{"id":"court_ctb_183_4","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":183,"sub_number":4,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-04-06","title":"EXHIBIT 25 ","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 1 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 25**\n\n\n\n*MILES KWOK October 3, 2018*\n\n\n\n*Original File 247294.TXT Min-U-Script® with Word Index*\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 3 of 269\n\n| 1 | SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | COUNTY OF NEW YORK | |\n| 3 | ------------------------------------------------x
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | |\n| 4 | Plaintiff, | |\n| 5 | -against- | |\n| 6 | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | |\n| 7 | 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 GUY, | |\n| 8 | Defendant. | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | Index No.: 652077/2017
------------------------------------------------x | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | 7 Times Square | |\n| 13 | New York, New York | |\n| 14 | October 3, 2018
9:39 a.m. | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | Videotaped Examination Before Trial | |\n| 17 | of the MILES KWOK, before Kristi Cruz, a Notary | |\n| 18 | Public of the State of New York. | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC | |\n| 24 | 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10022 | |\n| 25 | 212-750-6434
REF:
247294 | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 4 of 269\n\n| 1 | A P P E A R A N C E S: | | |\n|----|------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | | | |\n| 3 | O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP | | |\n| 4 | Attorneys for Plaintiff | | |\n| 5 | Times Square Tower | | |\n| 6 | 7 Times Square | | |\n| 7 | New York, New York 10036 | | |\n| 8 | BY:
EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. | | |\n| 9 | STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. | | |\n| 10 | SARA N. PAHLAVAN, ESQ. | | |\n| 11 | 212.326.2000 | | |\n| 12 | emoss@omm.com | | |\n| 13 | ssarnoff@omm.com | | |\n| 14 | spahlavan@omm.com | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | HODGSON RUSS LLP | | |\n| 18 | Attorneys for Defendant | | |\n| 19 | 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300 | | |\n| 20 | New York, New York 10158 | | |\n| 21 | BY:
MARK A. HARMON, ESQ. | | |\n| 22 | JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ. | | |\n| 23 | 212.751.4300 | | |\n| 24 | mharmon@hodgsonruss.com | | |\n| 25 | jsearles@hodgsonruss.com | | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 5 of\n\n| 1 | A P P E A R A N C E S:
(Cont'd) |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | |\n| 3 | ALSO PRESENT: |\n| 4 | ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG, Mandarin Interpreter |\n| 5 | DAN MACOM, Videographer |\n| 6 | KARIN MAISTRELLO, Golden Spring |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 6 of 269\n\n| 1 | | ------------------- I N D E X ------------------- | |\n|----|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| 2 | WITNESS | EXAMINATION BY | PAGE |\n| 3 | MILES KWOK | MR. MOSS | 8 |\n| 4 | | | |\n| 5 | | | |\n| 6 | DIRECTIONS: | PAGE
17, 18, 19, 58, 59, 61, | |\n| 7 | | 62, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, | |\n| 8 | | 78, 101, 102, 117, 118, | |\n| 9 | | 126, 128, 129 | |\n| 10 | | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | --------------- DOCUMENT REQUESTS --------------- | |\n| 13 | PAGE:
129 | Document evidencing agreement | |\n| 14 | | with Zhang Wei relating to the | |\n| 15 | | hotel | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | ---------------- E X H I B I T S ---------------- | |\n| 19 | KWOK | DESCRIPTION | FOR I.D. |\n| 20 | Exhibit 1 | Genever Holdings LLC | 33 |\n| 21 | | Corporate Documents | |\n| 22 | Exhibit 2 | Printout from YouTube | 59 |\n| 23 | Exhibit 3 | Federal Complaint | 69 |\n| 24 | Exhibit 4 | Letter with attached | 73 |\n| 25 | | financial information | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 7 of\n\n| 1 | | ------------ E X H I B I T S (Cont'd)------------ | |\n|----|-----------|---------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| 2 | KWOK | DESCRIPTION | FOR I.D. |\n| 3 | Exhibit 5 | UBS Hong Kong statement | 82 |\n| 4 | | for Bravo Luck Limited | |\n| 5 | | entitled Debit Advice | |\n| 6 | Exhibit 6 | Realtor.com printout | 88 |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | (EXHIBITS TO BE PRODUCED) | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 8 of 269\n\n6\n\n## 1 S T I P U L A T I O N S\n\n 2 3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED 4 by and between the attorneys for the 5 respective parties herein, that filing and 6 sealing be and the same are hereby waived. 7 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 8 AGREED that all objections, except as to 9 the form of the question, shall be 10 reserved to the time of the trial. 11 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 12 AGREED that the within deposition may be 13 sworn to and signed before any officer 14 authorized to administer an oath, with 15 the same force and effect as if signed 16 and sworn to before the Court. 17 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 18 AGREED that a copy of the within 19 deposition shall be furnished to counsel 20 for the Witness. 21 22 23 - oOo - 24 25\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 9 of 269\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | video? |\n| 3 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 4 | direction. |\n| 5 | A.
Refuse to answer. |\n| 6 | MR. MOSS:
I'm going to mark as -- |\n| 7 | what exhibit are we? |\n| 8 | Actually, could we just go off the |\n| 9 | record for a second? |\n| 10 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now off the |\n| 11 | record, the time is 11:43 a.m. |\n| 12 | (Discussion held off the record.) |\n| 13 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now back on |\n| 14 | the record.
The time is 11:44 a.m. |\n| 15 | (Kwok Exhibit 2, Printout from |\n| 16 | YouTube, marked for identification, as of |\n| 17 | this date.) |\n| 18 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 19 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, you've been handed |\n| 20 | Exhibit 2, which is a printout from YouTube |\n| 21 | and it's entitled \"Guo Wengui (Kwok Miles) is |\n| 22 | planning to sell his private jet and yacht.\" |\n| 23 | I'd just like to put on the record that |\n| 24 | Pacific Alliance cited to this YouTube video |\n| 25 | in its attachment motion, and that in |\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM
Case 22-50073
Doc 183-4
Filed 04/06/22
Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45
Page 10 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021
269 |\n|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 60 |\n| 1 | KWOK |\n| 2 | opposition to its attachment motion Mr. Kwok |\n| 3 | filed a brief dated May 16, 2018, and relating |\n| 4 | to this issue on page 15, the brief reads as |\n| 5 | follows: |\n| 6 | \"Yet Frances,\" who is PAX's |\n| 7 | investigator, \"offers no proof beyond his own |\n| 8 | assertion that the voices are those of Kwok |\n| 9 | and his associates or that Kwok or anyone |\n| 10 | associated with him uploaded the audio |\n| 11 | recording in question, and there is |\n| 12 | substantial reason to question both the |\n| 13 | authenticity of the audio and the motives |\n| 14 | behind the individual or entity who uploaded |\n| 15 | it and represented that it was, in fact, Kwok |\n| 16 | making the statements in question.\" |\n| 17 | Now I'm going play the audio. |\n| 18 | (Whereupon, an audio/video is |\n| 19 | played.) |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
I refuse to listen. |\n| 21 | I'm not going to listen. |\n| 22 | Q.
Sorry, Mr. Kwok, were you covering |\n| 23 | your ears? |\n| 24 | A.
This is all communist.
Everything |\n\n25 here is all communist. Unless you prove this\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 11 of 269\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 2 | is not communist, then I will listen.
They | | | |\n| 3 | have recorded over a million of tax audios, | | | |\n| 4 | videos that are fake.
Unless you could prove | | | |\n| 5 | this is real, otherwise I will not listen to | | | |\n| 6 | it.
What relationship is this to me?
Unless | | | |\n| 7 | you could prove this is what I have said, that | | | |\n| 8 | this is my words, my audio, my video, then I | | | |\n| 9 | will listen to it. | | | |\n| 10 | Q.
You refuse to listen to the video? | | | |\n| 11 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I object on the same | | | |\n| 12 | basis and direct the witness not to answer | | | |\n| 13 | the
question. | | | |\n| 14 | A.
I have a sensation of committing | | | |\n| 15 | suicide if you're going play that.
This is | | | |\n| 16 | communist.
Very simple.
There is like a | | | |\n| 17 | number of place that the communist that have | | | |\n| 18 | been proven by the FBI to be fake.
So you | | | |\n| 19 | want me to commit suicide?
Are you here to | | | |\n| 20 | kill me?
I here seriously declare for all the | | | |\n| 21 | videos that you would show as outside the | | | |\n| 22 | parameters that's causing me mental distress, | | | |\n| 23 | I will reserve my right to sue.
I like my | | | |\n| 24 | attorney to note I reserve my right of the | | | |\n| 25 | personal attacks by the other party against | | | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 12 of 269\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | me, and I like to ask for the authenticity of | | |\n| 3 | this documents with a person's authenticity. | | |\n| 4 | I like to request an investigation of it.
I'm | | |\n| 5 | done. | | |\n| 6 | Q.
So, Mr. Kwok, you will not answer | | |\n| 7 | any questions about the video? | | |\n| 8 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same | | |\n| 9 | direction.
Beyond the scope of what I | | |\n| 10 | believe appropriate to ask in discovery. | | |\n| 11 | A.
I believe this is humiliation, these | | |\n| 12 | are threats and will need to pay | | |\n| 13 | responsibility for these actions. | | |\n| 14 | MR. MOSS:
Please let the record | | |\n| 15 | reflect that when Mr. Kwok asked me to | | |\n| 16 | stop playing the video, I stopped playing | | |\n| 17 | the video.
I will not play it anymore. | | |\n| 18 | I note that Mr. Harmon has objected | | |\n| 19 | to this line of questioning and instructed | | |\n| 20 | Mr. Kwok not to answer any questions about | | |\n| 21 | this video. | | |\n| 22 | I have that right, right, | | |\n| 23 | Mr. Harmon? | | |\n| 24 | MR. HARMON:
I'm sorry? | | |\n| 25 | MR. MOSS:
I got it right?
You're | | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 13 of 269\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | instructing -- |\n| 3 | MR. HARMON:
I thought you said you |\n| 4 | I have that right, as opposed to it's my |\n| 5 | right to something. |\n| 6 | MR. MOSS:
Fair enough.
I'm |\n| 7 | correct, you're instructing the witness -- |\n| 8 | MR. HARMON:
I'm instructing the |\n| 9 | witness not to answer the questions for |\n| 10 | the reasons I've already stated on the |\n| 11 | record. |\n| 12 | Q.
What is Golden Spring New York Ltd.? |\n| 13 | A.
It is Hong Kong Golden Spring, a |\n| 14 | company that they have expanded in New York. |\n| 15 | Q.
Who is \"they\"? |\n| 16 | A.
Hong Kong Golden Spring. |\n| 17 | Q.
Who owns Golden Spring New York? |\n| 18 | A.
Hong Kong Golden Spring owns. |\n| 19 | Q.
Who owns Hong Kong Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A.
Guo Qiang. |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
G-U-O, Q-I-A-N-G, |\n| 22 | phonetic spelling. |\n| 23 | Q.
Is Guo Qiang a family member of |\n| 24 | yours? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 14 of 269\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|------------|--------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q. | What is the relation? |\n| 3 | A. | My son. |\n| 4 | Q. | Do you have any ownership interest |\n| 5 | | in Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 6 | A. | No. |\n| 7 | Q. | Is Guo Qiang the same son as Mileson |\n| 8 | | or is it a different son? |\n| 9 | A. | It's the same person. |\n| 10 | Q. | Do you have any ownership interest |\n| 11 | | in Golden Spring New York? |\n| 12 | A. | No. |\n| 13 | Q. | So Golden Spring is owned by your |\n| 14 | son? | |\n| 15 | A. | My son also represents the family in |\n| 16 | owning it. | |\n| 17 | Q. | Does the son represent you in owning |\n| 18 | it? | |\n| 19 | A. | No. |\n| 20 | Q. | Your son represents other family |\n| 21 | | members in owning it? |\n| 22 | A. | Yes. |\n| 23 | Q. | Does your son represent Zhang Wei in |\n| 24 | | owning Golden Spring? |\n| 25 | A. | Yes. |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 15 of 269\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Is your son the sole shareholder of |\n| 3 | Golden Spring? |\n| 4 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 5 | the question. |\n| 6 | A.
I'm not really sure. |\n| 7 | Q.
Do you know of any other |\n| 8 | shareholders of Golden Spring? |\n| 9 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 10 | the question. |\n| 11 | A.
I'm not sure.
I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q.
Does Golden Spring have any |\n| 13 | directors? |\n| 14 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 15 | the question. |\n| 16 | A.
I'm not sure. |\n| 17 | MR. MOSS:
Mark, what's wrong, you |\n| 18 | don't like that I'm not using one of the |\n| 19 | entities? |\n| 20 | MR. HARMON:
I don't know which |\n| 21 | entity -- |\n| 22 | MR. MOSS:
Hong Kong or New York? |\n| 23 | MR. HARMON:
I don't know which one |\n| 24 | you're talking about, or both. |\n| 25 | Q.
Do any of the Golden Spring entities |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 16 of 269\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | have employees? | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, there are employees. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | Q.
Are there employees in the New York | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Golden Spring? | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q.
What business is Golden Spring in? | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | A.
Invest in real estate, media. | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q.
What role, if any, do you have for | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Golden Spring New York? | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | A.
I'm consultant. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Q.
What do you do as consultant? | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A.
Their haven't, give advice. | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Q.
Does Golden Spring New York have any | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | relationship with Genever Holdings | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Corporation? | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | the question.
You can answer. | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | A.
No. | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q.
Does Golden Spring New York have any | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | relationship with Genever Holdings LLC? | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | the question. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | A.
No. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Q.
Does Golden Spring Hong Kong have a | | | | | | | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 17 of 269\n\n| 1 | | KWOK | | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | relationship with either of the Genever | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | companies? | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | A. | No. | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Q. | Does Shiny Times New York maintain | | | | | | |\n| 6 | its offices at 800 Fifth Avenue? | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | A. | I do not know. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Q. | Do you know whether or not Shiny | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | Times has a lease for offices in New York City | | | | | | |\n| 10 | with a company called Urbana Properties? | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | A. | I do not know. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Q. | Do you know whether or not Golden | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Spring was ever late on any lease payments for | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | its offices? | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | A. | I do not know. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q. | Does Yvette have any role with | | | | | | |\n| 17 | Golden Spring? | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | A. | CEO. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Q. | Any other role? | | | | | | |\n| 20 | A. | I'm not really sure. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | Q. | Is she the president? | | | | | | |\n| 22 | A. | Yes, I think so. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | Q. | Have certain of your assets been | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | seized by the Chinese government? | | | | | | |\n| 25 | DI | MR. HARMON:
Again, I think that | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 18 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 26**\n\n**1**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 19 of 269\n\n **1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : PART 61 2 -------------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP, 3 Plaintiff(s), 4 - against - 5 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, 6 a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, 7 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 8 Defendant(s). 9 -----------------------------------------------------X Index No. 652077/2017 10 11 February 2, 2022 - Via Microsoft Teams 12 13 B E F O R E: HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, JSC 14 15 A P P E A R A N C E S: 16 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 18 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. DAVID HARBACH, ESQ. 19 LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. 20 21 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan 22 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 23 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. TRACY COLE, ESQ. 24 ERICA BARROW, ESQ. 25**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 20 of\n\n| | 2 | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | APPEARANCES CONTINUED: | |\n| 2 | | |\n| 3 | CHIESA SHAHINIAN GIANTOMASI PC | |\n| 4 | Attorneys for HK International
11 Times Square, 34th Floor
New York, New York 10036 | |\n| 5 | BY:
LEE VARTAN, ESQ. | |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | - 0 - | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 21 of 269\n\n**Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff**\n\n**3**\n\n **1 THE COURT: All right. I have an idea for lead 2 counsel for the parties. We need everybody to mute 3 themselves. 4 Mr. Siegal, I would like you and Mr. Harbach to 5 leave the line open with all the people who dialed in. And 6 I would like the three of us, counsel and the Court, to have 7 an offline telephone call. That will take no more than five 8 to ten minutes. Then we will go back to the Microsoft Teams 9 hearing call, all right? 10 MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. 11 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Thank you very much. 13 (Off-the-record discussion was held.) 14 THE COURT: Okay. We are going to resume this 15 hearing. Counsel for each of the parties will make a brief 16 opening statement. Then we will proceed with the 17 cross-examination by the defendant of the plaintiff's direct 18 testimony affiants. 19 Mr. Harbach. 20 MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. 21 I was going to make the opening statement and then turn it 22 over to Mr. Harbach. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. SARNOFF: I will try to be brief, sir. 25 As you recall, PAX demonstrated at the argument on Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 22 of 269\n\n**Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff**\n\n**4**\n\n **1 January 14 that the Lady May is and always has been 2 Mr. Kwok's yacht. And this is despite its clumsy attempts 3 to park legal title first in the family business associate 4 and then in his charter.**\n\n **5 Now, as of January 14, what have Mr. Kwok's 6 arguments in opposition been? They were twofold. First he 7 argued that his daughter was actually a current titleholder, 8 something PAX has not disputed and is not the relevant 9 standard. And, two, he suggested that some of our evidence 10 which consists of Kwok's social media posts boasting from 11 his own mouth that the Lady May is his haven't been fully 12 authenticated. But to the extent there is any 13 authentication issue about his own social media -- and there 14 isn't, your Honor -- that would be on Mr. Kwok because it 15 would stem directly from his invocation of the Fifth 16 Amendment during post-judgment asset discovery and his 17 refusal to testify today.**\n\n**18 Now, back at the January 14 argument, you may 19 recall that I predicted that if the Court were to hold an 20 evidentiary hearing -- something I understand the Appellate 21 Division had requested -- Mr. Kwok would not be able to 22 proffer any new evidence other than Mei Guo coming in here 23 and saying in a self-serving way that she owned and 24 controlled the yacht since 2017, and it turns out I was 25 right.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 23 of 269\n\n**Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff**\n\n**5**\n\n **1 As we demonstrated on the 14th of January, there 2 isn't a single piece of paper in the record anywhere that, 3 other than the sort of formal corporate title documents, 4 indicates that Ms. Guo acted as the controlling person over 5 the Lady May's operation in the three-and-a-half years since 6 she took legal title in mid-2017 and when the yacht went 7 rogue in violation of your order in late 2020. That's 8 pretty telling, isn't it?**\n\n **9 You may hear Mr. Siegal claim we haven't come up 10 with any hard documentary evidence showing Mr. Kwok's 11 day-to-day operation other than these tweets and social 12 media posts, but, again, that would also be on Mr. Kwok 13 because he's invoked the Fifth Amendment and prevented us 14 from exploring that.**\n\n**15 What I've just described over the past few minutes 16 was the state of the evidentiary record leading into today's 17 hearing. So the question before your Honor is likely what's 18 changed with the filing of the five affidavits that Mr. Kwok 19 submitted on January 28. Absolutely nothing.**\n\n**20 As your Honor can see from the five-exhibit 21 exhibit binder that is defendant's exhibit binder, the first 22 four being the corporate formal documents that have always 23 been in evidence in this case, Mr. Kwok has not put into 24 evidence even one document -- not a contract, not an e-mail, 25 not a text message or anything of that nature -- that**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 24 of 269\n\n## **Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff**\n\n**6**\n\n **1 indicates that Ms. Guo actually controlled the yacht's 2 operation during the relevant 2017 to late 2020 period. In 3 fact, the only piece of document that she puts in, 4 Defendant's Exhibit 5, is a purported service agreement with 5 an outfit named Phoenix Crew that even assuming it's 6 genuine -- and there are some problems with it which we will 7 get to -- it only went into effect at the end of 2021, a 8 year after Mr. Kwok committed contempt.**\n\n **9 Very briefly, what about the five affidavits that 10 Mr. Kwok has but into evidence? Well, the current captain, 11 Mr. Ivanov, clearly has nothing probative to say because 12 he -- and I mean this pun intended -- first came aboard this 13 past October 2021 when the yacht was already parked 14 illegally in Europe. He confirms, by the way, that he's 15 never has taken direction from or even communicated with 16 Ms. Guo. The same is true for the Yachtzoo SARL 17 representative Russell Stockil whose European management 18 company also first got involved with the fugitive yacht in 19 May 2021 and who similarly never seems never to have spoken 20 with or communicated with Ms. Guo. So given these facts, 21 these two affidavits are not only irrelevant, but they are a 22 serious miscalculation by Mr. Kwok to suggest she actually 23 controlled the yacht operation in mid to late 2021. 24 Mr. Ivanov and Mr. Stockil vividly highlight the total lack 25 of any corresponding evidence that she controlled the yacht**\n\n## **Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff** 269\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 25 of\n\n **1 during the relevant period, '17 through '20.**\n\n **2 What about the former captain, Craig Heaslop? My 3 partner, David Harbach, will explore on cross-examination 4 some of the problems with that affidavit. But let me just 5 note up front that he says that he only, quote, interacted, 6 unquote, with Ms. Guo when she was aboard the yacht and, 7 quote, sporadically via phone or text message. What 8 Mr. Heaslop doesn't say speaks much louder. He doesn't say 9 he took direction from Ms. Guo or that he understood her to 10 be in control of the yacht. So that gets us to 11 Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Kwok's personal lawyer, and also after 12 that to Ms. Guo.**\n\n**13 Remember that Mr. Mitchell signed a complaint in 14 this state court on Mr. Kwok's behalf in September 2020 15 saying that the Lady May was Mr. Kwok's yacht. Attorney 16 Mitchell even attached an article to that complaint that 17 made this Kwok ownership point both in its caption and in 18 the body of the article. That judicial admission, as your 19 Honor noted two weeks ago, is very problematic for Mr. Kwok, 20 so Mr. Mitchell naturally tries to walk it back by saying he 21 filed a pleading that didn't mean plainly what it said. But 22 he already made this argument to your Honor on December 18. 23 It wasn't credible then, and it isn't credible now. And I 24 am wrapping up, your Honor. So that leaves only Mr. Kwok's 25 daughter, Mei Guo. So let me highlight a few of its main**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 26 of 269\n\n**Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff**\n\n **1 problems.**\n\n **2 Ms. Guo says the Lady May, quote, was always 3 intended for her; but this ignores the fact that when her 4 father bought the yacht for \\$30 million, he first parked it 5 in his company, Hong Kong International, Hong Kong, and his 6 family business associate Ms. Qu. Only years later was the 7 yacht transferred by Ms. Qu to Ms. Guo for a single dollar. 8 And this, of course, doesn't explain how and why Ms. Qu 9 would voluntarily part with a \\$30 million asset simply 10 because the young daughter of a business associate had a 11 lifelong love of the water. Your Honor, I sure wish I had 12 work colleagues like that. To say the least, your Honor, it 13 is highly unusual to play hot potato with a \\$30 million 14 asset, but that's not unusual for Mr. Kwok where property is 15 routinely moved around on paper in an endless shell game 16 aimed at shielding his considerable assets while retaining 17 ultimate control over them; the yacht, the Sherry Netherland 18 apartment, and on and on with Mr. Kwok's web of related 19 companies.**\n\n**20 Next, Ms. Guo suggests that she signed and 21 directed some NDAs with Lady May crew members. Again, this 22 appears to be an effort to demonstrate operational control 23 of the yachts. But where are these NDAs, your Honor? They 24 are not in defendant's five-exhibit exhibit binder, and they 25 are nowhere else in evidence today.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 27 of 269\n\n**Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff**\n\n**9**\n\n **1 She also says she communicated her instruction to 2 move the yacht out of New York in violation of your Honor's 3 order to her father's shell company, Golden Spring, not to 4 her employer -- not to her employee Craig Heaslop. Let's 5 assume for a moment that that's true. The Court knows 6 exactly what Golden Spring New York is and who controls it. 7 Mr. Kwok.**\n\n **8 We can't even be sure that the Golden Spring story 9 is true, your Honor, because defendant has proffered no 10 corroborating Golden Spring affidavit on this point, and 11 Ms. Guo's hearsay statement is directly at odds with the 12 representation that Golden Spring's counsel made to PAX that 13 no Golden Spring personnel actually knew anything about who 14 owned and controlled the yacht.**\n\n**15 Finally I would note, your Honor, based on the 16 last paragraph of her affidavit it appears that, like her 17 father, Ms. Guo may be someone who doesn't have enough 18 respect for Court authority and Court orders. Taking 19 Ms. Guo at her word, she says she was aware that this Court 20 had ordered the Lady May to return to New York by May 2021 21 but she decided to disregard it. While PAX, of course, 22 doubts that it was actually her decision to keep the yacht 23 abroad as opposed to her father's, contemptuous conduct 24 seems to run in the family.**\n\n**25 In summary, your Honor, as the upcoming Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 28 of 269\n\n## **Opening Statement - Defendant - Siegal**\n\n**10**\n\n **1 cross-examinations will reinforce, it is abundantly clear 2 that Mr. Kwok has failed to proffer any probative evidence 3 to date, yet alone evidence sufficient to rebut PAX's clear 4 and convincing showing that Mr. Kwok has and at all relevant 5 times has had a beneficial interest in his Lady May. 6 Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Harbach will take over 7 from here. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 Go ahead, Mr. Siegal. 10 MR. SIEGAL: Thank you, your Honor, and good 11 morning to everyone. 12 John Siegal with the Baker Hostetler law firm 13 representing the defendant, Miles Kwok. With me are my 14 colleagues Tracy Cole who will handle the cross-examination 15 of the plaintiff's witnesses, and Erica Barrow who will 16 handle certain legal issues hopefully later in the hearing. 17 I have always understood that opening statements 18 aren't to argue the evidence which the Court has not yet 19 heard, so I am not going to do that; but opening statements 20 are not an opportunity to mischaracterize otherwise 21 uncontested facts. So let me begin by correcting two things 22 that my Brother Sarnoff said that are just flat contradicted 23 by the record. 24 Number one, Mr. Sarnoff referred to when Mr. Kwok 25 first bought the yacht. It is undisputed, undisputed, Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 29 of 269\n\n**Opening Statement - Defendant - Siegal**\n\n **1 conceded in PAX's papers that Mr. Kwok has never owned this 2 yacht. So half of the remand from the Appellate Division 3 regarding ownership is not even contested, and that 4 statement was inaccurate.**\n\n **5 Secondly, Mr. Sarnoff asserted that Golden Spring 6 is the father's company. There is no evidence of that, and 7 there is evidence that Golden Spring is the family office of 8 an extended family that includes not just the defendant 9 Mr. Kwok and his daughter Guo Mei, but his son and other 10 uncles and cousins, all of whom -- many of whom certainly 11 the son does, have their own independent business lives, 12 their own independent sources of funds.**\n\n**13 There is an expression among musicians that if you 14 play something it's close enough for jazz, right? If you 15 get close, maybe it sounds good. But that standard doesn't 16 apply to a court of law, and you can't sit there and say, 17 Oh, there's all these companies and they seem intertwined; 18 therefore, Judge, just ignore the formalities. That is not 19 the standard that applies here.**\n\n**20 Secondly, we are all corporate lawyers. We love 21 documents, but there is nothing in the rule of evidence or 22 in the law that says documentary evidence is required to 23 establish a point. And the best evidence is a witness with 24 personal knowledge who comes in and testifies directly.**\n\n**25 Mr. Sarnoff says he would love a colleague who**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 30 of 269\n\n## **Opening Statement - Defendant - Siegal**\n\n **1 would take title to an asset for him and then transfer it 2 later, not that that's what happened; but if Mr. Sarnoff 3 wants to live in a world where such arrangements occur, let 4 him go live in the People's Republic of China where the 5 government has a practice of arbitrarily willy-nilly seizing 6 assets from people who have fallen out of favor. It's just 7 not an applicable argument. The better argument, Judge, is 8 my son owns an apartment. I may go visit his apartment. I 9 may stay there. The doorman lets me in. He greets me. 10 Other employees of the building, they don't know who owns 11 it. Maybe there is a management company that is an 12 intermediary that gives them directions. That's the more 13 appropriate analogy here. And the argument at the end was 14 literally an argument that the alleged sins of the father 15 should be visited on the daughter.**\n\n**16 So the issue here, the only issue here is who 17 controlled the movement of this yacht during the contempt 18 period. That is the only issue. The beneficial interest 19 under CPLR 5223, which PAX continues to argue, is not the 20 standard. The Appellate Division impliedly made that clear 21 when they remanded for determination of control. The issue 22 of prejudice was already determined by the Appellate 23 Division, but I have been frustrated by their persistence in 24 making this wrong argument so I did a little more research. 25 It is absolutely crystal clear under the law of**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 31 of 269\n\n## **Opening Statement - Defendant - Siegal**\n\n **1 New York that beneficial ownership -- beneficial interest, 2 rather, not ownership. Beneficial interest under 5223 is 3 not the legal standard on a motion for contempt. And I say 4 that because the Court of Appeals in Commonwealth of the 5 Northern Mariana Islands versus CIBC, 25 NY3d 55, in 2013 6 answered a question certified to the Court of Appeals by the 7 second circuit and held that 5225(b), the turnover statute, 8 does not encompass the issue of control. Control is 9 different than beneficial interest under the turnover 10 statute. They are two different legal standards, they are 11 two different regimes. And the only issue to be determined 12 is who controlled this yacht during the contempt period.**\n\n**13 The issue here is not prejudice. The issue is not 14 whether -- the issue on this motion is not whether this 15 asset would have been reachable by the plaintiff as a 16 judgment creditor if it had been in New York. The issue is, 17 because we have asserted a defense on behalf of Mr. Kwok, 18 that he did not have the ability to comply with the Court's 19 conditional order because he does not control the yacht. 20 The burden is on the plaintiff to establish by clear and 21 convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok had control of that asset 22 during the contempt period.**\n\n**23 There is no adverse inference on the issue of 24 control maybe for lots of reasons, but for two very basic 25 reasons.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 32 of 269\n\n## **Opening Statement - Defendant - Siegal**\n\n **1 First, the defense is that Guo Mei controlled the 2 yacht. Guo Mei is the witness on control. Mr. Kwok is not 3 a missing witness on the issue of control because he is not 4 the witness. Guo Mei is, and she will be in court. So 5 there is no adverse inference on the issue of control.**\n\n **6 The adverse inference doesn't come into play, 7 according to the United States Supreme Court, unless and 8 until the party invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege 9 refuses to testify, quote, in response to probative evidence 10 offered against them. That's the Baxter versus Palmigiano 11 case cited in our brief at Page 8.**\n\n**12 Unless and until Pacific Alliance proffers 13 admissible evidence of control during the period of alleged 14 contempt, there is no adverse inference. And given that 15 Pacific Alliance has proffered no affirmative evidence 16 whatsoever regarding control of the yacht during the 17 contempt period -- all of the smatterings of edited and 18 unreliable video and social media postings which the 19 authenticity and reliability of which will be an issue this 20 morning, all of them long pre-date this Court's contempt 21 order and this Court's conditional contempt order.**\n\n**22 So, your Honor, all of this evidence is irrelevant 23 to the issue of control during the relevant period, and none 24 of it establishes probative evidence of the matter in 25 dispute sufficient to trigger the adverse inference.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### 14 of 113\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 33 of 269\n\n**15**\n\n **1 So with that, your Honor, I appreciate the 2 opportunity to open and to hold this hearing. My colleague 3 Tracy Cole will handle the cross-examinations on the 4 plaintiff's case.**\n\n **5 Thank you, Judge.**\n\n **6 THE COURT: All right.**\n\n **7 The only observation I want to make to both 8 parties is that when the contempt order was issued, the 9 Court had before it pleadings immediately prior to the 10 issuance of the contempt order in which Mr. Kwok claimed 11 ownership and control of the vessel. While that is not 12 dispositive, I have observed to you that the contempt 13 sanctions if sustained based on the factual record that must 14 be made and considered persuades the Court that the 15 conditional contempt order was properly issued, the amount 16 of the contempt sanctions at this point in time exceeds the 17 value of the vessel, which is why we had our sidebar 18 conversation prior to the commencement of this hearing.**\n\n**19 Plaintiff should call its first witness for 20 cross-examination. Go ahead, Mr. Harbach.**\n\n**21 MR. HARBACH: Good morning, your Honor. We would 22 be happy to tender Mr. Nat Francis for cross-examination 23 relying on his affidavit, as the Court directed, for his 24 direct testimony.**\n\n**25 THE COURT: Mr. Francis, raise your right hand. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 34 of 269\n\n## **Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | 16 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (Nathaniel Francis is duly sworn/affirmed.) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Cross-examination can commence. |\n| 3 | NATHANIEL FRANCIS, having been called on behalf of |\n| 4 | Plaintiff, first having been duly sworn, was examined and |\n| 5 | testified as follows: |\n| 6 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 7 | BY MS. COLE: |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Francis, I am Tracy Cole.
Do you have your |\n| 9 | affidavit in front of you? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cole's, your audio is defective. |\n| 11 | See if you can work it out.
I need everyone else to mute |\n| 12 | their microphone except for Ms. Cole and Mr. Francis. |\n| 13 | MS. COLE:
I tested this yesterday.
It was |\n| 14 | working okay.
Is it working now with everyone muted? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
It is still suboptimal. |\n| 16 | MS. COLE:
Okay.
Let me see if I can call it on |\n| 17 | my cell phone. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yes, there is.
You can keep the |\n| 19 | visual, and then the audio will come from your cell phone. |\n| 20 | MS. COLE:
I will do that right now.
Thank you |\n| 21 | for your patience. |\n| 22 | (Brief pause) |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Ms. Cole, you appear to be fine |\n| 24 | now, so let's proceed. |\n| 25 | MS. COLE:
Thank you very much for your patience. |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 35 of 269\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | 17 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | BY MS COLE: | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Q
Mr. Francis, you did several affidavits and you averred | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | that you are a senior investigator and certified fraud examiner, | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | correct? | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | A
Correct. | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Q
You are not proffering yourself as any kind of expert | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | in technology of social media, correct? | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | A
Correct. | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
And your familiarity with Twitter and Instagram is from | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | using it, and, perhaps, from pulling data from it; but you are | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | not an engineer or anything like that, correct? | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | A
That's right. | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Q
And you have never worked for any of the social media | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | entities like Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook? | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | A
Correct. | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
And you have no particular expertise in film editing, | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | or manipulation of images, or how they can be altered in a way | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | that would or would not be apparent, correct? | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | A
Correct. | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q
So let's start with your affirmation that is Docket | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | Number 1121 relating to PX 25. | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Ms. Cole, there is an exhibit binder | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | which contains more than a half dozen proclamations of | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Mr. Francis; so if you would refer to the particular | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | affirmations by the number in the binder, that would be | | | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 36 of 269\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**18 1 helpful to the Court. 2 MS. COLE: Yes, your Honor. My apologies. 3 THE COURT: That's the purpose of the binder. 4 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, I don't know if anyone 5 else on the call is having this problem, but we are now 6 hearing echoes. 7 THE COURT: Everybody who dialed into the call has 8 muted themselves, so -- 9 BY MS. COLE: 10 Q You are looking now at -- 11 THE COURT: Ms. Cole, your audio is in and out. 12 If we can't resolve these issues, we are going to have to 13 conduct this hearing in open court. So I will give five 14 minutes to work out the technology issues. If you can't 15 work out the issues, we will adjourn and have an open court 16 proceeding because we can't conduct this proceeding with 17 echoes. 18 MS. COLE: Thank you, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Have your tech people investigate 20 this. We will take a five-minute adjournment. 21 (Brief pause) 22 THE COURT: All right. It is 10:37. We can now 23 get started. 24 Go ahead, Ms. Cole. 25 MS COLE: Thank you, your Honor. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 37 of 269\n\n **1 CROSS-EXAMINATION**\n\n **2 BY MS. COLE:**\n\n **3 Q Turning to Tab 1, you indicate that you took a 4 screenshot on January 24 of an Instagram post that was dated 5 August 21, 2018. The owner of this Instagram post -- the owner 6 of this Instagram account, do you know who that is? 7 A I know the handle is GuoWenGui. 8 Q And you indicate that the handle refers to a Twitter 9 account at @KwokMiles, correct? 10 A Correct. 11 Q So other than those, what else suggests to you who the**\n\n**12 owner of that Instagram account is?**\n\n**13 A I believe that's it.**\n\n**14 Q Okay.**\n\n**15 You don't know who has control over that account, 16 correct?**\n\n**17 A Correct.**\n\n**18 Q You don't know who has access to that account, correct? 19 A Correct.**\n\n**20 Q And you are aware in your personal experience that that 21 there are multiple social media accounts that post pictures and 22 content relating to Mr. Kwok, correct?**\n\n**23 A I am not sure what you mean by that.**\n\n**24 Q Are you aware of posts or internet postings that are 25 not attributed to Mr. Kwok or, to your knowledge, have not been**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | Page 38 of | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|-----|---------------------------|--|------------|-----------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | | | | | | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | 269 | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole** 269\n\n**20 1 posted by him that, nonetheless, relate to him? 2 A I am aware of other folks posting about him, if that's 3 what you are referring to. 4 Q Yes, exactly. 5 So if someone posts pictures of Mr. Kwok, you 6 don't personally assume that those are posted by Mr. Kwok, 7 correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Now, you proffered a specific Instagram post dated 10 August 21, 2018, correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you don't know when it was actually posted? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And you don't know who posted it, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Or the circumstances around which it was posted, 17 correct? 18 A Right. 19 Q And you have no information -- no personal information 20 about the content of the post, you weren't there for any of the 21 events or cannot speak to how it was reported or the writing on 22 it or anything else, correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And you can't tell us who created the image, whether it 25 was manipulated or altered, who wrote those words, whether they Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 39 of\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 |\n|----------------------|-----|--|-----------------------------|\n| | 269 | | |\n\n## **Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | 21 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | were contemporaneous with the image or any other substantive |\n| 2 | information about the content of that post, correct? |\n| 3 | A
Correct. |\n| 4 | Q
Thank you. |\n| 5 | Let's turn to your Tab 2 -- I apologize.
