，郭文贵申请购买该住宅时，向该楼宇董事会提交了一封由Hank Lo（罗汉克）出具的推荐信；罗汉克是曾在郭文贵与PAX交易中代理郭文贵的Stevenson Wong主办合伙人。在该2015年信函中，罗代表郭文贵向董事会陈述：(i) 郭文贵“约七年前曾在其一项商业交易中聘请[Stevenson Wong]”（最初的PAX交易发生于2008年，恰为七年前）；(ii) 郭文贵已与罗建立“长期关系”；以及(iii) Stevenson Wong曾“在不同领域的各种商业交易中为[郭文贵]行事，包括项目融资、筹集资金、公司合并与收购，以及购置飞机、游艇和房地产”。R.1081。并且，在2019年11月致PAX律师的一封电子邮件中，Hodgson Russ陈述，“Stevenson & Wong不再担任郭文贵先生的律师”，从而确认了Stevenson Wong此前曾代理郭文贵这一显而易见的事实。R.1083-84。\n\n案号22-50073 文件183-3 提交于04/06/22 录入于04/06/22 17:07:45 第177页，共241页\n\n连同该等通信，郭文贵先前的行为——其在扣押程序中主张实质履行抗辩时所援引的行为——进一步削弱了任何伪造主张。如果其在合同上的签名系伪造，且其从未订立所涉协议，郭文贵无法解释为何其及其公司仍履行了2013年《和解契据》的若干先决条件，包括向PAX提供该等公寓的钥匙及已签署的《房产接收确认通知书》；签署《房屋交付通知书》；以及签署《房产购买合同》。见上文第10页；R.1433 ¶50。\n\n因此，案卷显然支持郭文贵的证言系伪证这一结论。至少，这种误导法院的行为足以构成施加制裁的理由，禁止郭文贵援引其关于伪造的证言。\n\nD. 即使郭文贵未被禁止主张伪造，PAX仍有权获得简易判决。\n\n即使撇开支持动议法院裁定以禁止反言阻止郭文贵提出其捏造的伪造抗辩的这三项独立依据，仍应维持授予简易判决，因为即使允许郭文贵主张伪造，PAX也有权获得判决。郭文贵未能提出足以就真实性问题形成真实争议事实的问题的证据——除其伪证的、臆造的伪造抗辩外，他对责任问题上的简易判决并无其他抗辩。\n\n如上所述，证明合同真实性的证据——从郭文贵本人向法院提交的材料和所作陈述，到其在诉讼开始前的行为，再到PAX出具的书面证据——极为充分。面对这一大量证据，郭文贵所能提出的仅是其在最后关头、未经支持的证言，否认其在合同上的签名；该证言不具有任何证据价值，因为其自身的司法承认直接削弱了该证言，见Brown, 98 N.Y.2d at 232 n.2，而且无论如何也不足以阻却简易判决，见Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgmt., Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 381, 384 (2004)（“要形成就签名真实性提出异议的事实争议，仅仅笼统主张伪造是不够的。”）。事实上，郭文贵在反对PAX的制裁动议以及请求就动议法院的司法禁止反言裁定重新辩论时，从未提供任何佐证证据，例如笔迹专家分析，也从未请求就该问题举行证据听证。见R.1283-1309, 3206-22。郭文贵现称，法院本应“就担保及PAX所依赖其他文件的真实性举行证据听证或审判”。OB2。但郭文贵因未在下级法院提出该主张而放弃了该论点。无论如何，该论点也是错误的，因为无需举行证据听证——如果“笼统主张伪造”不足以形成真实争议事实，Banco Popular, 1 N.Y.3d at 384，那么当为支持伪造而提供的唯一“证据”仅为此种笼统主张时，就无需举行听证。\n\n在此等情形下，郭文贵未能证明就真实性存在可审判的事实争议。见，例如，Peyton v. State of Newburgh, Inc., 14 A.D.3d 51, 54 (1st Dep't 2004)（否认签名真实性的宣誓书“必须被视为结论性、自利且完全不足以反驳被告依法获得简易救济的权利”）；New Dance Grp. Studio, Inc. v. Seltzer, 293 A.D.2d 298, 299 (1st Dep't 2002)（当事人的“自利性宣誓书……不足以形成事实争议”）；Matter of People v. Telehublink Corp., 301 A.D.2d 1006, 1008-09 (3d Dep't 2003)（“未经证实、自利的主张”不足以引发事实问题）。因此，即使撇开禁止反言及其自身具有约束力的承认，PAX过去和现在均依法有权获得判决。\n\nII. 动议法院正确驳回了郭文贵的减损主张。\n\n郭文贵的第二项主张是，动议法院在判给损害赔偿时存在错误，因为PAX未追寻郭文贵所称的、向北京警方购买该等公寓的潜在机会，而且PAX持有钥匙即使没有合法所有权，也以某种方式赋予了某种未具体说明的价值。动议法院正确驳回了这些主张。\n\nA. 动议法院正确认定PAX没有义务寻求向北京警方购买该等公寓的可能性。\n\n满足2013年《和解契据》的先决条件之一，是PAX以零净成本获得该等公寓的合法所有权。见上文第9页。这无可争议地从未发生。但郭文贵主张，PAX本应通过寻求以约\\$17 million向北京警方购买该等公寓的潜在机会来减损其损失。郭文贵的主张因两项理由而不能成立：(i) PAX并不依任何合同负有减损损失义务；以及(ii) 无论如何，向北京警方购买该等公寓的机会并不构成合理的减损机会。\n\n1. PAX不负有减损损失义务。\n\n郭文贵对于其所称向PAX施加减损义务的是哪一项协议，前后并不一致。有时，他坚持减损义务源于2011年《个人保证书》，见R.4254；而在其他时候，他将该义务归于2013年《和解契据》，见，例如，R.4946-49, OB34-35。无论何者，他均不能胜诉。\n\n2011 Personal Guarantee（2011年个人保证书）。根据无争议且明确的香港法律，就2011年个人保证书而言，不存在减损义务。双方专家均同意，根据香港法律，该合同项下不存在减损义务，因为该合同是对债务偿还的保证。9 见 R.4441 ¶10；R.4624 ¶7（Kwok（郭文贵）的专家确认：“我同意[PAX（PAX）的专家]的观点，即对于根据贷款协议或个人保证书提出的债务偿还请求，减损原则不适用”）。Kwok现于上诉中承认这一点，认可“根据香港法律，在所涉唯一义务为偿还债务的情况下，存在减损义务的例外”。OB35。\n\n2013 Deed of Settlement（2013年和解契据）。基于三个理由，作为法律问题，显然PAX在2013年和解契据项下亦不负有减损义务。\n\n第一，2013年和解契据项下不存在减损义务，因为由于Kwok未能在延长后的截止日期2015年6月30日前满足先决条件，和解契据在2015年6月之后北京警方联系之前即已无效。与Kwok在上诉中的主张相反，和解契据从未被“违[反]”（OB33）；相反，Kwok未能满足第3.2条规定的先决条件，因此所设想的\n\n9 Kwok指出，在获知这一具有控制性的香港法律之前，动议法院最初曾表示将就损害赔偿举行证据听证会。见，例如，OB15（援引 Dkt. No. 647 at 4, 6-7）。然而，在双方提交有关损害赔偿的书面意见后，法院正确认定不存在可审理的事实争议，并作为法律问题就损害赔偿问题作出裁定。\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 182 页，共 241 页\n\n和解从未生效，且从未取消Kwok的2011年个人保证书及其基础债务——换言之，2011年个人保证书仍然有效。见 R.2535 ¶3.4（2013年和解契据）：“如截至2013年7月31日（或双方以书面同意的较后日期”——本案中，根据第四份也是最后一份补充和解契据，该日期为2015年6月30日——“并非所有公寓的第3.2条所列先决条件均已满足，则本契据项下所设想的整个和解应予终止，双方确认，[2011] Facility Letter（2011年授信函）应恢复并立即完全有效”。\n\n香港法院会尊重这一清楚且无歧义的措辞，并认定：(i) 2013年和解契据于2015年6月30日终止，早于所称警方联系；以及(ii) 2011 Loan Facility（2011年贷款额度）和2011年个人保证书已恢复为完全有效——即，它们从未被取消。R.1445-49 ¶¶9-18。因此，在2013年和解契据项下，从未存在“减损”的机会或义务。\n\nKwok主张，北京警方联系的日期存在事实争议，但他没有任何证据支持该主张。Kwok所援引的、提及所称减损机会的唯一文件，是2015年7月和8月的电子邮件——即和解已于2015年6月届满之后。见 R.4360-61, 4359。Kwok还指出，PAX在其起诉状中称，且两名证人作证称，公寓于2015年2月被查封（OB33）。但这无关紧要——所称的减损机会并非在公寓被查封时产生，而是在警方据称提出向PAX出售公寓时产生。不出所料，Kwok公然歪曲了PAX总法律顾问 Jon Lewis（乔恩·刘易斯）的证词。Kwok称，Lewis先生“作证称，他于2015年2月得知该减损机会”。OB32。事实上，Lewis先生作证称，他是在“[公寓被警方查封]之后得知该机会的，我相信查封发生在2015年2月的某个时候”。R.4345。Lewis先生非常明确地作证称，查封发生在2015年2月，而他是在此后的某个时候得知该机会。Lewis先生还明确表示，该购买机会无关紧要，因为“和解协议已经届满”。R.4349。Kwok根本没有证据表明减损机会在2015年6月30日之前产生。\n\n因此，动议法院正确地根据“双方提交的书面证据……认定，北京警方提出的机会仅在2015年6月之后才出现，当时和解契据已经届满”。R.14-15。由于不存在真实争议，即在所称北京警方联系时，只有2011年贷款额度和2011年个人保证书有效，因此已经届满的和解契据不可能对PAX施加追求该推测性机会的义务。\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 184 页，共 241 页\n\n第二，即使假定PAX在2015年6月30日之前已得知取得公寓的机会（事实上并未得知），Kwok的论点仍将不能成立。如上所示，Kwok不可能“违反”和解契据，因为该契据在2015年6月30日后整体失效。但他同样不可能因未在2015年6月30日届满日期之前满足先决条件而“违反”和解契据，因为依合同约定，他有权至该日期才满足这些条件。见 R.2535 ¶3.4。因此，如果北京警方的机会在2015年6月30日之前出现，Kwok便不会违反2013年和解契据，PAX相应地也不可能在当时负有该合同项下的减损义务。因此，从北京警方购买公寓的机会出现时间无关紧要——无论如何，都不可能存在减损义务。\n\n第三，即使撇开上述所有问题不谈，PAX也不可能在2013年和解契据项下负有减损义务，原因在于：与2011年个人保证书一样，2013年和解契据是对债务偿还的保证，因此，香港法律关于此类合同项下不存在减损义务的规则，见上文第48-49页，同样完全适用。Kwok主张，由于和解契据设想以资产而非现金偿还债务，该合同不应算作债务偿还保证。OB35。但该区别从表面上看即无关紧要，且Kwok除其专家的结论性证词外，没有提出任何支持该立场的依据；该证词本身也未包含任何引证。见同上（援引 R.4624¶8）。由于“外国法的解释是法律问题”，Gusinsky v. Genger, 74 A.D.3d 539, 540 (1st Dep't 2010)，本院可以驳回该无依据的证词，并认定：无争议的香港规则——即拒绝对债务偿还合同施加减损义务——无论债务如何偿还均适用，因而亦适用于2013年和解契据。\n\n2. Kwok未指出合理的减损机会\n\n即使假定PAX负有减损义务（其显然并不负有），Kwok的减损论点仍将不能成立，因为如动议法院所认定，从北京警方购买公寓的可能性并不构成香港法律所要求的合理减损机会。尽管Kwok在其书状中主张动议法院“从未直接裁定这一点”（OB33），但他错了：法院明确且正确地驳回了Kwok的论点，因为“原告仅被要求对损害进行合理减损”，而且“以$17 M从北京警方购买公寓的提议，而原告本应以零美元获得公寓的转让（以清偿债务），很难说是获得原告所议定取得的利益”。