It's |\n| 6 | Tab 6, sorry.
Tab 6 is an affidavit, Docket Number 1133, |\n| 7 | relating to a Youtube video entitled \"Lady May, Miles Kwok Super |\n| 8 | Yacht,\" correct? |\n| 9 | A
Correct. |\n| 10 | Q
You agree with me that this exhibit, PX 2, is a |\n| 11 | collection of different videos that -- my apologies.
It is |\n| 12 | Tab 6.
It is connected to an exhibit that is Lady May Miles Kwok |\n| 13 | Super Yacht that, I believe, is PX 2. |\n| 14 | MS. BARROW:
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 15 | Q
Okay. |\n| 16 | So you viewed that video, correct, and you said |\n| 17 | that you navigated your browser to YouTube, correct? |\n| 18 | A
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q
You watched the video, you saw that it was pertaining |\n| 20 | to the user Richard Conley.
You downloaded the video, and you |\n| 21 | observed that the metadata suggests the video was uploaded on |\n| 22 | October 14, 2017, correct? |\n| 23 | A
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q
Now, you agree that this video looks like a collection |\n| 25 | of different videos that have been spliced together, correct? |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | Page 40 of | |\n|----------------------|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | | 269 | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**22 1 A Yes. 2 Q They appear to be taken at different places and times, 3 correct? 4 A Right. 5 Q They show different individuals, different time 6 periods? 7 A Correct. 8 Q And you were not a witness to any of the events in the 9 video, correct? 10 A I was not. 11 Q You didn't record any of the segments on the video and 12 you have no idea who did, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q You didn't maintain or operate or install the equipment 15 that recorded any of the segments of the video, and you don't 16 know who did? 17 A Correct. 18 Q You don't know when any of these segments were 19 recorded, where they were recorded geographically in the world, 20 or under what circumstances any of them were recorded, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q You don't know who created this compilation, do you? 23 A No. 24 Q And you don't know for what purpose this compilation 25 was created?**\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 41 of 269\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n **1 A No. 2 Q You know that the name -- that the video is attached to 3 a YouTube account under the name of Richard Conley. You have no 4 other information about this Richard Conley? 5 A I do not. 6 Q You have no other information about who this person 7 might be associated with or anything else, correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q And you would agree that they are subtitled in English 10 that appear on the video, correct? 11 A Correct. 12 Q These subtitles appear throughout the video, and you 13 don't know who created them, correct? 14 A Correct. 15 Q You are not vouching for the accuracy of the subtitles, 16 are you? 17 A I am not. 18 Q In fact, the certified translation of portions of the 19 video that you obtained are inconsistent with the subtitles in 20 some respects, correct? 21 A Could you repeat that? 22 Q You obtained certified translations for a portion of 23 the video, correct -- oh, wait. I may be relying on an earlier 24 one. Just a moment. 25 (Brief pause)**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 42 of 269\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | 24 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q
Do you know the answer to that question? |\n| 2 | A
No. |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
This isn't exactly an objection.
I |\n| 4 | will just note for the Court that in this affidavit at Tab |\n| 5 | 6, Docket Number 1133, there is no representation by |\n| 6 | Mr. Francis that he obtained a translation for this |\n| 7 | particular exhibit, so I don't know that he is competent to |\n| 8 | answer the question counsel has put to him. |\n| 9 | MS. COLE:
It seems that way.
Understood.
Thank |\n| 10 | you. |\n| 11 | Q
You would agree there is a musical track with the |\n| 12 | video? |\n| 13 | A
Correct. |\n| 14 | Q
And you don't know who created the audio of any portion |\n| 15 | of it, correct? |\n| 16 | A
Right. |\n| 17 | Q
It appears that the segments have been altered at least |\n| 18 | in the sense that they have been spliced together, correct? |\n| 19 | A
I don't know enough about that type of technology to |\n| 20 | answer that. |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
I just ask that counsel clarify |\n| 22 | whether we are talking about segments of the exhibit at |\n| 23 | large or segments within the 2:50 to 4:15 window, which is |\n| 24 | what PAX has proffered and is relying on. |\n| 25 | MS. COLE:
I will start with the full video. |\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole 25 1 Q Does it appear that the sections that are in that 2 video, do they appear complete to you as though nothing has been 3 removed? 4 A I am not certain. 5 Q And within the section of 2:50 to 4:15, which is the 6 part that they proffer, do you know what section that is? Do you 7 know what I am referring to? 8 A I would have to watch it again. 9 Q Do you know if any section, I guess I should say, 10 appears to be a complete -- as you sit here now, appears to be 11 complete and unaltered? 12 A I don't know. 13 THE COURT: Ms. Cole, Mr. Francis has no firsthand 14 knowledge of anything. He is a certified fraud examiner 15 employed by the plaintiff here. Nothing in Mr. Francis's 16 affidavits, plural, is fully dispositive of the issues on 17 this hearing. So let's try and move along here. 18 MS. COLE: Understood, your Honor. I will make 19 this shorter. 20 Q For any of the exhibits, I think you have testified 21 that you don't have the background to answer the question whether 22 the images were altered, correct? 23 A Correct. 24 Q Or whether they were manipulated in some way, correct? 25 A Correct.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 43 of 269\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 44 of 269\n\n## **Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | | 26 |\n|----|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q | So you cannot testify that they are genuine and |\n| 2 | | accurate and portray what they purport to portray, correct? |\n| 3 | A | I can only testify to where I got them, correct. |\n| 4 | Q | All right. |\n| 5 | | So the only other questions I have for you relate |\n| 6 | | to -- Tab 2, do you have that in front of you? |\n| 7 | A | I do. |\n| 8 | Q | Now, you averred that you took screenshots of two |\n| 9 | | tweets dated May 10 and August 27, 2017 respectively that |\n| 10 | | appeared on the Twitter feed relating to the handle at |\n| 11 | | @KwokMiles, correct? |\n| 12 | A | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q | Exhibit A is a fair and accurate copy, you say, of the |\n| 14 | | screenshots, correct? |\n| 15 | A | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q | Now, is Exhibit A a fair and accurate copy of the |\n| 17 | | tweets as they appeared on the Twitter page @KwokMiles? |\n| 18 | A | Yes. |\n| 19 | Q | To get the screenshot you did not log on to Twitter, |\n| 20 | | search KwokMiles in the search bar, or go to Twitter.com, is that |\n| 21 | | correct, for both of them? |\n| 22 | A | I don't recall exactly how I navigated to it. |\n| 23 | Q | You don't, okay. |\n| 24 | | I am going to show you what I am going to ask -- |\n| 25 | | well, it was marked for identification.
It was attached to our |\n| | | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| | | Case 22-50073 | | Doc 183-4 | | Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | | Page 45 of | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|--|-----------|--|----------------|--|---------------------------|--|-----------------------------|------------|--|--|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | | | | | 269 | | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | | | |\n\n## **Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**27 1 briefs, pretrial brief as Exhibit -- Erica, could you pull that 2 up? 3 MS. BARROW: Yes, I can share my screen. It 4 previously was filed with the Court and it is Docket Number 5 1169. It was Exhibit B to the Siegal affirmation that was 6 filed on Wednesday. 7 Can I share my screen, your Honor? 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 9 MS. BARROW: Would you like me to share my screen? 10 THE COURT: I can't hear whoever is speaking. 11 MS. BARROW: Your Honor, this is Erica Barrow from 12 Baker Hostetler. Can you hear me now? 13 THE COURT: Yes. 14 MS. BARROW: You should have a hard copy of this, 15 everyone should; but I could also provide a virtual copy. 16 It is NYSCEF 11619. 17 THE COURT: I have a hard copy. 18 MS. BARROW: Okay. 19 Mr. Francis, would you like to see the exhibit? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, please. 21 MS. BARROW: Sure. 22 THE COURT: So you are going to Exhibit it to 23 Mr. Francis? 24 MS. COLE: Yes, your Honor. I would like to show 25 it to Mr. Francis. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 46 of 269\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | 28 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (Brief pause) |\n| 2 | MS. BARROW:
It looks like I don't have screen |\n| 3 | sharing capabilities. |\n| 4 | MS COLE:
Let me try it this way. |\n| 5 | Q
Do you know of a service called Tweet Tunnel? |\n| 6 | A
I do. |\n| 7 | Q
Have you ever used Tweet Tunnel? |\n| 8 | A
Used it how?
Used it to do what? |\n| 9 | Q
Have you ever retrieved tweets from Tweet Tunnel? |\n| 10 | A
I don't know if I have. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay. |\n| 12 | My specific question is going to be whether you |\n| 13 | retrieved one of these specific tweets from Tweet Tunnel.
I |\n| 14 | don't know if you have in front of you the exhibit that |\n| 15 | Ms. Barrow is talking about and I don't know how to get that in |\n| 16 | front of you; but that is the purpose of showing you that, to see |\n| 17 | if that refreshes your recollection as to whether you may have |\n| 18 | used Tweet Tunnel to retrieve that tweet. |\n| 19 | A
I don't know if I retrieved it from Tweet Tunnel. |\n| 20 | Q
Is there a way to -- assuming Tweet Tunnel, do you |\n| 21 | know -- first of all, do you know what Tweet Tunnel is?
Could |\n| 22 | you explain what it is, generally? |\n| 23 | A
My understanding is that it archives old tweets. |\n| 24 | Q
Is that the extent of your understanding? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | Page 47 of | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|--|---------------------------|-----------------------------|------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | 269 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n| | | 29 |\n|----|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q | Do you know how it archives the tweets? |\n| 2 | A | I don't. |\n| 3 | Q | Or the mechanisms for importing the tweets? |\n| 4 | A | No. |\n| 5 | Q | Or the security or quality control or verification that |\n| 6 | | they have for the tweets? |\n| 7 | A | No. |\n| 8 | Q | Or how they secure their content, correct? |\n| 9 | A | Correct. |\n| 10 | Q | Okay.
We will go back to that tweet. |\n| 11 | | In terms of the KwokMiles account, your |\n| 12 | | understanding is that that account was associated with Mr. Kwok, |\n| 13 | correct? | |\n| 14 | A | Yes. |\n| 15 | | MR. HARBACH:
For clarity of the record, the |\n| 16 | | account with which web platform?
Are you talking about |\n| 17 | | Twitter or Tweet Tunnel? |\n| 18 | | MS. COLE:
My apologies.
I am going back to |\n| 19 | | Twitter.
Thank you for helping me out. |\n| 20 | Q | To your understanding, Tweet Tunnel is not Twitter, |\n| 21 | | correct, it is a different website? |\n| 22 | A | Correct. |\n| 23 | Q | So let's go back to Twitter itself. |\n| 24 | | Your understanding is that @KwokMiles is a |\n| 25 | | Twitter -- is associated with Mr. Kwok, correct? |\n| | | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 48 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269\n\n**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**30 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you know who, if anyone, posted content on that 3 website at any time on that account? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you know if there was any unauthorized use of that 6 account at any time? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q And you haven't actually traced the account to any 9 electronic devices held by Mr. Kwok or anything like that, 10 correct? 11 A Correct. 12 Q The account has been suspended, so there is no way for 13 anyone, any of us at this point to verify content; is that 14 correct? 15 A I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if there 16 is a technological way to do that. 17 Q But certainly you haven't tried to or been able to? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Okay. 20 MS COLE: On the Tweet Tunnel, do we want to 21 stipulate to the accuracy? Would you guys be willing to 22 stipulate to the accuracy of that correspondence, or are we 23 ready to show Mr. Francis? 24 MS. BARROW: It is in the chat that I shared with 25 all participants.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 49 of 269\n\n## **Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**31 1 MS COLE: Oh, okay. 2 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, if I may be permitted to 3 address Ms. Cole directly for a moment to, hopefully, 4 streamline this? If we were in the courtroom, I would go 5 over to counsel table and whisper it to her. 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. HARBACH: Ms. Cole, you are welcome to show 8 the -- I think the document you have been looking for is 9 what our law firm sent over to you guys as a placeholder to 10 let you know what the exhibit was. I am alerting you that I 11 don't know whether Mr. Francis has ever seen that version 12 before. That's all. 13 MS. COLE: Okay. I am just curious if it will 14 refresh his recollection. If not, that's fine. 15 MR. HARBACH: Okay. 16 MS. COLE: So let's just take a look. 17 MS. BARROW: Mr. Francis, do you see the document 18 that starts with Exhibit B? 19 THE WITNESS: I see a page that says Exhibit B. I 20 am trying to find the actual content. Okay, I can see it 21 now. 22 BY MS COLE: 23 Q So do you see there are two lines there talking about 24 Figure 1 source and Figure 2 source? 25 A I see Docket Number 1126, Exhibit B, but I am not sure Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 50 of 269\n\n## **Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**32 1 what -- then I see the two images. 2 THE COURT: I can't see what you are showing the 3 witness. I am not sure Mr. Harbach can see it either. 4 MR. HARBACH: I have a paper copy. It's black and 5 white. I can try showing it to the camera. 6 THE COURT: I mean, the probative value of this is 7 near zero. Let's not waste the morning on it. 8 Q Mr. Francis, if the answer is you can't recall whether 9 you recovered the tweet from Twitter or from Tweet Tunnel, then 10 that's that the answer. 11 A That's the answer. 12 Q That's fine. 13 MS COLE: Your Honor, I don't believe I have any 14 other questions. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Francis, you are excused. 16 Your next witness, Mr. Harbach? 17 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, I hate to try the 18 Court's patience -- 19 THE COURT: I am not going to entertain any 20 redirect. 21 MR. HARBACH: Okay, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Francis put in six affidavits all 23 with references to various social media platforms. The 24 Court will give that evidence such weight as it deserves. 25 Let's proceed.**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 51 of 269\n\n**Price - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole**\n\n**33**\n\n **1 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, our next witness we 2 tender for cross-examination is Mr. Todd Price. 3 MS. COLE: Before we call him, can we discuss a 4 proffer of Mr. Price's testimony? Will Mr. Price say the 5 only thing he can offer -- because what his affidavits say 6 is he downloaded from the internet on X day in January. 7 MR. HARBACH: We expect that he will testify 8 consistently with the affidavits that have been proffered to 9 the Court. As I mentioned before, his affidavits contain 10 more than just business record custodian type of stuff, 11 there is more content to them; but that's what we expect him 12 to testify consistent with, with what was submitted to the 13 Court. 14 MS. COLE: Is there anything he can say other 15 than -- other than that it was the accuracy of what appeared 16 on the internet on the day he downloaded it, is there 17 anything else he can speak to? 18 MR. HARBACH: I am not going to answer that 19 open-ended question. You can cross him. 20 MS. COLE: Okay, I will ask him. 21 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, if it is all right with 22 the Court, one of my colleagues, Laura Aronsson is going to 23 tender this witness, so I will let her have this chair. 24 MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. 25 Good morning, your Honor. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**Price - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole 34 1 THE COURT: Mr. Price, raise your right hand. 2 (Todd Price is duly sworn/affirmed.) 3 THE COURT: Ms. Cole, cross-examination. 4 TODD PRICE, having been called on behalf of Plaintiff, 5 first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as 6 follows: 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MS COLE: 9 Q Mr. Price, you have testified in your affidavits that 10 you are the chief technology officer at Page Vault, and you were 11 asked -- well, I don't know that you were asked, but you say that 12 you collected information from various websites; is that correct? 13 A Correct. Not personally, but our software did. 14 Q And you can testify that that information that you 15 collected is how it appeared on the website as of the date you 16 collected it; is that the substance of your testimony? 17 A Yes, it is. Yes. 18 Q So because I am not a technical person, as you can 19 tell, you collected content from a website on a certain date, 20 correct? 21 A Yes. Again, just to be clear, it was not me 22 personally. I can only testify that the user of our software 23 collected it and that it existed on a particular date and time on 24 a particular website. 25 Q And your duty, or your company's duty was to preserve** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 52 of\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 53 of 269\n\n**35 1 it as it appeared on that date? 2 A Correct. 3 Q Can you tell us anything further about the accuracy or 4 the authenticity of the content that was downloaded? 5 A I cannot, no. 6 Q Can you tell us anything about the substance of those 7 materials before you captured them that date? 8 A I cannot. 9 Q Then, I don't think I have any further questions. 10 THE COURT: All right. You are excused, 11 Mr. Price. 12 Next witness. 13 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, we don't have any other 14 witnesses. I don't know if your Honor would like me to go 15 through a formal offer of our exhibits now or if it is 16 already clear from what we submitted to the Court. If 17 memory serves, we submitted a column so the Court can see 18 which exhibits are in on consent and which are not. 19 The only other witness that was discussed with our 20 colleagues on the other side as a possible witness was a 21 representative from TransPerfect which is the company that 22 made the translations. And as we represented to counsel in 23 our meet-and-confer calls, that witness who, again, is not 24 here, that witness would only have testified similar to the 25 way Mr. Price just did, that the business records affidavits**\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 54 of 269\n\n**36 1 are -- excuse me, that the certifications of the translation 2 are, in fact, business records of TransPerfect. That person 3 would not have been the one who actually did the 4 translation. It was just a records custodian. So we don't 5 have that witness available for cross. What we would tender 6 to the Court would be those business record affidavits that 7 accompanied the translation. I hope that is clear. 8 Does the Court want me to make a formal tender of 9 the other exhibits or not? 10 THE COURT: You need not make a formal tender of 11 the other exhibits. That's what you did in your submission. 12 Anything from you, Ms. Cole? 13 MS. COLE: Your Honor, I would like to address 14 some of the evidentiary issues and the points that were made 15 by the other side in the brief. I don't know if this is the 16 time to do that. 17 THE COURT: No, this is not the time to do that. 18 You have already briefed the probative value of the 19 witnesses' testimony who appeared this morning. And there 20 is documentary evidence that has been submitted which I**\n\n**21 don't believe is controverted. 22 MS. COLE: Well, I would like to address certain**\n\n**23 other -- you know, they argued about the adverse inference. 24 They made some arguments about the admissibility that I 25 disagree with and some case law that I disagree with.**\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 55 of 269\n\n**37 1 THE COURT: Well, let's get all the testimony in 2 the case in. Then we will go through post-hearing issues. 3 MS. COLE: Thank you. 4 THE COURT: So let's have the defense's first 5 witness available for cross-examination by the plaintiff. 6 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, John Siegal here. 7 The first several witnesses are witnesses for Hong 8 Kong International, the owner of the vessel. And Lee Vartan 9 will be presenting those witnesses for cross-examination. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 Mr. Harbach, you are muted. I don't know if you 12 want to be or not. 13 MR. HARBACH: Sorry, your Honor. I was commenting 14 to my colleagues. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. HARBACH: I will note, however, your Honor, 17 that Guo Mei just appearing on the screen; apropos of our 18 conversation before this hearing, if it were up to us -- and 19 perhaps it is not -- we think it would make more sense to 20 the Court to conduct a cross of Ms. Guo after the other 21 witnesses, but I understand it is not our case. 22 THE COURT: Well, the defendants can present their 23 witnesses in whatever order they want for cross-examination. 24 MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor. 25 MR. VARTAN: Good morning, your Honor. Lee Vartan Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 56 of 269\n\n**38 1 on behalf of Mei Guo. Ms. Guo, as your Honor knows, has 2 submitted an affirmation. We would tender that as her 3 direct testimony and offer her for cross-examination. 4 I will note for the Court, your Honor, that 5 Ms. Guo does need an interpreter, and I believe one is 6 available to her. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I am online. 9 THE COURT: Ms. Guo, please raise your right hand. 10 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, maybe the 11 interpreter needs to be sworn in first? 12 THE COURT: Yes. Please state your name. 13 THE INTERPRETER: Echo Lim. 14 THE COURT: Ms. Lim, you are a certified court 15 interpreter? 16 THE INTERPRETER: No, sir. I am certified but not 17 by the court. 18 THE COURT: Who are you certified by? 19 THE INTERPRETER: I am certified by agency. 20 THE COURT: By who? 21 THE INTERPRETER: Agency. 22 THE COURT: By your agency, all right. 23 Do you swear to interpret Ms. Guo's testimony 24 truthfully and accurately? 25 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir.**\n\n**Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 57 of 269\n\n**39 1 THE COURT: All right. 2 Ms. Guo, please raise your right hand. Do you 3 swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 4 Ms. Lim, can you please tell Ms. Guo that she is 5 muted. 6 THE INTERPRETER: I just did. 7 THE COURT: Please explain to Ms. Guo that we are 8 having difficulty hearing her because she is not speaking 9 into the microphone or because the microphone is not active. 10 (Brief pause) 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. Can you hear 12 me now? 13 THE COURT: Yes. 14 Okay. Cross-examination can proceed. 15 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor I could be mistaken, but 16 I don't believe the witness's oath was completed because of 17 the technical problem. 18 (Mei Guo is duly sworn/affirmed.) 19 MR. HARBACH: For the record, Madam Translator, 20 what you just administered to the witness was the standard 21 oath given in Court that she swears to tell the truth; is 22 that right? 23 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir. 24 MR. HARBACH: Thank you. 25 THE COURT: Please proceed. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 58 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 40 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MEI GUO, having been called on behalf of Defendant, |\n| 2 | first having been duly sworn through the interpreter, was |\n| 3 | examined and testified as follows: |\n| 4 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 5 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 6 | Q
Ms. Guo, first question, what is the correct way to |\n| 7 | address you?
Is it Mei Guo or Guo Mei?
What are you most |\n| 8 | comfortable with? |\n| 9 | A
My Chinese name is Guo Mei, and my English name is Mei |\n| 10 | Guo, so you can address me as Mei Guo. |\n| 11 | Q
Thank you, ma'am. |\n| 12 | It seems clear this morning that you do speak and |\n| 13 | understand some English? |\n| 14 | A
Yes. |\n| 15 | Q
For the clarity of the record, I will make one request |\n| 16 | going forward.
That is that even if you understand a question I |\n| 17 | put to you in English, please wait for the interpretation before |\n| 18 | you answer. |\n| 19 | A
All right. |\n| 20 | Q
That way we make sure that you understand my question |\n| 21 | before you answer it. |\n| 22 | A
All right. |\n| 23 | Q
And if at any time you don't understand a question, |\n| 24 | please just let me know. |\n| 25 | A
All right.
Thank you. |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | Case 22-50073 | | Doc 183-4 | | Filed 04/06/22 | | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | Page 59 of | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|--|-----------|--|----------------|-----|--|---------------------------|--|-----------------------------|------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | 269 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 41 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q
Do you have a copy of the affidavit that you signed and |\n| 2 | submitted in connection with today's hearing? |\n| 3 | A
I don't have it with me.
I don't have it right now |\n| 4 | next to me. |\n| 5 | Q
Give me just a moment.
I think I can fix that. |\n| 6 | A
Thank you. |\n| 7 | Q
I believe I am sharing my screen now.
Are you able to |\n| 8 | see that, ma'am? |\n| 9 | A
Yes, I see it. |\n| 10 | MR. HARBACH:
Your Honor, can the Court see it? |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
So Ms. Guo, what is up on the screen for the record is |\n| 13 | Docket 1162 in this matter.
And in the caption it says |\n| 14 | \"Affidavit of Mei Guo.\" |\n| 15 | A
Okay. |\n| 16 | Q
I am going to show you the last page of it.
For the |\n| 17 | record, this is Page 5 of the exhibit. |\n| 18 | Is that your signature that appears? |\n| 19 | A
It is my signature. |\n| 20 | Q
You read this affidavit or had it translated for you |\n| 21 | before you signed it, didn't you? |\n| 22 | A
Yes, I have read it. |\n| 23 | Q
I realize that it is in English.
Did you understand |\n| 24 | what you read? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 60 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| 42 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1
Q
My first question about the affidavit concerns |\n| 2
Paragraph 8.
I suppose I should ask if -- can read English, |\n| 3
ma'am? |\n| 4
A
Yes, I can. |\n| 5
Q
Paragraph 8 is up there on the screen right now.
Take |\n| 6
a moment and read it to yourself and tell me when you are done. |\n| 7
A
I am done reading. |\n| 8
Q
There is a name mentioned in that paragraph called |\n| 9
Qu Guojiao.
And you mentioned that Ms. Qu was a trusted business |\n| 10
partner of your brother's, your uncles, and your cousins. |\n| 11
A
Yes, but I have something to add on to your earlier |\n| 12
explanation, sir.
Guojiao is not the last name.
This person's |\n| 13
last name is Qu, Q-U. |\n| 14
Q
Thank you for clarifying. |\n| 15
My question for you is:
Isn't it true that your |\n| 16
father also knows Ms. Qu? |\n| 17
A
My father know Ms. Qu. |\n| 18
Q
And was Ms. Qu a trusted business partner of your |\n| 19
father's as well? |\n| 20
A
No, she isn't. |\n| 21
Q
Is that according to your father? |\n| 22
A
No.
This is according to the fact. |\n| 23
Q
Well, whether someone is a trusted business partner has |\n| 24
to do with the mind of the person who is doing the trusting, |\n| 25
doesn't it? |\n| |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 61 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | | 43 |\n|----|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A | I don't quite understand your question, sir.
Can you |\n| 2 | please elaborate? | |\n| 3 | Q | Let me put it to you this way.
Do you know one way or |\n| 4 | | the other whether your father trusted Ms. Qu? |\n| 5 | A | I do not know. |\n| 6 | Q | It is true, however, that your father founded Hong Kong |\n| 7 | | International in 2006, right? |\n| 8 | A | Yes. |\n| 9 | Q | And that he owned and controlled that entity until |\n| 10 | | October of 2014 when he transferred it to Ms. Qu, right? |\n| 11 | A | As far as I know, yes. |\n| 12 | Q | As far as you know, that transfer was for zero dollars, |\n| 13 | correct? | |\n| 14 | A | Regarding this, I really do not remember very clearly. |\n| 15 | Q | Did your father or Ms. Qu discuss that transfer with |\n| 16 | | you at any time around the time it happened? |\n| 17 | A | No. |\n| 18 | Q | You state in your affidavit at Paragraph 3, which I |\n| 19 | | have now displayed on the screen, that your father fled China to |\n| 20 | | the United States in early 2015.
Do you see that there? |\n| 21 | A | Yes, I see it; but in 2015 my father left China from |\n| 22 | | Hong Kong to United States. |\n| 23 | Q | Thank you for clarifying.
My point was the timeframe. |\n| 24 | A | Okay. |\n| 25 | Q | Isn't it true that in February of that year, namely |\n| | | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | Page 62 of | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|--|-----------------------------|--|--|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | | | | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | | |\n| | | | | 269 | | | | | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 44 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 2015, that Hong Kong International bought the yacht that is at |\n| 2 | issue here, correct? |\n| 3 | A
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q
And Ms. Qu, who was the owner of Hong Kong |\n| 5 | International at that time, she didn't come up with the |\n| 6 | 28 million Euros for the yacht, did she? |\n| 7 | A
Correct.
She didn't pay for it. |\n| 8 | Q
Your father provided the money, didn't he? |\n| 9 | A
Not my father. |\n| 10 | Q
Do you know where the money came from? |\n| 11 | A
I do not know where the money coming from, but I have |\n| 12 | learned that the yacht was bought by my brother. |\n| 13 | Q
I understand that.
We will get to that a little bit |\n| 14 | later. |\n| 15 | Is your testimony that in early 2015 it was your |\n| 16 | brother who bought the yacht? |\n| 17 | A
Yes, my brother bought it for me. |\n| 18 | Q
My question is where the money came from because the |\n| 19 | bill of sale makes it clear that Hong Kong International |\n| 20 | purchased the yacht for 28 million Euros.
And my question for |\n| 21 | you is where did that money come from, if you know? |\n| 22 | A
I do not know. |\n| 23 | Q
So earlier when you said your father did not provide |\n| 24 | the 28 million, the truth is you really don't know one way or the |\n| 25 | other, correct? |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 63 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**45 1 A I know I don't know where the money coming from, but 2 what I know is that this yacht was bought by my brother for me. 3 Q What do you mean when you say \"bought\" if you don't 4 know where the money came from? 5 A When someone gives me a gift I do not need to ask the 6 person where the money purchasing the gift coming from, right? 7 Q Fair enough, but are you saying that the yacht was 8 given to your brother as a gift? 9 MR. VARTAN: Objection, misstates the testimony. 10 A -- 11 MR. VARTAN: I have an objection pending to that 12 question. 13 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 14 THE INTERPRETER: The objection has been 15 translated. 16 Q You may answer the question because the Court has 17 overruled the objection. 18 A This yacht was not a gift from someone to my brother. 19 It was a gift from my brother to me. 20 Q You said that several times, and at the risk of trying 21 the Court's patience I am going to try this once more. 22 You told us a moment ago or you agreed with my 23 question about Hong Kong International purchasing the yacht in 24 February of 2015 for 28 million Euros. 25 A Yes.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 64 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| 1 | Q
And my question to you was where -- I asked you whether |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Ms. Qu came up with the \\$28 million and you said no, correct? |\n| 3 | A
Correct. |\n| 4 | Q
And the reason I asked that question was because at the |\n| 5 | time, it was Ms. Qu that owned and was the sole member of Hong |\n| 6 | Kong International; isn't that right? |\n| 7 | A
Correct. |\n| 8 | Q
I understand your answer that you said a couple of |\n| 9 | times.
You don't know where the 28 million Euros that landed in |\n| 10 | the hands of the seller of the yacht came from, right? |\n| 11 | A
Yes.
I know that this yacht was a gift from my brother |\n| 12 | to me, so I know that this was my brother's purchase. |\n| 13 | Q
But you don't know -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
How does a yacht get transferred from |\n| 15 | Hong Kong International to your brother? |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, this yacht, when it was |\n| 17 | purchased under Hong Kong International it was under the |\n| 18 | name of Ms. Qu or Qu Guojiao, not under my brother's name. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Are you telling the Court that the |\n| 20 | boat went from Hong Kong International to Ms. Qu, and then |\n| 21 | from Ms. Qu to your brother? |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, it is from Hong Kong |\n| 23 | International to Ms. Qu, then it was transferred to me.
It |\n| 24 | has never transferred to my brother. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
So you received the boat from Ms. Qu |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 65 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**47 1 after she received the boat from Hong Kong International, 2 correct? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Your brother was not involved in any 5 of the transfers before you acquired the boat, according to 6 your testimony? 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. 8 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Harbach. 9 MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor. 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 11 BY MR. HARBACH: 12 Q Ms. Guo, isn't it true that when Ms. Qu transferred 13 Hong Kong International to you, as you just told his Honor, that 14 was for one dollar; right? 15 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the interpreter needs a 16 clarification. 17 Is it Hong Kong International that is 18 transferring? 19 MR. HARBACH: That is correct. 20 A Yes, it was. 21 Q Have you ever met Ms. Qu? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know what she looks like? 24 A Yes. 25 Q I am going to show you what has been marked for Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | Page 66 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|-----|---------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | 269 | | | | | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**48 1 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 53, a photograph. 2 Can you see that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is the person depicted in Plaintiff's 53 Ms. Qu? 5 A The person is slightly different than the person that I 6 met, but I believe it is she. 7 Q How confident are you of that? 8 A I am confident. 9 Q Now, I will put your affidavit back up on the screen. 10 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, this is John Siegal. 11 We object to this. I don't have an Exhibit 12 50-whatever. It was not disclosed. It is not on the 13 exhibit list. I don't have any exhibits higher than 38. So 14 this picture has not been proffered through the pretrial 15 process. 16 MR. HARBACH: Would you like me to respond, Judge? 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 MR. HARBACH: First of all, it is a photograph. 19 It is quite simple. Second of all, it's cross-examination, 20 and that's the reason it hasn't been proffered through the 21 pretrial process. 22 The reason that Mr. Siegel's exhibits only go up 23 to 38 is because during the course of preparing for this 24 hearing I marked things that I wanted to use on cross 25 starting at number 50, so there won't be a whole lot Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 67 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**49 1 exhibits like this. 2 MR. SIEGAL: We object. We get a brief after 3 business hours the night before the hearing, and now we are 4 getting trial by ambush with exhibits that were not 5 disclosed when the Court's order was very clear that trial 6 exhibits were to be disclosed. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Siegal, I am overruling the 8 objection. I want to go on with this hearing. I don't want 9 any obstruction. This witness is here to tell the truth. 10 And in order to tell the truth and for the truth to come 11 out, the plaintiff is entitled to cross-examine her. 12 MR. SIEGAL: Well, your Honor -- 13 THE COURT: It is not trial by ambush. 14 MR. SIEGAL: -- it is violative of the Court's 15 pre-hearing directive, and we object. 16 THE COURT: All right. Your objection is noted. 17 Let's move on. It is 11:45 and we've had fifteen 18 minutes of meaningful testimony. 19 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 20 BY MR. HARBACH: 21 Q Let's go to Paragraph 14 of your affidavit. 22 A Thank you. 23 Q Do you see that on your screen? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Oh, I'm sorry. I have one question before I get to**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 68 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 50 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that. |\n| 2 | To your knowledge has Ms. Qu ever set foot on the |\n| 3 | Lady May? |\n| 4 | A
Not together with me, but I don't know if she had |\n| 5 | before that. |\n| 6 | Q
Okay. |\n| 7 | Let's now look at Paragraph 14.
You say that you |\n| 8 | are solely responsible for directing the Lady May's movements. |\n| 9 | A
Correct. |\n| 10 | Q
That's not true when your dad is aboard, is it? |\n| 11 | A
It is true because even if my father needed to board |\n| 12 | Lady May, he needed my authorization. |\n| 13 | Q
I understand your answer, but it doesn't exactly |\n| 14 | respond to my question.
My question is:
When your father is |\n| 15 | aboard the Lady May without you, for example, he directs the Lady |\n| 16 | May's movements, doesn't he? |\n| 17 | A
Your question means that if I am not at sea, if my |\n| 18 | father is on board, wherever he wants to go he has the freedom to |\n| 19 | choose; is that so? |\n| 20 | Q
That's more or less a summary of it.
Sure. |\n| 21 | A
If I am not on board on Lady May, and if my father is |\n| 22 | on Lady May, whatever the direction he wanted to go to, he has |\n| 23 | the freedom choose.