R.15。Kwok未指出该认定存在任何错误。\n\nKwok并未且无法否认：(i) 根据2013年和解契据，PAX本可无偿获得三套公寓；(ii) 为通过北京警方协助取得公寓（即使这确有可能），PAX将须支付总额RMB105 million，即近$17 million；(iii) PAX对公寓的估值为RMB 167 million（约$27 million），因此若其能够转售，将可收回约$10 million；以及(iv) Kwok当时的未偿债务约为$78 million。R.4359-60, 4402 ¶¶5-6。此外，香港法律规定，为减轻损害，原告“并不被期待以承担费用、风险或其他不便的方式作出不合理行为”，也不被要求“在正常业务范围之外采取极端措施”。R.3618 ¶ 17.2。任何合理的事实裁判者均不可能认定，PAX应为有机会取得其本应无偿获得的三套公寓之所有权而支出（即承担风险）$17 million，以换取其日后可能（在某个未指明的时间）以$27 million出售该等公寓、从而可能获得$10 million的可能性——即不足当时Kwok所欠约$78 million债务的13%。R.4402 ¶6。\n\nKwok未提出任何相反的香港法依据。相反，他仅依赖纽约判例法，而该等判例既不适用，也无助于其立场。NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Malihan, 276 A.D.2d 443, 443 (1st Dep't 2000)，仅确立了一项无争议的命题：当未违约方存在某种不合理的不勤勉、构成未能减损时，损害赔偿可被限额；但基于刚才说明的理由，本案并非如此。Bibeau v. Ward, 228 A.D.2d 943, 946 (3d Dep't 1996)，同样不适用——该案涉及原告是否可以追偿因被告违约而“被要求”支出的费用，并未涉及合理期待原告为减损而承担何种费用的问题。\n\n在下级法院，Kwok依赖第三项纽约判决，该判决恰恰说明本案所称减损机会是多么不合理。见 R.4257（援引 Nat'l Commc'ns Ass'n, Inc. v. AT&T, 2001 WL 99856 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001)）。该案中，原告主张近$22 million的利润损失；若原告支付一笔保证金，即可完全避免该等损失，而该保证金可通过“最低限度”的自付费用取得担保：支付信用额度的利息。Nat'l Cmmc'ns, 2001 WL 99856, at \\*2 n.1, \\*8。法院认定原告未能减损，理由包括：(i) 对被告而言，获得此类信用额度是“惯常做法”；(ii) 利息支付“最低限度”；以及(iii) 无争议的是，支付该保证金将完全避免所主张的$22 million损害赔偿。Id. at \\*8–9。本案情形不可能更为不同。PAX将须支付$17 million，远非“最低限度”的付款；PAX的付款不会保证任何结果，因为无人能够确定PAX是否实际会取得公寓所有权，或能否成功将其转售；购买公寓并非PAX的“惯常做法”；而且，或许最重要的是，PAX并非以相对极小的一笔款项实现巨大且有保证的损害减少，而是须额外自付$17 million，以换取其可能实现对Kwok当时$78 million债务相对较小减少（$10 million）的完全推测性可能。\n\n基于上述理由，PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）没有减轻损失的义务——更不必寻求推测性的北京警方提议；作为法律问题，该提议并非“合理的”减轻损失机会。\n\nB. 动议法院正确驳回了Kwok（郭文贵）提出的论点，即PAX持有公寓钥匙应当抵销其所欠损害赔偿。\n\n最后，Kwok主张，PAX“获得了一项额外利益，该利益应当导致从其所称损害赔偿中予以抵销”——即公寓的钥匙，Kwok推测该钥匙“为PAX提供了价值”。OB36。动议法院正确地驳回了这一毫无依据的主张，认为其不足以形成可审理的事实争议。见Freedman v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 260, 264 (1977)（“[C]onclusory assertions will not defeat summary judgment.”）。Kwok从未提出任何关于PAX持有钥匙实际价值的证据；相反，他仅在下级法院中主张——如同其在上诉中所主张的那样——“该等持有无疑具有价值。”R.4259。在没有任何支持性证据的情况下，Kwok无权就损害赔偿问题提交陪审团审理。此外，PAX仅持有公寓钥匙，事实上对其毫无价值。公寓对PAX唯一的价值在于其很可能可以转售公寓，而PAX转售公寓所需要的不是钥匙，而是合法所有权。这正是PAX协商取得的内容，也是《和解契据》明确规定PAX必须持有所有权作为先决条件的原因。R.2087-88。动议法院正确认定，作为法律问题，PAX持有公寓钥匙对损害赔偿金额没有任何影响。\n\n结论\n\n本法院应维持下级法院的判决书。\n\n日期：October 6, 2021\n\nSTUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫） EDWARD MOSS（爱德华·莫斯） ANTON METLITSKY（安东·梅特利茨基） O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥麦利文律师事务所）\n\n时代广场大厦\n7 Times Square\nNew York, N.Y. 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告-被上诉人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.的代理律师\n\n上诉分庭—第一部门印刷规格声明\n\n本人依据22 N.Y. C.R.R. §§ 1250.8(f), (j)特此证明，\n\n上述上诉状系使用Microsoft Word在计算机上编制。\n\n字体。使用了按比例间隔的字体，具体如下：\n\n字体名称：Times New Roman\n\n字号：14\n行距：双倍\n\n字数。包括要点标题和脚注、但不包括目录、判例及其他权威资料目录、送达证明及本声明所在页面在内，本上诉状的总字数为13,994。\n\n日期：New York, New York October 6, 2021\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 191 of 241\n\n附件21\n\n拟由以下人士进行辩论： FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 10/15/2021 02:10 PM 2021-00740 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 192 of 241\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2021\n\nMARK C. ZAUDERER（马克·C·扎德勒） （申请时间：15分钟）\nNew York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）\n\nAppellate Division—First Department（上诉分庭—第一部门）\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-被上诉人，\n\n– 诉 –\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名Kwok Ho（郭浩），又名Gwo Wen Gui，又名Guo Wengui（郭文贵），又名Guo Wen-Gui（郭文贵），又名Wan Gue Haoyun，又名Miles Kwok（郭文贵），又名Haoyun Guo，\n\n被告-上诉人，\n\n– 及 –\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）和GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n被告-上诉人答复状\n\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹及扎德勒律师事务所）\n360 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n(212) 922-9250\nmzauderer@ganfershore.com\nimatetsky@ganfershore.com\njcohen@ganfershore.com\n\n被告-上诉人代理律师\n\nNew York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/17\n\n上诉案件编号：2021-00740\n\n目录\n页码\n\n判例及其他权威资料目录\nii\n\n初步陈述　1\n论证　2\n要点I\n应撤销判决书，因为其基于对司法禁止反言原则的错误适用　2\nA.　司法禁止反言的要件并不具备　2\nB.　PAX关于司法承认的理论未被动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nC.　PAX关于“伪证制裁”的理论未被动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nD.　PAX关于其除司法禁止反言裁定外仍有权获得简易判决的主张毫无依据　15\n要点II\n应撤销判决书，因为动议法院错误驳回了PAX未能减轻其损害赔偿的抗辩　16\n结论　20\n\n判例及其他权威资料目录\n页码\n\n判例：\n\n35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC,\n171 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dep't 2019)　2\n\nBank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon,\n171 A.D.3d 197 (2d Dep't 2019)　8\n\nBarish v. Association of the Bar,\n20 N.Y.2d 154 (1967)　5\n\nBernstein v. Freudman,\n180 A.D.2d 420 (1st Dep't 1992)　18\n\nCarr v. Caputo,\n\nA.