Sure. |\n| 24 | Q
And you mentioned that he requires your authorization |\n| 25 | to come aboard? |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 69 of\n\n269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**51 1 A Yes. 2 Q But he doesn't require your authorization about where 3 to drop anchor, or where to refuel, or where to stay overnight; 4 right? 5 A -- 6 MR. VARTAN: Just to clarify, are you asking when 7 she is on board or when she is not on board? 8 MR. HARBACH: She can answer both. 9 A I will need to probably give you a brief education 10 about ownership of yacht. 11 All these decisions you just mentioned was not 12 idea significance to be made by the owner of the yacht. It is 13 idea significance made by the -- it is idea significance made by 14 the captain of the yacht. 15 Q Well, I understand what you just said, but your 16 affidavit mentions movements, directing movements. That's why I 17 asked my questions; but I will ask my question a different way 18 and then move on. 19 A Okay. 20 Q When your father has been out on the yacht without you, 21 how many times has he called you to ask your permission about 22 whether he can drop anchor somewhere? 23 MR. VARTAN: Objection. That ignore's Ms. Guo's 24 testimony from a few moments ago. 25 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 70 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 52 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat the question, |\n| 2 | sir?
I kind of lost my memory about the question just now. |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
Sure. |\n| 4 | Q
When your father has been out on the yacht alone or |\n| 5 | without you, at least; how many times has he called you to ask |\n| 6 | your permission about whether he is allowed to drop anchor? |\n| 7 | A
Okay.
Before my father board the yacht he always get |\n| 8 | my permission, and before getting the permission he has a |\n| 9 | detailed itinerary.
All his trips will be following the |\n| 10 | itinerary to the T.
And he never did call me during the trip |\n| 11 | when he was on the yacht. |\n| 12 | Q
Do you have any of those itineraries? |\n| 13 | A
My father's safety is very sensitive issue.
It is not |\n| 14 | possible for us to have any printout of his itinerary.
His |\n| 15 | itinerary was normally briefed to me over the phone when he |\n| 16 | called me before he boarded the yacht. |\n| 17 | Q
I see. |\n| 18 | If there is no documentation about these occasions |\n| 19 | when you say your father sought authorization from you, your |\n| 20 | testimony is that you just recall that every time he went out he |\n| 21 | gave you a detailed itinerary of everywhere he was going to go? |\n| 22 | A
When my father boarded the yacht he is my guest.
It is |\n| 23 | impossible for me to request all my guests that boarded the yacht |\n| 24 | to give me a very detailed plan for their trip. |\n| 25 | Q
I understand that, but just a few minutes ago I |\n| | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 71 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n **1 understood you to say that whenever your father took the yacht 2 out, number one, he had to get authorization from you which, I 3 suppose, all guests would; and, number two, I believe you said 4 every time he went out he gave you a detailed itinerary. So it's 5 no answer to my -- sorry, Madam Interpreter. Go ahead. Excuse 6 me.**\n\n **7 A I will give you an example, sir.**\n\n **8 If the yacht is in New York, my father boarded it 9 New York and he told me he is going to Long Island, then I would 10 agree to it. But if he wants to stop half way, it is his freedom 11 as long as it is within the New York area. But if he is taking 12 the yacht to Palm Beach, then he would need to give me a very 13 detailed itinerary.**\n\n**14 Q Did your father ever take the yacht out without your 15 permission or knowledge?**\n\n**16 A Never.**\n\n**17 Q Let's look at -- well, we are still on Paragraph 14. 18 Excuse me.**\n\n**19 You talk about in early October of 2020 no longer 20 wishing to use the boat and relating that to Golden Spring.**\n\n**21 A Yes.**\n\n**22 Q And then the remainder of the sentence says -- the 23 paragraph says that Golden Spring relayed your directive to 24 Captain Heaslop.**\n\n**25 A Yes.**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 72 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**54**\n\n **1 Q Do you remember this?**\n\n **2 A Yes, I remember.**\n\n **3 Q What exactly was your directive?**\n\n **4 A Because my yacht in every October the winter season, 5 due to the reason of the weather, it needs to be parked in 6 Florida, a warmer place. So to me this is a very ordinary 7 request. Golden Spring asked me if I still need to use the yacht 8 because my understanding is that a yacht needs to be moved to a 9 warmer place.**\n\n**10 Q I want to make sure I understand the last part of that 11 answer before I ask another question.**\n\n**12 Did you say that Golden Spring asked you if you 13 wanted to continue to use the yacht?**\n\n**14 A It wasn't a request or inquiry, actually, because I 15 already know that the yacht is no longer suitable to be used in 16 New York under the weather conditions. They were just informing 17 me that the yacht needs to move to a warmer place.**\n\n**18 Q So Golden Spring was informing you of that decision? 19 A It is not informing. It is more like reporting. 20 Q I see.**\n\n**21 So in your affidavit when you say you no longer 22 wish to use the boat for the season due to the weather; was that 23 the reason you relayed the directive, or is it because you heard 24 from Golden Spring that the boat needed to go to Florida?**\n\n**25 A Okay. Let me reiterate my answer, sir.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 73 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**55**\n\n **1 Every year in the past few years in October, that 2 would be the time to arrange for the yacht to be moved to a 3 warmer place. So this year, that particular year before they 4 moved the yacht to warmer place, they informed me, they told 5 me -- rather, they report to me that the yacht needs to be moved 6 to the warmer place. So it was more like a routine activity. 7 Q I understand. 8 So is it true, then, that your directive in 9 response to that information was, Take the yacht to Florida? 10 A Yes, I agreed to the request sent by the captain. 11 Q Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what your affidavit 12 says. Your affidavit refers to a directive, so that's what I am 13 trying to understand. That was my original question. What 14 exactly was your directive? 15 A My communication with the captain is through a 16 representative of the company. The representative of the company 17 came to me and told me it is about time to move the yacht to a 18 warmer place, so my instruction to the representative is that 19 yes, all right, the yacht needs to move to Florida. That was my 20 directive. 21 THE COURT: What is your relationship with Golden 22 Spring? 23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, Golden Spring helps me 24 to pay all the expenses for my yacht, including the 25 management fees.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 74 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 56 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Do you have an ownership interest in |\n| 2 | Golden Spring? |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
No. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Why would Golden Spring help you pay |\n| 5 | all of the expenses associated with operating and |\n| 6 | maintaining the yacht? |\n| 7 | THE WITNESS:
Golden Spring belongs to my brother. |\n| 8 | It is my brother's company.
When the yacht was gifted to me |\n| 9 | as a gift, I find it very troublesome to form another bank |\n| 10 | account just to try to manage the yacht; so I requested my |\n| 11 | brother if he can continue to manage the yacht using his |\n| 12 | company.
He and I came to an agreement with that. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So it is your testimony that your |\n| 14 | brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring? |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And it was part of your brother's gift |\n| 17 | to you that he would incur the costs of maintaining and |\n| 18 | operating the yacht? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Do you know how much it costs to |\n| 21 | maintain and operate the yacht for a year? |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, between \\$2 million to |\n| 23 | \\$3 million US dollars. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
All right.
We are going to give the |\n| 25 | court reporter a ten-minute break.
She has been trying to |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | Case 22-50073 | | Doc 183-4 | | Filed 04/06/22 | | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | Page 75 of | | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|--|-----------|--|----------------|-----|--|---------------------------|--|-----------------------------|------------|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | 269 | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**57 1 follow the testimony all morning. We will resume at 12:15 2 and go to 1:00 and break for lunch. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 4 (Short recess taken) 5 THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. 6 BY MR. HARBACH: 7 Q Ms. Guo, at the time you directed that the yacht go to 8 Florida, were you aware that a temporary restraining order had 9 been entered against your father on September 30? 10 THE INTERPRETER: September 30, right, sir? 11 MR. HARBACH: Yes, of 2020. 12 A I do not know about it at that time. 13 MR. HARBACH: Could I ask the interpreter to 14 please clarify? She did not know about it at the time? 15 THE INTERPRETER: She did not know about it at the 16 time, sir. 17 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I will interpose an 18 objection. I understand that the Court's order was entered 19 in October and not in September. 20 THE COURT: (To the witness) At any time in 2020 21 were you aware that a temporary restraining order was 22 entered against your father prohibiting him from removing 23 the vessel from the territorial United States? 24 THE WITNESS: I learned about this matter around 25 the end of 2020. I can't remember the exact date. It was Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 76 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**58**\n\n **1 sometime in winter. It possibly is the beginning of 2021. 2 I came to know about it through my lawyer's telephone call. 3 BY MR. HARBACH:**\n\n **4 Q So when the yacht sailed south for Florida in early 5 October of 2020, your testimony is that you did not know about 6 any restraining order that had been entered on September 30?**\n\n **7 MR. VARTAN: Same objection, your Honor, with 8 respect to the date. Certainly if Mr. Harbach has a 9 document he wants to show the witness, I am sure she would 10 be happy to look at it; but I understand the date to be 11 October 15 and not September 30.**\n\n**12 MR. HARBACH: To clarify for counsel and the 13 Court, there is a temporary restraining order issued on 14 September 30 of 2020. It is Document 591 on the Court's 15 docket. My only question about this is whether the witness 16 was aware that that temporary restraining order had been 17 entered.**\n\n**18 MR. VARTAN: Again, your Honor, my understanding 19 is that the September order, not to belabor the point, has 20 nothing at all to do with the Lady May. Granted, I wasn't 21 part of the proceedings at that point, but my understanding 22 is the Lady May is first made mention before your Honor in 23 October, not September 30. So, again, I'd invite 24 Mr. Harbach to show the document to the witness if he has 25 something before him.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 77 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 59 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
To answer the question, the answer |\n| 2 | is that I do not know about it, and I would like to have a |\n| 3 | look at this document if you have. |\n| 4 | Thank you. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Ma'am, you testified three minutes ago |\n| 6 | that you became aware of a temporary restraining order |\n| 7 | relating to the Lady May sometime in late 2020 or, perhaps, |\n| 8 | early 2021.
Is that your testimony? |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Correct. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Mr. Harbach, that's the witness's |\n| 11 | testimony.
Can we move on? |\n| 12 | MR. HARBACH:
Sure, your Honor. |\n| 13 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 14 | Q
When you mentioned earlier that Golden Spring gave you |\n| 15 | a report about the yacht needing to sail south in Florida, that |\n| 16 | was something that was fairly regular in your experience -- I |\n| 17 | withdraw that question.
I'm sorry. |\n| 18 | What I mean to ask is:
Was it fairly common for |\n| 19 | you to exercise direction over the Lady May via Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A
These type of normal ordinary routine activities, since |\n| 21 | we -- since all the parties understood the timeframe or the time |\n| 22 | point, they will just inform me to execute it.
But if I have |\n| 23 | guest or I needed the yacht myself, I will directly contact the |\n| 24 | captain. |\n| 25 | Q
I see. |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 78 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**60**\n\n **1 Based on your experience with Golden Spring, would 2 it be fair to say that as far as you could tell based on your 3 interactions with them, there were people who worked at Golden 4 Spring who knew that you controlled and owned the yacht? 5 A Yes, all of them know. 6 Q All right. 7 Now let's return to your affidavit. I am going to 8 share my screen now to show you Paragraph 20. Can you see it? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Now, in the beginning of this paragraph you mention 11 that you learned through counsel of the Court's order requiring 12 the Lady May to return to New York in May? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. Did you read it, \"it\" being the order? 15 A I was informed by my lawyer at the time. 16 Q My question is did you read it? 17 A -- 18 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I would just caution 19 Ms. Guo not to go into any conversations she had with her 20 counsel. 21 THE COURT: All she was asked was whether she read 22 the Court's order. 23 MR. VARTAN: Understood. I was just cautioning 24 her in advance of responding. 25 A To answer the question, sir, yes, I have read it. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | Page 79 of | | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|-----|---------------------------|--|-----------------------------|------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | 269 | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 61 | | | | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Q
Okay.
Bear with me just a second, please. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | A
Okay. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, is there a pending | | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | question? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | MR. HARBACH:
No, your Honor.
I am trying to pull | | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | the document up.
Sorry for the delay.
I have it now. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
What I displayed on the screen now is the order that we | | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | have been just talking about.
Do you recognize this as an order | | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | that you have read before? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
Can you allow me some time to read it? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. VARTAN:
Mr. Harbach, can you make that larger | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | to aid the witness?
Thank you. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A
Can you go back to the top? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
Sure.
Let me know when I can continue and I will | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | continue to move it. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | A
The document date shows September 30, 2020.
I am not | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | too sure if I have read this document before. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
If you will bear with me a moment, I hope to make this | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | clear.
It is not intended to be a trick question. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, I couldn't hear the last | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | sentence of your question? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Q
I said that I am going to try and help you.
It is not | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | intended to be a trick question. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | What I put on the screen now is Document 728 from | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | the Court's docket.
This is the page that has Judge Ostrager's | | | | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | | Page 80 of | |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|--|-----------------------------|--|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 | | | | 269 | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 | |\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**62 1 signature. It is dated March 16 of 2021. 2 A Okay. 3 Q And this is the order of the Court that specifically 4 requires that it be returned to New York? 5 A Okay. Okay. 6 Q So my question for you is: Have you ever seen this 7 order before? 8 A Can you please go back to the top of the document and 9 show me again because I want to reconfirm. At this point of time 10 I am not able to confirm it. 11 Q Okay. I will give you a little while longer, but then 12 I will move on because it is not crucial. 13 THE COURT: Can you show her the next page? 14 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 15 A I really truly do not recall if I have seen this 16 document before, but I do know the content of this document. 17 Q Okay. Thank you. 18 Returning to your affidavit, you said in 19 Paragraph 20 that you were aware of the Court's order requiring 20 the Lady May to return to New York in May of '21 and that you 21 learned of that through your counsel? 22 A Yes. 23 Q So what I want to make sure I understand is when you 24 learned of the Court's order. I understood you to say to 25 Justice Ostrager a few minutes ago that you thought you learned Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 81 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**63**\n\n **1 of a restraining order at the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2 2021, is that correct? 3 A What I remember now is that at the end of 2020 my 4 lawyer called me and informed me that there would be a possible 5 issue as such with Lady May, but I don't remember exactly when I 6 learned about this order, this Court order. It is probably 7 around 2021, beginning of 2021 between the month of March and 8 April. 9 Q Okay. Let me -- 10 MR. HARBACH: I really appreciate your Honor being 11 patient. I am moving as quickly as I can. 12 Q Let me add one more piece to the puzzle. And, again, I 13 am not trying to confuse you. 14 There was a restraining order issued by the Court 15 on October 15 of 2020. I am going to represent that to you, 16 okay? 17 A Okay. 18 Q Do you think that is the order that you learned about 19 toward the end of 2020 from your counsel? 20 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I would object. I think 21 the question has been asked and answered now a number of 22 times. Also, we are beginning to conflate dates. We are 23 looking at Paragraph 20 that talks about a different court 24 order from March. Mr. Harbach is talking now about an order 25 from October. I think he is confusing the witness here.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 82 of 269\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**64 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 2 THE COURT: Just rephrase your question. This 3 isn't that hard. 4 Q Ms. Guo, when was the first time you learned about any 5 restraining order from the Court through your counsel? 6 MR. VARTAN: Same objection. Asked and answered 7 multiple times. 8 THE COURT: Overruled. 9 THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question? 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 A I really do not remember the specific date, but it was 12 somewhere around the beginning of 2021. It was somewhere around 13 the beginning of 2021. I really do not remember the specific 14 date. 15 Q After you learned about the order from your counsel, 16 did you discuss it with your father? 17 MR. VARTAN: I'd just ask Mr. Harbach to clarify, 18 your Honor, which order he is talking about. He's mentioned 19 a September order, an October order, a March order? 20 THE COURT: Let's make this easy. 21 Ms. Guo, did you discuss any Court orders relating 22 to the Lady May with your father? 23 THE WITNESS: I did not. I have only discussed it 24 with my lawyers. 25 Q The lawyer representing you today, Mr. Vartan, is that Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n**65**\n\n**Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| 1 | the same lawyer who alerted you about the existence of a court |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | order relating to the Lady May? |\n| 3 | A
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q
Who is paying for his services? |\n| 5 | A
Golden Spring. |\n| 6 | MR. HARBACH:
Your Honor, did you say you wanted |\n| 7 | to break at 1:00 for lunch? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes.
And I wanted to speak with you |\n| 9 | and Mr. Siegal in the same manner that we did at the |\n| 10 | beginning of this hearing. |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
May I suggest that we break now and |\n| 12 | do that?
The last bit of questioning I have that has to do |\n| 13 | with this witness involves publication of exhibits and may |\n| 14 | be a little cumbersome.
I would suggest doing that right |\n| 15 | after lunch. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
We can do that. |\n| 17 | For the record, Ms. Guo, I have excluded the press |\n| 18 | from your testimony because I understand that you were |\n| 19 | detained and tortured by the CCP and your whereabouts are |\n| 20 | potentially a matter of interest to the CCP while you seek |\n| 21 | asylum in the United States.
If there is no disclosure in |\n| 22 | your examination about your whereabouts, the transcript of |\n| 23 | your examination will be made public.
And I should add that |\n| 24 | the plaintiff has consented to this arrangement, which is |\n| 25 | highly unusual. |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 84 of 269\n\n## **Guo - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**66**\n\n **1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor, for my 2 protection over my safety and not allow the media's 3 involvement in this proceeding. Thank you, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: All right. We will break for lunch 5 now. I would like counsel to call me at the same number 6 that I gave you before. 7 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, could I first be heard on 8 one issue? 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 MR. VARTAN: With respect to the remainder of 11 Mr. Harbach's cross-examination, can he give me a rough 12 approximation of how much more time he has so that I can 13 plan for other witnesses? 14 MR. HARBACH: I am happy to do that. I have a 15 couple small factual questions to ask, and then I have three 16 of the videotapes that we proffered to the Court that I want 17 to show some tiny portions of to the witness. My guess is 18 30, 40 minutes. 19 MR. VARTAN: Thank you, Mr. Harbach. 20 Thank you, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay. We will resume at 2:00. 22 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, may we call you towards 23 the end of the lunch break or would you like to hear from us 24 now? 25 THE COURT: I would like to hear from you now.**\n\n**Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo 67 1 MR. SIEGAL: All right. I will reach out to 2 O'Melveny and we will call you. 3 THE COURT: Great. 4 (L U N C H E O N R E C E S S) 5 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, can I continue my 6 questioning? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 BY MR. HARBACH: 9 Q Ms. Guo, before lunch we talked about all sorts of 10 things, but you mentioned something in one of your answers that I 11 just would like to clarify. 12 A Okay. 13 Q I believe you said in one of your answers that if you 14 needed to use the yacht with some friends, for example, you would 15 just contact the captain directly? 16 A Sometimes I contacted the captain directly. Sometimes 17 I would contact the captain through Golden Spring. 18 Q Do you recall the names of any of the captains you 19 contacted directly? 20 A I communicated mostly with captain that I used earlier, 21 Mr. Craig. Then I also have contacted Momchil, the current 22 captain of the yacht. 23 Q You have contacted each of them directly, is that 24 right? 25 A Yes.** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 85 of\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 86 of 269\n\n## **Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo**\n\n| | 68 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Q
Let me show you now an exhibit that has been marked as | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Plaintiff's Exhibit 19.
Bear with me one second.
I have cued up | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | the video to one specific part that I want to play for you.
I am | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | sharing my screen now.
I am going to play about ten or twelve | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | seconds of this.
Then I am going to ask you a question, okay? | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | A
Okay. | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | (Video played.) | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Q
So first question, Ms. Guo, is that your father who is | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | speaking in the video? | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
Yes. | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Q
I am pausing the video at the 6:59 mark.
You recognize | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | that location, don't you? | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A
Yes. | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
That's the interior of the apartment that is at the | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Sherry Netherlands, correct? | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | A
Yes, it is. | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
I am going to represent to you that this video appears | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | to have been created in approximately November of 2017. | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | A
Okay. | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q
Do you recall whether you were present when this | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | interview was taped? | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | MR. VARTAN:
Your Honor, I would just object to | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | this similar to the line of cross-examination that was heard | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | this morning.
I don't know that there is any way to know -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | I should say for Ms. Guo to know when this video was | | | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 87 of 269\n\n## **Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo**\n\n**69**\n\n **1 created. I understand counsel's representation, but we 2 don't have anything beyond that. 3 MR. HARBACH: The question wasn't whether the 4 video was created in November of 2017. I proffered to her 5 that it was created in November 2017 in an attempt to orient 6 her about her memory about whether she was present for it. 7 The question is not the date of it, the question is whether 8 she was present. That's all. 9 MR. VARTAN: That would have to presume it was 10 actually created in November of 2017. 11 THE COURT: No, it wouldn't presume anything. He 12 is just asking whether she was present when this interview 13 took place. The date of the interview is irrelevant for 14 purposes of this question. 15 A I wasn't present. 16 Q Were you living at the Sherry Netherlands at the 17 time -- I'm sorry. Were you living at the Sherry Netherlands in 18 November in 2017? 19 A I stayed there sometimes. I stayed there once in a 20 while. 21 Q I want to show you a different video now. Bear with me 22 just a moment. 23 A Okay. And also I have a question for you. 24 So when you showed me the earlier video, I only 25 see the transcription of what my father say and I didn't hear any Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 88 of 269\n\n## **Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo**\n\n**70 1 audio. Can you please show me the video with audio that I can 2 hear? 3 Q I will try and do that for you on the next one. 4 The next one that I want to show you is what has 5 been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. Again, I am just going to 6 play a few seconds here. I will play a few seconds and then ask 7 you a question. For the record I am playing the beginning of 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. 9 The first question is do you know who the woman is 10 who appears on the right-hand side of the screen at the 11 five-second mark? 12 MR. VARTAN: Mr. Harbach, nothing was shared. It 13 didn't work. 14 MR. HARBACH: Sorry. It works. I just forgot to 15 hit a button. 16 Q How is this now? 17 A Yes, I can see it. 18 (Video played.) 19 Q The question is: Do you know who the woman is who 20 appears on the right-hand side of the screen at the five-second 21 mark? 22 A It is one of the crew members that I had before. 23 Q On the Lady May? 24 A Yes, on my Lady May yacht. 25 Q And this scene that we see on the screen right now is Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 89 of 269\n\n**Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo**\n\n**71 1 aboard the Lady May, isn't it? 2 A Yes, on the second floor. 3 Q So I will play a few more seconds now and ask you 4 another question. 5 The man in the center of the screen in the blue 6 T-shirt holding a phone at the 44-second mark is your father, 7 isn't it? 8 MR. VARTAN: Again, Mr. Harbach, that didn't play 9 for the assembled audience. 10 MR. HARBACH: I am trying to get my act together 11 here. I'm sorry. 12 (Video played.) 13 Q Okay. I have it paused right now at the 44-second 14 mark. Can you see that, Ms. Guo? 15 A I can see it now. 16 Q And the question is: That man standing in the center 17 of the screen in the blue T-shirt holding the phone at the 18 44-second mark is your father, isn't it? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, I am going to fast forward to a later part of the 21 video at about the 40-minute mark, and I am going to play a 22 little bit here. 23 (Video played.) 24 Q Ms. Guo, are you able to see that vessel coming into 25 the screen now from left to right at the 40:31 mark? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 90 of 269\n\n**Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo**\n\n**72 1 A Yes, I see it. 2 Q What is that? 3 A This name is Lady May 2. 4 Q How is the Lady May 2 connected to the Lady May? 5 A Both vessels were bought by my brother. 6 Q Who owns the Lady May 2? 7 A My brother. 8 Q Your brother owns it? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. I am going to fast forward a bit more. I'm at 11 the 43:56 mark. That's your father who appears to be holding the 12 device that is making this recording, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I know it is a little tough, but do you know who the 15 man with the sunglasses on the left-hand side of the screen at 16 the 44-minute mark is? 17 A Even though it is not very clear, I can confirm that 18 this is my then captain, Captain Craig. 19 Q Would that be Craig Heaslop? 20 A Yes, it is. 21 Q I know it is difficult to see, but can you make out 22 this logo that appears on the bottom right-hand side of the video 23 screen? Can you see that? 24 A I can see it clearly, and I can recognize it. 25 Q Okay. It says \"Rule of Law Foundation,\" doesn't it? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 91 of 269\n\n| | 73 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | A
I cannot see the wording, the writing on it; but I | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | believe that is correct. | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | Q
What is the Rule of Law Foundation? | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | A
I am not able to explain or describe clearly to you | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | because I wasn't involved in this foundation. | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Q
Isn't it true that the Rule of Law Foundation whose | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | logo appears on the screen was started by your father? | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | A
I really do not know much, but I believe so. | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
Okay.
Thank you.
That's it for this video. | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Now, the last video I am about to show you, | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Ms. Guo, has been marked and offered as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | And it's the same drill as before.
I will play a small clip and | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | then ask you a question. | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Just so you know, apparently the audio is not | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | playing for anyone, but my question for the moment is just about | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | the video, okay? | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | A
Okay. | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | (Video played.) | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Q
Ms. Guo, does the man who appears in Plaintiff's | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Exhibit 2 in the white suit, white shirt, and white tie; that's | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | your father, isn't it? | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | A
Yes. | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | MR. HARBACH:
Your Honor, can I have a moment to | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | consult with my colleagues, please? | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes. | | | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 92 of 269\n\n**Stockil - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**74 1 (Brief pause) 2 MR. HARBACH: I have no further questions. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Guo is about to be excused. 4 Ms. Guo, I indicated to you earlier that I 5 excluded the press from your examination in order to protect 6 your safety because you were previously detained and 7 apparently tortured by the CCP. Your whereabouts could be 8 of interest to them and I was concerned about your safety. 9 Also, the plaintiff consented to have a closed proceeding 10 which I indicated to you is extremely unusual. 11 Nothing in your testimony in any way indicates 12 what your present whereabouts are. As such, when the 13 transcript of these proceedings is transcribed, it will be 14 made public on the court's electronic filing system. 15 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, thank you again for your 16 protection over my safety. I am really, from the bottom of 17 my heart, thanking you for that. 18 THE COURT: All right. Have a nice day. 19 Next witness for cross-examination? 20 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, we would call Russell 21 Stockil on behalf of the defendant. I believe Mr. Stockil 22 is either logged in or about to log in. He is the yacht 23 manager at Yachtzoo SARL. 24 THE COURT: All right. Let's go ahead. 25 MR. HARBACH: Can we have the witness sworn, your Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 93 of 269\n\n**Stockil - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 75 | | | | | | | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Honor? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | (Russell Stockil is duly sworn/affirmed.) | | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Let's proceed. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | RUSSELL STOCKIL, having been called on behalf of | | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Defendant, first having been duly sworn, was examined and | | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | testified as follows: | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | BY MR. HARBACH: | | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
Mr. Stockil, can you please spell your name for the | | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | court reporter? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
Surname? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Q
Both. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A
Russell, R-U-S-S-E-L-L.
Stockil, s-T-O-C-K-I-L. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
Are you the same Russell Stockil who submitted an | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | affidavit to New York State Court in the matter of Pacific | | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Alliance Asia versus Kwok Ho Wan? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | A
That is correct. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
Do you have a copy of the affidavit that you submitted | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | in this case, sir? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | A
I do. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | Q
Okay. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | MR. HARBACH:
For the record, it is Document 1156 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | on the docket. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Q
Give me one second, please. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | (Brief pause) | | | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 94 of 269\n\n## **Stockil - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | | 76 |\n|----|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q | I am going to share my screen so it is easier to |\n| 2 | | reference the parts of your affidavit that I am talking about. |\n| 3 | | Can you see that okay, Mr. Stockil? |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | My first question is about Paragraph 3.
Is April '21 |\n| 6 | | the first association or business relationship you ever had with |\n| 7 | | anyone associated with the Lady May? |\n| 8 | A | Yes, that's correct. |\n| 9 | Q | The representatives that you refer to in Paragraph 3, |\n| 10 | | namely the representatives of HK USA who contacted you, none of |\n| 11 | | them was Ms. Mei Guo, correct? |\n| 12 | A | Yes, that's correct. |\n| 13 | Q | In Paragraph 5 you refer to a management contract that |\n| 14 | | Hong Kong USA and Yachtzoo signed on May 1 of last year.
You |\n| 15 | | didn't attach that contract to your affidavit, did you? |\n| 16 | A | No, I didn't. |\n| 17 | Q | Paragraph 6 refers to some nondisclosure agreements |\n| 18 | | that you say Ms. Guo countersigned.
You didn't attach any of |\n| 19 | | those to your affidavit either, did you? |\n| 20 | A | No, I didn't. |\n| 21 | Q | The end of Paragraph 6 talks about Defendant's |\n| 22 | Exhibit 5. | Do you have a copy of that? |\n| 23 | A | I do have a copy of it, yes. |\n| 24 | Q | Let me put it on the screen here.
Maybe that will |\n| 25 | help. | |\n| | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 95 of 269\n\n**Stockil - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**77 1 A Yes, that's correct. 2 Q This is the defense Exhibit 5 that you referred to? 3 A Yes. 4 Q I am going to go to the last page of it here. Just a 5 second. 6 MR. HARBACH: For the record, I am on Page 7 of 8 7 of Defendant's Exhibit 5. This is the signature page for 8 the agreement. 9 Q Isn't it true that this document has been signed 10 electronically? 11 A Yes, that's correct. 12 Q In other words, you didn't witness Mei Guo put pen to 13 paper and sign this thing? 14 A No, I didn't witness that. 15 Q Okay. 16 And I take it, then, your conclusion that she 17 signed it is because of DocuSign or some software that your 18 company uses? 19 A Well, the conclusion is that it was provided to us by 20 the family representative on our request for execution of 21 agreements. 22 Q I understand. 23 So you personally -- I'm not talking about your 24 company. You personally, Russell Stockil, you don't know one way 25 or the other who inserted that signature for Mei Guo, do you? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 96 of 269\n\n**Stockil - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**78 1 A No, I can't say that I do. 2 Q Your assumption is that the party who signed this was 3 telling you the truth when they said Mei Guo signed it, right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. 6 And isn't it also in the wrong spot? In other 7 words, shouldn't Ms. Guo have signed on behalf of the 8 organization, not the employer? 9 A On behalf of the organization? 10 Q Let me see if I can help you. I am not trying to play 11 games here. 12 On the very first page the organization is listed 13 as HK USA. Do you see that there? 14 A Yes, that's correct. 15 Q And the employer is listed as Phoenix? 16 A You are correct, yes. 17 Q Okay. That's all I was saying. 18 Returning to your affidavit, Paragraph 7, you say 19 you never met nor spoke with Kwok Ho Wan. The same is true for 20 Mei Guo, right? In other words, you've never met or spoken with 21 her either, correct? 22 A That is correct, yes. 23 Q And Paragraph 9 I think this is self-evident, but I 24 want to make sure. 25 All direction on the Lady May's movements comes**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 97 of 269\n\n## **Stockil - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**79 1 from Ms. Guo through her representatives. That means, doesn't 2 it, that none of the direction on the Lady May's movements comes 3 from Ms. Guo directly? 4 A Not to us, no. They come through the family office. 5 That's correct. 6 Q Mr. Stockil, do you know what the family office is 7 called or do you know any other names for it? 8 A I believe that it is called the Golden Spring. 9 Q Okay. 10 MR. HARBACH: Can I have a minute, Judge, please? 11 (Brief pause) 12 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, we have no further 13 questions for Mr. Stockil. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Stockil, you are excused. 15 Next witness, please. 16 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, we would call next 17 Momchil Ivanov who, I believe, is logging in at the moment. 18 MS. BARROW: Your Honor, this is Erica Barrow. 19 While we are waiting, as a matter of housekeeping, did you 20 want the parties to formally move to admit certain documents 21 marked into evidence at some point? 22 THE COURT: Yes. At the conclusion of the hearing 23 each side will formally tender the documents that they wish 24 to have in evidence. 25 MS. BARROW: Thank you, your Honor.**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 98 of 269\n\n## **Ivanov - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| 1
THE COURT:
We will do that on Microsoft Teams,
2
not by formal paper.
3
MR. VARTAN:
Mr. Ivanov, can you turn on your
4
camera, please?
5
THE WITNESS:
You should be able to see me now.
6
MR. VARTAN:
Thank you.
7
Your Honor, Mr. Ivanov previously submitted an
8
affidavit in this matter.
We submit that as his direct
9
testimony and offer him for cross-examination.
10
THE COURT:
All right.
Please raise your right
11
hand.
12
(Momchil Ivanov takes the
13
witness stand and is duly sworn/affirmed.)
14
THE COURT:
You may proceed with
15
cross-examination, Mr. Harbach.
16
MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, your Honor.
17
MOMCHIL IVANOV, having been called on behalf of
18
Defendant, first having been duly sworn, was examined and
19
testified as follows:
20
CROSS-EXAMINATION
21
BY MR. HARBACH:
22
Q
Mr. Ivanov, could you please spell your first and last
23
name slowly?
24
A
My first name is M-O-M -- | 80 |\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| 25
(Brief pause in proceedings due to | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 99 of 269\n\n**Ivanov - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 81 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | court reporter's lost connection.) |\n| 2 | Q
Mr. Ivanov, because the reporter lost the connection we |\n| 3 | are going to repeat the first couple of questions, okay? |\n| 4 | A
I am ready. |\n| 5 | Q
Referring to your affidavit which is up on the screen |\n| 6 | right now -- and for the record, it is Document 1157.
When you |\n| 7 | say in Paragraph 2 that you became the captain of the Lady May in |\n| 8 | approximately October of '21, was that the beginning of your |\n| 9 | association with that yacht? |\n| 10 | A
Yes, sir, that's correct. |\n| 11 | Q
The next question concerns Paragraph 8 where you say |\n| 12 | you have never met nor spoken with Kwok Ho Wan about the Lady |\n| 13 | May, its operations, or its movements.
The same is true with |\n| 14 | respect to Ms. Mei Guo, correct? |\n| 15 | A
Well, I have been doing so not directly with Ms. Mei |\n| 16 | but via the management company. |\n| 17 | Q
I am with you.
I just want to find out whether you |\n| 18 | have ever met or spoken with Ms. Mei Guo? |\n| 19 | A
Not directly sir, no. |\n| 20 | Q
Okay.
So returning to Paragraph 6 of your affidavit, |\n| 21 | what you just said is you have not communicated with Ms. Guo |\n| 22 | directly.
That means you never got any orders or direction from |\n| 23 | Ms. Guo directly, did you? |\n| 24 | A
Yes, that's correct. |\n| 25 | Q
Where is the Lady May right now? |\n| | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 100 of 269\n\n**Ivanov - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | | 82 |\n|----|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A | Lady May is currently in Genoa, Italy. |\n| 2 | Q | How long has it been there? |\n| 3 | A | I believe the boat arrived approximately a week before |\n| 4 | | I joined the boat, so I would say late September.
I am not sure |\n| 5 | | about the exact date. |\n| 6 | Q | Late September of 2021? |\n| 7 | A | Yes, that's correct. |\n| 8 | Q | When was the last time that the Lady May sailed |\n| 9 | | anywhere with you as the captain? |\n| 10 | A | I believe the boat has never sailed with me as a |\n| 11 | captain. | Since I joined the both in early October, the boat has |\n| 12 | | been ported in Genoa. |\n| 13 | Q | It hasn't gone anywhere? |\n| 14 | A | That's correct, sir. |\n| 15 | | MR. HARBACH:
One second, Judge, please. |\n| 16 | | (Brief pause) |\n| 17 | Q | Mr. Ivanov, one of my colleagues was curious whether |\n| 18 | | you are on the Lady May at this moment? |\n| 19 | A | Yes, sir, I am indeed. |\n| 20 | Q | Thank you. |\n| 21 | | MR. HARBACH:
I have no further questions for this |\n| 22 | | witness. |\n| 23 | | Mr. Ivanov, thank you. |\n| 24 | | THE COURT:
You are excused, Mr. Ivanov. |\n| 25 | | Next witness, please. |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 101 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**83 1 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, the defendant would call 2 Craig Heaslop to the stand. 3 Mr. Heaslop likewise has previously submitted an 4 affidavit which the parties and the Court have. We offer 5 that as his direct testimony and again offer him for 6 cross-examination. 7 THE COURT: The affidavit is received. And if you 8 will locate the witness, we will swear him in and have him 9 cross-examined. 10 MR. VARTAN: He sent me a note saying that he is 11 having some difficulty logging in, but he is keeping me 12 posted. 13 THE COURT: Fine. Thank you. 14 (Brief pause) 15 THE COURT: Mr. Heaslop? 16 THE WITNESS: Can you hear me okay? 17 THE COURT: Yes. Can you raise your right hand, 18 please. Witness sworn. 19 (Craig Heaslop is duly sworn/affirmed.) 20 CRAIG HEASLOP, having been called on behalf of 21 Defendant, first having been duly sworn, was examined and 22 testified as follows: 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. HARBACH: 25 Q Sir, can you please tell me how to say your last name? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 102 of 269\n\n| | 84 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A
Heaslop. |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Could you please spell your name for the court |\n| 4 | reporter, first and last. |\n| 5 | A
Craig, C-R-A-I-G.
Heaslop, H-E-A-S-L-O-P. |\n| 6 | Q
I want to direct your attention to your screen.
Tell |\n| 7 | me if you can see your affirmation in this case on the screen in |\n| 8 | front of you? |\n| 9 | A
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q
The first question for you is going to be clear down in |\n| 11 | Paragraph 16.
You say there that when you took the Lady May down |\n| 12 | to Florida you left in the first week of October.
Do you |\n| 13 | remember the exact day that you left? |\n| 14 | A
No, I can't. |\n| 15 | Q
Are you familiar with a website on the internet called |\n| 16 | VesselFinder?
Have you ever heard of that? |\n| 17 | A
Yeah, I know VesselFinder. |\n| 18 | Q
Would looking at a VesselFinder plot for the Lady May |\n| 19 | help you remember the exact date that you left New York? |\n| 20 | A
I don't know if it will help me remember it, no. |\n| 21 | Q
Would you be willing to take a look at it? |\n| 22 | A
I can look at it, yeah. |\n| 23 | Q
I have pulled up on the screen -- and this is just for |\n| 24 | refreshment purposes and it will not be offered as an exhibit. |\n| 25 | For the record, I have a Voyage Analyser up on the |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 103 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**85**\n\n **1 screen for the Lady May with International Maritime Organization 2 1012359. 3 A That's it. 4 Q Say again? 5 A That's it. 6 Q That's it, okay. 7 So I will zoom in, and I'm also going to point out 8 to you that the operative date range that has been selected is 9 September 1 of 2020 and January 31 of 2022, okay? 10 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I'd object to this. I 11 don't know that this has been provided prior to the hearing. 12 So this would echo Mr. Siegel's objection that -- 13 THE COURT: He can use anything he wishes to 14 attempt to refresh the witness's recollection. If it 15 doesn't refresh the witness's recollection, it doesn't 16 refresh the witness's recollection. 17 MR. VARTAN: Well, that's the other point, your 18 Honor. I don't believe that the witness said this would 19 refresh his recollection. 20 THE COURT: I understand, but let's see what 21 happens when he looks at it. 22 Q I am going to zoom in on New York City, Mr. Heaslop. 23 There appears to be a trajectory from the south of Manhattan out 24 into the Atlantic, and there is a little triangle on that route 25 dated October 9 of 2020.**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 104 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n| | 86 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q
And a little farther down the track off the coast of |\n| 3 | New Jersey there is another one that says October 9, 2020. |\n| 4 | So the question for you is:
Does this refresh |\n| 5 | yours memory that the actual date of departure of the Lady May |\n| 6 | was October 9 of 2020? |\n| 7 | A
I don't pay much attention to the actual date that we |\n| 8 | leave.
For me it is more what the weather is doing.
I pick the |\n| 9 | day and date on the weather. |\n| 10 | Q
Okay, that's fine.
All I can do is ask if it helps you |\n| 11 | remember.
And you said the first week of October.
That's pretty |\n| 12 | darn close if it was the 9th. |\n| 13 | Okay, let's go back to your affidavit.
In |\n| 14 | Paragraph 17 you say that prior to your departure you had a |\n| 15 | conversation with Mr. Kwok. |\n| 16 | My first question is was that conversation in |\n| 17 | person? |\n| 18 | A
No. |\n| 19 | Q
Your affidavit says that he was a guest on the yacht at |\n| 20 | the time.
Where were you? |\n| 21 | A
Personally?
I was on the yacht. |\n| 22 | Q
That's what I was trying to get at, maybe inartfully. |\n| 23 | You were on the yacht.
Mr. Kwok was on the yacht. |\n| 24 | Was the conversation, nevertheless, over a telephone or |\n| 25 | something? |\n| | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 105 of 269\n\n| | 87 | | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | A
No.
Mr. Kwok was not on the yacht when I had that | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | conversation with him.
We were docked. | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | Q
Okay.
So maybe I just misunderstood your affidavit. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | Read the first sentence of Paragraph 17.
Just read it to | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | yourself.
I am just trying to figure out who was a guest on the | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | yacht at the time. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | A
Okay.
What I was saying there was that he was a guest. | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | I guess that's probably a better way to phrase it.
He wasn't | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | physically on the boat when we had that conversation.
He had | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | been a guest on the boat. | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Q
I think you said a moment ago you said that when you | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | had this conversation with him, you yourself was on the yacht? | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A
I was on the yacht, yes. | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
You remember that? | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | A
Yes. | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
And -- | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Prior to October 2020, when was the | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | last time you recall Mr. Kwok being on the yacht? | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Prior to October 2020? | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Yes. | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE WITNESS:
He was on and off the yacht | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | throughout the summer as usual.
Specific dates I couldn't | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | tell you retrospectively when they came and went. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Was he on the yacht for a significant | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | part of the month of July? | | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 106 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**88 1 THE WITNESS: That was COVID. Yes, he was. 2 THE COURT: How about during the month of August, 3 2020? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 THE COURT: And how about during the month of 6 September 2020? 7 THE WITNESS: I believe also, yes. 8 THE COURT: And was Ms. Guo on the yacht during 9 September 2020? 10 THE WITNESS: We did see Ms. Guo late in the 11 summer. I am trying to remember what month it was. I 12 couldn't recall exactly what month. 13 THE COURT: As between Mr. Kwok and Ms. Guo, how 14 would you compare the duration of the time each of them 15 spent on the yacht during July, August, and September of 16 2020? 17 THE WITNESS: During those months Mr. Kwok spent 18 more time on the yacht than Ms. Guo. 19 THE COURT: A lot more time or a little more time? 20 THE WITNESS: It was a lot more time. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 I interrupted you, Mr. Harbach. 23 MR. HARBACH: That's all right, your Honor. 24 BY MR. HARBACH: 25 Q Do you recall how long prior to your departure you had**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 107 of 269\n\n| 1
this conversation with Mr. Kwok where he said he would no longer
2
be a guest on the yacht, how long before you left?
3
A
From memory, it was a few days.
I think from memory,
4
the window presented itself fairly soon after, and we just packed
5
the both up and left.
6
Q
You say you remember that you were on the yacht and you
7
spoke to Mr. Kwok by phone.
Do you recall whether he said where
8
he was?
9
A
No, I don't believe he did. | | | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| 10
Q
Paragraph 17 of your affidavit says that you had a | | | | | | | |\n| 11
subsequent conversation with a representative of Hong Kong USA | | | | | | | |\n| 12
and confirmed that the yacht was no longer needed in New York. | | | | | | | |\n| 13
That person wasn't Mei Guo, was it? | | | | | | | |\n| 14
A
No. | | | | | | | |\n| 15
MR. HARBACH:
I am revising my examination, your | | | | | | | |\n| 16
Honor, so if I take a few seconds here it might be | | | | | | | |\n| 17
worthwhile. | | | | | | | |\n| 18
THE COURT:
Take your time. | | | | | | | |\n| 19
(Brief pause) | | | | | | | |\n| 20
Q
When Mr. Kwok told you that he was no longer going to | | | | | | | |\n| 21
be a guest on the yacht, did he also tell you that there was a | | | | | | | |\n| 22
temporary restraining order in place that had been issued by the | | | | | | | |\n| 23
Court on September 30? | | | | | | | |\n| 24
A
No. | | | | | | | |\n| 25
MR. SIEGAL:
Objection.
Misstates the record. | | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 108 of 269\n\n| | 90 | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Move to strike. | | | | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Overruled. | | | | | |\n| 3 | MR. SIEGAL:
There was no temporary restraining | | | | | |\n| 4 | order making any mention -- | | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
The witness has answered the question. | | | | | |\n| 6 | The subject of a temporary restraining order did not come up | | | | | |\n| 7 | during a conversation that Mr. Kwok had with this witness | | | | | |\n| 8 | when Mr. Kwok ceased being a guest on the boat. | | | | | |\n| 9 | (To the witness)
Did Mr. Kwok ever tell you that | | | | | |\n| 10 | there had been a temporary restraining order on the yacht? | | | | | |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:
No, sir. | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Did anybody from HK USA tell you that | | | | | |\n| 13 | there had been a temporary restraining order on the yacht? | | | | | |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
No, sir. | | | | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Did anybody tell you that there had | | | | | |\n| 16 | been a temporary restraining order on the movement of the | | | | | |\n| 17 | yacht? | | | | | |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
Not at that time, sir, no, not from | | | | | |\n| 19 | memory. | | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
When was the first time you learned | | | | | |\n| 21 | that there was a temporary restraining order on the yacht? | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
I can't recall the exact date.
I | | | | | |\n| 23 | think it was from a broker. | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry? | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
I can't recall the exact date. | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 109 of 269\n\n| | 91 | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Where were you when you learned of | | | | | | |\n| 2 | this? | | | | | | |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
We were back in Florida, pretty | | | | | | |\n| 4 | sure. | | | | | | |\n| 5 | BY MR. HARBACH: | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Q
Was that after your resignation? | | | | | | |\n| 7 | A
No.
That was prior. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Q
And did you say a moment ago you learned it from a | | | | | | |\n| 9 | broker? | | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
I think it might have been, yeah, from memory.
I | | | | | | |\n| 11 | didn't know if there was any truth behind it, quite honestly, or | | | | | | |\n| 12 | just broker talk. | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Q
When the yacht was in Nassau and Freeport to be | | | | | | |\n| 14 | repaired and inspected, do you know approximately how long those | | | | | | |\n| 15 | repairs took? | | | | | | |\n| 16 | A
Yeah.
They took longer than we thought.
We had delays | | | | | | |\n| 17 | with equipment.
It took, pretty much, five months. | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
So that's from approximately when to approximately | | | | | | |\n| 19 | when? | | | | | | |\n| 20 | A
We went to Freeport in January.
We would stop there | | | | | | |\n| 21 | right through to -- I think we left in May, so it would have been | | | | | | |\n| 22 | probably early May-ish. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | Q
So from January to early May the yacht's, essentially, | | | | | | |\n| 24 | out of commission? | | | | | | |\n| 25 | A
Yes.
We were in the dry dock.
Shafts removed.
We had | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 110 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**92**\n\n **1 to renew our shafts which the company ended up sending the wrong 2 size. It took nearly a month for them to produce new ones and 3 get them in from Europe. Then they sent the ones that were wrong 4 so we had to wait for new ones again. So no one could move the 5 boat even if they wanted to. 6 Q If I represented to you that VesselFinder suggests that 7 the yacht was in Freeport until at least May 30, would that sound 8 plausible to you? 9 A Yes. 10 Q If I understand your testimony correctly, at the time 11 that you tendered your resignation which was the end of May, you 12 had heard about a restraining order or something from a broker, 13 but nobody associated with the Lady May or HK USA had said a word 14 to you about it? 15 A No. 16 Q Is that correct? 17 A That's correct, yeah, nothing from HK office to that 18 effect. 19 Q Did the possibility of a restraining order being on the 20 boat that you heard about through a broker have anything to do 21 with your decision to resign?**\n\n**22 MR. VARTAN: Objection, your Honor, to relevance. 23 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 24 Q Looking at Paragraph 24 referring to your first two 25 years as the captain, your interactions with Mr. Kwok were,**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 111 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**93**\n\n **1 pretty much, whenever he was aboard the yacht. 2 My question for you is: When he was aboard, he 3 directed the movements of the yacht, right? I don't mean he 4 piloted it, but he told you where he wanted to go? 5 A Yeah. 6 Q And so that covers -- your first two years as the 7 ship's captain would have been from September of '17 to September 8 of 2019, correct? 9 A Correct. That's two years after I started, yeah. 10 Q Then you also talk about your final year having some 11 limited interactions with him via phone or text message. That 12 would have been from May of 2020 until May of 2021, 13 approximately? 14 A I can't really recall the dates that specifically, but 15 yeah. 16 Q You can correct me because you'd know, but it just 17 occurred to me that there is a gap between your first two years 18 and your last year, because you worked there three years and 19 eight months. So maybe you didn't mean anything by it, but I am 20 trying to figure out between September of '19 and May of '20, 21 what can you say about your interactions with Mr. Kwok? 22 A They were business-like, it was more formal. 23 Q Okay. 24 A As I worked there longer, I grew -- developed more of, 25 I guess, a relationship with the family. They had more trust in Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 112 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**94**\n\n **1 me as the captain, so our interactions became less formal as time 2 went on.**\n\n **3 Q Okay.**\n\n **4 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, at this point I was 5 going to question Mr. Heaslop about the Rule of Law 6 Foundation video that I questioned Ms. Guo about mainly to 7 have him authenticate that it is the Lady May and that it is 8 Mr. Kwok appearing in the video and identifying himself in 9 the video; but if in your Honor's view that would be 10 cumulative and unnecessary, then I won't do it.**\n\n**11 THE COURT: It is cumulative and unnecessary 12 unless this witness knows something about the Rule of Law, 13 the relevance of which presently is unclear.**\n\n**14 MR. HARBACH: Okay. In that case, I will forego 15 that.**\n\n**16 Q So, toward the end of that paragraph, Paragraph 24, 17 when you are talking about your interactions with Mei Guo, you 18 say that you had some interactions with her when she was aboard 19 and then also sporadically via phone and text message.**\n\n**20 I take it from what you said already that none of 21 those interactions were about the yacht's movements, correct? 22 A Correct.**\n\n**23 Q Finally, Paragraph 25, just to make sure the horse is 24 dead, that first sentence about your receiving direction about 25 the movement of the yacht exclusively from those three companies**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 113 of 269\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**95**\n\n **1 listed which you understood to be the family's office; meaning 2 that, therefore, not from Ms. Mei Guo herself, correct? 3 A Sorry, can you ask that question again? 4 Q Sure, because it was terrible. 5 Your affidavit says you received direction about 6 the movement of the yacht exclusively from HK International 7 representatives, representatives of Hong Kong USA, or Golden 8 Spring New York Limited. So my question to you is: That means, 9 does it not, that none of the direction you received was directly 10 from Ms. Mei Guo, correct? 11 A Correct. 12 THE COURT: You did testify, sir, that during 13 July, August, and September of 2020 Mr. Kwok was a frequent 14 guest on the yacht, and presumably he told you where he 15 wanted to go? 16 THE WITNESS: That's right, your Honor. There's, 17 like, local movements in the northern area or the southern 18 area where the guests are using the boat. There's direction 19 about where they want to go, what they want to do on any 20 given day. 21 What I meant -- what I was talking about about not 22 having direction was for the repositioning of the yacht 23 seasonally between the northeast and the southeast. That 24 came from the office. 25 THE COURT: I see. So if Mr. Kwok wanted to go to Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 114 of 269\n\n## **Proceedings**\n\n**96 1 Nantucket, you would take him there? 2 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, yeah. 3 THE COURT: If he wanted to go to Bar Harbor, 4 Maine, you would take him to Bar Harbor, Maine? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: And the same for any of the guests 8 on the both. 9 MR. HARBACH: Thank you your Honor. Unless you 10 have any other questions, we do not. 11 THE COURT: Okay. This witness is excused. 12 I believe there is one more witness. 13 MR. VARTAN: Yes, your Honor. I would turn things 14 back over to Mr. Siegal. 15 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, the last witness on the 16 defense list is Aaron Mitchell regarding the complaint 17 previously filed, should the Court wish to hear 18 cross-examination of Mr. Mitchell. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Mitchell, raise your right hand. 20 (Aaron Mitchell is duly sworn/affirmed.) 21 THE COURT: Okay. Let's proceed. 22 MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor. 23 Mr. Mitchell, thank you for being here today. We 24 have no questions and no cross-examination for the witness. 25 THE COURT: All right. That was short and sweet. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 115 of 269\n\n**97 1 You are excused, Mr. Mitchell. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: All right. I don't need closing 4 statements. 5 Do you think you can have your post-trial 6 submissions by the end of the day on Friday? 7 MR. SIEGAL: Well, I think, your Honor, on how 8 quickly we can get a rough transcript which we would 9 obviously like to reference in preparing post-trial 10 submissions. 11 THE COURT: I will ask the court reporter without 12 intending to impose any unreasonable burdens on her. 13 (Brief pause) 14 THE COURT: I will make the post-trial submissions 15 due Monday at 10 a.m. All I want is a memo and proposed 16 findings of fact. 17 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, if we are not going to 18 have the transcript until -- 19 THE COURT: This is not rocket science, 20 Mr. Siegal. I can do this with no post-trial submissions if 21 you prefer. 22 MR. SIEGAL: No, I would not. We appreciate the 23 opportunity. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 So if you have anything to tell me, you will tell Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 116 of 269\n\n## **Proceedings**\n\n| | 98 | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | me tomorrow by conference call at noon.
If you don't have | | | | | | |\n| 2 | anything to tell me by conference call at noon, I will just | | | | | | |\n| 3 | proceed to have the transcript fully transcribed and | | | | | | |\n| 4 | uploaded on the Court's electronic filing system.
I will | | | | | | |\n| 5 | rule, certainly, no later than Wednesday of next week. | | | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. SIEGAL:
Judge, we will call at noon tomorrow, | | | | | | |\n| 7 | a joint call of counsel. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Have a nice day. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | *
*
* | | | | | | |\n| 10 | The foregoing is hereby certified to be a true and | | | | | | |\n| 11 | accurate transcript of the proceedings. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | _________________________ | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Rachel C. Simone-Ivanac | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Senior Court Reporter | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | |\n| | Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR | | | | | | |\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 117 of\n\n**Kwok February 2, 2022**\n\n| | 39:9 | 92:4;95:3 | 90:5 | Aronsson (2) |\n|----------------------|-----------------------|---------------------|--------------------|---------------------|\n| \\$ | activities (1) | against (3) | apartment (4) | 33:22,24 |\n| | 59:20 | 14:10;57:9,22 | 8:18;12:8,8;68:14 | around (7) |\n| \\$2 (1) | activity (1) | agency (3) | apologies (3) | 8:15;20:16;43:16; |\n| 56:22 | 55:6 | 38:19,21,22 | 18:2;21:11;29:18 | 57:24;63:7;64:12,12 |\n| | actual (3) | ago (8) | apologize (1) | arrange (1) |\n| \\$28 (1) | 31:20;86:5,7 | 7:19;45:22;51:24; | 21:5 | 55:2 |\n| 46:2 | actually (10) | 52:25;59:5;62:25; | apparent (1) | arrangement (1) |\n| \\$3 (1) | 4:7;6:1,22;9:13,22; | 87:11;91:8 | 17:18 | 65:24 |\n| 56:23 | 20:12;30:8;36:3; | agree (5) | apparently (2) | arrangements (1) |\n| \\$30 (3) | 54:14;69:10 | 21:10,24;23:9; | 73:14;74:7 | 12:3 |\n| 8:4,9,13 | add (3) | 24:11;53:10 | Appeals (2) | arrived (1) |\n| | 42:11;63:12;65:23 | agreed (2) | 13:4,6 | 82:3 |\n| @ | address (5) | 45:22;55:10 | appear (6) | article (2) |\n| | 31:3;36:13,22;40:7, | agreement (3) | 16:23;22:2;23:10, | 7:16,18 |\n| @KwokMiles (4) | | | | |\n| 19:9;26:11,17; | 10 | 6:4;56:12;77:8 | 12;25:1,2 | Asia (1) |\n| 29:24 | adjourn (1) | agreements (2) | appeared (6) | 75:16 |\n| | 18:15 | 76:17;77:21 | 26:10,17;33:15; | assembled (1) |\n| A | adjournment (1) | ahead (6) | 34:15;35:1;36:19 | 71:9 |\n| | 18:20 | 10:9;15:20;18:24; | appearing (2) | asserted (2) |\n| Aaron (2) | administered (1) | 47:8;53:5;74:24 | 37:17;94:8 | 11:5;13:17 |\n| 96:16,20 | 39:20 | aid (1) | appears (14) | asset (6) |\n| ability (1) | admissibility (1) | 61:12 | 8:22;9:16;24:17; | 4:16;8:9,14;12:1; |\n| 13:18 | 36:24 | aimed (1) | 25:10,10;41:18; | 13:15,21 |\n| able (7) | admissible (1) | 8:16 | 68:17;70:10,20; | assets (2) |\n| 4:21;30:17;41:7; | 14:13 | alerted (1) | 72:11,22;73:7,19; | 8:16;12:6 |\n| 62:10;71:24;73:4; | admission (1) | 65:1 | 85:23 | associate (3) |\n| | 7:18 | alerting (1) | Appellate (4) | 4:3;8:6,10 |\n| 80:5 | admit (1) | 31:10 | 4:20;11:2;12:20,22 | associated (6) |\n| aboard (9) | 79:20 | alleged (2) | applicable (1) | 23:7;29:12,25;56:5; |\n| 6:12;7:6;50:10,15, | advance (1) | 12:14;14:13 | 12:7 | 76:7;92:13 |\n| 25;71:1;93:1,2;94:18 | 60:24 | Alliance (3) | applies (1) | association (2) |\n| abroad (1) | adverse (6) | 14:12,15;75:16 | 11:19 | 76:6;81:9 |\n| 9:23 | 13:23;14:5,6,14,25; | allow (2) | apply (1) | assume (2) |\n| Absolutely (3) | | | | |\n| 5:19;12:25;96:2 | 36:23 | 61:10;66:2 | 11:16 | 9:5;20:6 |\n| abundantly (1) | affiants (1) | allowed (1) | appreciate (3) | assuming (2) |\n| 10:1 | 3:18 | 52:6 | 15:1;63:10;97:22 | 6:5;28:20 |\n| access (1) | affidavit (36) | alone (2) | appropriate (1) | assumption (1) |\n| 19:18 | 7:4;9:10,16;15:23; | 10:3;52:4 | 12:13 | 78:2 |\n| accompanied (1) | 16:9;21:6;24:4;41:1, | along (1) | approximately (7) | asylum (1) |\n| 36:7 | 14,20;42:1;43:18; | 25:17 | 68:18;81:8;82:3; | 65:21 |\n| according (4) | 48:9;49:21;51:16; | altered (4) | 91:14,18,18;93:13 | Atlantic (1) |\n| 14:7;42:21,22;47:5 | 54:21;55:11,12;60:7; | 17:17;20:25;24:17; | approximation (1) | 85:24 |\n| account (14) | 62:18;75:15,18;76:2, | 25:22 | 66:12 | attach (2) |\n| 19:6,9,12,15,18; | 15,19;78:18;80:8; | always (5) | April (2) | 76:15,18 |\n| 23:3;29:11,12,16; | 81:5,20;83:4,7;86:13, | 4:1;5:22;8:2;10:17; | 63:8;76:5 | attached (3) |\n| 30:3,6,8,12;56:10 | 19;87:3;89:10;95:5 | 52:7 | apropos (1) | 7:16;23:2;26:25 |\n| accounts (1) | affidavits (12) | ambush (2) | 37:17 | attempt (2) |\n| | 5:18;6:9,21;17:2; | 49:4,13 | arbitrarily (1) | 69:5;85:14 |\n| 19:21 | 25:16;32:22;33:5,8,9; | Amendment (3) | 12:5 | attempts (1) |\n| accuracy (5) | 34:9;35:25;36:6 | 4:16;5:13;14:8 | archives (2) | 4:2 |\n| 23:15;30:21,22; | affirmation (4) | among (1) | 28:23;29:1 | attention (2) |\n| 33:15;35:3 | 17:20;27:5;38:2; | 11:13 | area (3) | 84:6;86:7 |\n| accurate (4) | 84:7 | amount (1) | 53:11;95:17,18 | Attorney (1) |\n| 26:2,13,16;98:11 | affirmations (1) | 15:15 | argue (2) | 7:15 |\n| accurately (1) | | | | |\n| 38:24 | 17:25 | analogy (1) | 10:18;12:19 | attributed (1) |\n| acquired (1) | affirmative (1) | 12:13 | argued (2) | 19:25 |\n| 47:5 | 14:15 | Analyser (1) | 4:7;36:23 | audience (1) |\n| act (1) | again (16) | 84:25 | argument (8) | 71:9 |\n| 71:10 | 5:12;8:21;25:8; | anchor (3) | 3:25;4:18;7:22; | audio (7) |\n| acted (1) | 34:21;35:23;58:18, | 51:3,22;52:6 | 12:7,7,13,14,24 | 16:10,19;18:11; |\n| 5:4 | 23;62:9;63:12;70:5; | answered (4) | arguments (2) | 24:14;70:1,1;73:14 |\n| active (1) | 71:8;74:15;83:5;85:4; | 13:6;63:21;64:6; | 4:6;36:24 | August (6) |\n| | | | | |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (1) \\$2 - August**\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 118 of\n\n| | | | | February 2, 2022 |\n|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 19:5;20:10;26:9; | 7:14;13:17;16:3; | 82:16;83:14;89:19; | 17;37:22;39:4,11,14; | 4:4 |\n| 88:2,15;95:13 | 34:4;38:1;40:1;74:21; | 97:13 | 40:10;41:5,10;42:2,4; | chat (1) |\n| authenticate (1) | 75:4;78:7,9;80:17; | briefed (2) | 43:1;48:2;51:8,22; | 30:24 |\n| 94:7 | 83:20 | 36:18;52:15 | 52:1;56:11;59:11; | chief (1) |\n| authenticated (1) | behind (1) | briefly (1) | 60:8;61:10,11,13,14; | 34:10 |\n| 4:12 | 91:11 | 6:9 | 62:8,13;63:11;64:9; | China (3) |\n| authentication (1) | belabor (1) | briefs (1) | 65:16;66:11,12;67:5; | 12:4;43:19,21 |\n| 4:13 | 58:19 | 27:1 | 70:1,1,17;71:14,15; | Chinese (1) |\n| authenticity (2) | belongs (1) | broker (5) | 72:17,21,23,24,24; | 40:9 |\n| 14:19;35:4 | 56:7 | 90:23;91:9,12; | 73:23;74:25;75:9; | choose (2) |\n| authority (1) | beneficial (6) | 92:12,20 | 76:3;78:10;79:10; | 50:19,23 |\n| 9:18 | 10:5;12:18;13:1,1, | Brother (19) | 80:3;83:16,17,25; | CIBC (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| authorization (5) | 2,9 | 10:22;44:12,16,17; | 84:7,22;85:13;86:10; | 13:5 |\n| 50:12,24;51:2; | best (1) | 45:2,8,18,19;46:11, | 93:16,21;95:3;97:5,8, | circuit (1) |\n| 52:19;53:2 | 11:23 | 15,21,24;47:4;56:7, | 20 | 13:7 |\n| available (3) | better (2) | 11,14;72:5,7,8 | capabilities (1) | circumstances (2) |\n| 36:5;37:5;38:6 | 12:7;87:8 | brother's (5) | 28:3 | 20:16;22:20 |\n| averred (2) | beyond (1) | 42:10;46:12,18; | captain (20) | cited (1) |\n| 17:2;26:8 | 69:2 | 56:8,16 | 6:10;7:2;51:14; | 14:11 |\n| aware (9) | bill (1) | browser (1) | 53:24;55:10,15; | City (1) |\n| 9:19;19:20,24;20:2; | 44:19 | 21:17 | 59:24;67:15,16,17,20, | 85:22 |\n| 57:8,21;58:16;59:6; | binder (6) | building (1) | 22;72:18,18;81:7; | claim (1) |\n| 62:19 | 5:21,21;8:24;17:22, | 12:10 | 82:9,11;92:25;93:7; | 5:9 |\n| | 25;18:3 | burden (1) | 94:1 | claimed (1) |\n| B | bit (4) | 13:20 | captains (1) | 15:10 |\n| | 44:13;65:12;71:22; | burdens (1) | 67:18 | clarification (1) |\n| back (12) | 72:10 | 97:12 | caption (2) | 47:16 |\n| 3:8;4:18;7:20; | black (1) | business (13) | 7:17;41:13 | clarify (6) |\n| 29:10,18,23;48:9; | 32:4 | 4:3;8:6,10;11:11; | captured (1) | 24:21;51:6;57:14; |\n| 61:13;62:8;86:13; | blue (2) | 33:10;35:25;36:2,6; | 35:7 | 58:12;64:17;67:11 |\n| 91:3;96:14 | 71:5,17 | 42:9,18,23;49:3;76:6 | case (9) | clarifying (2) |\n| background (1) | board (6) | business-like (1) | 5:23;14:11;15:4; | 42:14;43:23 |\n| 25:21 | 50:11,18,21;51:7,7; | 93:22 | 36:25;37:2,21;75:19; | clarity (2) |\n| Baker (2) | 52:7 | button (1) | 84:7;94:14 | 29:15;40:15 |\n| 10:12;27:12 | boarded (4) | 70:15 | caution (1) | clear (14) |\n| bank (1) | 52:16,22,23;53:8 | | 60:18 | 10:1,3;12:20,25; |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 56:9 | boasting (1) | C | cautioning (1) | 13:20;34:21;35:16; |\n| bar (3) | 4:10 | | 60:23 | 36:7;40:12;44:19; |\n| 26:20;96:3,4 | boat (17) | call (19) | CCP (3) | 49:5;61:19;72:17; |\n| Barrow (16) | 46:20,25;47:1,5; | 3:7,9;15:19;16:16; | 65:19,20;74:7 | 84:10 |\n| 10:15;21:14;27:3,9, | 53:20;54:22,24;82:3, | 18:5,7;33:3;52:10; | ceased (1) | clearly (4) |\n| 11,11,14,18,21;28:2, | 4,10,11;87:9,10;90:8; | 58:2;66:5,22;67:2; | 90:8 | 6:11;43:14;72:24; |\n| 15;30:24;31:17; | 92:5,20;95:18 | 74:20;79:16;83:1; | cell (2) | 73:4 |\n| 79:18,18,25 | body (1) | 98:1,2,6,7 | 16:17,19 | clip (1) |\n| based (4) | 7:18 | called (15) | center (2) | 73:12 |\n| 9:15;15:13;60:1,2 | both (9) | 16:3;28:5;34:4; | 71:5,16 | close (3) |\n| basic (1) | 7:17;15:7;26:21; | 40:1;42:8;51:21;52:5, | certain (5) | 11:14,15;86:12 |\n| 13:24 | 51:8;72:5;75:12; | 16;63:4;75:4;79:7,8; | 10:16;25:4;34:19; | closed (1) |\n| Baxter (1) | 82:11;89:5;96:8 | 80:17;83:20;84:15 | 36:22;79:20 | 74:9 |\n| 14:10 | bottom (2) | calls (1) | certainly (4) | closing (1) |\n| Beach (1) | 72:22;74:16 | 35:23 | 11:10;30:17;58:8; | 97:3 |\n| 53:12 | bought (9) | came (11) | 98:5 | clumsy (1) |\n| Bear (4) | 8:4;10:25;44:1,12, | 6:12;44:10,18;45:4; | certifications (1) | 4:2 |\n| 61:1,18;68:2;69:21 | 16,17;45:2,3;72:5 | 46:2,10;55:17;56:12; | 36:1 | coast (1) |\n| became (3) | break (6) | 58:2;87:23;95:24 | certified (10) | 86:2 |\n| 59:6;81:7;94:1 | 56:25;57:2;65:7,11; | camera (2) | 13:6;17:3;23:18,22; | Cole (43) |\n| begin (1) | 66:4,23 | 32:5;80:4 | 25:14;38:14,16,18,19; | 10:14;15:3;16:7,8, |\n| 10:21 | brief (20) | can (84) | 98:10 | 12,13,16,20,23,25; |\n| | | | | |\n| beginning (10) | 3:15,24;14:11; | 5:20;16:2,11,16,18; | chair (1) | 17:1,22;18:2,9,11,18, |\n| 58:1;60:10;63:1,7, | 16:22;18:21;23:25; | 17:17;18:22;26:3; | 33:23 | 24,25;19:2;24:9,25; |\n| 22;64:12,13;65:10;
70:7;81:8 | 27:1;28:1;36:15;
39:10;49:2;51:9;74:1; | 27:3,7,12;31:20;32:3,
5;33:3,5,14,17,19; | changed (1)
5:18 | 25:13,18;27:24;28:4;
29:18;30:20;31:1,3,7, |\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 119 of\n\n 14,20;34:3,8;36:12, 13,22;37:3 **Cole's (1)** 16:10\n\n269\n\n**Kwok February 2, 2022 cousins (2)** 11:10;42:10 **covers (1)** 93:6 **COVID (1)** 88:1 **CPLR (1)** 12:19 **Craig (9)** 7:2;9:4;67:21;\n\n**colleague (2)** 11:25;15:2 **colleagues (7)** 8:12;10:14;33:22; 35:20;37:14;73:24; 82:17 **collected (5)** 34:12,15,16,19,23 **collection (2)** 21:11,24 **column (1)** 35:17 **comfortable (1)** 40:8 **coming (5)** 4:22;44:11;45:1,6; 71:24 **commence (1)** 16:2 **commencement (1)** 15:18 **commenting (1)** 37:13 **commission (1)** 91:24 **committed (1)** 6:8 **common (1)** 59:18 **Commonwealth (1)** 13:4 **communicated (5)** 6:15,20;9:1;67:20; 81:21 **communication (1)** 55:15 **companies (3)** 8:19;11:17;94:25 **company (14)** 6:18;8:5;9:3;11:6; 12:11;35:21;55:16, 16;56:8,12;77:18,24; 81:16;92:1 **company's (1)** 34:25 **compare (1)** 88:14 **competent (1)** 24:7 **compilation (2)** 22:22,24 **complaint (3)** 7:13,16;96:16 **complete (3)** 25:2,10,11 **completed (1)** 39:16\n\n**conceded (1)** 11:1 **concerned (1)** 74:8 **concerns (2)** 42:1;81:11 **conclusion (3)** 77:16,19;79:22 **conditional (3)** 13:19;14:21;15:15 **conditions (1)** 54:16 **conduct (4)** 9:23;18:13,16; 37:20 **conference (2)** 98:1,2 **confident (2)** 48:7,8 **confirm (2)** 62:10;72:17 **confirmed (1)** 89:12 **confirms (1)** 6:14 **conflate (1)** 63:22 **confuse (1)** 63:13 **confusing (1)** 63:25 **Conley (3)** 21:20;23:3,4 **connected (2)** 21:12;72:4 **connection (3)** 41:2;81:1,2 **consent (1)** 35:18 **consented (2)** 65:24;74:9 **considerable (1)** 8:16 **considered (1)** 15:14 **consistent (1)** 33:12 **consistently (1)** 33:8 **consists (1)** 4:10 **consult (1)** 73:24 **contact (3)** 59:23;67:15,17 **contacted (5)** 67:16,19,21,23; 76:10 **contain (1)** 33:9 **contains (1)** 17:23 **contemporaneous (1) corroborating (1)**\n\n 21:1 **contempt (14)** 6:8;12:17;13:3,12, 22;14:14,17,20,21; 15:8,10,12,15,16 **contemptuous (1)** 9:23 **content (11)** 19:22;20:20;21:2; 29:8;30:2,13;31:20; 33:11;34:19;35:4; 62:16 **contested (1)** 11:3 **continue (5)** 54:13;56:11;61:14, 15;67:5 **CONTINUED (1)** 47:10 **continues (1)** 12:19 **contract (3)** 5:24;76:13,15 **contradicted (1)** 10:22 **control (18)** 7:10;8:17,22;12:21; 13:8,8,19,21,24;14:2, 3,5,13,16,23;15:11; 19:15;29:5 **controlled (10)** 4:24;6:1,23,25; 9:14;12:17;13:12; 14:1;43:9;60:4 **controlling (1)** 5:4 **controls (1)** 9:6 **controverted (1)** 36:21 **conversation (11)** 15:18;37:18;86:15, 16,24;87:2,9,12;89:1, 11;90:7 **conversations (1)** 60:19 **convincing (2)** 10:4;13:21 **copy (10)** 26:13,16;27:14,15, 17;32:4;41:1;75:18; 76:22,23 **corporate (3)** 5:3,22;11:20 **correcting (1)** 10:21 **correctly (1)** 92:10 **correspondence (1)** 30:22 **corresponding (1)** 6:25 9:10\n\n**costs (2)** 56:17,20 **counsel (17)** 3:2,6,15;9:12;24:8, 21;31:5;35:22;58:12; 60:11,20;62:21; 63:19;64:5,15;66:5; 98:7 **counsel's (1)** 69:1 **countersigned (1)** 76:18 **couple (3)** 46:8;66:15;81:3 **course (3)** 8:8;9:21;48:23 **COURT (196)** 3:1,6,12,14,23; 4:19;7:14;9:5,18,18, 19;10:8,18;11:16; 13:4,6;14:4,7;15:6,9, 14,23,25;16:2,10,15, 18,23;17:22;18:1,3,7, 11,13,15,19,22;24:4; 25:13;27:4,8,10,13, 17,22;31:6;32:2,6,15, 19,22,24;33:9,13,22; 34:1,3;35:10,16,17; 36:6,8,10,17;37:1,4, 10,15,20,22;38:4,7,9, 12,14,14,17,18,20,22; 39:1,7,13,21,25; 41:10,11;45:13,16; 46:14,19,19,25;47:4, 8;48:17;49:7,13,16; 51:25;55:21;56:1,4, 13,16,20,24,25;57:5, 20;58:13;59:5,10; 60:21;61:3;62:3,13; 63:6,14,23;64:2,5,8, 10,20,21;65:1,8,16; 66:4,9,16,21,25;67:3, 7;69:11;73:25;74:3, 18,24;75:3,10,15; 79:14,22;80:1,10,14; 81:1;82:24;83:4,7,13, 15,17;84:3;85:13,20; 87:17,20,24;88:2,5,8, 13,19,21;89:18,23; 90:2,5,12,15,20,24; 91:1;92:23;94:11; 95:12,25;96:3,6,11, 17,19,21,25;97:3,11, 11,14,19,24;98:8,16 **courtroom (1)** 31:4 **Court's (16)** 13:18;14:20,21; 32:18;45:21;49:5,14; 57:18;58:14;60:11, 22;61:25;62:19,24; 72:18,19;83:2,19,20; 84:5 **C-R-A-I-G (1)** 84:5 **created (10)** 20:24;22:22,25; 23:13;24:14;68:18; 69:1,4,5,10 **credible (2)** 7:23,23 **creditor (1)** 13:16 **Crew (3)** 6:5;8:21;70:22 **cross (4)** 33:19;36:5;37:20; 48:24 **cross-examination (30)** 3:17;7:3;10:14; 15:20,22;16:2,6;19:1; 33:2;34:3,7;37:5,9, 23;38:3;39:14;40:4; 47:10;48:19;66:11; 68:23;74:19;75:7; 80:9,15,20;83:6,23; 96:18,24 **cross-examinations (2)** 10:1;15:3 **cross-examine (1)** 49:11 **cross-examined (1)** 83:9 **crucial (1)** 62:12 **crystal (1)** 12:25 **cued (1)** 68:2 **cumbersome (1)** 65:14 **cumulative (2)** 94:10,11 **curious (2)** 31:13;82:17\n\n74:14;98:4\n\n**current (3)** 4:7;6:10;67:21 **currently (1)** 82:1 **custodian (2)** 33:10;36:4 **D**\n\n**comply (1)** 13:18\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v Kwok February 2, 2022 dad (1)** 50:10 **darn (1)** 86:12 **data (1)** 17:10 **date (22)** 10:3;34:15,19,23; 35:1,7;57:25;58:8,10; 61:16;64:11,14;69:7, 13;82:5;84:19;85:8; 86:5,7,9;90:22,25 **dated (5)** 19:4;20:9;26:9; 62:1;85:25 **dates (3)** 63:22;87:22;93:14 **daughter (5)** 4:7;7:25;8:10;11:9; 12:15 **David (1)** 7:3 **day (8)** 33:6,16;74:18; 84:13;86:9;95:20; 97:6;98:8 **days (1)** 89:3 **day-to-day (1)** 5:11 **dead (1)** 94:24 **December (1)** 7:22 **decided (1)** 9:21 **decision (3)** 9:22;54:18;92:21 **decisions (1)** 51:11 **defective (1)** 16:10 **defendant (10)** 3:17;9:9;10:13; 11:8;40:1;74:21;75:5; 80:18;83:1,21 **defendants (1)** 37:22 **defendant's (5)** 5:21;6:4;8:24; 76:21;77:7 **defense (4)** 3:25;5:1 **departure (3)** 86:5,14;88:25 **depicted (1)** 48:4 **describe (1)** 73:4 **described (1)** 5:15 **deserves (1)** 32:24 **despite (1)** 4:2 **detailed (5)** 52:9,21,24;53:4,13 **detained (2)** 65:19;74:6 **determination (1)** 12:21 **determined (2)** 12:22;13:11 **developed (1)** 93:24 **device (1)** 72:12 **devices (1)** 30:9 **dialed (2)** 3:5;18:7 **different (13)** 13:9,10,11;21:11, 25;22:2,5,5;29:21; 48:5;51:17;63:23; 69:21 **difficult (1)** 72:21 **difficulty (2)** 39:8;83:11 **direct (6)** 3:17;15:24;38:3; 80:8;83:5;84:6 **directed (4)** 8:21;15:23;57:7; 93:3 **directing (2)** 50:8;51:16 **direction (12)** 6:15;7:9;50:22; 59:19;78:25;79:2; 81:22;94:24;95:5,9, 18,22 **directions (1) disagree (2)** 36:25,25 **disclosed (3)** 48:12;49:5,6 **disclosure (1)** 65:21 **discovery (1)** 4:16 **discuss (4)** 33:3;43:15;64:16, 21 **discussed (2)** 35:19;64:23 **discussion (1)** 3:13 **displayed (2)** 43:19;61:7 **dispositive (2)** 15:12;25:16 **dispute (1)** 14:25 **disputed (1)** 4:8 **disregard (1)** 9:21 **Division (4)** 4:21;11:2;12:20,23 **dock (1)** 91:25 **docked (1)** 87:2 **Docket (9)** 17:20;21:6;24:5; 27:4;31:25;41:13; 58:15;61:25;75:23 **document (18)** 5:24;6:3;31:8,17; 58:9,14,24;59:3;61:6, 16,17,24;62:8,16,16; 75:22;77:9;81:6 **documentary (3)** 5:10;11:22;36:20 **documentation (1)** 52:18 **documents (5)** 5:3,22;11:21;79:20, 23 **DocuSign (1)** 77:17 **dollar (2)** 8:7;47:14 **dollars (2) dozen (1)** 17:23 **drill (1)** 73:12 **drop (3)** 51:3,22;52:6 **dry (1)** 91:25 **due (4)** 54:5,22;80:25; 97:15 **duly (13)** 16:1,4;34:2,5; 39:18;40:2;75:2,5; 80:13,18;83:19,21; 96:20 **duration (1)** 88:14 **during (18)** 4:16;6:2;7:1;12:17; 13:12,22;14:13,16,23; 48:23;52:10;88:2,5,8, 15,17;90:7;95:12 **duty (2)** 34:25,25 **E earlier (7)** 23:23;42:11;44:23; 59:14;67:20;69:24; 74:4 **early (8)** 43:20;44:15;53:19; 58:4;59:8;82:11; 91:22,23 **easier (1)** 76:1 **easy (1)** 64:20 **Echo (2)** 38:13;85:12 **echoes (2)** 18:6,17 **edited (1)** 14:17 **editing (1)** 17:16 **education (1)** 51:9 **effect (2)** 6:7;92:18 **electronically (1)** 77:10 **else (7)** 8:25;16:11;18:5; 19:11;20:22;23:7; 33:17 **e-mail (1)** 5:24 **employed (1)** 25:15 **employee (1)** 9:4 **employees (1)** 12:10 **employer (3)** 9:4;78:8,15 **encompass (1)** 13:8 **end (11)** 6:7;12:13;57:25; 63:1,3,19;66:23; 76:21;92:11;94:16; 97:6 **ended (1)** 92:1 **endless (1)** 8:15 **engineer (1)** 17:11 **English (6)** 23:9;40:9,13,17; 41:23;42:2 **enough (4)** 9:17;11:14;24:19; 45:7 **entered (5)** 57:9,18,22;58:6,17 **entertain (1)** 32:19 **entities (1)** 17:14 **entitled (2)** 21:7;49:11 **entity (1)** 43:9 **equipment (2)** 22:14;91:17 **Erica (4)** 10:15;27:1,11; 79:18 **essentially (1)** 91:23 **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 120 of 269\n\n 13:17;14:1;77:2; 96:16 **defense's (1)** 37:4 **delay (1)** 61:6 **delays (1)** 91:16 **demonstrate (1)** 8:22 **demonstrated (2)** 12:12 **directive (8)** 49:15;53:23;54:3, 23;55:8,12,14,20\n\n**directly (15)** 4:15;9:11;11:24; 31:3;59:23;67:15,16, 19,23;79:3;81:15,19, 22,23;95:9 **directs (1)** 50:15\n\n### **Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (4) dad - even**\n\n 84:10,11;86:2 **downloaded (4)** 21:20;33:6,16;35:4\n\n43:12;56:23\n\n**effort (1)** 8:22 **eight (1)** 93:19 **either (4)**\n\n 32:3;74:22;76:19; 78:21 **elaborate (1)** 43:2 **electronic (3)** 30:9;74:14;98:4\n\n**done (2)** 42:6,7 **doorman (1)** 12:9 **doubts (1)** 9:22 **down (3)**\n\n44:6,20;45:24;46:9\n\n**establish (2)** 11:23;13:20 **establishes (1)** 14:24 **Europe (2)** 6:14;92:3 **European (1)** 6:17 **Euros (4)**\n\n**even (10)**\n\n| Kwok | | 269 | | February 2, 2022 |\n|-----------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|\n| 5:24;6:5,15;7:16; | 19,25;41:17;48:1,11, | family (9) | 8:4;10:25;14:1;15:19; | Foundation (5) |\n| 9:8;11:3;40:16;50:11; | 13;68:1,2;70:5,8; | 4:3;8:6;9:24;11:7, | 16:4;28:21;34:5;37:4, | 72:25;73:3,5,6;94:6 |\n| | | | | |\n| 72:17;92:5 | 73:11,20;76:22;77:2, | 8;77:20;79:4,6;93:25 | 7;38:11;40:2,6;42:1; | founded (1) |\n| events (2) | 7;84:24 | family's (1) | 48:18;58:22;64:4; | 43:6 |\n| 20:21;22:8 | exhibits (11) | 95:1 | 66:7;68:8;70:9;75:5; | four (1) |\n| everybody (2) | 25:20;35:15,18; | far (3) | 76:5,6;78:12;80:18, | 5:22 |\n| 3:2;18:7 | 36:9,11;48:13,22; | 43:11,12;60:2 | 22,24;81:3;83:21; | Francis (19) |\n| everyone (4) | 49:1,4,6;65:13 | farther (1) | 84:4,10,12;86:11,16; | 15:22,25;16:1,3,8, |\n| 10:11;16:11,14; | existed (1) | 86:2 | 87:4;90:20;92:24; | 12;17:2,24;24:6; |\n| | | | | |\n| 27:15 | 34:23 | fast (2) | 93:6,17;94:24 | 25:13;27:19,23,25; |\n| everywhere (1) | existence (1) | 71:20;72:10 | firsthand (1) | 30:23;31:11,17;32:8, |\n| 52:21 | 65:1 | father (37) | 25:13 | 15,22 |\n| evidence (26) | expect (2) | 8:4;9:17;12:14; | five (5) | Francis's (1) |\n| 4:9,22;5:10,23,24; | 33:7,11 | 42:16,17,21;43:4,6, | 3:7;5:18;6:9;18:13; | 25:15 |\n| 6:10,25;8:25;10:2,3, | expenses (2) | 15,19,21;44:8,9,23; | 91:17 | fraud (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| 18;11:6,7,21,22,23; | 55:24;56:5 | 50:11,14,18,21;51:20; | five-exhibit (2) | 17:3;25:14 |\n| 13:21;14:9,13,15,22, | experience (3) | 52:4,7,19,22;53:1,8, | 5:20;8:24 | freedom (3) |\n| 24;32:24;36:20; | 19:20;59:16;60:1 | 14;57:9,22;64:16,22; | five-minute (1) | 50:18,23;53:10 |\n| 79:21,24 | expert (1) | 68:8;69:25;71:6,18; | 18:20 | Freeport (3) |\n| evidentiary (3) | 17:6 | 72:11;73:7,21 | five-second (2) | 91:13,20;92:7 |\n| 4:20;5:16;36:14 | expertise (1) | father's (5) | 70:11,20 | frequent (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| exact (6) | 17:16 | 9:3,23;11:6;42:19; | fix (1) | 95:13 |\n| 57:25;82:5;84:13, | explain (4) | 52:13 | 41:5 | Friday (1) |\n| 19;90:22,25 | 8:8;28:22;39:7; | favor (1) | flat (1) | 97:6 |\n| exactly (9) | 73:4 | 12:6 | 10:22 | friends (1) |\n| 9:6;20:4;24:3; | explanation (1) | February (2) | fled (1) | 67:14 |\n| 26:22;50:13;54:3; | 42:12 | 43:25;45:24 | 43:19 | front (6) |\n| | | | | |\n| 55:14;63:5;88:12 | explore (1) | feed (1) | floor (1) | 7:5;16:9;26:6; |\n| examination (4) | 7:3 | 26:10 | 71:2 | 28:14,16;84:8 |\n| 65:22,23;74:5; | exploring (1) | fees (1) | Florida (9) | frustrated (1) |\n| 89:15 | 5:14 | 55:25 | 54:6,24;55:9,19; | 12:23 |\n| examined (6) | expression (1) | few (11) | 57:8;58:4;59:15; | fugitive (1) |\n| 16:4;34:5;40:3; | 11:13 | 5:15;7:25;51:24; | 84:12;91:3 | 6:18 |\n| | | | | |\n| 75:5;80:18;83:21 | extended (1) | 52:25;55:1;62:25; | folks (1) | full (1) |\n| examiner (2) | 11:8 | 70:6,6;71:3;89:3,16 | 20:2 | 24:25 |\n| 17:3;25:14 | extent (2) | fifteen (1) | follow (1) | fully (3) |\n| example (3) | 4:12;28:24 | 49:17 | 57:1 | 4:11;25:16;98:3 |\n| 50:15;53:7;67:14 | extremely (1) | Fifth (3) | following (1) | funds (1) |\n| exceeds (1) | 74:10 | 4:15;5:13;14:8 | 52:9 | 11:12 |\n| | | | | |\n| 15:16 | | Figure (4) | follows (6) | further (5) |\n| except (1) | F | 31:24,24;87:5; | 16:5;34:6;40:3; | 35:3,9;74:2;79:12; |\n| 16:12 | | 93:20 | 75:6;80:19;83:22 | 82:21 |\n| excluded (2) | Facebook (1) | filed (4) | foot (1) | |\n| 65:17;74:5 | 17:14 | 7:21;27:4,6;96:17 | 50:2 | G |\n| exclusively (2) | fact (6) | filing (3) | forego (1) | |\n| 94:25;95:6 | 6:3;8:3;23:18;36:2; | 5:18;74:14;98:4 | 94:14 | game (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| excuse (3) | 42:22;97:16 | film (1) | foregoing (1) | 8:15 |\n| 36:1;53:5,18 | facts (2) | 17:16 | 98:10 | games (1) |\n| excused (7) | 6:20;10:21 | final (1) | forgot (1) | 78:11 |\n| 32:15;35:10;74:3; | factual (2) | 93:10 | 70:14 | gap (1) |\n| 79:14;82:24;96:11; | 15:13;66:15 | Finally (2) | form (1) | 93:17 |\n| 97:1 | failed (1) | 9:15;94:23 | 56:9 | gave (4) |\n| | | | | |\n| execute (1) | 10:2 | find (3) | formal (8) | 52:21;53:4;59:14; |\n| 59:22 | fair (4) | 31:20;56:9;81:17 | 5:3,22;35:15;36:8, | 66:6 |\n| execution (1) | 26:13,16;45:7;60:2 | findings (1) | 10;80:2;93:22;94:1 | generally (1) |\n| 77:20 | fairly (3) | 97:16 | formalities (1) | 28:22 |\n| exercise (1) | 59:16,18;89:4 | fine (5) | 11:18 | Genoa (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| 59:19 | fallen (1) | 16:23;31:14;32:12; | formally (2) | 82:1,12 |\n| exhibit (34) | 12:6 | 83:13;86:10 | 79:20,23 | genuine (2) |\n| 5:21,21;6:4;8:24; | familiar (1) | firm (2) | former (1) | 6:6;26:1 |\n| 17:22;21:10,12;24:7, | 84:15 | 10:12;31:9 | 7:2 | geographically (1) |\n| 22;26:13,16;27:1,5, | familiarity (1) | first (44) | forward (3) | 22:19 |\n| | | | | |\n| 19,22;28:14;31:10,18, | 17:9 | 4:3,6;5:21;6:12,18; | 40:16;71:20;72:10 | gets (1) |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (5) events - gets**\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 122 of\n\n**Pacific Alliance Asia v**\n\n| Kwok | | | | February 2, 2022 |\n|------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|---------------------|\n| 7:10 | guys (2) | 13;25:17;37:18;39:8; | 36:13;37:6,13,16,24, | 52:23 |\n| gift (8) | 30:21;31:9 | 41:2;48:24;49:3,8; | 25;38:1,4,10;39:11, | inaccurate (1) |\n| 45:5,6,8,18,19; | | 65:10;79:22;85:11 | 15;41:10;46:16,22; | 11:4 |\n| 46:11;56:9,16 | H | hearsay (1) | 47:3,9,13;48:10; | inartfully (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| gifted (1) | | 9:11 | 49:12,19;55:23; | 86:22 |\n| 56:8 | half (3) | heart (1) | 56:15,22;57:17;58:7, | includes (1) |\n| given (5) | 11:2;17:23;53:10 | 74:17 | 18,22;59:12;60:18; | 11:8 |\n| 6:20;14:14;39:21; | hand (7) | Heaslop (14) | 61:5;62:14;63:10,20; | including (1) |\n| 45:8;95:20 | 15:25;34:1;38:9; | 7:2,8;9:4;53:24; | 64:18;65:6;66:1,3,7, | 55:24 |\n| gives (2) | 39:2;80:11;83:17; | 72:19;83:2,3,15,19, | 20,22;67:5;68:22; | inconsistent (1) |\n| 12:12;45:5 | 96:19 | 20;84:1,5;85:22;94:5 | 73:23;74:15,20;75:1; | 23:19 |\n| Golden (28) | handle (6) | H-E-A-S-L-O-P (1) | 79:12,16,18,25;80:7, | incur (1) |\n| 9:3,6,8,10,12,13; | 10:14,16;15:3;19:7, | 84:5 | 16;83:1;85:10,18; | 56:17 |\n| 11:5,7;53:20,23;54:7, | 8;26:10 | held (3) | 88:23;89:16;92:22; | indeed (1) |\n| 12,18,24;55:21,23; | hands (1) | 3:13;13:7;30:9 | 94:4;95:16;96:9,13, | 82:19 |\n| 56:2,4,7,14;59:14,19; | 46:10 | help (6) | 15,22;97:2,7,17 | independent (2) |\n| 60:1,3;65:5;67:17; | happened (2) | 56:4;61:22;76:25; | Honor's (2) | 11:11,12 |\n| 79:8;95:7 | | 78:10;84:19,20 | 9:2;94:9 | indicate (2) |\n| | 12:2;43:16 | | | |\n| good (5) | happens (1) | helpful (1) | hope (2) | 19:3,8 |\n| 10:10;11:15;15:21; | 85:21 | 18:1 | 36:7;61:18 | indicated (2) |\n| 33:25;37:25 | happy (3) | helping (1) | hopefully (2) | 74:4,10 |\n| government (1) | 15:22;58:10;66:14 | 29:19 | 10:16;31:3 | indicates (3) |\n| 12:5 | Harbach (94) | helps (2) | horse (1) | 5:4;6:1;74:11 |\n| Granted (1) | 3:4,11,19,22;7:3; | 55:23;86:10 | 94:23 | individuals (1) |\n| 58:20 | 10:6;15:20,21;18:4; | hereby (1) | Hostetler (2) | 22:5 |\n| Great (1) | 24:3,21;29:15;31:2,7, | 98:10 | 10:12;27:12 | inference (6) |\n| 67:3 | 15;32:3,4,16,17,21; | herself (1) | hot (1) | 13:23;14:5,6,14,25; |\n| greets (1) | 33:1,7,18,21;35:13; | 95:2 | 8:13 | 36:23 |\n| 12:9 | 37:11,13,16,24;39:15, | higher (1) | hours (1) | inform (1) |\n| grew (1) | 19,24;40:5;41:10; | 48:13 | 49:3 | 59:22 |\n| 93:24 | 47:8,9,11,19;48:16, | highlight (2) | housekeeping (1) | information (8) |\n| guess (4) | | 6:24;7:25 | 79:19 | 20:19,19;21:2;23:4, |\n| | 18;49:19,20;51:8; | | | |\n| 25:9;66:17;87:8; | 52:3;57:6,11,13;58:3, | highly (2) | | 6;34:12,14;55:9 |\n| 93:25 | 8,12,24;59:10,12,13; | 8:13;65:25 | I | informed (3) |\n| guest (10) | 61:5,11;62:14;63:10, | himself (1) | | 55:4;60:15;63:4 |\n| 52:22;59:23;86:19; | 24;64:17;65:6,11; | 94:8 | idea (5) | informing (3) |\n| 87:5,7,10;89:2,21; | 66:14,19;67:5,8;69:3; | hit (1) | 3:1;22:12;51:12,13, | 54:16,18,19 |\n| 90:8;95:14 | 70:12,14;71:8,10; | 70:15 | 13 | inquiry (1) |\n| guests (4) | 73:23;74:2,25;75:8, | HK (6) | identification (2) | 54:14 |\n| 52:23;53:3;95:18; | 22;77:6;79:10,12; | 76:10;78:13;90:12; | 26:25;48:1 | inserted (1) |\n| 96:7 | 80:15,16,21;82:15,21; | 92:13,17;95:6 | identifying (1) | 77:25 |\n| Guo (74) | 83:24;88:22,23,24; | Ho (3) | 94:8 | inspected (1) |\n| 4:22;5:4;6:1,16,20; | 89:15;91:5;94:4,14; | 75:16;78:19;81:12 | ignore (1) | 91:14 |\n| 7:6,9,12,25;8:2,7,20; | 96:9,22 | hold (2) | 11:18 | Instagram (7) |\n| 9:17,19;11:9;14:1,2, | Harbach's (1) | 4:19;15:2 | ignores (1) | 17:9,14;19:4,5,6, |\n| 4;37:17,20;38:1,1,5,9; | 66:11 | holding (3) | 8:3 | 12;20:9 |\n| | | | | |\n| 39:2,4,7,18;40:1,6,7, | Harbor (2) | 71:6,17;72:11 | ignore's (1) | install (1) |\n| 7,9,10,10;41:12,14; | 96:3,4 | honestly (1) | 51:23 | 22:14 |\n| 47:12;57:7;60:19; | hard (4) | 91:11 | illegally (1) | instruction (2) |\n| 64:4,21;65:17;67:9; | 5:10;27:14,17;64:3 | Hong (20) | 6:14 | 9:1;55:18 |\n| 68:8,25;71:14,24; | hate (1) | 8:5,5;37:7;43:6,22; | image (2) | intended (4) |\n| 73:11,19;74:3,4; | 32:17 | 44:1,4,19;45:23;46:5, | 20:24;21:1 | 6:12;8:3;61:19,23 |\n| 76:11,18;77:12,25; | hear (11) | 15,17,20,22;47:1,13, | images (3) | intending (1) |\n| 78:3,7,20;79:1,3; | 5:9;27:10,12;39:11; | 17;76:14;89:11;95:7 | 17:17;25:22;32:1 | 97:12 |\n| 81:14,18,21,23;88:8, | 61:20;66:23,25; | Honor (104) | immediately (1) | interacted (1) |\n| 10,13,18;89:13;94:6, | 69:25;70:2;83:16; | 3:10,11,20;4:14; | 15:9 | 7:5 |\n| 17;95:2,10 | 96:17 | 5:17,20;7:19,22,24; | impliedly (1) | interactions (8) |\n| Guojiao (3) | heard (7) | 8:11,12,23;9:9,15,25; | 12:20 | 60:3;92:25;93:11, |\n| 42:9,12;46:18 | 10:19;54:23;66:7; | 10:6,10;14:22;15:1, | importing (1) | 21;94:1,17,18,21 |\n| Guo's (3) | | 21;18:2,4,18,25; | | interest (8) |\n| | 68:23;84:16;92:12,20 | | 29:3 | |\n| 9:11;38:23;51:23 | hearing (19) | 25:18;27:7,11,24; | impose (1) | 10:5;12:18;13:1,2, |\n| GuoWenGui (1) | 3:9,15;4:20;5:17; | 31:2;32:13,17,21; | 97:12 | 9;56:1;65:20;74:8 |\n| 19:7 | 10:16;15:2,18;18:6, | 33:1,21,25;35:13,14; | impossible (1) | interior (1) |\n\n### **Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (6) gift - interior**\n\n| Pacific Alliance Asia v | | 269 | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 |\n|-------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|\n| Kwok | | | | February 2, 2022 |\n| | | | | |\n| 68:14 | 44:2;52:13;63:5;66:8 | 94:12 | 12:25;31:9;36:25; | 12:3,4 |\n| intermediary (1) | issued (5) | Kong (20) | 72:25;73:3,6;94:5,12 | lives (1) |\n| 12:12 | 15:8,15;58:13; | 8:5,5;37:8;43:6,22; | lawyer (5) | 11:11 |\n| International (17) | 63:14;89:22 | 44:1,4,19;45:23;46:6, | 7:11;60:15;63:4; | living (2) |\n| 8:5;37:8;43:7;44:1, | issues (7) | 15,17,20,22;47:1,13, | 64:25;65:1 | 69:16,17 |\n| 5,19;45:23;46:6,15, | 10:16;18:12,14,15; | 17;76:14;89:11;95:7 | lawyers (2) | local (1) |\n| 17,20,23;47:1,13,17; | 25:16;36:14;37:2 | Kwok (51) | 11:20;64:24 | 95:17 |\n| 85:1;95:6 | Italy (1) | 4:14,21;5:12,18,23; | lawyer's (1) | locate (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| internet (4) | 82:1 | 6:8,10,22;7:17,19; | 58:2 | 83:8 |\n| 19:24;33:6,16; | itineraries (1) | 8:14;9:7;10:2,4,13, | lead (1) | location (1) |\n| 84:15 | 52:12 | 24;11:1,9;13:17,21; | 3:1 | 68:12 |\n| interpose (1) | itinerary (7) | 14:2;15:10;19:22,25; | leading (1) | log (2) |\n| 57:17 | 52:9,10,14,15,21; | 20:5,6;21:7,12;29:12, | 5:16 | 26:19;74:22 |\n| interpret (1) | 53:4,13 | 25;30:9;75:16;78:19; | learned (13) | logged (1) |\n| 38:23 | Ivanov (12) | 81:12;86:15,23;87:1, | 44:12;57:24;60:11; | 74:22 |\n| | | | | |\n| interpretation (1) | 6:11,24;79:17;80:3, | 18;88:13,17;89:1,7, | 62:21,24,25;63:6,18; | logging (2) |\n| 40:17 | 7,12,17,22;81:2; | 20;90:7,8,9;92:25; | 64:4,15;90:20;91:1,8 | 79:17;83:11 |\n| interpreter (22) | 82:17,23,24 | 93:21;94:8;95:13,25 | least (4) | logo (2) |\n| 38:5,8,10,11,13,15, | | KwokMiles (2) | 8:12;24:17;52:5; | 72:22;73:7 |\n| 16,19,21,25;39:6,23; | J | 26:20;29:11 | 92:7 | long (7) |\n| 40:2;45:14;47:15,15; | | Kwok's (9) | leave (2) | 14:20;53:9,11;82:2; |\n| | | | | |\n| 52:1;53:5;57:10,13, | January (10) | 4:2,5,10;5:10;7:11, | 3:5;86:8 | 88:25;89:2;91:14 |\n| 15;61:20 | 4:1,5,18;5:1,19; | 14,15,24;8:18 | leaves (1) | longer (9) |\n| interrupted (1) | 19:4;33:6;85:9;91:20, | | 7:24 | 53:19;54:15,21; |\n| 88:22 | 23 | L | Lee (2) | 62:11;89:1,12,20; |\n| intertwined (1) | jazz (1) | | 37:8,25 | 91:16;93:24 |\n| 11:17 | 11:14 | lack (1) | left (8) | look (7) |\n| interview (3) | Jersey (1) | 6:24 | 43:21;71:25;84:12, | 31:16;50:7;53:17; |\n| | | | | |\n| 68:21;69:12,13 | 86:3 | Lady (48) | 13,19;89:2,5;91:21 | 58:10;59:3;84:21,22 |\n| into (11) | John (3) | 4:1,11;5:5;7:15;8:2, | left-hand (1) | looking (5) |\n| 5:16,23;6:7,10; | 10:12;37:6;48:10 | 21;9:20;10:5;21:7,12; | 72:15 | 18:10;31:8;63:23; |\n| 14:6;18:7;39:9;60:19; | joined (2) | 50:3,8,12,15,15,21, | legal (5) | 84:18;92:24 |\n| 71:24;79:21;85:24 | 82:4,11 | 22;58:20,22;59:7,19; | 4:3;5:6;10:16;13:3, | looks (4) |\n| investigate (1) | joint (1) | 60:12;62:20;63:5; | 10 | 21:24;28:2;47:23; |\n| | | | | |\n| 18:19 | 98:7 | 64:22;65:2;70:23,24; | less (2) | 85:21 |\n| investigator (1) | Judge (8) | 71:1;72:3,4,4,6;76:7; | 50:20;94:1 | lost (3) |\n| 17:3 | 11:18;12:7;15:5; | 78:25;79:2;81:7,12, | lets (1) | 52:2;81:1,2 |\n| invite (1) | 48:16;61:25;79:10; | 25;82:1,8,18;84:11, | 12:9 | lot (3) |\n| 58:23 | 82:15;98:6 | 18;85:1;86:5;92:13; | lifelong (1) | 48:25;88:19,20 |\n| invocation (1) | judgment (1) | 94:7 | 8:11 | lots (1) |\n| 4:15 | | | likely (1) | 13:24 |\n| | 13:16 | landed (1) | | |\n| invoked (1) | judicial (1) | 46:9 | 5:17 | louder (1) |\n| 5:13 | 7:18 | large (1) | likewise (1) | 7:8 |\n| invoking (1) | July (3) | 24:23 | 83:3 | love (3) |\n| 14:8 | 87:25;88:15;95:13 | larger (1) | Lim (3) | 8:11;11:20,25 |\n| involved (3) | Justice (1) | 61:11 | 38:13,14;39:4 | lunch (6) |\n| 6:18;47:4;73:5 | | last (17) | limited (2) | 57:2;65:7,15;66:4, |\n| | 62:25 | | | |\n| involvement (1) | | 9:16;41:16;42:12, | 93:11;95:8 | 23;67:9 |\n| 66:3 | K | 13;54:10;61:20; | line (2) | |\n| involves (1) | | 65:12;73:10;76:14; | 3:5;68:23 | M |\n| 65:13 | keep (2) | 77:4;80:22;82:8; | lines (1) | |\n| irrelevant (3) | 9:22;16:18 | 83:25;84:4;87:18; | 31:23 | ma'am (4) |\n| 6:21;14:22;69:13 | keeping (1) | 93:18;96:15 | list (2) | 40:11;41:8;42:3; |\n| | | | | |\n| Island (1) | 83:11 | late (7) | 48:13;96:16 | 59:5 |\n| 53:9 | kind (2) | 5:7;6:2,23;59:7; | listed (3) | Madam (2) |\n| Islands (1) | 17:6;52:2 | 82:4,6;88:10 | 78:12,15;95:1 | 39:19;53:5 |\n| 13:5 | knew (2) | later (6) | literally (1) | main (1) |\n| issuance (1) | 9:13;60:4 | 8:6;10:16;12:2; | 12:14 | 7:25 |\n| | knowledge (5) | 44:14;71:20;98:5 | little (9) | Maine (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| 15:10 | | | | |\n| issue (20) | 11:24;19:25;25:14; | Laura (1) | 12:24;44:13;62:11; | 96:4,4 |\n| 4:13;12:16,16,18, | 50:2;53:15 | 33:22 | 65:14;71:22;72:14; | mainly (1) |\n| 21;13:8,11,13,13,14, | knows (4) | law (11) | 85:24;86:2;88:19 | 94:6 |\n| 16,23;14:3,5,19,23; | 9:5;38:1;42:16; | 10:12;11:16,22; | live (2) | maintain (2) |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (7) intermediary - maintain**\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 124 of 269\n\n 22:14;56:21 **maintaining (2)** 56:6,17 **makes (1)** 44:19 **making (3)** 12:24;72:12;90:4 **man (4)** 71:5,16;72:15; 73:19 **manage (2)** 56:10,11 **management (5)** 6:17;12:11;55:25; 76:13;81:16 **manager (1)** 74:23 **Manhattan (1)** 85:23 **manipulated (2)** 20:25;25:24 **manipulation (1)** 17:17 **manner (1)** 65:9 **many (3)** 11:10;51:21;52:5 **March (4)** 62:1;63:7,24;64:19 **Mariana (1)** 13:5 **Maritime (1)** 85:1 **mark (10)** 68:11;70:11,21; 71:6,14,18,21,25; 72:11,16 **marked (7)** 26:25;47:25;48:24; 68:1;70:5;73:11; 79:21 **materials (1)** 35:7 **matter (7)** 14:24;41:13;57:24; 65:20;75:15;79:19; 80:8 **May (69)** 4:1,11,18;5:9;6:19; 7:15;8:2,21;9:17,20, 20;10:5;12:8,9;21:7, 12;23:23;26:9;28:17; 31:2;45:16;50:3,12, 15,21,22;58:20,22; 59:7,19;60:12,12; 62:20,20;63:5;64:22; 65:2,11,13;66:22; 70:23,24;71:1;72:3,4, 4,6;76:7,14;80:14; 81:7,13,25;82:1,8,18; 84:11,18;85:1;86:5; 91:21,23;92:7,11,13; 93:12,12,20;94:7\n\n**maybe (8)** 11:15;12:11;13:24; 38:10;76:24;86:22; 87:3;93:19 **May-ish (1)** 91:22 **May's (5)** 5:5;50:8,16;78:25; 79:2 **mean (8)** 6:12;7:21;19:23; 32:6;45:3;59:18;93:3, 19 **meaning (1)** 95:1 **meaningful (1)** 49:18 **means (4)** 50:17;79:1;81:22; 95:8 **meant (1)** 95:21 **mechanisms (1)** 29:3 **media (8)** 4:10,13;5:12;14:18; 17:7,13;19:21;32:23 **media's (1)** 66:2 **meet-and-confer (1)** 35:23 **Mei (28)** 4:22;7:25;11:9; 14:1,2,4;37:17;38:1; 39:18;40:1,7,7,9,9,10; 41:14;76:11;77:12, 25;78:3,20;81:14,15, 18;89:13;94:17;95:2, 10 **member (1)** 46:5 **members (2)** 8:21;70:22 **memo (1)** 97:15 **memory (8)** 35:17;52:2;69:6; 86:5;89:3,3;90:19; 91:10 **mention (3)** 58:22;60:10;90:4 **mentioned (8)** 33:9;42:8,9;50:24; 51:11;59:14;64:18; 67:10 **mentions (1)** 51:16 **message (4)** 5:25;7:7;93:11; 94:19 **met (6)** 47:21;48:6;78:19, 20;81:12,18 **metadata (1)** 21:21 **microphone (3)** 16:12;39:9,9 **Microsoft (2)** 3:8;80:1 **mid (1)** 6:23 **mid-2017 (1)** 5:6 **might (3)** 23:7;89:16;91:10 **Miles (3)** 10:13;21:7,12 **million (11)** 8:4,9,13;44:6,20, 24;45:24;46:2,9; 56:22,23 **mind (1)** 42:24 **minute (1)** 79:10 **minutes (8)** 3:8;5:15;18:14; 49:18;52:25;59:5; 62:25;66:18 **miscalculation (1)** 6:22 **mischaracterize (1)** 10:20 **missing (1)** 14:3 **misstates (2)** 45:9;89:25 **mistaken (1)** 39:15 **misunderstood (1)** 87:3 **Mitchell (10)** 7:11,13,16,20; 96:16,18,19,20,23; 97:1 **M-O-M (1)** 80:24 **Momchil (4)** 67:21;79:17;80:12, 17 **moment (14)** 9:5;23:24;31:3; 41:5;42:6;45:22; 61:18;69:22;73:15, 23;79:17;82:18; 87:11;91:8 **moments (1)** 51:24 **Monday (1)** 97:15 **money (8)** 44:8,10,11,18,21; 45:1,4,6 **month (7)** 63:7;87:25;88:2,5, 11,12;92:2\n\n**months (3)** 88:17;91:17;93:19 **more (24)** 3:7;12:12,24;17:23; 33:10,11;37:19; 45:21;50:20;54:19; 55:6;63:12;66:12; 71:3;72:10;86:8; 88:18,19,19,20;93:22, 24,25;96:12 **morning (10)** 10:11;14:20;15:21; 32:7;33:25;36:19; 37:25;40:12;57:1; 68:24 **most (1)** 40:7 **mostly (1)** 67:20 **motion (2)** 13:3,14 **mouth (1)** 4:11 **move (13)** 9:2;25:17;49:17; 51:18;54:17;55:17, 19;59:11;61:15; 62:12;79:20;90:1; 92:4 **moved (5)** 8:15;54:8;55:2,4,5 **movement (4)** 12:17;90:16;94:25; 95:6 **movements (10)** 50:8,16;51:16,16; 78:25;79:2;81:13; 93:3;94:21;95:17 **moving (1)** 63:11 **much (9)** 3:12;7:8;16:25; 56:20;66:12;73:8; 86:7;91:17;93:1 **multiple (2)** 19:21;64:7 **musical (1)** 24:11 **musicians (1)** 11:13 **must (1)** 15:13 **mute (2)** 3:2;16:11 **muted (4)** 16:14;18:8;37:11; 39:5 **myself (1)** 59:23 **N name (16)** 49:3\n\n**Kwok February 2, 2022** 23:2,3;38:12;40:9, 9;42:8,12,13;46:18, 18;72:3;75:9;80:23, 24;83:25;84:3 **named (1)** 6:5 **namely (2)** 43:25;76:10 **names (2)** 67:18;79:7 **Nantucket (1)** 96:1 **Nassau (1)** 91:13 **Nat (1)** 15:22 **Nathaniel (2)** 16:1,3 **naturally (1)** 7:20 **nature (1)** 5:25 **navigated (2)** 21:17;26:22 **NDAs (2)** 8:21,23 **near (1)** 32:7 **nearly (1)** 92:2 **need (9)** 3:2;16:11;36:10; 38:5;45:5;51:9;53:12; 54:7;97:3 **needed (6)** 50:11,12;54:24; 59:23;67:14;89:12 **needing (1)** 59:15 **needs (7)** 38:11;47:15;54:5,8, 17;55:5,19 **Netherland (1)** 8:17 **Netherlands (3)** 68:15;69:16,17 **nevertheless (1)** 86:24 **new (21)** 4:22;9:2,6,20;13:1, 16;53:8,9,11;54:16; 60:12;62:4,20;75:15; 84:19;85:22;86:3; 89:12;92:2,4;95:8 **Next (14)** 8:20;32:16;33:1; 35:12;41:4;62:13; 70:3,4;74:19;79:15, 16;81:11;82:25;98:5 **nice (2)** 74:18;98:8 **night (1)**\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (8) maintaining - night**\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM | | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| Case 22-50073
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179
Pacific Alliance Asia v | Doc 183-4
Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | Page 125 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 |\n| Kwok | | 269 | | February 2, 2022 |\n| | | | | |\n| nobody (1) | 52:18 | 22:14;56:21 | 51:3 | 3:2,15;15:8;59:21; |\n| 92:13 | occur (1) | operating (2) | overruled (6) | 79:20;83:4 |\n| nondisclosure (1) | 12:3 | 56:5,18 | 45:13,17;51:25; | partner (4) |\n| 76:17 | occurred (1) | operation (4) | 64:8;90:2;92:23 | 7:3;42:10,18,23 |\n| none (5) | 93:17 | 5:5,11;6:2,23 | overruling (1) | parts (1) |\n| 14:23;76:10;79:2; | October (22) | operational (1) | 49:7 | 76:2 |\n| 94:20;95:9 | 6:13;21:22;43:10; | 8:22 | own (4) | party (2) |\n| nonetheless (1) | 53:19;54:4;55:1; | operations (1) | 4:11,13;11:11,12 | 14:8;78:2 |\n| 20:1 | 57:19;58:5,11,23; | 81:13 | owned (6) | past (3) |\n| noon (3)
98:1,2,6 | 63:15,25;64:19;81:8;
82:11;84:12;85:25; | operative (1)
85:8 | 4:23;9:14;11:1;
43:9;46:5;60:4 | 5:15;6:13;55:1
patience (4) |\n| nor (2) | 86:3,6,11;87:17,19 | opportunity (3) | owner (7) | 16:21,25;32:18; |\n| 78:19;81:12 | odds (1) | 10:20;15:2;97:23 | 19:5,5,12;37:8; | 45:21 |\n| normal (1) | 9:11 | opposed (1) | 44:4;51:12;56:14 | patient (1) |\n| 59:20 | off (2) | 9:23 | ownership (7) | 63:11 |\n| normally (1) | 86:2;87:21 | opposition (1) | 7:17;11:3;13:1,2; | pause (13) |\n| 52:15 | offer (6) | 4:6 | 15:11;51:10;56:1 | 16:22;18:21;23:25; |\n| northeast (1) | 33:5;35:15;38:3; | order (52) | owns (4) | 28:1;39:10;74:1; |\n| 95:23 | 80:9;83:4,5 | 5:7;9:3;13:19; | 12:8,10;72:6,8 | 75:25;79:11;80:25; |\n| Northern (2) | offered (3) | 14:21,21;15:8,10,15; | | 82:16;83:14;89:19; |\n| 13:5;95:17 | 14:10;73:11;84:24 | 37:23;49:5,10;57:8, | P | 97:13 |\n| note (6) | office (6) | 18,21;58:6,13,16,19; | | paused (1) |\n| 7:5;9:15;24:4; | 11:7;79:4,6;92:17; | 59:6;60:11,14,22; | Pacific (3) | 71:13 |\n| 37:16;38:4;83:10 | 95:1,24 | 61:7,8;62:3,7,19,24; | 14:12,15;75:15 | pausing (1) |\n| noted (2) | officer (1) | 63:1,6,6,14,18,24,24; | packed (1) | 68:11 |\n| 7:19;49:16 | 34:10 | 64:5,15,18,19,19,19; | 89:4 | PAX (6) |\n| November (5)
68:18;69:4,5,10,18 | offline (1)
3:7 | 65:2;74:5;89:22;90:4,
6,10,13,16,21;92:12, | Page (12)
14:11;26:17;31:19; | 3:25;4:8;9:12,21;
12:19;24:24 |\n| nowhere (1) | Off-the-record (1) | 19 | 34:10;41:16,17; | PAX's (2) |\n| 8:25 | 3:13 | ordered (1) | 61:25;62:13;77:4,6,7; | 10:3;11:1 |\n| Number (12) | old (1) | 9:20 | 78:12 | pay (4) |\n| 10:24;17:21,25; | 28:23 | orders (3) | Palm (1) | 44:7;55:24;56:4; |\n| 21:6;24:5;27:4;31:25; | O'Melveny (1) | 9:18;64:21;81:22 | 53:12 | 86:7 |\n| 48:25;53:2,3;63:21; | 67:2 | ordinary (2) | Palmigiano (1) | paying (1) |\n| 66:5 | once (2) | 54:6;59:20 | 14:10 | 65:4 |\n| NY3d (1) | 45:21;69:19 | organization (4) | paper (5) | pen (1) |\n| 13:5 | one (29) | 78:8,9,12;85:1 | 5:2;8:15;32:4; | 77:12 |\n| NYSCEF (1) | 5:24;10:24;23:24; | orient (1) | 77:13;80:2 | pending (2) |\n| 27:16 | 28:13;33:22;36:3; | 69:5 | papers (1) | 45:11;61:3 |\n| | 38:5;40:15;43:3; | original (1) | 11:1 | people (4) |\n| O | 44:24;47:14;49:25; | 55:13 | paragraph (31) | 3:5;12:6;18:19; |\n| | 53:2;63:12;66:8; | Ostrager (1) | 9:16;42:2,5,8; | 60:3 |\n| oath (2) | 67:10,13;68:2,3;70:3,
4,22;75:24;77:24; | 62:25
Ostrager's (1) | 43:18;49:21;50:7; | People's (1)
12:4 |\n| 39:16,21
object (6) | 82:15,17;86:3;92:4; | 61:25 | 53:17,23;60:8,10;
62:19;63:23;76:5,9, | perhaps (3) |\n| 48:11;49:2,15; | 96:12 | otherwise (1) | 13,17,21;78:18,23; | 17:10;37:19;59:7 |\n| 63:20;68:22;85:10 | ones (3) | 10:20 | 81:7,11,20;84:11; | period (8) |\n| objection (17) | 92:2,3,4 | out (23) | 86:14;87:4;89:10; | 6:2;7:1;12:18; |\n| 24:3;45:9,11,13,14, | online (1) | 4:24;9:2;12:6; | 92:24;94:16,16,23 | 13:12,22;14:13,17,23 |\n| 17;49:8,16;51:23,25; | 38:8 | 16:11;18:11,14,15; | park (1) | periods (1) |\n| 57:18;58:7;64:6; | only (20) | 29:19;49:11;51:20; | 4:3 | 22:6 |\n| 85:12;89:25;92:22,23 | 6:3,7,21;7:5,24;8:6; | 52:4,20;53:2,4,14; | parked (3) | permission (5) |\n| observation (1) | 12:16,18;13:11;15:7; | 67:1;72:21;81:17; | 6:13;8:4;54:5 | 51:21;52:6,8,8; |\n| 15:7 | 26:3,5;33:5;34:22; | 85:7,23;87:5;91:24; | part (8) | 53:15 |\n| observed (2) | 35:19,24;48:22; | 93:20 | 8:9;25:6;54:10; | permitted (1) |\n| 15:12;21:21 | 58:15;64:23;69:24 | outfit (1) | 56:16;58:21;68:3; | 31:2 |\n| obstruction (1) | open (4) | 6:5 | 71:20;87:25 | persistence (1) |\n| 49:9
obtained (3) | 3:5;15:2;18:13,15
open-ended (1) | over (14)
3:22;5:4,15;8:17; | participants (1)
30:25 | 12:23
person (11) |\n| 23:19,22;24:6 | 33:19 | 10:6;19:15;31:5,9; | particular (6) | 5:4;23:6;34:18; |\n| obviously (1) | opening (4) | 52:15;59:19;66:2; | 17:16,24;24:7; | 36:2;42:24;45:6;48:4, |\n| 97:9 | 3:16,21;10:17,19 | 74:16;86:24;96:14 | 34:23,24;55:3 | 5,5;86:17;89:13 |\n| occasions (1) | operate (2) | overnight (1) | parties (6) | personal (4) |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (9) nobody - personal**\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v Kwok February 2, 2022 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 126 of 269\n\n 7:11;11:24;19:20; 20:19 **personally (6)** 20:6;34:13,22; 77:23,24;86:21 **personnel (1)** 9:13 **person's (1)** 42:12 **persuades (1)** 15:14 **pertaining (1)** 21:19 **Phoenix (2)** 6:5;78:15 **phone (9)** 7:7;16:17,19;52:15; 71:6,17;89:7;93:11; 94:19 **photograph (2)** 48:1,18 **phrase (1)** 87:8 **physically (1)** 87:9 **pick (1)** 86:8 **picture (1)** 48:14 **pictures (2)** 19:21;20:5 **piece (3)** 5:2;6:3;63:12 **piloted (1)** 93:4 **place (9)** 54:6,9,17;55:3,4,6, 18;69:13;89:22 **placeholder (1)** 31:9 **places (1)** 22:2 **plainly (1)** 7:21 **plaintiff (10)** 13:15,20;15:19; 16:4;25:15;34:4;37:5; 49:11;65:24;74:9 **plaintiff's (10)** 3:17;10:15;15:4; 48:1,4;68:2;70:5,8; 73:11,19 **plan (2)** 52:24;66:13 **platform (1)** 29:16 **platforms (1)** 32:23 **plausible (1)** 92:8 **play (12)** 8:13;11:14;14:6; 68:3,4;70:6,6;71:3,8,\n\n 21;73:12;78:10 **played (5)** 68:7;70:18;71:12, 23;73:18 **playing (2)** 70:7;73:15 **pleading (1)** 7:21 **pleadings (1)** 15:9 **please (27)** 27:20;38:9,12;39:2, 4,7,25;40:17,24;43:2; 57:14;61:1;62:8;70:1; 73:24;75:9,24;79:10, 15;80:4,10,22;82:15, 25;83:18,25;84:3 **plot (1)** 84:18 **plural (1)** 25:16 **point (14)** 7:17;9:10;11:23; 15:16;30:13;43:23; 58:19,21;59:22;62:9; 79:21;85:7,17;94:4 **points (1)** 36:14 **ported (1)** 82:12 **portion (2)** 23:22;24:14 **portions (2)** 23:18;66:17 **portray (2)** 26:2,2 **possibility (1)** 92:19 **possible (3)** 35:20;52:14;63:4 **possibly (1)** 58:1 **post (6)** 19:4,5,21;20:9,20; 21:2 **posted (7)** 20:1,6,12,14,16; 30:2;83:12 **post-hearing (1)** 37:2 **posting (1)** 20:2 **postings (2)** 14:18;19:24 **post-judgment (1)** 4:16 **posts (4)** 4:10;5:12;19:24; 20:5 **post-trial (4)** 97:5,9,14,20 **potato (1)** 8:13 **potentially (1)** 65:20 **practice (1)** 12:5 **pre-date (1)** 14:20 **predicted (1)** 4:19 **prefer (1)** 97:21 **pre-hearing (1)** 49:15 **prejudice (2)** 12:22;13:13 **preparing (2)** 48:23;97:9 **present (7)** 37:22;68:20;69:6,8, 12,15;74:12 **presented (1)** 89:4 **presenting (1)** 37:9 **presently (1)** 94:13 **preserve (1)** 34:25 **press (2)** 65:17;74:5 **presumably (1)** 95:14 **presume (2)** 69:9,11 **pretrial (3)** 27:1;48:14,21 **pretty (5)** 5:8;86:11;91:3,17; 93:1 **prevented (1)** 5:13 **previously (5)** 27:4;74:6;80:7; 83:3;96:17 **Price (8)** 33:2,4;34:1,2,4,9; 35:11,25 **Price's (1)** 33:4 **printout (1)** 52:14 **prior (8)** 15:9,18;85:11; 86:14;87:17,19; 88:25;91:7 **privilege (1)** 14:8 **probably (4)** 51:9;63:6;87:8; 91:22 **probative (6)** 6:11;10:2;14:9,24; 32:6;36:18 **problem (2)**\n\n 18:5;39:17 **problematic (1)** 7:19 **problems (3)** 6:6;7:4;8:1 **proceed (10)** 3:16;16:24;32:25; 39:14,25;57:5;75:3; 80:14;96:21;98:3 **proceeding (4)** 18:16,16;66:3;74:9 **proceedings (4)** 58:21;74:13;80:25; 98:11 **process (2)** 48:15,21 **proclamations (1)** 17:23 **produce (1)** 92:2 **proffer (4)** 4:22;10:2;25:6; 33:4 **proffered (9)** 9:9;14:15;20:9; 24:24;33:8;48:14,20; 66:16;69:4 **proffering (1)** 17:6 **proffers (1)** 14:12 **prohibiting (1)** 57:22 **properly (1)** 15:15 **property (1)** 8:14 **proposed (1)** 97:15 **protect (1)** 74:5 **protection (2)** 66:2;74:16 **provide (2)** 27:15;44:23 **provided (3)** 44:8;77:19;85:11 **public (2)** 65:23;74:14 **publication (1)** 65:13 **pull (2)** 27:1;61:5 **pulled (1)** 84:23 **pulling (1)** 17:10 **pun (1)** 6:12 **purchase (1)** 46:12 **purchased (2)** 44:20;46:17\n\n## **purchasing (2)** 45:6,23 **purport (1)** 26:2 **purported (1)** 6:4 **purpose (3)** 18:3;22:24;28:16 **purposes (2)** 69:14;84:24 **put (9)** 5:23;24:8;32:22; 40:17;43:3;48:9; 61:24;76:24;77:12 **puts (1)** 6:3 **puzzle (1)** 63:12 **PX (3)** 17:21;21:10,13 **Q Qu (25)** 8:6,7,8;42:9,9,13, 16,17,18;43:4,10,15; 44:4;46:2,5,18,18,20, 21,23,25;47:12,21; 48:4;50:2 **Q-U (1)**\n\n 42:13 **quality (1)** 29:5 **quickly (2)** 63:11;97:8 **quite (3)**\n\n**quote (4)**\n\n43:1;48:19;91:11\n\n7:5,7;8:2;14:9\n\n**R Rachel (1)** 98:15 **raise (7)** 15:25;34:1;38:9; 39:2;80:10;83:17; 96:19 **range (1)** 85:8 **rather (2)** 13:2;55:5 **reach (1)** 67:1 **reachable (1)** 13:15 **read (14)** 41:20,22,24;42:2,6; 60:14,16,21,25;61:9, 10,17;87:4,4 **reading (1)** 42:7 **ready (2)**\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (10) personally - ready**\n\n| Case 22-50073
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179
Pacific Alliance Asia v | Doc 183-4
Filed 04/06/22 | | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | Page 127 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| Kwok | | 269 | | February 2, 2022 |\n| 30:23;81:4 | 19:8;55:12;76:17 | 92:1 | respects (1) | route (1) |\n| realize (1) | refresh (6) | repaired (1) | 23:20 | 85:24 |\n| 41:23 | 31:14;85:14,15,16, | 91:14 | respond (2) | routine (2) |\n| really (9) | 19;86:4 | repairs (1) | 48:16;50:14 | 55:6;59:20 |\n| 43:14;44:24;62:15; | refreshes (1) | 91:15 | responding (1) | routinely (1) |\n| 63:10;64:11,13;73:8; | 28:17 | repeat (3) | 60:24 | 8:15 |\n| 74:16;93:14 | refreshment (1) | 23:21;52:1;81:3 | response (2) | rule (7) |\n| reason (5) | 84:24 | rephrase (1) | 14:9;55:9 | 11:21;72:25;73:3,6; |\n| 46:4;48:20,22;54:5, | refuel (1) | 64:2 | responsible (1) | 94:5,12;98:5 |\n| 23 | 51:3 | report (2) | 50:8 | run (1) |\n| reasons (2) | refusal (1) | 55:5;59:15 | restraining (18) | 9:24 |\n| 13:24,25 | 4:17 | reported (1) | 57:8,21;58:6,13,16; | Russell (7) |\n| rebut (1) | refuses (1) | 20:21 | 59:6;63:1,14;64:5; | 6:17;74:20;75:2,4, |\n| 10:3 | 14:9 | reporter (6) | 89:22;90:3,6,10,13, | 13,14;77:24 |\n| recall (15) | regarding (4) | 56:25;75:10;81:2; | 16,21;92:12,19 | R-U-S-S-E-L-L (1) |\n| 3:25;4:19;26:22; | 11:3;14:16;43:14; | 84:4;97:11;98:16 | resume (3) | 75:13 |\n| 32:8;52:20;62:15; | 96:16 | reporter's (1) | 3:14;57:1;66:21 | |\n| 67:18;68:20;87:18; | regimes (1) | 81:1 | retaining (1) | S |\n| 88:12,25;89:7;90:22, | 13:11 | reporting (1) | 8:16 | |\n| 25;93:14 | regular (1) | 54:19 | retrieve (1) | safety (5) |\n| received (5) | 59:16 | repositioning (1) | 28:18 | 52:13;66:2;74:6,8, |\n| 46:25;47:1;83:7; | reinforce (1) | 95:22 | retrieved (3) | 16 |\n| 95:5,9 | 10:1 | represent (2) | 28:9,13,19 | sail (1) |\n| receiving (1) | reiterate (1) | 63:15;68:17 | retrospectively (1) | 59:15 |\n| 94:24 | 54:25 | representation (3) | 87:23 | sailed (3) |\n| recess (1)
57:4 | relate (2)
20:1;26:5 | 9:12;24:5;69:1
representative (7) | return (4)
9:20;60:7,12;62:20 | 58:4;82:8,10
sale (1) |\n| recognize (3) | related (1) | 6:17;35:21;55:16, | returned (1) | 44:19 |\n| 61:8;68:11;72:24 | 8:18 | 16,18;77:20;89:11 | 62:4 | same (11) |\n| recollection (6) | relating (8) | representatives (5) | Returning (3) | 6:16;58:7;64:6; |\n| 28:17;31:14;85:14, | 17:21;19:22;21:7; | 76:9,10;79:1;95:7,7 | 62:18;78:18;81:20 | 65:1,9;66:5;73:12; |\n| 15,16,19 | 26:10;53:20;59:7; | represented (2) | revising (1) | 75:14;78:19;81:13; |\n| reconfirm (1) | 64:21;65:2 | 35:22;92:6 | 89:15 | 96:7 |\n| 62:9 | relationship (3) | representing (2) | Richard (3) | sanctions (2) |\n| record (19) | 55:21;76:6;93:25 | 10:13;64:25 | 21:20;23:3,4 | 15:13,16 |\n| 5:2,16;10:23;15:13; | relayed (2) | Republic (1) | right (65) | SARL (2) |\n| 22:11;29:15;33:10; | 53:23;54:23 | 12:4 | 3:1,9;4:25;11:14; | 6:16;74:23 |\n| 36:6;39:19;40:15; | relevance (2) | request (6) | 15:6,25;16:20;17:12; | Sarnoff (8) |\n| 41:12,17;65:17;70:7; | 92:22;94:13 | 40:15;52:23;54:7, | 18:22;20:18;22:4; | 3:20,20,24;10:22, |\n| 75:22;77:6;81:6; | relevant (5) | 14;55:10;77:20 | 24:16;26:4;33:21; | 24;11:5,25;12:2 |\n| 84:25;89:25 | 4:8;6:2;7:1;10:4; | requested (2) | 34:1;35:10;38:7,9,22; | saw (1) |\n| recorded (4) | 14:23 | 4:21;56:10 | 39:1,2,22;40:19,22, | 21:19 |\n| 22:15,19,19,20 | reliability (1) | require (1) | 25;41:3;42:5;43:7,10; | saying (7) |\n| recording (1) | 14:19 | 51:2 | 45:6;46:6,10;47:14; | 4:23;7:15,20;45:7; |\n| 72:12 | relying (3) | required (1) | 49:16;51:4;55:19; | 78:17;83:10;87:7 |\n| records (3) | 15:23;23:23;24:24 | 11:22 | 56:24;57:5,10;60:6; | scene (1) |\n| 35:25;36:2,4
recovered (1) | remainder (2)
53:22;66:10 | requires (2)
50:24;62:4 | 65:14,16;66:4;67:1,
24;70:25;71:13,25; | 70:25 |\n| 32:9 | remand (1) | requiring (2) | 74:18,24;78:3,20; | science (1)
97:19 |\n| redirect (1) | 11:2 | 60:11;62:19 | 80:10,10;81:6,25; | screen (31) |\n| 32:20 | remanded (1) | research (1) | 83:17;88:21,23; | 27:3,7,9;28:2; |\n| refer (3) | 12:21 | 12:24 | 91:21;93:3;95:16; | 37:17;41:7,12;42:5; |\n| 17:24;76:9,13 | Remember (16) | resign (1) | 96:19,25;97:3 | 43:19;48:9;49:23; |\n| reference (2) | 7:13;43:14;54:1,2; | 92:21 | right-hand (3) | 60:8;61:7,24;68:4; |\n| 76:2;97:9 | 57:25;63:3,5;64:11, | resignation (2) | 70:10,20;72:22 | 70:10,20,25;71:5,17, |\n| references (1) | 13;84:13,19,20; | 91:6;92:11 | risk (1) | 25;72:15,23;73:7; |\n| 32:23 | 86:11;87:14;88:11; | resolve (1) | 45:20 | 76:1,24;81:5;84:6,7, |\n| referred (2) | 89:6 | 18:12 | rocket (1) | 23;85:1 |\n| 10:24;77:2 | removed (2) | respect (4) | 97:19 | screenshot (2) |\n| referring (4) | 25:3;91:25 | 9:18;58:8;66:10; | rogue (1) | 19:4;26:19 |\n| 20:3;25:7;81:5; | removing (1) | 81:14 | 5:7 | screenshots (2) |\n| 92:24 | 57:22 | respectively (1) | rough (2) | 26:8,14 |\n| refers (3) | renew (1) | 26:9 | 66:11;97:8 | sea (1) |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (11) realize - sea**\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 128 of\n\n269\n\n| Kwok | | | | February 2, 2022 |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|\n| 50:17 | 93:7,7,20;95:13 | sign (1) | sorry (17) | stand (2) |\n| search (2) | serious (1) | 77:13 | 21:6;27:8;37:13; | 80:13;83:2 |\n| | | | | |\n| 26:20,20 | 6:22 | signature (5) | 39:11;47:15;49:25; | standard (6) |\n| season (2) | serves (1) | 41:18,19;62:1;77:7, | 53:5;55:11;59:17; | 4:9;11:15,19;12:20; |\n| 54:4,22 | 35:17 | 25 | 61:3,6,20;69:17; | 13:3;39:20 |\n| seasonally (1) | service (2) | signed (10) | 70:14;71:11;90:24; | standards (1) |\n| 95:23 | 6:4;28:5 | 7:13;8:20;41:1,21; | 95:3 | 13:10 |\n| second (8) | services (1) | 76:14;77:9,17;78:2,3, | sort (1) | standing (1) |\n| 13:7;48:19;61:1; | 65:4 | 7 | 5:3 | 71:16 |\n| | | | | |\n| 68:2;71:2;75:24;77:5; | set (1) | significance (3) | sorts (1) | start (2) |\n| 82:15 | 50:2 | 51:12,13,13 | 67:9 | 17:20;24:25 |\n| Secondly (2) | several (3) | significant (1) | sought (1) | started (3) |\n| 11:5,20 | 17:2;37:7;45:20 | 87:24 | 52:19 | 18:23;73:7;93:9 |\n| seconds (5) | Shafts (2) | similar (2) | sound (1) | starting (1) |\n| 68:5;70:6,6;71:3; | 91:25;92:1 | 35:24;68:23 | 92:7 | 48:25 |\n| 89:16 | share (5) | similarly (1) | sounds (1) | starts (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| section (3) | 27:3,7,9;60:8;76:1 | 6:19 | 11:15 | 31:18 |\n| 25:5,6,9 | shared (2) | Simone-Ivanac (1) | source (2) | state (5) |\n| sections (1) | 30:24;70:12 | 98:15 | 31:24,24 | 5:16;7:14;38:12; |\n| 25:1 | sharing (3) | simple (1) | sources (1) | 43:18;75:15 |\n| secure (1) | 28:3;41:7;68:4 | 48:19 | 11:12 | statement (4) |\n| 29:8 | shell (2) | simply (1) | south (3) | 3:16,21;9:11;11:4 |\n| security (1) | 8:15;9:3 | 8:9 | 58:4;59:15;85:23 | statements (3) |\n| 29:5 | Sherry (4) | single (2) | southeast (1) | 10:17,19;97:4 |\n| | | | | |\n| seek (1) | 8:17;68:15;69:16, | 5:2;8:7 | 95:23 | States (5) |\n| 65:20 | 17 | sins (1) | southern (1) | 14:7;43:20,22; |\n| seem (1) | shielding (1) | 12:14 | 95:17 | 57:23;65:21 |\n| 11:17 | 8:16 | sit (2) | speak (4) | statute (2) |\n| seems (4) | ship's (1) | 11:16;25:10 | 20:21;33:17;40:12; | 13:7,10 |\n| 6:19;9:24;24:9; | 93:7 | six (1) | 65:8 | stay (2) |\n| 40:12 | shirt (1) | 32:22 | speaking (3) | 12:9;51:3 |\n| segments (6) | 73:20 | size (1) | 27:10;39:8;68:9 | stayed (2) |\n| 22:11,15,18;24:17, | Short (2) | 92:2 | speaks (1) | 69:19,19 |\n| 22,23 | 57:4;96:25 | slightly (1) | 7:8 | stem (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| seizing (1) | shorter (1) | 48:5 | specific (7) | 4:15 |\n| 12:5 | 25:19 | slowly (1) | 20:9;28:12,13; | still (3) |\n| selected (1) | show (18) | 80:23 | 64:11,13;68:3;87:22 | 16:15;53:17;54:7 |\n| 85:8 | 22:5;26:24;27:24; | small (2) | specifically (2) | stipulate (2) |\n| self-evident (1) | 30:23;31:7;41:16; | 66:15;73:12 | 62:3;93:14 | 30:21,22 |\n| 78:23 | 47:25;58:9,24;60:8; | smatterings (1) | spell (3) | Stockil (14) |\n| self-serving (1) | 62:9,13;66:17;68:1; | 14:17 | 75:9;80:22;84:3 | 6:17,24;74:21,21; |\n| 4:23 | 69:21;70:1,4;73:10 | social (8) | spent (2) | 75:2,4,9,13,14;76:3; |\n| seller (1) | showed (1) | 4:10,13;5:11;14:18; | 88:15,17 | 77:24;79:6,13,14 |\n| | | | | |\n| 46:10 | 69:24 | 17:7,13;19:21;32:23 | spliced (2) | s-T-O-C-K-I-L (1) |\n| sending (1) | showing (5) | software (3) | 21:25;24:18 | 75:13 |\n| 92:1 | 5:10;10:4;28:16; | 34:13,22;77:17 | spoke (2) | stop (2) |\n| senior (2) | 32:2,5 | sole (2) | 78:19;89:7 | 53:10;91:20 |\n| 17:3;98:16 | shows (1) | 46:5;56:14 | spoken (4) | story (1) |\n| sense (2) | 61:16 | solely (1) | 6:19;78:20;81:12, | 9:8 |\n| 24:18;37:19 | side (7) | 50:8 | 18 | streamline (1) |\n| sensitive (1) | 35:20;36:15;70:10, | someone (5) | sporadically (2) | 31:4 |\n| 52:13 | 20;72:15,22;79:23 | 9:17;20:5;42:23; | 7:7;94:19 | strike (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| sent (4) | sidebar (1) | 45:5,18 | spot (1) | 90:1 |\n| 31:9;55:10;83:10; | 15:17 | sometime (2) | 78:6 | Stuart (1) |\n| 92:3 | Siegal (27) | 58:1;59:7 | Spring (27) | 3:20 |\n| sentence (4) | 3:4,10;5:9;10:9,10, | Sometimes (3) | 9:3,6,8,10,13;11:5, | stuff (1) |\n| 53:22;61:21;87:4; | 12;27:5;37:6,6;48:10, | 67:16,16;69:19 | 7;53:20,23;54:7,12, | 33:10 |\n| 94:24 | 10;49:2,7,12,14;65:9; | somewhere (3) | 18,24;55:22,23;56:2, | subject (1) |\n| September (22) | 66:22;67:1;89:25; | 51:22;64:12,12 | 4,7,14;59:14,19;60:1, | 90:6 |\n| 7:14;57:9,10,19; | 90:3;96:14,15;97:7, | son (3) | 4;65:5;67:17;79:8; | submission (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 58:6,11,14,19,23; | 17,20,22;98:6 | 11:9,11;12:8 | 95:8 | 36:11 |\n| 61:16;64:19;82:4,6; | Siegel's (2) | soon (1) | Spring's (1) | submissions (4) |\n| 85:9;88:6,9,15;89:23; | 48:22;85:12 | 89:4 | 9:12 | 97:6,10,14,20 |\n| | | | | |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (12) search - submissions**\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v Kwok February 2, 2022 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 129 of\n\n269\n\n| submit (1) | sworn (9) |\n|----------------------|-----------------------|\n| 80:8 | 16:4;34:5;38:11; |\n| submitted (11) | 40:2;74:25;75:5; |\n| 5:19;33:12;35:16, | 80:18;83:18,21 |\n| 17;36:20;38:2;41:2; | sworn/affirmed (7) |\n| 75:14,18;80:7;83:3 | 16:1;34:2;39:18; |\n| suboptimal (1) | 75:2;80:13;83:19; |\n| 16:15 | 96:20 |\n| subsequent (1) | system (2) |\n| 89:11 | 74:14;98:4 |\n| substance (2) | |\n| 34:16;35:6 | T |\n| substantive (1) | |\n| 21:1 | Tab (7) |\n| subtitled (1) | 19:3;21:5,6,6,12; |\n| 23:9 | 24:4;26:6 |\n| subtitles (3) | table (1) |\n| 23:12,15,19 | 31:5 |\n| sufficient (2) | talk (3) |\n| 10:3;14:25 | 53:19;91:12;93:10 |\n| suggest (3) | talked (1) |\n| 6:22;65:11,14 | 67:9 |\n| suggested (1) | talking (11) |\n| 4:9 | 24:22;28:15;29:16; |\n| suggests (4) | 31:23;61:8;63:24; |\n| 8:20;19:11;21:21; | 64:18;76:2;77:23; |\n| 92:6 | 94:17;95:21 |\n| suit (1) | talks (2) |\n| 73:20 | 63:23;76:21 |\n| suitable (1) | taped (1) |\n| 54:15 | 68:21 |\n| summary (2) | Teams (2) |\n| 9:25;50:20 | 3:8;80:1 |\n| summer (2) | tech (1) |\n| 87:22;88:11 | 18:19 |\n| sunglasses (1) | technical (2) |\n| 72:15 | 34:18;39:17 |\n| Super (2) | technological (1) |\n| 21:7,13 | 30:16 |\n| suppose (2) | technology (4) |\n| 42:2;53:3 | 17:7;18:14;24:19; |\n| Supreme (1) | 34:10 |\n| 14:7 | telephone (3) |\n| sure (21) | 3:7;58:2;86:24 |\n| 8:11;9:8;19:23; | telling (3) |\n| 27:21;31:25;32:3; | 5:8;46:19;78:3 |\n| 40:20;50:20,23;52:3; | temporary (12) |\n| 54:10;58:9;59:12; | 57:8,21;58:13,16; |\n| 61:14,17;62:23; | 59:6;89:22;90:3,6,10, |\n| 78:24;82:4;91:4; | 13,16,21 |\n| 94:23;95:4 | ten (2) |\n| Surname (1) | 3:8;68:4 |\n| 75:11 | tender (8) |\n| suspended (1) | 15:22;33:2,23;36:5, |\n| 30:12 | 8,10;38:2;79:23 |\n| sustained (1) | tendered (1) |\n| 15:13 | 92:11 |\n| swear (3) | ten-minute (1) |\n| 38:23;39:3;83:8 | 56:25 |\n| swears (1) | terms (1) |\n| 39:21 | 29:11 |\n| sweet (1) | terrible (1) |\n| 96:25 | 95:4 |\n\n| sworn (9) | territorial (1) | |\n|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|--|\n| 16:4;34:5;38:11; | 57:23 | |\n| 40:2;74:25;75:5; | tested (1) | |\n| 80:18;83:18,21 | 16:13 | |\n| sworn/affirmed (7) | testified (10) | |\n| 16:1;34:2;39:18; | 16:5;25:20;34:5,9; | |\n| 75:2;80:13;83:19; | 35:24;40:3;59:5;75:6; | |\n| 96:20 | 80:19;83:22 | |\n| system (2) | testifies (1) | |\n| 74:14;98:4 | 11:24 | |\n| | testify (9) | |\n| T | 4:17;14:9;26:1,3; | |\n| | 33:7,12;34:14,22; | |\n| Tab (7) | 95:12 | |\n| 19:3;21:5,6,6,12; | testimony (24) | |\n| 24:4;26:6 | 3:18;15:24;33:4; | |\n| table (1) | 34:16;36:19;37:1; | |\n| 31:5 | 38:3,23;44:15;45:9; | |\n| talk (3) | 47:6;49:18;51:24; | |\n| 53:19;91:12;93:10 | 52:20;56:13;57:1; | |\n| talked (1) | 58:5;59:8,11;65:18; | |\n| 67:9 | 74:11;80:9;83:5; | |\n| talking (11) | 92:10 | |\n| 24:22;28:15;29:16; | thanking (1) | |\n| 31:23;61:8;63:24; | 74:17 | |\n| 64:18;76:2;77:23; | therefore (2) | |\n| 94:17;95:21 | 11:18;95:2 | |\n| talks (2) | though (2) | |\n| 63:23;76:21 | 25:2;72:17 | |\n| taped (1) | thought (2) | |\n| 68:21 | 62:25;91:16 | |\n| Teams (2) | three (5) | |\n| 3:8;80:1 | 3:6;59:5;66:15; | |\n| tech (1) | 93:18;94:25 | |\n| 18:19 | three-and-a-half (1) | |\n| technical (2) | 5:5 | |\n| 34:18;39:17 | throughout (2) | |\n| technological (1) | 23:12;87:22 | |\n| 30:16 | tie (1) | |\n| technology (4) | 73:20 | |\n| 17:7;18:14;24:19; | timeframe (2) | |\n| 34:10 | 43:23;59:21 | |\n| telephone (3) | times (8)
10:5;22:2;45:20; | |\n| 3:7;58:2;86:24