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 2013)　3\n\nCDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen,\n23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)　13, 14\n\nD & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC,\n287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep't 2001)　3, 4\n\nGoodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc.,\n169 A.D.3d 1010 (2d Dep't 2019)　5\n\nKoch v. National Basketball Ass'n,\n245 A.D.2d 230 (1st Dep't 1997)　5, 6\n\nMacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith,\n182 A.D.3d 514 (1st Dep't 2020)　3\n\nMatter of Daniel C.,\n99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984)　11\n\nMatter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P.,\n181 A.D.3d 461 (1st Dep't 2020)　8, 12\n\nMatter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny,\n189 A.D.3d 583 (1st Dep't 2020), leave to appeal granted,\n36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021)　7\n\nMicro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst,\n155 A.D.3d 1638 (4th Dep't 2017)\n\n5-6\n\nMPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd,\n166 A.D.3d\n13 (1st Dep't 2018)　3\n\nNapoli v. Bern,\n171 A.D.3d 489 (1st Dep't 2019)　14\n\nNestor v. Britt,\n270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000)　6\n\nOlszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc.,\n18 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep't 2005)　7\n\nOrr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp.,\n172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019)　4, 5, 6\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok,\n160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)　3\n\nPatmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc.\nv. Mazl Bldg., LLC,\n189 A.D.3d 632 (1st Dep't 2020)　3, 4\n\nPeters v. Peters,\n146 A.D.3d 503 (1st Dep't 2017)　14\n\nRahman v. Smith,\n40 A.D.3d 613 (2d Dep't 2007)　9\n\nTynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co.,\n117 A.D.2d 796 (2d Dep't 1986)　18\n\nWells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp.,\n113 A.D.3d 516 (1st Dep't 2014)　3, 4\n\nZanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp.,\n193 A.D.3d 536 (1st Dep't 2021)　5\n\n法规及其他权威资料：\n\nCPLR 3123　9\n\nCPLR 3126　12\n\n初步陈述\n\nPAX主张，应当对Kwok先生适用司法禁止反言，因为他在动议法院准许其不方便法院动议时，曾在本案中一度胜诉——因此请求本法院忽略关键事实，即在PAX提起上诉后，本法院撤销了该下级法院裁定，并驳回了Kwok先生的动议。作为纽约州法律问题，一方当事人暂时胜诉后其胜诉结果随后被推翻的，并非适用司法禁止反言时的胜诉方。由于动议法院作出简易判决完全以其错误的司法禁止反言裁定为前提，应当撤销该判决书。\n\nPAX或许认识到动议法院裁定中的缺陷，提出了若干其他可能支持维持原判的理由，并承认动议法院未讨论这些理由。PAX的替代理由不能成立。PAX主张Kwok先生作出了文件真实的“正式司法承认”，但该主张不能成立，因为其所援引的陈述——并非由Kwok先生本人作出，而是由这名不会说英语的诉讼当事人的前代理律师作出——脱离了语境。上述陈述均非对事实作出的明确、无歧义且确定性的承认——而这正是正式司法承认的本质特征。Kwok先生在其证言录取中作证称，该等文件没有其签名；这是他首次有机会亲自就该等文件及其真实性作出陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 197 of 241\n\nPAX亦主张，本法院应作为法律问题直接驳回Kwok先生的证言，但也没有依据。依照本州保障诉讼当事人正当程序并依案件实体解决案件的政策，应允许Kwok先生向事实裁判者提出其对PAX主张的事实抗辩——包括有关文件是否真实的证据。\n\n最后，即使就责任问题而言，正确地作出了有利于PAX的简易判决——但事实并非如此——那么，对于Kwok先生提出的PAX未能依纽约州法及香港法的要求减轻其损害赔偿的抗辩，仍存在事实争议。\n\n论证\n\n要点I\n\n应撤销判决书，因为其基于对司法禁止反言原则的错误适用\n\nA. 司法禁止反言的要件并不具备\n\nPAX承认——面对本法院的先例，其必须如此承认——司法禁止反言仅在“当事人因其[被指称]不一致立场而‘获得有利裁定或判决……’”时适用。（PAX Br. 9, quoting 35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC, 171 A.D.3d 545, 545 (1st Dep't 2019)）。在本案中，Kwok先生并未在不方便法院问题上获得“有利裁定或判决”，因为在其最初于动议法院胜诉后，本法院撤销了下级法院裁定，驳回了Kwok先生的驳回动议，并命令本案在纽约继续进行。Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok, 160 A.D.3d 452 (1st Dep't 2018)。即使是动议法院的最初裁定——更不用说本法院的撤销裁定——也没有就文件真实性作出认定（该等文件并非如PAX所称来自Kwok先生“自己的档案”）。\n\n在Kwok先生最初上诉状中讨论的众多裁定中（见Kwok Br. 17-19），本法院已认定，在能够援引司法禁止反言之前，当事人必须通过其先前被指称不一致立场的利益，取得有利于其的判决或其他终局救济。见，例如，Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC, 189 A.D.3d 632, 633 (1st Dep't 2020); MacArthur Props. I, LLC v. Galbraith, 182 A.D.3d 514, 514 (1st Dep't 2020); MPEG LA, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd, 166 A.D.3d 13, 21 (1st Dep't 2018); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Webster Bus. Credit Corp., 113 A.D.3d 516, 516 (1st Dep't 2014); Carr v. Caputo, 114 A.D.3d 62, 71 (1st Dep't 2013)。本案中，鉴于本次上诉正是针对对Kwok先生作出的判决书而提起，他显然未在本案中取得有利于其的判决书。\n\nPAX援引D & L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co. LLC, 287 A.D.2d 65, 71 (1st Dep't 2001)，主张当事人无需取得判决书即可适用司法禁止反言。尽管D & L Holdings法院认定，当事人取得救济所依据的文件不必标示为“判决书”，但其重申而非否定了以下规则：司法禁止反言仅在“当事人通过坚持某一立场获得救济，随后在另一诉讼中坚持相反立场”的情形下适用。Id. at 71-72。相反，该案中适用司法禁止反言仅是因为“D & L事实上从先前程序中的法院取得了其寻求的救济”。Id. at 72。\n\n如本法院所解释，为适用禁止反言，当事人必须因其被指称的先前立场而在诉讼中“胜诉”并取得有利裁定。见，例如，Patmos, 189 A.D.3d at 633（“该请求未受司法禁止反言阻却，因为即使存在矛盾，被告先前的任何立场均未胜诉。”）；Wells Fargo, 113 A.D.3d at 516 (1st Dep't 2014)（“由于原告未就其合同赔偿请求胜诉，司法禁止反言原则不适用。”）。本案中，PAX提出了一个不同寻常的论点，即Kwok先生因动议法院最初准许其驳回动议，便在不方便法院问题上胜诉并获得有利裁定——尽管本法院在审理PAX针对该裁定提出的上诉后，撤销了下级法院裁定并驳回了Kwok先生的动议。\n\nPAX的立场——即使一方当事人最初获得有利裁定后该裁定被推翻，其仍被视为在某一争点上胜诉——与本院近期阐释“胜诉”及获得“有利裁定”含义的判决直接相悖。本院在 Orr v. Urban American Mgmt. Corp., 172 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dep't 2019) 一案中的判决与本案直接相关。在该案中，一方当事人在破产程序中最初获得救济，但破产法院后来重新开启了该案，从而否定了该项救济。本院裁定，在该变化之后，破产法院的最初裁定不能作为司法禁反言的依据：\n\nKartsanis 的破产案件被重新开启，使司法禁反言原则不再适用，因为这“消灭了……司法禁反言可能据以成立的终局认定”。\n\nId. at 512（引用 Goodman v. Skanska USA Civil, Inc. 169 A.D.3d 1010, 1013 (2d Dep't 2019); Koch v. National Basketball Ass'n, 245 A.D.2d 230, 230-31 (1st Dep't 1997)）。\n\nPAX主张，诸如 Goodman 一案的案件仅限于破产语境，但其并未提出任何支持该限制的理由。PAX主张，破产法院对破产程序的“重新开启”会“消灭……司法禁反言可能据以成立的终局认定”。（PAX Br. 33（引用 Goodman）。）但本案情形完全相同：当本院推翻动议法院准许 Kwok（郭文贵）先生提出的不方便法院动议的裁定并驳回该动议时，本院“消灭”了先前有利于郭文贵先生的认定，从而否定了该认定作为司法禁反言潜在依据的可能性。参见 Barish v. Association of the Bar, 20 N.Y.2d 154, 158 (1967)（“对定罪的推翻……使其失效，如同其从未存在过”）；Zanani v. Sutton Apts. Corp., 193 A.D.3d 536, 538 (1st Dep't 2021)（被告胜诉的裁定被推翻时，根据胜诉方条款向被告裁定的律师费“同样必须被推翻，因为[被告]在目前这一阶段并非胜诉方”）；Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst, 155 A.D.3d 1638, 1640 (4th Dep't 2017)（“‘一旦法院撤销先前的命令，……本案既定法则原则即不再适用……事实上，‘被撤销的判决无论作为争点排除或直接禁反言事项，还是作为本案既定法则事项，均不具有排除效力。’”）