telling (3) | 46:9;51:21;52:5; | |\n| 5:8;46:19;78:3 | 63:22;64:7 | |\n| temporary (12) | tiny (1) | |\n| 57:8,21;58:13,16; | 66:17 | |\n| 59:6;89:22;90:3,6,10, | title (4) | |\n| 13,16,21 | 4:3;5:3,6;12:1 | |\n| ten (2) | titleholder (1) | |\n| 3:8;68:4 | 4:7 | |\n| tender (8) | today (4) | |\n| 15:22;33:2,23;36:5, | 4:17;8:25;64:25; | |\n| 8,10;38:2;79:23 | 96:23 | |\n| tendered (1) | today's (2) | |\n| 92:11 | 5:16;41:2 | |\n| ten-minute (1) | Todd (3) | |\n| 56:25 | 33:2;34:2,4 | |\n| terms (1) | together (4) | |\n| 29:11 | 21:25;24:18;50:4; | |\n| terrible (1) | 71:10 | |\n| 95:4 | told (8) | |\n| | | |\n\n 45:22;47:13;53:9; 55:4,17;89:20;93:4; 95:14 **tomorrow (2)** 98:1,6 **took (11)** 5:6;7:9;19:3;26:8; 53:1;69:13;84:11; 91:15,16,17;92:2 **top (2)** 61:13;62:8 **tortured (2)** 65:19;74:7 **total (1)** 6:24 **tough (1)** 72:14 **toward (2)** 63:19;94:16 **towards (1)** 66:22 **traced (1)** 30:8 **track (2)** 24:11;86:2 **Tracy (3)** 10:14;15:3;16:8 **trajectory (1)** 85:23 **transcribed (2)** 74:13;98:3 **transcript (6)** 65:22;74:13;97:8, 18;98:3,11 **transcription (1)** 69:25 **transfer (3)** 12:1;43:12,15 **transferred (6)** 8:7;43:10;46:14,23, 24;47:12 **transferring (1)** 47:18 **transfers (1)** 47:5 **translated (2)** 41:20;45:15 **translation (5)** 23:18;24:6;36:1,4,7 **translations (2)** 23:22;35:22 **Translator (1)** 39:19 **TransPerfect (2)** 35:21;36:2 **trial (3)** 49:4,5,13 **triangle (1)** 85:24 **trick (2)** 61:19,23 **tried (1)** 30:17\n\n**tries (1)** 7:20 **trigger (1)** 14:25 **trip (2)** 52:10,24 **trips (1)** 52:9 **troublesome (1)** 56:9 **true (15)** 6:16;9:5,9;42:15; 43:6,25;47:12;50:10, 11;55:8;73:6;77:9; 78:19;81:13;98:10 **truly (1)** 62:15 **trust (1)** 93:25 **trusted (4)** 42:9,18,23;43:4 **trusting (1)** 42:24 **truth (9)** 39:3,3,21;44:24; 49:9,10,10;78:3; 91:11 **truthfully (1)** 38:24 **try (9)** 3:24;25:17;28:4; 32:5,17;45:21;56:10; 61:22;70:3 **trying (12)** 31:20;45:20;55:13; 56:25;61:5;63:13; 71:10;78:10;86:22; 87:5;88:11;93:20 **T-shirt (2)** 71:6,17 **Tunnel (12)** 28:5,7,9,13,18,19, 20,21;29:17,20; 30:20;32:9 **turn (4)** 3:21;21:5;80:3; 96:13 **Turning (1)** 19:3 **turnover (2)** 13:7,9 **turns (1)** 4:24 **Tweet (15)** 28:5,7,9,13,18,18, 19,20,21;29:10,17,20; 30:20;32:9,9 **tweets (9)** 5:11;26:9,17;28:9, 13,23;29:1,3,6 **twelve (1)** 68:4\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (13) submit - Twitter**\n\n**Twitter (12)**\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 130 of 269\n\n| Kwok | | | | February 2, 2022 |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|\n| 17:9,14;19:8;26:10, | uploaded (2) | 9,11,17,25;69:4,21, | 74:11;77:24;87:8 | witness (89) |\n| 17,19;29:17,19,20,23, | 21:21;98:4 | 24;70:1,18;71:12,21, | weather (5) | 11:23;14:2,3,4; |\n| 25;32:9 | USA (7) | 23;72:22;73:9,10,16, | 54:5,16,22;86:8,9 | 15:19;22:8;27:20; |\n| | | | | |\n| Twittercom (1) | 76:10,14;78:13; | 18;94:6,8,9 | web (2) | 31:19;32:3,16;33:1, |\n| 26:20 | 89:11;90:12;92:13; | videos (2) | 8:18;29:16 | 23;35:12,19,20,23,24; |\n| two (15) | 95:7 | 21:11,25 | website (6) | 36:5;37:5;39:11,20; |\n| 4:9;6:21;7:19; | use (8) | videotapes (1) | 29:21;30:3;34:15, | 46:16,22;47:3,7;49:9; |\n| 10:21;13:10,11,24; | 30:5;48:24;53:20; | 66:16 | 19,24;84:15 | 55:23;56:3,7,15,19, |\n| 26:8;31:23;32:1;53:3; | 54:7,13,22;67:14; | view (1) | websites (1) | 22;57:3,20,24;58:9, |\n| 92:24;93:6,9,17 | 85:13 | 94:9 | 34:12 | 15,24;59:1,9;61:12; |\n| twofold (1) | used (6) | viewed (1) | Wednesday (2) | 63:25;64:1,9,23; |\n| 4:6 | 28:7,8,8,18;54:15; | 21:16 | 27:6;98:5 | 65:13;66:1,17;74:15, |\n| | | | | |\n| type (3) | 67:20 | violation (2) | week (4) | 19,25;77:12,14; |\n| 24:19;33:10;59:20 | user (2) | 5:7;9:2 | 82:3;84:12;86:11; | 79:15;80:5,13;82:22, |\n| | 21:20;34:22 | violative (1) | 98:5 | 25;83:8,16,18;85:18; |\n| U | uses (1) | 49:14 | weeks (1) | 87:19,21;88:1,4,7,10, |\n| | 77:18 | virtual (1) | 7:19 | 17,20;90:5,7,9,11,14, |\n| ultimate (1) | using (3) | 27:15 | weight (1) | 18,22,25;91:3;94:12; |\n| 8:17 | 17:10;56:11;95:18 | visit (1) | 32:24 | 95:16;96:2,5,7,11,12, |\n| unaltered (1) | usual (1) | 12:8 | welcome (1) | 15,24;97:2 |\n| | | | | |\n| 25:11 | 87:22 | visited (1) | 31:7 | witnesses (8) |\n| unauthorized (1) | | 12:15 | weren't (1) | 10:15;35:14;37:7,7, |\n| 30:5 | V | visual (1) | 20:20 | 9,21,23;66:13 |\n| unclear (1) | | 16:19 | what's (1) | witnesses' (1) |\n| 94:13 | value (3) | vividly (1) | 5:17 | 36:19 |\n| uncles (2) | 15:17;32:6;36:18 | 6:24 | whatsoever (1) | witness's (5) |\n| 11:10;42:10 | various (2) | voluntarily (1) | 14:16 | 39:16;59:10;85:14, |\n| uncontested (1) | 32:23;34:12 | 8:9 | whenever (2) | 15,16 |\n| | | | | |\n| 10:21 | Vartan (34) | vouching (1) | 53:1;93:1 | woman (2) |\n| under (10) | 37:8,25,25;45:9,11; | 23:15 | whereabouts (4) | 70:9,19 |\n| 12:19,25;13:2,9; | 51:6,23;57:17;58:7, | Voyage (1) | 65:19,22;74:7,12 | word (2) |\n| 22:20;23:3;46:17,17, | 18;60:18,23;61:11; | 84:25 | wherever (1) | 9:19;92:13 |\n| 18;54:16 | 63:20;64:6,17,25; | | 50:18 | wording (1) |\n| understood (9) | 66:7,10,19;68:22; | W | whisper (1) | 73:1 |\n| 7:9;10:17;24:9; | 69:9;70:12;71:8; | | 31:5 | words (4) |\n| 25:18;53:1;59:21; | 74:20;79:16;80:3,6; | wait (3) | white (4) | 20:25;77:12;78:7, |\n| | | | | |\n| 60:23;62:24;95:1 | 83:1,10;85:10,17; | 23:23;40:17;92:4 | 32:5;73:20,20,20 | 20 |\n| undisputed (2) | 92:22;96:13 | waiting (1) | whole (2) | work (5) |\n| 10:25,25 | Vault (1) | 79:19 | 39:3;48:25 | 8:12;16:11;18:14, |\n| United (5) | 34:10 | walk (1) | whose (2) | 15;70:13 |\n| 14:7;43:20,22; | verification (1) | 7:20 | 6:17;73:6 | worked (4) |\n| 57:23;65:21 | 29:5 | Wan (3) | willing (2) | 17:13;60:3;93:18, |\n| unless (4) | verify (1) | 75:16;78:19;81:12 | 30:21;84:21 | 24 |\n| 14:7,12;94:12;96:9 | 30:13 | wants (4) | willy-nilly (1) | working (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| unnecessary (2) | version (1) | 12:3;50:18;53:10; | 12:5 | 16:14,14 |\n| 94:10,11 | 31:11 | 58:9 | window (2) | works (1) |\n| unquote (1) | versus (3) | warmer (7) | 24:23;89:4 | 70:14 |\n| 7:6 | 13:5;14:10;75:16 | 54:6,9,17;55:3,4,6, | winter (2) | world (2) |\n| unreasonable (1) | vessel (5) | 18 | 54:4;58:1 | 12:3;22:19 |\n| 97:12 | 15:11,17;37:8; | waste (1) | wish (4) | worthwhile (1) |\n| unreliable (1) | 57:23;71:24 | 32:7 | 8:11;54:22;79:23; | 89:17 |\n| 14:18 | VesselFinder (4) | watch (1) | 96:17 | wrapping (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| unusual (4) | 84:16,17,18;92:6 | 25:8 | wishes (1) | 7:24 |\n| 8:13,14;65:25; | vessels (1) | watched (1) | 85:13 | writing (2) |\n| 74:10 | 72:5 | 21:19 | wishing (1) | 20:21;73:1 |\n| up (19) | via (5) | water (1) | 53:20 | wrong (4) |\n| 5:9;7:5,24;27:2; | 7:7;59:19;81:16; | 8:11 | withdraw (1) | 12:24;78:6;92:1,3 |\n| 37:18;41:12;42:5; | 93:11;94:19 | way (21) | 59:17 | wrote (1) |\n| 44:5;46:2;48:9,22; | video (40) | 4:23;6:14;17:17; | within (3) | 20:25 |\n| 61:6;68:2;81:5;84:23, | 14:18;21:7,16,19, | 24:9;25:24;28:4,20; | 24:23;25:5;53:11 | |\n| | | | | Y |\n| 25;89:5;90:6;92:1 | 20,21,24;22:9,11,15; | 30:12,16;35:25;40:6, | without (5) | |\n| upcoming (1) | 23:2,10,12,19,23; | 20;43:3,3;44:24; | 50:15;51:20;52:5; | |\n| 9:25 | 24:12,25;25:2;68:3,7, | 51:17;53:10;68:24; | 53:14;97:11 | yacht (111) |\n| | | | | |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (14) Twittercom - yacht**\n\n### **Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 131 of 269\n\n| Kwok | | | | February 2, 2022 |\n|------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------|------------------|\n| 4:2,24;5:6;6:13,18, | 18:22 | 4:24;6:2;21:22; | | |\n| 23,25;7:6,10,15;8:4,7, | 1012359 (1) | 26:9;68:18;69:4,5,10, | 5 | |\n| 17;9:2,14,22;10:25; | 85:2 | 18 | | |\n| 11:2;12:17;13:12,19; | 11:45 (1) | 2018 (2) | 5 (6) | |\n| 14:2,16;21:8,13;44:1, | 49:17 | 19:5;20:10 | 6:4;41:17;76:13,22; | |\n| 6,12,16,20;45:2,7,18, | 1121 (1) | 2019 (1) | 77:2,7 | |\n| 23;46:10,11,14,16; | 17:21 | 93:8 | | |\n| 51:10,12,14,20;52:4, | 1126 (1) | 2020 (27) | 50 (1) | |\n| 7,11,16,22,23;53:1,8, | 31:25 | 5:7;6:2;7:14;53:19; | 48:25 | |\n| 12,14;54:4,7,8,13,15, | 1133 (2) | 57:11,20,25;58:5,14; | 50-whatever (1)
48:12 | |\n| 17;55:2,4,5,9,17,19, | 21:6;24:5 | 59:7;61:16;63:1,3,15, | 5223 (2) | |\n| 24;56:6,8,10,11,18, | 1156 (1) | 19;85:9,25;86:3,6; | 12:19;13:2 | |\n| 21;57:7;58:4;59:15, | 75:22 | 87:17,19;88:3,6,9,16; | 5225b (1) | |\n| 23;60:4;67:14,22; | 1157 (1) | 93:12;95:13 | 13:7 | |\n| 70:24;74:22;81:9; | 81:6 | 2021 (15) | 53 (2) | |\n| 86:19,21,23,23;87:1, | 11619 (1) | 6:7,13,19,23;9:20; | 48:1,4 | |\n| 6,12,13,18,21,24; | 27:16 | 58:1;59:8;62:1;63:2, | 55 (1) | |\n| 88:8,15,18;89:2,6,12, | 1162 (1) | 7,7;64:12,13;82:6; | | |\n| 21;90:10,13,17,21; | 41:13 | 93:12 | 13:5
591 (1) | |\n| 91:13;92:7;93:1,3; | 1169 (1) | 2022 (1) | 58:14 | |\n| 94:25;95:6,14,22 | 27:5 | 85:9 | | |\n| yachts (1) | 12:15 (1) | 21 (5) | 6 | |\n| 8:23 | 57:1 | 19:5;20:10;62:20; | | |\n| yacht's (3) | 14 (7) | 76:5;81:8 | 6 (7) | |\n| 6:1;91:23;94:21 | 4:1,5,18;21:22; | 24 (3) | 21:6,6,12;24:5; | |\n| Yachtzoo (3) | 49:21;50:7;53:17 | 19:4;92:24;94:16 | 76:17,21;81:20 | |\n| 6:16;74:23;76:14 | 14th (1) | 25 (3) | 6:59 (1) | |\n| year (9) | 5:1 | 13:5;17:21;94:23 | 68:11 | |\n| 6:8;43:25;55:1,3,3; | 15 (2) | 27 (1) | | |\n| 56:21;76:14;93:10,18 | 58:11;63:15 | 26:9 | 7 | |\n| years (8) | 16 (2) | 28 (6) | | |\n| 5:5;8:6;55:1;92:25; | 62:1;84:11 | 5:19;44:6,20,24; | 7 (2) | |\n| 93:6,9,17,18 | 17 (5) | 45:24;46:9 | 77:6;78:18 | |\n| yesterday (1) | 7:1;86:14;87:4; | | 728 (1) | |\n| 16:13 | 89:10;93:7 | 3 | 61:24 | |\n| York (17) | 18 (1) | | | |\n| 9:2,6,20;13:1,16; | 7:22 | 3 (3) | 8 | |\n| 53:8,9,11;54:16; | 19 (2) | 43:18;76:5,9 | | |\n| 60:12;62:4,20;75:15; | 68:2;93:20 | 30 (10) | 8 (5) | |\n| 84:19;85:22;89:12; | | 57:9,10;58:6,11,14, | 14:11;42:2,5;77:6; | |\n| 95:8 | 2 | 23;61:16;66:18; | 81:11 | |\n| young (1) | | 89:23;92:7 | | |\n| 8:10 | 2 (11) | 31 (1) | 9 | |\n| Youtube (4) | 21:5,10,13;26:6; | 85:9 | | |\n| 17:14;21:7,17;23:3 | 31:24;72:3,4,6;73:11, | 38 (2) | 9 (4) | |\n| | 20;81:7 | 48:13,23 | 78:23;85:25;86:3,6 | |\n| Z | 2:00 (1) | | 9th (1) | |\n| | 66:21 | 4 | 86:12 | |\n| zero (2) | 2:50 (2) | | | |\n| 32:7;43:12 | 24:23;25:5 | 4:15 (2) | | |\n| zoom (2) | 20 (7) | 24:23;25:5 | | |\n| 85:7,22 | 7:1;60:8;62:19; | 40 (1) | | |\n| | 63:23;70:5,8;93:20 | 66:18 | | |\n| 1 | 2006 (1) | 40:31 (1) | | |\n| | 43:7 | 71:25 | | |\n| 1 (4) | 2013 (1) | 40-minute (1) | | |\n| 19:3;31:24;76:14; | 13:5 | 71:21 | | |\n| 85:9 | 2014 (1) | 43:56 (1) | | |\n| 1:00 (2) | 43:10 | 72:11 | | |\n| 57:2;65:7 | 2015 (5) | 44-minute (1) | | |\n| 10 (2) | 43:20,21;44:1,15; | 72:16 | | |\n| 26:9;97:15 | 45:24 | 44-second (3) | | |\n| 10:37 (1) | 2017 (9) | 71:6,13,18 | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 132 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 27**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho direct dial: 212.589.4289 mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\nFebruary 1, 2021\n\n## **VIA E-MAIL (EMOSS@OMM.COM)**\n\nEdward Moss O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n*Re: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al., Index no. 652077/2017*\n\nDear Eddie:\n\nIn furtherance of our conversations relating to Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Fourth Set of Requests for the Production of Documents, dated November 6, 2020 (\"Document Requests\"), and Mr. Kwok's responses and objections thereto, please allow the following to memorialize the state of our discussions to date as well as to supplement and/or amend Mr. Kwok's responses where necessary.\n\n- 1. Mr. Kwok continues to stand by his objection to the definition of \"Family Member\" used throughout Plaintiff's Document Requests. Specifically, Mr. Kwok objects to the definition of \"Family Member\" as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of CPLR §5229 disclosure, and exceeds the scope of this Court's October 15, 2020 Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 630) (\"Order\"), which authorizes discovery on the Sherry-Netherland residence, the Lady May yacht, and \"other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\" Mr. Kwok further objects to the definition of \"Family Member\" to the extent it seeks to bring into its definition individual third parties whom he does not control.\n- 2. Mr. Kwok continues to stand by his objection to the defined Time Period used throughout Plaintiff's Document Requests. Specifically, Plaintiff has defined the relevant time period as follows: \"Unless otherwise specified, the applicable time period for each Interrogatory is January 1, 2008, up to and including the date of production (the \"Time Period\").\" Mr. Kwok objects to the \"Time Period\" as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of CPLR §5229 disclosure, and exceeds the scope of this\n\nEdward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 2\n\n> Court's Order, which authorizes discovery on the Sherry-Netherland residence, the Lady May yacht, and \"other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly.\" The relevant Time Period for purposes of this disclosure is October 15, 2020 (the date of the CPLR §5229 proceedings on the record) through the present date in order to identify any assets that Mr. Kwok \"may own, whether directly or indirectly\" to satisfy a judgment.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 134 of 269\n\n- 3. Document Requests 8: As we have reported to you, Mr. Kwok responds that there are no documents or communications in his possession, custody, or control with Stephenson Wong, Kingdom Rich, or a Registered BVI Agent. It is our understanding that in response to this disclosure, PAX has revised Document Request 8 to seek *documents and communications with William Je regarding any of Mr. Kwok's assets, investments, bank accounts, equities, stakes, or holdings*. Mr. Kwok is checking to see whether he has documents or communications responsive to your revised request.\n- 4. Document Request 10: We believe that there are no further issues to discuss or address as PAX has been unable to provide a basis for its belief that Mr. Kwok has an ownership interest in the accounts listed in (c) through (i).\n- 5. Document Request 12: Without waiving Mr. Kwok's objection to the Time Period defined by Plaintiff in its Document Requests, Mr. Kwok will produce his 2019 tax returns to Plaintiff.\n- 6. Document Request 13: Without waiving Mr. Kwok's objection to the Time Period defined by Plaintiff in its Document Requests, Mr. Kwok will produce the Genever entity 2019 tax returns to Plaintiff.\n- 7. Document Request 15: It is our understanding that PAX is seeking any assets/financial disclosures that would have been made in connection with Mr. Kwok's application for asylum. We have previously referred you to Form I-589, the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, which does not request any information relating to an applicant's assets. Please also see www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-gchapter-3, which, as has been explained to us by immigration counsel, specifically excludes asylum applicants from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Mr. Kwok responds that no asset/financial information has been provided by him in connection with his application for asylum.\n- 8. Document Request 16: It is our understanding that PAX would accept the \"*source of all payments*\" made by Mr. Kwok in lieu of a document production. Mr. Kwok responds that his expenses during the relevant time period have been paid for by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\n- 9. Document Requests 17: We will await a list of proposed electronic search terms from PAX.\n\nEdward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 3\n\n> 10. Document Request 18: We are confirming that Mr. Kwok does not have responsive Bravo Luck and/or Genever documents in his possession, custody, or control. If he does have responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, then they will be produced to the extent that they are not duplicative of the documents already produced in this action.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 135 of 269\n\n- 11. Document Requests 19-22: We are confirming that Mr. Kwok does not have responsive Bravo Luck and/or Genever documents in his possession, custody, or control. If he does have responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, then they will be produced to the extent that they are not duplicative of the documents already produced in this action.\n- 12. With respect to Document Request 21, could you please provide copies of the trust agreement(s) referenced in that request? We are told that Mr. Kwok only has a copy of the trust agreement and it is our understanding that it has already been produced to PAX.\n- 13. Document Request 31: We hereby amend the response to this request in accordance with Mr. Kwok's response to PAX's interrogatory number 29 seeking this same disclosure.1 As discussed, documents responsive to this request have been previously produced in this litigation by The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and any further information would need to be sought directly from Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and/or Bravo Luck. Mr. Kwok has located the loan agreement with Itakura Nan Nan and he will produce it.\n- 14. Document Request 35: Mr. Kwok responds that this information is not in his possession, custody, or control, and will need to be obtained directly from the Genever entities. We note that at least one Genever entity has disclosed its debts in its bankruptcy petition. The documents previously produced in this action by The Sherry-Netherland also provide relevant and responsive documents.\n- 15. Document Request 36: Mr. Kwok responds that he does not have responsive documents in his custody, possession, or control, and maintains, as we have discussed, that the only entities listed in this request which he has an interest in are: Genever Holdings Corporation; Genever Holdings LLC; and Shiny Times Holdings, Ltd.2\n\nI will be in touch when I have additional information.\n\nSincerely,\n\n*/s/ Melissa M. Carvalho*\n\n 1 Mr. Kwok owes Itakura Nan Nan \\$27,000.00. The following are creditors of Genever Holdings, LLC: The Sherry-Netherland - \\$891,262.06; Bravo Luck Limited - \\$67,5000,000.00; Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. - \\$1,800,000.00; and Qiang Guo - \\$5,000,000.00.\n\n2 Shiny Times was seized by the Chinese government in 2017.\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 136 of 269\n\n> Edward Moss February 1, 2021 Page 4\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 137 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 28**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 138 of 269\n\n> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : CIVIL TERM : PART 61 ------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, INDEX NO: -against- 652077/2017 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. ------------------------------------------X MICROSOFT TEAMS May 27, 2021 B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, J U S T I C E A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorney for the Plaintiff Times Square Tower New York, New York 10036 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. BAKER HOSTETLER, LLP Attorney for the Defendant 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC Attorney for the Defendant GENEVER 162 E. 64th Street New York, New York 10065 BY: AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 139 of\n\n| 1 | YANKWITT
LLP |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Attorney
for
the
Defendant
140
Grand
Street,
Suite
705 |\n| 3 | New
York,
New
York
NY
BY:
DANIEL
ALTER
ESQ. |\n| 4 | |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | Karen
Mangano,
CSR |\n| 22 | Senior
Court
Reporter |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 140 of\n\n269\n\n| | 3 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Proceedings |\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
All
right.
Mr.
Moss,
this
is
your |\n| 2 | motion. |\n| 3 | MR.
MOSS:
Good
afternoon,
your
Honor. |\n| 4 | We
have
two
requests
in
our
motion.
One
is
compel |\n| 5 | discovery
in
response
to
a
subpoena
and
the
other
is
to |\n| 6 | modify
the
Court's
restraining
order.
So
I
thought
I
would |\n| 7 | start
with
the
subpoena. |\n| 8 | Your
Honor,
this
might
be
the
most
straightforward |\n| 9 | issue
that
I've
argued
in
front
of
this
Court
on
this
case. |\n| 10 | CPLR
5223
permits
a
broad
range
of
discovery
on
any |\n| 11 | third
party
to
request
information
that
is
relevant
-- |\n| 12 | relevant
to
enforcement
of
a
judgment. |\n| 13 | As
the
Court
knows,
we've
been
forced
--
my
client |\n| 14 | has
been
forced
to
serve
subpoenas
on
several
third
parties |\n| 15 | trying
to
find
Mr.
Kwok's
assets
because
he
doesn't
hold |\n| 16 | them
in
his
own
name. |\n| 17 | Perhaps
the
most
important
subpoena
Pacific |\n| 18 | Alliance
served
was
a
subpoena
on
an
entity
called
Golden |\n| 19 | Springs. |\n| 20 | Golden
Springs
is
a
so-called
family
office
for |\n| 21 | Mr.
Kwok's
family,
but
in
reality,
it
is
just
Mr.
Kwok's |\n| 22 | principal
front.
It's
an
entity
that
he
funded
entirely |\n| 23 | with
his
own
money.
It's
an
entity
that
pays
all
of
the |\n| 24 | expenses
for
his
lavish
lifestyle.
Every
single
expense
by |\n| 25 | their
own
admission.
It
pays
legal
fees
for
a
host
of |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n4\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 141 of\n\n269\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | lawsuits
for
lawyers
to
represent
Mr.
Kwok
in
his
individual |\n| 2 | capacity
in
cases
in
which
Golden
Springs
is
not
even
a |\n| 3 | party. |\n| 4 | It
pays
the
legal
fees
of
a
lawyer
who
represents |\n| 5 | the
entity
that
owns
the
yacht
that's
stonewalling
me
in |\n| 6 | discovery
like
the
others. |\n| 7 | It
pays
the
maintenance
on
the
Sherry-Netherland |\n| 8 | apartment.
We
know
all
of
this
because
Mr.
Kwok
and
his |\n| 9 | lawyers
admitted
it
in
court
filings
and
in
discovery |\n| 10 | responses. |\n| 11 | I
just
want
to
put
a
fine
point
on
it,
your
Honor. |\n| 12 | Mr.
Kwok
has
no
money
or
assets
according
to
him,
but
he |\n| 13 | says
he
funded
this
entire
entity
and
he
uses
it
to
pay |\n| 14 | every
single
one
of
his
expenses,
his
living
expenses. |\n| 15 | What
are
we
talking
about
here,
Judge?
How
is
this |\n| 16 | discovery
possibly
not
permitted
under
the
CPLR?
How
is
it |\n| 17 | not
permitted
relevant
to
enforce
a
judgment? |\n| 18 | The
opposition
that
they
filed,
your
Honor,
it's
a |\n| 19 | frivolous
document,
and
I
want
to
start
with
what's
not
in |\n| 20 | here.
What's
not
in
it
is
a
dispute
about
any
one
of
the |\n| 21 | facts
that
I
just
covered
about
Golden
Springs.
They
ignore |\n| 22 | all
of
them.
They
can't
dispute
them
because
Mr.
Kwok
and |\n| 23 | his
lawyers
admitted
them
in
discovery
responses
and
in |\n| 24 | Court
filings.
So
Golden
Springs
--
one
of
their
arguments |\n| 25 | is
well,
we
have
corporate
documents.
We
respect
the |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 142 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021\n\n269\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 corporate forum. We have employees. But it doesn't dispute that it only has one business which is to serve Highness Kwok. It doesn't even say what the business is besides a family office for his business. They say we have employees that include security. That's Mr. Kwok's bodyguard who comes to -- who comes with him to my office when I depose him and hands him bottled water because he's afraid that we're agents of the communists and my water at my firm is going to kill him. I mean, Judge, this is not a real company. They pay for Mr. Kwok's people. If Tim Cook got sued for something unrelating to his capacity in Apple, Apple doesn't pay those fees. Apple doesn't pay his maintenance. This is Mr. Kwok's piggy bank that he set up with his own money. The principal argument that is in Golden Spring's papers is that Golden Springs is a third party and so we\n\nshould only be entitled to information about assets that it holds for or transactions that it has conducted with Miles Kwok.\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 That's basically like saying it's a bank; right. You get that we subpoena the bank which we've done. We get Mr. Kwok's information, but we don't get information about the bank itself. We don't get information about the bank's other customers. That's a nice argument for a bank, but it completely ignores the context that Golden Springs is not a\n\nKM\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n6\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 143 of\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\nJudge.\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n269\n\nfinancial information.\n\nProceedings third party. It is the entity that holds Mr. Kwok's money, and it is the entity that pays his legal expenses. So it's assets are his assets. It's transactions are his transactions. And it's financial information is his The suggestion in the papers that Mr. Kwok and Miss Wang and all of his people should be able to pick and choose and determine which information at Golden Springs relates to Mr. Kwok and which doesn't is a recipe for disaster here, Mr. Kwok denies even being involved with Golden Springs. He denies being involved with the entity that owns the boat that we all know he owns because he said he owns\n\nthe boat on YouTube, the boat which, by the way, is still out of the jurisdiction 15 days incurring \\$500,000 a day.\n\nMr. Kwok is the same guy who denies owning his apartment that Miss Wang says -- told the Court under oath that he owns it.\n\nSo the limitation that they're trying to put in here, only things relating to Mr. Kwok, that's nonsense in this case, and it's just a recipe for us to get nothing.\n\n22 23 24 25 Golden Springs also argues on the subpoena that we have to prove alterego to get discovery into it's assets. Well, that's just made up. There is no case to support that.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 144 of 269\n\nProceedings\n\n7\n\n| 5223
is
a
broad
standard.
It's
a
generous |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| standard.
The
Court
ordered
Miss
Wang's
information
to
be |\n| produced
by
the
banks.
They're
not
alteregos.
She's
not
an |\n| alterego.
Of
course,
we
don't
have
to
prove
that
it's
an |\n| alterego
to
get
it's
information. |\n| The
Court
found
that
Miss
Wang
might
be
hiding
Mr. |\n| Kwok's
assets
and
gave
us
access
to
her
financial |\n| information.
This
is
much
easier.
He's
already
said
it's |\n| his
money,
and
he's
using
it
to
pay
all
of
his
expenses.
I |\n| mean,
there's
no
credible
opposition
to
this
motion. |\n| Finally,
there's
some
arguments
about
scope.
You |\n| know,
I
read
it
a
few
times.
My
subpoena
is
astounding. |\n| It's
blunderbuss.
It's
a
fishing
expedition.
It's |\n| flagrant.
A
lot
of
adjectives,
but
no
substance.
They |\n| don't
articulate
any
burden
arguments
at
all. |\n| Usually
you
say,
Judge,
well,
we
ran
some
search |\n| terms,
and
there
are
too
many
hits
or
this
is
going
to
be |\n| too
burdensome
to
get
because
it's
on
a
different
server. |\n| Nothing.
This
is
basically
just
a
relevance
argument
that |\n| we're
asking
for
too
much. |\n| If
they
want
to
have
a
discussion
about
search |\n| terms
and
custodian
and
which
laptops
to
collect,
we
welcome |\n| that
discussion.
We
welcome
an
actual
discussion
about |\n| burden
and
scope.
But
not
just
saying,
well,
we
think
it's |\n| too
much
without
any
showing
--
any
showing
at
all
that |\n| |\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 145 of 269\n\n8\n\nProceedings\n\nthere is an actual burden.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\nI want to just end on one particular argument on the subpoena point because I expect Mr. Alter will focus on it. We ask -- we do. He's right. We ask for information about 60 people and entities, no one knowing to be associated with Kwok.\n\nMr. Alter quips in the brief, well, known by whom? Known by whom? Known by us, Judge. Known by us based on spending a lot of money and lot of time to dig through public records, court filings, social media accounts because that's the game Mr. Kwok has forced us to play.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The reason we have to ask for this information is because Golden Springs is the hub. We can't spend the rest of our lives chasing 100 entities. I mean, my grandkids would be doing this. Golden Springs is the entity that has the information. It's produced documents relating to Shiny Times, the entity that was involved in the underlying case. It has the documents. It is the hub of the empire. If it doesn't have information about a couple of these entities, if we're wrong about one or two, okay, fine. Then they should run the search and tell us they don't have it and not produce it. But run the search terms, collect the ESI and provide the documents.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Moss. I understand your argument. I also understand that Mr. Kwok is incurring\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 146 of\n\n9\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | \\$500,000
a
day
in
contempt
penalties.