（引文略）。\n\n如我方初步书状所述，动议法院和PAX对 Nestor v. Britt, 270 A.D.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2000) 一案的依赖并不恰当。（见 Kwok Br. 21-22。）该判决甚至未提及，更遑论适用司法禁反言中的“胜诉方”或“有利裁定”要求；不能合理地将其解读为推翻本院在 Nestor 之前及之后数十年的判例，而这些判例均承认该项要求。并且，PAX对 Nestor 的解释无法与本院在 Orr 和 Koch 两案中的判决相协调；两案均认定，后续诉讼进展如“消灭……司法禁反言可能据以成立的终局认定”，即排除司法禁反言的适用。Orr, 172 A.D.3d at 512; Koch, 245 A.D.2d at 231。\n\n最后，动议法院关于司法禁反言的裁定与本院的判决不一致；本院认定，司法禁反言仅适用于两个或以上彼此独立的诉讼或程序，而本案仅涉及一项诉讼。如我方初步书状所述，本院已明确认定，司法禁反言要求存在两个先后进行的诉讼：\n\n我们还驳回雇主提出的论点，即业主因司法禁反言而不得主张原告未遭受严重伤害。司法禁反言原则在此不适用，因为第一，针对业主作出的裁决不能被视为有利于他们的裁定；第二，不一致的立场是在同一诉讼中提出的。\n\nOlszewski v. Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 349, 350-51 (1st Dep't 2005)。\n\n与PAX所主张的相反，本院明确表述的认定——“司法禁反言不适用……[在被指称的]不一致立场是在同一诉讼中提出的情形”（id.）——不能被当作仅仅是附带意见而置之不理。如果本院在其意见书同一句中提出两个裁决某一争点的依据，则不存在任何依据允许PAX这样的诉讼当事人将其中一个抬升为该案的判决要旨，同时将另一个贬为附带意见。参见 Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny, 189 A.D.3d 583, 583 (1st Dep't 2020)（“我们拒绝推翻我们在 Lavery 一案中的任何备选认定；申请人错误地将其称为‘附带意见’。”），准许上诉，36 N.Y.3d 912 (2021)。此外，即使为论证起见，司法禁反言有时可因同一诉讼中采取的不一致立场而产生——尽管本院在 Olszewski 中作出了直接相反的认定——其仍不能适用于郭文贵先生，因为如上所述，他关于不方便法院动议的立场，即使在本案范围内也未获胜诉。\n\n动议法院就责任作出的简易判决完全基于其关于司法禁反言的裁定。由于该裁定错误，判决应予推翻。\n\nB. PAX的司法自认理论未获动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nPAX为维持其在未对实体问题作出任何认定的情况下仓促作出的判决，另行主张郭文贵先生作出了具有约束力的“正式司法自认”，承认相关文件真实。正如PAX自身承认的（PAX Br. 36），无论是口头还是书面裁定，动议法院均未处理或依赖郭文贵先生所谓的“自认”作为其裁定依据。在本案中，本院不应行使其自由裁量权，首次审议动议法院未曾触及或处理的论点。\n\n或者，如本院选择审议PAX的替代理由，则应予驳回。“要构成司法自认，陈述必须是‘经过审慎作出、明确且毫不含糊的。’”Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Gordon, 171 A.D.3d 197, 211 (2d Dep't 2019)（引文略）；同见 Matter of Daniel M. G. v. Annette P., 181 A.D.3d 461, 463 (1st Dep't 2020)（该陈述不能被视为正式司法自认，因为其“并非足够确定或毫不含糊，因而不能被认定为”此类自认）。即使PAX也承认，“[要被视为正式司法自认，陈述]‘必须是关于事实的陈述’，‘必须经过审慎作出、明确且毫不含糊’，并且必须‘以具有充分正式性和确定性的方式作出。’”（PAX Br. 36-37，引用 Rahman v. Smith, 40 A.D.3d 613, 615 (2d Dep't 2007)。）PAX援引的所谓自认不符合该标准。\n\nPAX主要依赖两项所谓自认，据称均由郭文贵先生的前任律师作出。值得注意的是，这些“自认”并未载于郭文贵先生的证言记录——他在其中明确证称该等文件并无其真实签名——亦未载于任何由郭文贵先生本人签署的书面文件。第一，PAX主张郭文贵先生在答复一组承认事项请求时承认了文件的真实性。事实并非如此。PAX大量的承认事项请求（“RFAs”）（见 R411-99）包括要求郭文贵先生承认其已签署各种文件的请求。然而，PAX并未将该等文件作为证据附于其承认事项请求。（Id.。）因此，郭文贵先生或代表他的任何人均没有机会审阅所涉具体文件，而 CPLR 3123 要求应当提供该机会。\n\n郭文贵先生的律师对RFAs的答复包括对全部RFAs提出的一般性异议，以及针对要求郭文贵先生承认未附具文件真实性的具体异议。（R411-78；例如，针对第 10、13、19、30、37、44 和 51 号请求的答复。）因此，郭文贵先生并未承认任何具体文件的真实性，更不用说以确定或毫不含糊的方式作出承认。当并无任何具体文件被提交供任何人审阅时，他又怎可能作出该等承认？在收到郭文贵先生时任律师提交的答复和异议后，PAX告知律师，PAX将“很快”作出回应，以处理其律师的异议。但PAX从未这样做，也从未再次提及所谓“自认”，直至其提出制裁动议。\n\nPAX错误描述为“自认”的第二份文件是一封附于证据清单的附函。（见 NYSCEF Doc. 325。）该文件是在动议法院已安排就PAX提出的一项动议举行证据听证会之后制作的；该动议旨在查封PAX声称属于郭文贵先生的一套纽约公寓。在该听证会之前，双方当事人通过其律师订立了一项正式约定，其目的在于将该特定听证会——当然不是整个诉讼——的范围限定为与查封有关的问题。（NYSCEF Doc. 306。）因此，双方约定，就该项特定的查封证据听证会而言，法院可以假定PAX对郭文贵先生享有诉因且具有胜诉可能性，从而PAX无需在听证会上证明这些要件。（Id. at 3。）该约定强调，其仅涉及PAX必须在该特定听证会上提出的证明，且PAX“并未免除其为取得终局判决而证明其每项请求实体依据的义务。”（Id.。）\n\n随后，双方为查封证据听证会作准备。动议法院的实务规则要求，双方在听证会前提交证据清单，并注明证据的可采性是否经约定或存在争议。2019年4月19日，PAX的律师向动议法院提交附函，“依据第 61 部分实务规则第 28 条共同致函……以在 2019年4月26日就原告查封动议举行证据听证会之前，向法院提供……材料”，并且仅在该语境中陈述，除其他事项外，郭文贵先生不对PAX证据的真实性提出争议（NYSCEF Doc. 325 at 1）。\n\n2019年4月3日的约定和2019年4月19日的附函均反映，双方当事人通过其律师努力将即将举行的查封动议证据听证会仅聚焦于查封相关问题，同时理解到“完整的实体证据开示[将]在”本案后续阶段进行。（NYSCEF Doc. 306 at 3。）两份文件中的陈述显然仅涉及所列证据为即将举行的查封听证会所具有的可采性。郭文贵先生并未因此在该附函中承认这些证据在后续实体程序中真实，正如他并未约定这些证据在实体审判中可采，或约定他不会在该审判中提交其自身证据一样。PAX援引的 Matter of Daniel C., 99 A.D.2d 35 (2d Dep't 1984) 一案显然可以区别，因为该案中律师关于争点范围的约定是在实体审判记录中作出，受代理当事人在法庭上在场并经宣誓作证；而非如本案中，在就一项附带程序性问题举行听证会之前提交的一封信中，为该听证会之目的而作出。\n\n其律师曾就动议听证订立约定的当事人，不应因该仅限于特定目的的约定在案件后续阶段被用于完全不同的目的而受到惩罚，更不应因此导致其主要抗辩被削弱。本院不应根据目前的记录认定，该附函既未经Kwok先生（郭文贵）签署，甚至也未经其律师签署，却“足够确定或明确，以构成”代表Kwok先生作出的有约束力的司法承认。Matter of Daniel M. G., 181 A.D.3d at 463。\n\n这并非当事人在其证言中称“绿灯亮着”，随后又提交宣誓书称“红灯亮着”的情形。在Kwok先生被出示争议文件并就其是否真实作出说明时，其首次有机会自行陈述是在其证言录取中。无争议的是，在证言录取过程中，Kwok先生清楚、确定且明确地表示，其在该等文件上的签名并非真实签名。（见 Kwok Br. 6-7）。本院不应基于动议法院既未讨论也未采纳的理论，排除有关Kwok先生就一项有争议事实问题所知情况的最可靠证据：其本人在证言录取中的证词。\n\nC. PAX关于“伪证制裁”的理论未获动议法院采纳，且缺乏依据\n\nPAX还主张本院应自行对Kwok先生施加制裁。PAX并非依据CPLR 3126，就未能提供充分文件开示或未出席证言录取等开示不当行为寻求制裁。相反，PAX请求本院“禁止Kwok依赖其有关伪造的证词”，因为PAX称其不相信该证词。（PAX Br. 45）。此类制裁没有依据。\n\nPAX所寻求的制裁类型极少被请求，也更少被准予。在CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 23 N.Y.3d 307 (2014)一案中，PAX援引该案，上诉法院（Court of Appeals）认定，法院拥有固有权力，可就“损害司法制度查明真相的功能，并使法院以及我们的司法制度的完整性受到质疑”的行为施加制裁。Id. at 318。但在基于此理由施加制裁之前，提出动议的一方“必须以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，违规‘当事人明知故犯，企图妨碍事实裁判者对案件作出公正裁决，以及妨碍其对手对该诉讼进行抗辩。’”Id. at 320。上诉法院强调，驳回等终结案件的制裁是“‘必须审慎且酌情行使’的极端救济”，并且仅适用于“行为特别恶劣，其特征是为推进旨在向法院和未违规方隐瞒关键事项的计划而作出的谎言和捏造；该行为被反复且故意实施，并有清楚且令人信服的证据予以证明”的情形。Id. at 321 (citation omitted)。只有“罕见案件”才可能 warrant such a sanction，法院施加该制裁的依据应予说明。Id. at 322。\n\n在C.D.R. Créances一案中，上诉法院维持了以删除诉辩文件作为制裁的决定；其中包括，有证词表明被告曾指使并与证人合谋作出虚假和误导性证词，包括向证人提供一份书面的虚假回答“脚本”，供其在证言录取中作答；被告“创造了虚构人物”，而该等人物是证词的对象；多名人士“在其证言录取中反复作伪证”；且被告因该诉讼所涉行为已被刑事定罪。Id. at 316-18。\n\n本案中，被告在其首次有机会如此陈述时即证称某些文件不真实，不能合理地与C.D.R. Créances相提并论。如无清楚且令人信服的证据证明某一方“参与了一项故意且广泛的欺诈法院计划，从而损害了[PAX]诉讼其请求的能力”，则应驳回要求当事人在诉讼中“应丧失其[抗辩]”的请求。Napoli v. Bern, 171 A.D.3d 489, 490 (1st Dep't 2019); see also Peters v. Peters, 146 A.D.3d 503, 504 (1st Dep't 2017) (“原告未能以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告被指称的不实陈述特别恶劣，并具有为推进旨在向法院隐瞒关键事项的计划而作出的谎言这一特征。”)。在PAX认为存在与Kwok先生所述事实版本相矛盾的证据的范围内，其救济与任何不同意对方当事人案件主张的诉讼当事人所享有的救济相同：向事实裁判者提交其证据。\n\nD. PAX主张即使不考虑司法禁止反言裁定其仍有权获得简易判决，亦无依据\n\n作为其请求维持原判的最后一项备选论点，PAX主张，即使动议法院禁止Kwok先生争议文件真实性的命令被推翻，简易判决仍被适当地作出，因为Kwok先生在反对PAX动议时，并未提出证据或论点以证明文件系伪造。（PAX Br. 45-47）。\n\nPAX的这一论点完全无视动议法院应PAX请求作出的排除命令的效力；简易判决的基础正是该排除命令。动议法院表面上作为一项制裁，指令Kwok先生“因司法禁止反言，不得在反对原告简易判决动议时或在审判中，对被告Kwok先前在本院程序中支持的文件真实性提出质疑。”（R59）。\n\n在反对PAX的简易判决动议时，Kwok先生及其律师受动议法院指令的约束，即其“因司法禁止反言，不得在反对原告简易判决动议时”对文件真实性提出质疑。（R59）。作为其反对文件的一部分，Kwok先生提出动议，请求重新审议司法禁止反言裁定，但动议法院驳回了该请求。（R52- 54）。除非且直至动议法院的排除命令被动议法院本身或本院推翻，Kwok先生均受其约束，正如其在反对文件中所指出的。（见 R3213 n.1, R3231 n.1, R3256 n.1）。因此，法院命令禁止其争议文件真实性，其也不能就该问题请求举行证据听证，正如PAX还主张其本应做的那样。（见 PAX Br. 46-47）。PAX指责Kwok先生未在其简易判决文件中质疑文件真实性，往好处说是讽刺，往坏处说是不真诚。这恰恰是PAX已成功说服动议法院禁止Kwok先生从事的事项。\n\n论点二\n\n由于动议法院错误驳回PAX未减轻其损失的抗辩，判决书应予撤销\n\n判决书还应予撤销，因为动议法院作为法律问题不当地驳回了Kwok先生关于PAX未减轻其所称损失的抗辩。动议法院在未举行证据听证或审判的情况下作出该决定，而仅在两个月前，其曾在记录中明确表示，“[我]们将就损失问题举行听证”，且Kwok先生将“被允许就该理论，在损失听证中提出其拥有的任何证据[原文如此]，如有。”（NYSCEF Doc. 647 at 6）。\n\nPAX在上诉中并不争议，根据香港和纽约法律，合同诉讼中的原告通常有义务减轻其损失，而非寻求收取其本可避免的损失。相反，PAX主张，根据被指称的2013 Deed of Settlement，不可能存在减轻损失的义务，因为该文件在“2015年6月后北京警方接触之前”已经届满。（PAX Br. 49）。然而，PAX承认，其在公寓被北京警方查封后得知这一机会，而该查封无争议地发生于2015年2月。（PAX Br. 51）。对于PAX在此后多久得知该机会，以及该情况是否发生在2015年6月30日之前，即查封后四或五个月的期间内，存在事实争议。\n\nPAX还主张，其没有减轻损失的义务，因为2013 Deed of Settlement并未要求Kwok先生促使将公寓移交给PAX，而只是允许他以此作为履行方式的替代选择，以代替支付担保项下所欠款项。（PAX Br. 51-52）。然而，如我方初始书状所述，PAX已同意，将三套公寓交付给其将构成可接受的替代履行，以代替支付据称根据Kwok先生担保所欠的款项。Kwok先生的香港法律专家认为，在该等情形下，香港法律会要求作出合理努力以减轻损失（见 R4355-58, R4623-26），而PAX未提供任一法域法律下相反的权威依据。特别是，Kwok先生的香港法律专家援引权威依据解释称，减轻损失的义务适用于“诸如本案所呈现的情形，即当事人订立后续协议以清偿债务，该协议涉及替代性偿还方式，例如不动产的买卖。”（R4624）。正如Kwok先生的香港法律专家所指出，PAX的专家未援引任何权威依据支持PAX关于减轻损失义务在此情形下不适用的主张。（见 R4624-25）。在不存在该等权威依据的情况下，香港法律下（如同纽约法律下）当事人必须减轻损失的一般规则应予适用。\n\nPAX对北京警方的提议是否构成“合理”的减轻损失机会提出争议。根据香港法律，“一方是否已采取一切合理措施以减轻其损失，主要是事实问题，而非法律问题。”（R4356 and R4627, citing authorities）。“PAX应采取何种‘合理措施’，必须由事实裁判者考虑全部周围情形后审查并确定。”（R4627）。根据纽约法律亦然，“该方是否采取合理行动以减轻其损失的问题，属于事实问题。”Tynan Incinerator Co. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 117 A.D.2d 796, 797 (2d Dep't 1986) (citations omitted); accord Bernstein v. Freudman, 180 A.D.2d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 1992)。动议法院未直接裁定该问题；该问题不能作为法律问题被适当地解决，尤其鉴于有证据表明，PAX认为警方提议代表“一个好价格”（R4360）、“低于市场价格”（R4348），并且从PAX的角度而言是一项“积极进展”（R4361）。如果PAX接受北京警方的提议，并因此通过接受其已同意将解除Kwok先生被指称担保的履行而减轻其损失，则其随后可以就其在减轻损失过程中发生的费用提出请求。\n\n如我方最初的书状所述，PAX接受并采纳警方的提议，不仅本可完全免除或至少减少PAX主张的本金数额数千万美元，而且还会减少PAX就该数额主张的数年15%年利息；该利息现已占判决金额的一半以上。相反，PAX选择对Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）先生提起诉讼，或许是为了追求其对他的敌意，并希望执行所称个人担保，以获得“其将带来的纯粹满足感”。（R4579）。\n\n最后，PAX贬低Kwok先生的论点，即其取得三套公寓的占有，已为PAX带来价值，该价值应从任何判决金额中抵扣，具体数额应在审判中确定。PAX主张，根据所称《和解契据》的完全履行要求将所有权转让给PAX，而非仅转让占有。即使PAX对该三套公寓的占有并不具有与所有权转让同等的价值，也必然具有一定价值。动议法院认定其在法律上完全不具有价值，属错误。\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第215页，共241页\n\n结论\n\n基于上述全部理由，应撤销该判决。\n\n日期：New York, New York 2021年10月15日\nGANFER SHORE LEEDS & ZAUDERER LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹及佐德勒律师事务所）\n\n~c~ C. Zauder 署名：\n\nMark Ira Brad Matetsky Jason T. Cohen\n360 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n(212) 412-9500\nmzauderer@ganfershore.com\n被告—上诉人Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名Miles Kwok（郭浩云）的代理律师\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第216页，共241页\n\n印刷规格声明\n\n本人特此根据22 NYCRR 1250.8(j)证明，上述书状系使用Microsoft Word在计算机上编制。\n\n字体。本书状使用了比例间距字体，具体如下：\n\n字体名称：Times New Roman\n\n字号：14\n行距：双倍\n\n字数。本书状的总字数为4,802字，包括要点标题及脚注，但不包括目录、引证目录、送达证明及本声明所在页面。\n\n日期：2021年10月15日\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第217页，共241页\n\n证据附件22\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2020年09月30日 04:44 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号591 NYSCEF接收日期：2020年09月30日 案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第218页，共241页\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约州纽约县最高法院）\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）　庭别　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告，　案卷编号　652077/2017\n\n诉　动议日期\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　动议序号　011\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），　关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n2020年9月30日，法院通过Skype举行口头辩论，所有当事人均有律师出席。经同意，法院作出临时限制令，限制Kwok先生出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干扰其拥有权益的任何财产，或支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应向其支付的任何债务；但CPLR 5222规定的例外情形及正常经营过程中的行为除外。\n\n法院将于2020年10月15日上午10:00通过Microsoft Teams听取进一步辩论，并在必要时举行证据听证会。被告必须于2020年10月13日下午4:00前提交对动议011的反对意见。原告必须于2020年10月14日下午4:00前提交答复（如有）。如任一方拟传唤证人，必须在不晚于2020年10月13日前相互交换证人名单，并向法院以电子方式提交证人名单。\n\n此外，法院将于2020年10月15日上午10:00通过Microsoft Teams就原告关于损害赔偿及律师费的动议008听取口头辩论。被告必须提交\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2020年09月30日 04:44 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号591 NYSCEF接收日期：2020年09月30日 案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第219页，共241页\n\n其对动议011的反对意见，截止时间为2020年10月13日下午4:00；原告必须提交其答复，\n\n如有，截止时间为2020年10月14日下午4:00。\n\n任何违反今日作出的临时限制令的行为，均应被视为\n\n刑事藐视法庭。\n\n日期：2020年9月30日\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第220页，共241页\n\n证据附件23\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2020年10月15日 02:52 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号630 NYSCEF接收日期：2020年10月15日 案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第221页，共241页\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约州纽约县最高法院）\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）　庭别　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），　案卷编号　652077/2017\n原告，　动议日期\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名　动议序号　011\nGUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE\nHAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），以及GENEVER HOLDINGS\nCORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），　关于动议的裁定及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n2020年10月15日，所有当事人的律师均参加了通过Microsoft Teams举行的口头辩论，法院就原告依据CPLR 5229提出的判决后限制令动议（动议011）进行了审理。2020年9月15日，法院就责任问题作出有利于原告的简易判决；损害赔偿数额以及公司被告是否为被告Kwok的另一个自我这一问题，将于日后确定。NYSCEF文件549。\n\n原告依据CPLR 5229提出的限制令动议获准。根据2020年10月15日记录在案的程序，Kwok先生被限制直接或间接出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干扰其拥有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应向其支付的任何债务，但CPLR 5222规定的例外情形除外。\n\n具体而言，Kwok先生及/或下列财产的登记所有人：（1）Sherry-Netherland Hotel的住宅，及（2）游艇“the Lady May”，均被限制出售、促成出售、让与、转让或干扰该等资产。\n\n根据CPLR 5229，原告有权就上述确定的资产进行证据开示，亦有权就Kwok先生可能直接或间接拥有的任何其他资产寻求证据开示。\n\n下一次出庭将为审前会议，定于2020年11月12日下午2:00通过Microsoft Teams举行。\n\n2020年10月15日\n日期　\\$SIG\\$\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER, J.S.C.\n\n勾选一项：　X　案件已结案\n准予\n驳回　X　非终局性处置\n部分准予　其他\n申请：　拟定命令　提交命令\n如适用请勾选：　包括移送/重新分配　受托人任命　移交审理\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第223页，共241页\n\n证据附件24\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2016年02月05日 07:09 PM 案卷编号653316/2015 NYSCEF文件编号27 NYSCEF接收日期：2016年02月05日 已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2021年04月28日 10:54 PM案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号764 接收日期：2021年04月28日 案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第224页，共241页\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（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，　：案卷编号653316/2015（Bransten法官）\n\n诉　：动议序号001\n\nUBS AG（瑞银集团），　：\n\n被告。　：\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）为支持原告反对被告驳回起诉书之动议所作的宣誓书\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；Yong Yu为Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）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）就潜在投资进行讨论。本人自2012年7月起一直为瑞银的客户。\n\n4. 本人在瑞银的主要联系人一直是Stephen Wong（史蒂芬·黄），其为瑞银财富管理及瑞士银行部的董事总经理。\n\n5. 本人于2010年5月与Wong先生相识。自此以后，Wong先生就与飞机购置等项目有关的投资及融资事项向本人提供建议。\n\n多年来，本人在作出投资及融资决定时，一直依赖Wong先生和瑞银的知识及专业能力。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2021年04月28日 10:54 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号764 接收日期：2021年04月28日 案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第225页，共241页\n\n6. 此外，自2012年7月起，本人就在瑞银为本人控制的一项投资载体设有账户。此后，本人为本人控制的另外两项投资载体在瑞银开设了其他账户，并从瑞银取得两架飞机的融资。\n\n7. 于2014年初至年中，本人开始与瑞银讨论一项投资机会（以下简称“该投资”），即即将进行的Haitong Securities Co., Ltd.（海通证券股份有限公司）H股（以下简称“股份”）配售。\n\n8. 自2014年本人首次开始与瑞银讨论起，至2015年5月13日本人与Yu女士授权支付最终款项HK $2 billion（约US $260 million）以参与该投资之日止，本人与Wong先生通过电话、面对面会谈及电子讯息频繁沟通。在此期间，包括在本人于2015年1月9日迁居纽约之后，Wong先生作出多项不实陈述，本人在决定进行该投资时依赖了这些陈述。\n\n9. 瑞银是该股份的联合全球协调人及配售代理人，并自称在就该投资提供建议方面具有知识和经验。\n\n10. 起初，Wong先生向本人保证，如瑞银获得本人的业务，其将保护本人的利益，并为贷款融资该投资的一部分提供尽可能最有利的条款。Wong先生告诉本人，由于本人计划进行的投资规模，瑞银全球的高级管理人员将参与构建该交易。Wong先生告诉本人，在整个该投资过程中，他将担任本人的个人联系人及瑞银的代表，但其将依照美国、瑞士、英国及香港瑞银办事处高级管理人员的指示行事。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 2021年04月28日 10:54 PM 案卷编号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号764 接收日期：2021年04月28日 案件22-50073 文件183-3 2022年04月06日提交 2022年04月06日录入 17:07:45 第226页，共241页\n\n11. 基于瑞银全球高级管理人员将参与构建及监督该投资，以及瑞银将以最符合本人利益的方式行事的上述陈述，本人委托瑞银担任该投资的顾问。\n\n12. 本人已阅读Wong先生为支持瑞银驳回Ace Decade起诉书之动议而提交的声明书。在该声明书中，他在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明：“我第一次听说Ace Decade，是在2015年10月得知本案诉讼时。”（Stephen Wong声明书第3段。）本人读到该陈述时感到震惊，因为该陈述不实。恰恰相反，Wong先生和瑞银不仅此前已知悉Ace Decade，而且正是他们建议本人指定本人哪一名雇员担任Ace Decade的唯一股东及董事，利用Ace Decade与将持有该股份法定所有权的中介实体订立附带协议，以及如何将该投资所需资金从本人的一个瑞银账户最妥善地转入Ace Decade账户。总之，Wong先生和瑞银知道，该投资的最终投资者是Ace Decade。\n\n13. UBS（瑞银）告知，由于拟议的投资所涉 Haitong（海通）流通在外 H-shares（H股）超过 5%，如我通过 Ace Decade 直接投资，适用的信息披露要求将要求提交某些申报文件。\n\n14. UBS 告知，如我通过一家中介实体投资，由该中介实体持有股份的法定所有权，则无需作出此类披露。\n\n15. UBS 建议我选择 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，以下简称“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，并将保护我和 Ace Decade 的利益。基于这些陈述，我选择 Haixia 作为该项投资的中介机构。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 227 of 241\n\n16. UBS 从未披露 Haixia 受其合资伙伴 State Development & Investment Corp.（国家开发投资公司，以下简称“SDIC”）控制。UBS 也未披露，担任 UBS 与 Haixia 之间主要联络人的 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（在 Ace Decade 作出该项投资且 UBS 已清算股份之后），Wong 先生在一次电话通话中披露该关系；我是在纽约办公室接听该电话的。在此之前，我并不知道 Haixia 与 UBS 之间的密切关系。\n\n17. Wong 先生起初表示，若我们选择 Haixia 作为进行该项投资的中介机构，我们将无需接受 Haixia 的 Know Your Customer（了解你的客户，以下简称“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，但他未说明这些文件是否用于 Haixia 的 KYC 程序。Wong 先生要求审阅我若干雇员的简历，以评估谁的背景最有可能符合 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，因此我应任命 Yu 女士为 Ace Decade 的董事及唯一股东。Wong 先生表示，他将对 Yu 女士的简历提出意见，并请她将简历发送给他。（见 Ace Decade 证据 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 先生与我还多次讨论该项投资的潜在融资。Wong 先生表示，Ace Decade 应通过 UBS 而非另一家银行取得该项投资部分款项的融资，因为 UBS 将按照对 Ace Decade 最有利的条件处理该融资。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 228 of 241\n\n20. 在讨论贷款融资期间，我告知 Wong 先生，除非贷款文件不含任何允许 UBS 基于股份短期价格波动要求偿还贷款的条款（即“追加保证金通知”），并且除非 UBS 表示将给予 Ace Decade 足够的时间（例如，5 个营业日支付首个 25%，10 个营业日支付第二个 25%，以及 20 个营业日支付剩余 50%）以应对任何追加保证金通知，否则 Ace Decade 不会进行该项投资。\n\n21. Wong 先生于 2014 年不止一次表示，贷款融资文件将符合我的要求，具体而言，不会基于短期价格波动触发还款或追加保证金通知。\n\n22. Wong 先生还于 2014 年及 2015 年多次表示，UBS 将与 Ace Decade 合作，使其能够应对任何追加保证金通知；在未给予 Ace Decade 足够时间的情况下，UBS 不会因任何追加保证金通知而出售任何股份。\n\n23. Wong 先生还于 2014 年及 2015 年多次表示，UBS 曾向 Ping An Insurance Group（平安保险集团，以下简称“Ping An”）的一名大股东发放贷款。Wong 先生解释，该平安股东的贷款金额远大于 Ace Decade 的贷款金额，但 UBS 从未在该股东收到追加保证金通知后出售其持有的任何股份。Wong 先生表示，在触发追加保证金通知时，UBS 曾与该平安股东合作解决该情况，而未出售其任何股份。Wong 先生反复表示，UBS 将给予 Ace Decade 与给予该平安股东相同的待遇，并将合作使 Ace Decade 能够应对任何追加保证金通知；但无论如何，在未给予 Ace Decade 足够时间的情况下，不会在追加保证金通知后出售股份。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 229 of 241\n\n24. 在我们就该项投资进行讨论的整个过程中，Wong 先生反复表示，我可以信任他和 UBS，且他和 UBS 始终以我的最大利益为重。\n\n25. On December 14, 2014，在讨论该项投资时，Wong 先生通过 WhatsApp（智能手机移动通信应用程序）向我发送的信息中称：“我既然已经答应郭总，就一定会尽最大努力；我只是希望郭总能够信任我。”当日稍后，他在另一条信息中告诉我：“我没有理由不为郭总争取最好的结果！”（郭总是 Wong 先生对我的称呼。）\n\n26. 同样于 December 14, 2014，Wong 先生给我留下语音留言，表示在就该项投资进行谈判期间，“必须保障郭总的利益”，并表示他已请全球各地办公室的 UBS 高层管理人员提供协助。\n\n27. On December 15, 2014，Wong 先生给我留下语音留言，表示他正在处理该项投资的条款，以“保护[我]”。\n\n28. On December 19, 2014，Wong 先生给我留下语音留言，称：“郭总，您完全可以放心，我会全面保护您的利益。”\n\n29. 因此，我相信 Wong 先生和 UBS 正在以 Ace Decade 的最大利益为重行事；我也相信 Wong 先生就贷款融资文件所作的陈述属实，并相信 UBS 不会在未与 Ace Decade 合作使其能够应对任何追加保证金通知的情况下出售股份。\n\n30. On January 9, 2015，在我仍与 UBS 就该项投资的条款进行谈判期间，我与 Yu 女士及其他雇员迁往纽约，意图将我的商业项目拓展至纽约，并寻找有意投资 Ace Decade 的投资者。\n\n31. 我于 December 2014 首次与 Wong 先生讨论迁往纽约以为 Ace Decade 寻找投资者的计划。其后，我于 March、May 和 June 2015 从纽约通过电话多次与 Wong 先生讨论为 Ace Decade 寻找投资者一事。\n\n32. On February 9, 2015，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 Memorandum of Understanding（谅解备忘录，以下简称“MOU”）。该 MOU 规定，Ace Decade 将收购 Haitong 股份，而 Golden Spring Hong Kong 将在纽约设立分支机构，以为与 Haitong 股份有关的项目寻找投资者。\n\n33. 为推进该 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 March 2015 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）46 楼部分区域签署了租约。Yu 女士和我在 767 Fifth Avenue 的办公室从事与 Ace Decade 有关的业务。\n\n35. 我不仅在 December 2014 与 UBS 讨论过迁往纽约并从纽约运营我的商业项目的计划，还请求 UBS 协助我在纽约建立业务。On March 2015，Wong 先生及 UBS 的其他人员，包括 Agnes Fu（傅艾格尼丝）和 Liz Lam（林莉兹），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已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 231 of 241\n\n36. On April 2015，Wong 先生、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内的一套公寓一事，代表我提交了推荐信。在 Wong 先生于 February 18, 2015 致该楼董事会的一封信中，Wong 先生写道：“自 Miles 首次开始与 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）合作以来，我认识他约五年了。”（Miles 是我的英文名字。）Wong 先生还表示：“多年来，Miles 已在我行建立了信誉。他非常可靠，并且始终履行其还款义务。因此，我行很高兴拥有他这位长期客户。”（Ace Decade 证据 1。）\n\n38. Wong 先生和同为 UBS 董事总经理的 Tommy Cheung（张汤米）于 February 23, 2015 向该公寓楼董事会代表我提交了另一封推荐信，其中称：“Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）自 July 2012 起一直通过一家个人投资公司成为我们的客户。”（Ace Decade 证据 2。）\n\n39. On March 6, 2015，我购买了该楼内的一套公寓。自购买以来，我与 Yu 女士以及 Ace Decade 和 Golden Spring New York 的其他雇员和代表一直居住在该公寓内。\n\n40. 在我迁往纽约后的这一期间，Wong 先生和我通过电话、语音信息和即时消息频繁沟通。我在纽约期间，Wong 先生数十次通过电话与我交谈，并向我发送大量电子信息。Yu 女士曾与我一同参加部分与 Wong 先生的通话。至少在下列日期，Wong 先生在我身处纽约期间通过电话与我交谈：\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 232 of 241\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. 在我于纽约参加的这些 2015 年通话中，Wong 先生和我多次讨论该项投资及 UBS 贷款。在其中一次或多次通话中，Wong 先生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 Haitong 股份的发行价格。Wong 先生和我还讨论了我为 Ace Decade 在纽约寻求投资者的工作进展。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-3 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 233 of 241\n\n42. 在2015年的这一期间内，我没有再次向Wong先生提出我对以股份短期价格波动为条件的还款触发机制的担忧，因为Wong先生此前曾告诉我，不存在此类触发机制。\n\n43. 然而，在2015年3月、4月和5月期间的数次电话中，Wong先生和我总体上讨论了追加保证金通知这一话题，尤其讨论了贷款价值比率（LTV ratio）触发机制。Wong先生说，我不必担心，因为UBS（瑞银）会为我的最大利益行事，瑞银会给予Ace Decade充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知，并且瑞银会尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知。在此期间，他还数次提醒我，瑞银从未在平安股东就其贷款收到追加保证金通知后出售该股东的股份，并表示Ace Decade将获得与该平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n44. 我在纽约期间，Wong先生还向我发送了大量关于该投资及瑞银贷款的WhatsApp消息。例如，2015年3月21日和22日，Wong先生与我交换了一系列WhatsApp消息，其中我们讨论了该投资的瑞银贷款。我告诉Wong先生，瑞银拟议的某些条件，例如基于瑞银贷款贷款价值比率的追加保证金通知触发机制，“绝对不可以”，并且“我们宁可不做，也不愿同意你们的条款。”如果我并非依赖Wong先生此前所作的陈述，即贷款融资文件不包含基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发机制，我本会再次向Wong先生提出该问题，而不会仅将我们的讨论集中于基于贷款价值比率的追加保证金通知触发机制。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收到：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 234 页，共 241 页\n\n45. Wong先生答复说，他理解我对可能发生追加保证金通知的担忧，并告诉我：“你放心！……我是在为郭总工作！别担心。”我依赖Wong先生所作的陈述，即他和瑞银都在维护我的利益。所有这些讨论均发生在我身处纽约期间。\n\n46. 2015年5月8日，Haitong（海通）宣布，其已获得发行股份所需的股东批准和监管批准（分别于2月和5月获得），预计将于5月15日发行股份。海通还宣布，由于此前30个交易日期间海通股票的交易价格已超过预先约定的门槛，认购价格将会上调。\n\n47. 该公告发布后，为最终确定该投资的条款，我通过电话和WhatsApp消息与Wong先生进行了数次讨论。我们讨论的议题包括：贷款必须增加，以反映海通股票每股价格的上涨；所需付款金额；贷款价值比率；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日之后我们的一次讨论中，Wong先生再次表示，就任何追加保证金通知而言，Ace Decade将获得与平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n49. 依赖这些陈述，我决定进行该投资。5月11日，我在与Wong先生的电话交谈中讨论了如何将进行该投资所需资金从我的一个瑞银账户转入Ace Decade账户最为妥当。Wong先生说，我首先需要在我的瑞银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瑞银账户直接转入Ace Decade账户，而应将资金从我的瑞银账户转入另一家银行的账户，然后再从该账户将资金转入Ace Decade账户。\n\n50. 依赖Wong先生的建议，我决定先将资金从我的瑞银账户转入China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行）的一个账户（“China Minsheng Account”），然后再将资金从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，抄送Wong先生和Lam女士，并要求Yu女士取得我对瑞银已准备的一份付款指示文件的签字。该文件载有一项请求，要求将HK \\$860 million（approximately US \\$111 million）从我的瑞银账户转入Wong先生指示我使用的China Minsheng Account。\n\n52. 基于对Wong先生就该投资及瑞银贷款所作陈述的信赖，我签署了授权电汇转账的文件。\n\n53. 当日稍后，Lam女士向Yu女士发送电子邮件，抄送Wong先生和Fu女士，并附上了从我的瑞银账户汇出转账的确认书。\n\n54. 按照Wong先生的指示，我随后授权将资金从China Minsheng Account转入Ace Decade账户。\n\n55. 资金到达Ace Decade账户后，于2015年5月13日，Yu女士和我授权从Ace Decade账户向Dawn State Limited（“Dawn State”）持有的一个账户支付HK \\$2 billion（approximately US \\$260 million）。Dawn State是Haixia基金的特殊目的载体及全资子公司，该款项用于为将于5月15日发行的股份投资提供资金。在此之前，我已授权从Ace Decade账户经由Dawn State向一个瑞银证券账户支付约US \\$250 million的初始首付款。如果该投资未完成，该笔付款本应退还给Ace Decade。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收到：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 236 页，共 241 页\n\n56. 为进行该投资而采取的所有步骤，包括请求将约HK \\$860 million（approximately US \\$111 million）从我的一个瑞银账户电汇转入China Minsheng Account并最终转入Ace Decade账户，以及授权于2015年5月13日从Ace Decade账户向Dawn State账户支付HK \\$2 billion（approximately US \\$260 million），均在我位于纽约的办公室或公寓内进行。\n\n57. 如果我知道瑞银谎称贷款融资文件不包含基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发机制，并且瑞银会拒绝与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便会立即出售Ace Decade的股份，我就不会在2015年5月进行该投资或授权这笔付款。\n\n58. 根据Ace Decade与Haixia之间协议的条款，在2015年7月13日之后，Haixia须应Ace Decade的请求将Dawn State（持有股份法定所有权的实体）转让给Ace Decade。\n\n59. 然而，按纽约时间2015年7月6日上午——即Haixia本应将Dawn State转让给Ace Decade前仅一周——我得知，由于股份的短期价格波动，瑞银要求我在不足24小时内偿还约US \\$200 million。\n\n60. 如果我知道瑞银可能在如此短的期限内要求付款，并且瑞银曾谎称会提供充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知，我本会确保Ace Decade有足够可用资金作出该等付款。\n\n61. 在瑞银的截止期限之前，Ace Decade告知瑞银，我们能够迅速取得所需资金，但无法在瑞银的截止期限之前取得。\n\n62. 然而，于2015年7月6日，Wong先生表示，瑞银不会给予Ace Decade任何额外时间。Wong先生表示，瑞银已经为股份确定了买方，并且瑞银通过出售股份而非允许Ace Decade付款将获得巨额利润。\n\n63. 7月7日，我向Wong先生发送WhatsApp消息，告诉他瑞银的追加保证金通知是“非法的”。Wong先生没有不同意我，也没有否认他曾告诉我不存在基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发机制。相反，他说他已告知高级管理层取消出售股份，并说他会要求瑞银将股份归还给我。Wong先生告诉我，股份仍由瑞银控制，并承诺会提出回购股份的方案。Wong先生向我保证：“我一直站在郭总一边。”\n\n64. 7月9日，Wong先生表示，出售股份的决定是由香港和中国境外的瑞银高管作出的。\n\n65. 7月17日，我提醒Wong先生，他此前曾多次说过，绝“不会有”基于股份短期价格波动的追加保证金通知，并且他多次表示，在收到追加保证金通知后，瑞银没有出售一名大型平安股东的股份。\n\n66. 在7月17日的另一则消息中，我对Wong先生说：“我告诉过你，我是从去年开始来到美国寻求更好机会的，不是吗？我从美国发给你的所有信息、我的要求，你都知道。……在这些情况下，所有事情都交给了你，[我]都听你的。是你介绍Haixia的……结果现在竟然搞成这样。”\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收到：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 238 页，共 241 页\n\n67. Wong先生没有否认他作出过这些虚假陈述，实际上还答复说他理解。\n\n68. 在7月17日的另一则消息中，我对Wong先生说：“你多次告诉我，你们瑞银不会那样清算资产；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，就不会是这样。会有合理时间筹措一些资产来应对。”\n\n69. 7月17日，我还对Wong先生说：“你说瑞银与他们[Haixia]签署协议，允许瑞银在追加保证金通知后24小时内出售全部股份。那是怎么签的？他们是怎么执行的？这不公平。你当时告诉我不是这样。”\n\n70. Wong先生答复：“我一直坚决反对他们，但他们不理会我，并告诉我这是瑞士首席执行官的命令。”他没有否认我的断言，即他此前曾表示贷款协议不会允许瑞银在追加保证金通知后24小时内出售股份。\n\n71. 在我们任何一次讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示，瑞银会给予Ace Decade与平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n72. 在我们任何一次讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示，贷款文件不会包含基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发机制。\n\n73. 在我们任何一次讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示，瑞银会与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已提交：纽约县书记官 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 收到：04/28/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 239 页，共 241 页\n\n74. 在我们任何一次讨论中，Wong先生从未否认瑞银曾有不当行为。\n\n75. Wong先生告诉我，2015年7月7日，瑞银以HK \\$11.12出售了属于Ace Decade的全部股份，较7月7日海通股票的收盘价折让20%。\n\n76. 因失去Haitong（海通）股份，Ace Decade（艾斯十年）失去了纽约投资者；我于2015年迁居纽约后曾与这些投资者会面，且他们曾有意投资Ace Decade。例如，2015年4月至6月期间，我的代表和/或我曾四次在纽约与一家总部设在纽约的私募投资公司的联合创始人会面。该公司对投资Ace Decade 表现出浓厚兴趣。然而，在UBS（瑞银集团）出售属于Ace Decade 的Haitong Shares之后，Ace Decade 失去了这名潜在投资者。\n\n本人宣誓，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n[郭文贵（Kwok Ho Wan）在中文版本上的签名] 郭文贵\n\n[中文版本上的公证认证]\n提交：纽约县书记员 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 764 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 文件 183-3 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第241页，共241页\n\nIOWA（爱荷华州）\nCerro Gordo（塞罗戈多县） ) ) )\n\n兹证明：\n\n本人，Linmag lds-（林麦格·伊兹—），经正式宣誓后陈述并声明，本人熟练掌握英语和中文。本人特此证明，所附文件是《Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵宣誓书）》中文版本的准确译文。\n\n于 February 1, 2016 当着本人宣誓。\n\n公证人","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","CIPA","CCP","Pro Se","pro se","GTV","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":8,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":24,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":28,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":62,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":64,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":103,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":106,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":141,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":167,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":199,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":306,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":326,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":461,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":549,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":580,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":750,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":760,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":833,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":84761,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-04-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-04-06","updated_at":"2026-08-24 00:31:37"}