I
understand
that
Mr. |\n| 2 | Kwok
believes
that
these
court
proceedings
are
a
game
of |\n| 3 | evasion
that
he
--
that
he
wants
to
play. |\n| 4 | And
let
me
hear
from
counsel
for
Golden
Springs. |\n| 5 | MR.
ALTER:
Good
afternoon,
your
Honor.
It's |\n| 6 | Daniel
Alter,
and
we've
just
heard
a
lot
of
talk
but |\n| 7 | relatively
little
truth,
and
I'd
like
to
step
back
and |\n| 8 | clarify
some
issues
that
were
quite
muddied. |\n| 9 | First
of
all,
to
correct
two
specifically |\n| 10 | inaccurate
statements,
it's
my
understanding
that
Mr.
Kwok |\n| 11 | has
never
said
that
he
is
entirely
unrelated
or
has
no |\n| 12 | connection
to
Golden
Springs.
Quite
the
opposite.
He
said |\n| 13 | that
it
is
his
family
office.
So
let's
be
accurate
about |\n| 14 | that. |\n| 15 | The
second
thing
is
that,
you
know,
apparently
-- |\n| 16 | they
take
the
position
that
Mr.
Kwok
has
entirely
funded |\n| 17 | Golden
Springs.
Well,
I
don't
see
the
evidence
of
that. |\n| 18 | What
I
see
is
a
statement
in
the
record
that
he
initially |\n| 19 | provided
capital
to
Golden
Springs,
but
I
see
no
evidence |\n| 20 | that
he's
continued
to
do
so
or
that
the
capital
there
now |\n| 21 | is
his.
Let
me
step
back
a
moment
and
talk
about
this. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
Before
you
do
so,
Mr.
Alter,
because |\n| 23 | rightly
or
wrongly,
Mr.
Kwok
has
exhausted
the
Court's |\n| 24 | patience
with
his
antics. |\n| 25 | It's
quite
undisputed
that
Golden
Springs
has |\n| | |\n\n269\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 147 of\n\n10\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021\n\n269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nfunded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle, and Mr. Kwok leads a rather extravagant lifestyle, purports to have zero assets whatsoever.\n\nSo the plaintiff is a judgment creditor. The plaintiff knows that Golden Springs is funding expenses for Mr. Kwok. Not minor inconsequential expenses. Major expenses. And the judgment creditor is entitled to have discovery of the entity that is funding Mr. Kwok's expenses.\n\nProceedings\n\nThe judgment creditor is also entitled to an order directing Golden Springs not to transfer, dispose or otherwise dissipate whatever assets Golden Springs has because the best evidence that has been made available to the Court compellingly suggests that any assets that Golden Springs has were provided to Golden Springs by Mr. Kwok.\n\nNow if the discovery that the judgment creditor is seeking from Golden Springs disproves that, well, then we have a different situation than the situation we now have.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 Under the CPLR, a judgment creditor is entitled to discovery of third parties of which in this case may well be alteregos of Mr. Kwok, but it's not necessary for the judgment creditor to establish that Golden Springs is an alterego of Mr. Kwok.\n\n23 24 25 MR. ALTER: You know, your Honor, we haven't - that's not our position. That's the straw man that has been presented.\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n11\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 148 of\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n269\n\nProceedings\n\nTHE COURT: Well, be that as it may, unless you can persuade me otherwise, I am granting the judgment creditor's motions in their entirety. As Mr. Moss outlined, he is perfectly prepared to meet and confer and discuss limitations on specific requests that he's made if you can then state to him good cause for that. But we're past playing games here. MR. ALTER: Well, your Honor, I'm not here to play games, and if the Court has made it's decision, would it allow me to make my record. THE COURT: Yes. Make your record. MR. ALTER: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. First of all, our argument is not that you have to pierce the corporate veil in order to get third-party discovery under the CPLR for judgment creditors. It's a relevance argument, and we've already said that there are aspects such as discovery as between Golden Spring and the actual judgment debtor is relevant and appropriate. So we\n\nhaven't taken a position that is all out of line with what the law provides.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 What we have said and what Mr. Moss has proven in his argument is they take the position that Mr. Kwok is Golden Spring and Golden Spring is Mr. Kwok; and therefore, they are entitled to go through the entire file of Golden Spring.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 149 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n25\n\n## Proceedings\n\n12\n\nWell, you know, your Honor, that's called piercing the corporate veil, and it's our position that if they want documents independent of the judgment debtor where they make no connection or efforts to make a connection whatsoever, then, yes, they do have to pierce the corporate veil, but that isn't the sum total of our argument.\n\nOur argument is that the requests are exceedingly overbroad and that they are irrelevant. And in fact, let's go for a moment to the facts that Mr. Moss says are overwhelming in this case.\n\nIf you look at the submission that was actually presented on this motion, there is absolutely no facts presented with regard to the 64 nonparties for which they seek discovery having nothing to do with the judgment debtor. Just -- not even having anything to do with Golden Spring. They just want discovery to 64 nonparties.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Now your Honor, we heard Mr. Moss say that he knows there is a connection. Well, wouldn't it be enlightening for the Court to know what that connection is before there is a ruling that Golden Spring has to produce documents that otherwise are clearly irrelevant. So that's why we assert that those documents should not be discovered unless and until Mr. Moss and PAX comes forward with actual proof that there is a connection. We don't have that.\n\nAnd with regard to the proof, the overwhelming\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 150 of\n\n269\n\n| | 13 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Proceedings |\n| 1 | proof
that
Golden
Spring
is
Mr.
Kwok
and
Mr.
Kwok
is
Golden |\n| 2 | Spring,
at
least
from
the
record
I've
seen,
your
Honor,
and |\n| 3 | I
do
not
call
your
Honor's
history
--
historical |\n| 4 | recollection
into
question,
but
what
has
been
presented
on |\n| 5 | this
record
is
Golden
Spring
initially
helped
to
capitalize |\n| 6 | a
company.
A
lot
of
folks
do
that. |\n| 7 | Secondly,
Golden
Spring
pays
for
attorneys
and
has |\n| 8 | contributed
to
paying
for
apartment
expenses.
Well,
okay. |\n| 9 | Three,
employees
of
Golden
Spring
have
attended |\n| 10 | family
interests
that
have
to
do
with
the
Guo
family.
Well, |\n| 11 | it's
a
family
company.
It's
a
family
office. |\n| 12 | And
Golden
Spring's
parent
has
apparently
produced |\n| 13 | documents
in
response
to
discovery
requests.
So
yes, |\n| 14 | there's
a
connection
as
Mr.
Kwok
has
said,
but
there
isn't |\n| 15 | an
identity
of
entity
between
Mr.
Kwok
and
Golden
Spring, |\n| 16 | and
that's
why
we
referred
in
our
papers
to
the
fact
that
if |\n| 17 | that
is
the
case,
the
law
is
very
clear
they
do
need
to |\n| 18 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
and
they
absolutely
would
need
to |\n| 19 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
to
get
injunction.
Because
as
we |\n| 20 | stated,
as
much
as
the
Court
has
lost
patience,
and
I |\n| 21 | understand
your
Honor's
position,
the
law
is
clear
that
an |\n| 22 | entity
as
a
matter
of
due
process
can
not
be
enjoined |\n| 23 | without
actually
being
a
party. |\n| 24 | And
even
if
an
entity
were
brought
into
a |\n| 25 | litigation
as
a
party,
the
Courts
are
constrained.
They
can |\n\nKM\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 151 of 269\n\n1\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nProceedings 14 not grant prejudgment asset freezes, and that is exactly\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 what PAX is trying to do now. They are trying to enjoin Golden Spring from expending any of it's own assets for any purpose, and that is contrary to the law. Now, they argue that your Honor has a power to enforce restraining orders. Of course you do. And Golden Spring was served with a restraining order, and Golden Spring acts at it's peril if it transfers any property with which Mr. Kwok -- in which Mr. Kwok has an interest, but a Court's enforcement of a restraining notice is not the tantamount to an injunction. It's an after-the-fact litigation based upon allegations that there had been a violation of the notice. They're two entirely separate things. So your Honor, respectfully, there isn't either a\n\njurisdictional basis for the injunction nor is there a compelling factual basis for one because they have the relief that the CPLR has provided for.\n\nNow, if the Court is going to go ahead and enter certain orders as your Honor has described, I request a few things, a few clarification points.\n\n22 23 24 25 First of all, we would request the Court post a bond. Order that PAX post a bond. They are seeking an injunction against Golden Spring from using any of it's assets. And pursuant to the CPLR 6312(b), a bond is\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 152 of\n\n269\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | necessary.
It's
a
necessary
element
for
preliminary
relief. |\n| 2 | So
we
would
ask
the
Court
direct
that
a
bond
be
posted. |\n| 3 | We
would
also
ask
whether
under
this
jurisdiction, |\n| 4 | Golden
Spring
is
able
to
pay
lawyers.
Is
it
able
to
pay |\n| 5 | it's
employees? |\n| 6 | Mr.
Moss
dismisses
the
fact
that
the
company |\n| 7 | actually
employs
16
employees
and
seven
independent |\n| 8 | contractors.
Are
they
not
entitled
to
continue
that?
Do |\n| 9 | they
need
--
is
this
injunction
going
to
close
Golden |\n| 10 | Spring?
We
need
that
clarification
because
Golden
Spring |\n| 11 | does
not
want
to
be
in
violation
of
your
Honor's
order. |\n| 12 | And
finally,
you
know,
your
Honor,
I
would
request |\n| 13 | respectfully
a
stay
of
the
Court's
order
for
a
week
so
that |\n| 14 | we
may
seek
appellate
relief
and
seek
a
stay
pending
appeal. |\n| 15 | But
given
that
this
is,
you
know,
a
holiday |\n| 16 | weekend,
we
request
that
the
Court
stay
because
again,
as
I |\n| 17 | said,
Golden
Spring
does
not
want
to
be
in
violation
of
this |\n| 18 | Court's
order;
but
for
all
the
reasons
I've
stated, |\n| 19 | honestly,
your
Honor,
the
relief
requested
is
a
function
of |\n| 20 | facts
that
Mr.
Moss
has
asserted
as
judge,
jury
and |\n| 21 | executioner. |\n| 22 | They
haven't
been
presented.
They
haven't
been |\n| 23 | adjudicated.
They
haven't
been
formally
determined,
all
of |\n| 24 | which
are
necessary
for
the
kind
of
relief
for
reaching
into |\n| 25 | Golden
Spring
and
setting
aside
it's
individual
identity
and |\n\nKM\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 153 of\n\n269\n\n| | 16
Proceedings |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | just
securing
whatever
documents
it
wants
and
enjoining
all |\n| 2 | of
it's
assets.
That's
necessary
under
the
law. |\n| 3 | Thank
you,
your
Honor. |\n| 4 | THE
COURT:
All
right.
I
take
your
points. |\n| 5 | Nothing
that
you've
said
suggests
that
Golden |\n| 6 | Springs
hasn't
paid
seven
figures
worth
of
Mr.
Kwok's |\n| 7 | expenses
in
the
immediate
recent
past.
Nothing
that
you |\n| 8 | said
alters
the
fact
that
Mr.
Kwok
flaunts
the
Court's |\n| 9 | orders
at
will. |\n| 10 | You're
correct
that
PAX
needs
to
post
a
\\$500,000 |\n| 11 | bond.
You're
correct
that
I
should
stay
these
orders
until |\n| 12 | June
1st
at
five
p.m.
to
enable
you
to
seek
appellate |\n| 13 | relief,
and
you're
correct
that
Golden
Spring
may
pay
it's |\n| 14 | employees
in
accordance
with
a
schedule
listing
the
identity |\n| 15 | of
the
employees
and
the
amount
of
their
compensation
which |\n| 16 | you'll
provide
to
Mr.
Moss.
And
I
think
that
addresses
your |\n| 17 | concerns. |\n| 18 | MR.
ALTER:
With
one
exception,
your
Honor,
and
I |\n| 19 | appreciate
the
Court's
response
to
those
concerns.
The |\n| 20 | attorneys.
The
attorneys
that
Golden
Springs
has
been |\n| 21 | permitted
here
today
to
pay. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
There's
no
issue.
Just
need
to |\n| 23 | identify
the
attorneys
and
the
fees
that
you're
paying
to |\n| 24 | them. |\n| 25 | MR.
ALTER:
Okay. |\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 154 of 269\n\n## Proceedings\n\n17\n\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
And,
you
know,
I
note
that
Mr.
Kwok
has |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | apparently
no
concern
for
the
\\$500,000
a
day
sanction
for |\n| 3 | flagrantly
violating
prior
orders
of
the
Court
with
respect |\n| 4 | to
the
boat
that
Golden
Spring's
is
paying
to
maintain
and |\n| 5 | transport.
And
if
my
calculation
is
correct,
the
total
of |\n| 6 | the
contempt
sanctions
to
date
is
\\$7.5
million. |\n| 7 | Mr.
Kwok
is
just
not
free
to
live
in
New
York
at
an |\n| 8 | ultra-luxurious
condominium,
the
cost
of
which
he's
paid
for |\n| 9 | by
Golden
Springs
and
ignore
the
processes
of
the
New
York |\n| 10 | courts. |\n| 11 | Now
does
anybody
else
wish
to
be
heard? |\n| 12 | MR.
MITCHELL:
Your
Honor,
Aaron
Mitchell.
I |\n| 13 | represent
the
Genever
defendants.
Just
one
point
of |\n| 14 | clarification. |\n| 15 | As
you're
well
aware,
your
Honor,
the
Genever |\n| 16 | New
York
which
owns
the
co-op
is
in
bankruptcy
so
Golden |\n| 17 | Spring
is
not
paying
the
maintenance
for
that
apartment. |\n| 18 | I
believe
Mr.
Moss
is
aware
as
well
there
was
a |\n| 19 | security
deposit
paid
which
the
surety
is
drawing
down
on |\n| 20 | which
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
for
the
record. |\n| 21 | THE
COURT:
That
is
a
fair
and
appropriate |\n| 22 | clarification. |\n| 23 | It
doesn't
alter
the
fact
that
prior
to
the
fact |\n| 24 | that
Genever
which
is
another
one
of
Mr.
Kwok's
many |\n| 25 | companies
was
paying
for
Mr.
Kwok's
luxury
apartment. |\n\n17 of 19\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 155 of 269\n\n18\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Moss has been pursuing enforcement of a judgment for years now, and it's been my misfortune to have to have presided over these many, many, many motions and hearings, none of which are producing the results that the Court has ordered because Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly through his companies ignores Court orders.\n\nBut Golden Springs presumably will comply with the Court's order, and Golden Springs, you know, may seek a stay in the Appellate Division either tomorrow or today or on June 1. And if the Appellate Division stays the Court's order, then the Court's order will be stayed.\n\nOtherwise, the Court expects Golden Springs to comply with the Court's orders subject to PAX's posting of \\$500,000 bond in the event it's determined that there's any overreach here and subject to Golden Springs being able to pay identified lawyers and identified employees in accordance with the schedule.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I just ask one clarification?\n\nTHE COURT: Yes.\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n25\n\n21 22 23 24 MR. SARNOFF: The obligation of PAX to post a bond, is that specifically in respect of the restraining order part of the -- of your decision today? THE COURT: Yes.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: And separate -- so there is no --\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n19\n\n### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 156 of\n\n269\n\n| | Proceedings | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
With respect to the restraining order. | | | | |\n| 2 | MR. SARNOFF: So there is no -- there is no stay | | | | |\n| 3 | with respect to the obligation of Golden Spring to comply | | | | |\n| 4 | with the subpoena.
Is that correct? | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
That's correct. | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. SARNOFF:
Thank you, sir. | | | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Anything else from anybody else? | | | | |\n| 8 | All right.
The Court will enter a memorandum order | | | | |\n| 9 | consistent with the transcript of the proceedings of today. | | | | |\n| 10 | I would strongly urge counsel to order an expedited copy of | | | | |\n| 11 | the transcript of proceedings of today so that in the event | | | | |\n| 12 | Golden Springs seeks a stay from the the Appellate Division, | | | | |\n| 13 | there is a clear record reflecting what the Court has | | | | |\n| 14 | ordered. | | | | |\n| 15 | Have a nice day and a nice weekend.
Everybody stay | | | | |\n| 16 | safe and thank you. | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
ORIGINAL MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING. | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | ______________________________
KAREN MANGANO, CSR | | | | |\n| 23 | Senior Court Reporter | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 157 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 29**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 158 of 269\n\n> SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n> > Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\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, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nPart 61-\n\nMot Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR A TURNOVER ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT MILES KWOK AND APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 159 of 269\n\n## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n## **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 | | | | | | |\n|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| BACKGROUND
2 | | | | | | |\n| ARGUMENT 3 | | | | | | |\n| I. | The Court Should Order Kwok to Turn Over His Shares in Genever BVI. 3 | | | | | |\n| II. | | The Court Should Direct Kwok to Execute an Instrument of Transfer. 5 | | | | |\n| | A. | The Court Should Also Direct Kwok to Send the Executed
Instrument of Transfer to Intertrust to Ensure that the Register of
Members is Updated. 5 | | | | |\n| | B. | The Court Should Order Kwok to Execute and Deliver a Corporate
Resolution Instructing Intertrust to Update the Register of
Members.
6 | | | | |\n| | C. | The Court Should Appoint a Receiver Over Kwok's Shares in
Genever BVI.
7 | | | | |\n| III. | | Kwok's Anticipated \"Defenses\" Are Specious 8 | | | | |\n| | A. | Genever NY's Questionable Bankruptcy is Irrelevant to PAX's
Requested Relief.
8 | | | | |\n| | B. | Kwok's Predictable Pretense that his Son, through Bravo Luck, is
the Beneficial Owner of the Genever Entities and the Residence Is
Frivolous. 9 | | | | |\n| CONCLUSION 10 | | | | | | |\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 160 of\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** 269\n\n## **Page(s)**\n\n| Cases |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 856 Eighth, LLC v. Pizza Pasta Etc., Corp,
Index No. 2020 161413/2019, WL 3451892 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 24, 2020) 7 |\n| Adelaide Prods., Inc. v. BKN Int'l AG,
39 A.D.3d 254 (1st Dep't 2007) 6 |\n| AP MA Funding, LLC v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC,
No. 150755/2020, 2020 WL 2219962 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 7, 2020) 5 |\n| Blue Citi LLC v. 5Barz Int'l Inc.,
No. 16-CV-9027, 2019 WL 6976972 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2019) 9, 10 |\n| Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.,
No. 151885/2015, 2018 WL 7051063 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018) 5, 6 |\n| Daum Glob. Holdings Corp. v. Ybrant Digital
Ltd.,
No. 13-CV-3135, 2018 WL 2122816 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2018) 10 |\n| Fresh Meadow Food Servs.,
LLC
v.
R.B. 175 Corp.,
No. 12528/2011, 2011 WL 6989896 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
Oct. 18, 2011) 9 |\n| Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc.,
60 Misc. 3d 963 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), aff'd, 169 A.D.3d 580 (1st Dep't 2019) 6 |\n| Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co.,
41 A.D.3d 25 (1st Dep't 2007) 6, 7 |\n| Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor,
926 N.E.2d 1202 (N.Y. 2010) 9 |\n| In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.,
38 B.R. 75 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984) 11 |\n| Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd.,
12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009) 5, 6 |\n| Leo v. LD Holdings, Inc.,
150 A.D.3d 620 (1st Dep't 2017) 6 |\n| LSQ Funding Grp., L.C. v. Werther,
No. 650390/2017, 2018 WL 3385045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 11, 2018) 7, 8 |\n| Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan,
739 F. Supp. 2d 636 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 7 |\n| Muhl v. Ardra Ins. Co.,
246 A.D.2d 413 (1st Dep't 1998) 7 |\n| Ninth Ave. Realty, LLC v. Guenancia,
No. 102725/10, 2013 WL 9528299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 6, 2013) 6 |\n| Spotnana, Inc. v. Am. Talent Agency, Inc.,
No. 09-CV-3698, 2013 WL 227546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) 10 |\n\n### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** (continued) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 161 of 269\n\n## **Page**\n\n| Udel
v.
Udel,
370 N.Y.S.2d 426 (Civ. Ct. 1975) 9 | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| United States v. Zitron,
No. 80-CV-6535, 1990 WL 13278 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 1990) 9 | |\n| Rules | |\n| CPLR 5201 6 | |\n| CPLR 5225 passim | |\n| CPLR 5233 9 | |\n| CPLR 6202 6 | |\n\n\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nDefendant Miles Kwok (\"Kwok\") has not paid Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") a dime on the more-than-\\$116 million judgment this Court entered against him months ago. To the contrary, as PAX has explained to the Court in prior submissions, Kwok has gone to great lengths to thwart PAX's ability to enforce the judgment, including filing a questionable bankruptcy for the New York shell company through which he holds his Sherry-Netherland Residence (Genever Holdings, LLC or \"Genever NY\"), keeping his yacht, the \"Lady May,\" out of this jurisdiction in flagrant contempt of the Court's orders, and stonewalling—and causing his associates and shell companies to stonewall—PAX's legitimate collection-related discovery efforts.\n\nAs PAX already has demonstrated in great detail, one of Kwok's principal judgmentthwarting strategies has been to shield his assets in shell companies held by family members and underlings, all while claiming that he himself is virtually penniless, but at the same time readily accessing millions of dollars to fund his lavish lifestyle and enormous legal expenses. Indeed, in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery requests, Kwok stated—before taking the Fifth Amendment in connection with a reported federal criminal investigation against him1 —that the *only asset of any value he holds is his 100% interest in Defendant Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\")*, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.2\n\nUnder black letter New York Law, PAX is entitled to turnover of Kwok's assets, including shares held in a foreign business entity like Genever BVI, to enforce (at least part of) its judgment against Kwok. Accordingly, as set forth in detail below, PAX brings this motion\n\n1 [Dkt. No. 760.](http) 2 Genever BVI is the 100% parent of supposedly \"bankrupt\" Genever NY, which in turn owns the Residence.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 163 of 269\n\nunder [CPLR 5225](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) and [5228](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5228) to request that the Court issue an order (i) directing Kwok to turn over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership in Genever BVI; (ii) directing Kwok to execute an Instrument of Transfer by which he conveys his shares in Genever BVI to PAX or its designee; (iii) directing Kwok to send the executed Instrument of Transfer to Genever BVI's registered agent; (iv) directing Kwok to execute and deliver to Genever BVI's registered agent a corporate resolution instructing that Genever BVI's Register of Members be updated to reflect the new 100% ownership (to ensure the update occurs in the event that the registered agent requires instructions to update Genever BVI's Register of Members); and (v) appointing a receiver over Kwok's Genever BVI shares, including with the power (a) to instruct Genever BVI's registered agent to update Genever BVI's Register of Members to reflect PAX or a designee as its sole legal owner, and (b) to exercise voting rights with respect to all of Genever BVI's shares.\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\nOn February 3, 2021, the Clerk of Court entered judgment against Kwok in the amount of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"Judgment\"). In attempting to enforce the Judgment—which to this day remains entirely unpaid and is accruing 9% post-judgment interest—PAX served discovery on Kwok, including an interrogatory asking him to identify \"any [a]ssets that have a value greater than \\$10,000 in which [he has] an [i]nterest or ha[s] had an [i]nterest since January 1, 2015.\"3 Despite claiming to be a billionaire and managing to fund his luxury Residence and an army of high-priced lawyers representing him and his related shell businesses in numerous lawsuits, Kwok identified *only one asset*, responding, \"*I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. Genever Holdings Corporation is the sole shareholder of*\n\n3 [Dkt. No. 756](http) at 9.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 164 of 269\n\n*Genever Holdings, LLC, its only asset.*\"4 Kwok's post-judgment admission that he owns Genever BVI is consistent with the evidentiary record that was before this Court on PAX's prejudgment attachment motions, which included (i) an affidavit submitted on Kwok's behalf by Yvette Wang, in which she swore that \"Mr. Kwok is the sole shareholder of Genever BVI\" and to which she attached Genever BVI's register of members \"confirming that Mr. Kwok is its sole shareholder\"; 5 and (ii) documents produced to PAX by the Sherry-Netherland, listing Kwok as the sole shareholder of Genever BVI, which the Sherry-Netherland received from Kwok in connection with his application to purchase the Residence. 6\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Court Should Order Kwok to Turn Over His Shares in Genever BVI.**\n\nCPLR Article 52 authorizes a judgment creditor to file a motion to compel turnover of a\n\njudgment debtor's assets. *See Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd*[., 12 N.Y.3d 533, 537 \\(2009\\).](http)\n\n[CPLR 5225\\(a\\)](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) states:\n\nUpon motion of the judgment creditor . . . where it is shown that the judgment debtor is in possession or custody of money or *other personal property* in which he has an interest, the court shall order that the judgment debtor pay the money, or so much of it as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment, to the judgment creditor and, if the amount to be so paid is insufficient to satisfy the judgment, to deliver *any other personal property*, or so much of it as is of sufficient value to satisfy the judgment, to a designated sheriff. (emphasis added.)\n\nAs this Court has recently found, [CPLR 5225](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) \"extends to shares of stock, as well as\n\nmoney.\" *AP MA Funding, LLC v. [Wells Fargo Clearing Services,](http)&userEnteredCitation=2020+WL+2219962) LLC*, No. 150755/2020, 2020\n\n[WL 2219962, at \\\\*1 \\(N.Y. Sup. Ct.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2020+WL+2219962) May 7, 2020) (Ostrager, J.). Thus, Kwok's Genever BVI\n\n\"corporate shares constitute personal property subject to the enforcement procedures set forth in\n\n4 *Id.*5 Dkt. No. 182 at ¶ 4; [Dkt. No. 183.](http) 6 *See, e.g.*, [Dkt. No. 289](http) at SN 0161, SN 0206.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 165 of 269\n\nArticle 52.\" *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.*[, No. 151885/2015, 2018 WL](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063) [7051063, at \\\\*6 \\(N.Y.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063) Sup. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018); *see also Ninth Ave. Realty, LLC [v. Guenancia](http)&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+9528299)*, [No. 102725/10, 2013 WL 9528299, at \\\\*2 \\(N.Y. Sup. Ct.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+9528299) Sept. 6, 2013). Under [CPLR 5225\\(a\\),](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) the Genever BVI share \"certificates must be turned over even if they are not located in New York at this time,\" and Kwok \"is required to take whatever actions are necessary . . . to have the shares of stock brought to New York so that they can be turned over.\" *Colfin*[, 2018 WL](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063) [7051063, at \\\\*7 \\(](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063)citing *Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co.*[, 41 A.D.3d 25, 31 \\(1st](http)) [Dep't 2007\\)\\)](http)); *see also Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc.*[, 60 Misc. 3d 963, 980 \\(N.Y. Sup.](http) Ct. 2018), *aff'd*[, 169 A.D.3d 580 \\(1st Dep't 2019\\)](http) (\"[A]n overarching principle of New York law [is] that where there is personal jurisdiction over the parties, one party cannot hide its assets outside of New York state so as to render any judgment obtained in New York unenforceable.\"); *Koehler*[, 12 N.Y.3d at 541](http) (\"[A] New York court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant may order him to turn over out-of-state property . . . .\"). Intangible assets, such as corporate shares, are subject to turnover under [CPLR 5225](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) because they are both \"property which could be assigned or transferred,\" [CPLR 5201,](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5201) and \"property against which a money judgment may be enforced,\" [CPLR 6202.](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+6202) 7\n\nTurnover is appropriate even though Genever BVI is an out-of-state corporation. *See, e.g.*, *Leo v. LD Holdings, Inc.*[, 150 A.D.3d 620, 620 \\(1st Dep't 2017\\)](http)) (affirming order directing the turnover of shares in out-of-state corporation); *[Adelaide Prods., Inc. v.](http)&userEnteredCitation=39+A.D.3d+254) BKN Int'l AG*, 39 [A.D.3d 254, 255 \\(1st Dep't 2007\\)](http)&userEnteredCitation=39+A.D.3d+254) (\"unissued stock certificate [in German company was] subject\n\n7 Failure to abide by a court's turnover order under [CPLR 5225](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) has resulted in the imposition of contempt sanctions. *See [Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co.](http)*, 58 A.D.3d 498, 499 [\\(1st Dep't 2009\\)](http) (judgment debtors held in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order requiring them to satisfy a judgment, turn over stock certificates, transfer ownership of its subsidiaries to judgment creditors, and turn over bank accounts to the creditors).\n\nof [] turnover proceeding\" under CPLR 5225); *Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan*[, 739 F. Supp. 2d](http)&userEnteredCitation=739+F.+Supp.+2d+636) [636, 641 \\(S.D.N.Y. 2010\\)](http)&userEnteredCitation=739+F.+Supp.+2d+636) (\"Turnover orders directed against judgment debtors are effective against assets regardless of their location.\").\n\n## **II. The Court Should Grant the Additional, Ancillary Relief Necessary to Effectuate the Turnover.**\n\n## **A.** *The Court Should Direct Kwok to Execute an Instrument of Transfer.*\n\nUnder BVI law, the first step in transferring share ownership is for the share owner to execute an \"Instrument of Transfer.\" (Willins Aff. ¶ 4.)\n\nUnder Article 52 of the CPLR, the Court has the power to order Kwok to execute an Instrument of Transfer because it \"may order *any person* to execute and deliver *any document* necessary to effect payment or delivery.\" [CPLR 5225\\(c\\);](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) *see also Gryphon*[, 41 A.D.3d](http)) at 35 (holding \"the IAS court . . . should have ordered [judgment debtor] to execute documents transferring ownership interests\" and \"judgment debtor should be required to execute appropriate instruments\"); *LSQ Funding Grp., L.C. v. Werther*[, No. 650390/2017, 2018 WL 3385045, at \\\\*2](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045) n.2 (N.Y. Sup. [Ct. July 11, 2018\\)](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045) (explaining that the court \"clearly has the authority under CPLR § 5225(c) to order [the judgment debtor] to execute a simple [document]\"—which would result in the turnover of property to PAX, the judgment creditor); *Muhl v. [Ardra Ins. Co.](http)*, 246 [A.D.2d 413, 413 \\(1st Dep't 1998\\)](http) (\"An order for execution . . . of documents under CPLR 5225(c) may [] be issued against a party whose debt liability has been established.\"); *[856 Eighth,](http)) LLC v. Pizza Pasta Etc., Corp*[, Index No. 2020 161413/2019, 2020 WL 3451892, at](http)) \\*5 (N.Y. [Sup. Ct. June 24, 2020\\)](http)) (same). The Court should do so here.\n\n## **B.** *The Court Should Also Direct Kwok to Send the Executed Instrument of Transfer to Intertrust to Ensure that the Register Of Members Is Updated.*\n\nUnder BVI law, the next step to transferring corporate ownership is updating the corporation's Register of Members, which can be done by the corporation's registered agent—in\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 167 of 269\n\nGenever BVI's case, Intertrust Corporate Services (BVI) Limited (\"Intertrust\"). (Willins Aff. ¶ ¶ 5–6.) To accomplish this, the Court should direct Kwok \"to have the [executed Instrument of Transfer] sent to\" Intertrust, so that it updates Genever BVI's Register of Members to reflect the terms of the transfer. *LSQ Funding*[, 2018 WL 3385045 at \\\\*2 n.2](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045) (directing judgment debtor to send resignation letter to country club, which would result in the release of a leviable membership deposit). The Court has this power under the CPLR. *See [id.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045)*; *see also [Gryphon](http))*, 41 [A.D.3d at 35](http)) (\"The court . . . may use CPLR 5225(c) to order the debtor to execute *and deliver*\" documents to third parties to effectuate the turnover of assets.) (citing Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. ¶ 5225.21) (emphasis added).\n\n## **C.** *The Court Should Order Kwok to Execute and Deliver a Corporate Resolution Instructing Intertrust to Update the Register of Members.*\n\nFollowing Kwok's execution and delivery of the Instrument of Transfer, Intertrust may then seek instructions authorizing the updating of the Register of Members to reflect the new ownership. (Willins Aff. ¶ 7.) In that event, Intertrust would accept a corporate resolution signed by Kwok as the sole director of Genever BVI,8 instructing Intertrust to update the Register of Members according to the Instrument of Transfer. (*Id.*) Under [CPLR 5225\\(c\\),](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) and for all the reasons stated *supra* in Sections II.A–B, the Court may direct Kwok to execute a corporate resolution and to send that document to Intertrust. PAX respectfully requests that the Court order Kwok to do so in order to account for the possibility that Intertrust will require such an instruction.\n\n8 *See* [Dkt. No. 289](http) at SN 0163 (showing \"Mr Ho Wan Kwok\" as the only director of Genever BVI).\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 168 of 269\n\n## **D.** *The Court Should Appoint a Receiver Over Kwok's Shares in Genever BVI.*\n\nUnder [CPLR 5225\\(a\\),](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) turnover of property (such as corporate shares) to the sheriff \"must be made for the sole purpose of a sale to satisfy the judgment.\" *Udel v. Udel*[, 370 N.Y.S.2d 426,](http) [428 \\(Civ.](http) Ct. 1975) (citing [CPLR 5233;](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5233) N.Y. Civ. Prac., Weinstein-Korn-Miller, Sec. 5225.06). But because of the \"lack of marketability\" of the Genever BVI shares, and \"the difficulty in determining [their] true value, it is unlikely that a turn over [sic] to the sheriff would result in satisfying the judgment.\" *Udel*[, 370 N.Y.S.2d at 428.](http) In cases such as this, [CPLR 5228](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5228) provides for the appointment of a receiver to collect property—the Genever BVI shares—and to take actions \"designed to satisfy the judgment.\" *See also [Fresh Meadow Food Servs.,](http)&userEnteredCitation=2011+WL+6989896) LLC v. R.B. 175 Corp.*[, No. 12528/2011, 2011 WL 6989896, at \\\\*3 \\(N.Y. Sup. Ct.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2011+WL+6989896) Oct. 18, 2011) (A court may \"appoint a receiver to administer, collect, improve, lease, repair or sell any real or personal property of the judgment debtor, or to do any other acts designed to satisfy the judgment.\").\n\nNew York courts consider several factors when determining whether to appoint a receiver for a judgment debtor's assets, including: \"(1) alternative remedies available to the creditor; (2) the degree to which receivership will increase the likelihood of satisfaction [of the judgment]; and (3) the risk of fraud or insolvency if a receiver is not appointed.\" *[Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC](http) v. Falor*[, 926 N.E.2d 1202, 1212 \\(N.Y. 2010\\)](http) (quoting *[United States v.](http)) Zitron*, No. 80-CV-6535, [1990 WL 13278, at \\\\*1–2 \\(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 1990\\)\\)](http)).\n\nAll three factors weigh in PAX's favor. There are few if any alternative remedies available to PAX because Kwok has represented that he has no other assets besides the Genever BVI shares—which have no readily ascertainable market value. *See supra* at 4. A receiver will also increase the likelihood of recovery because, as noted above, Kwok has displayed a \"pattern . . . of dodging proper payment and avoiding compliance with the Court's orders.\" *[Blue](http)&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6976972) Citi LLC v. 5Barz Int'l Inc.*[, No. 16-CV-9027, 2019 WL 6976972, at \\\\*2 \\(S.D.N.Y.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6976972) Dec. 20, 2019)\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 169 of 269\n\n(appointing receiver over, *inter alia*, corporate shares). Moreover, the risk of insolvency is apparent because Kwok claims to have no other assets and has a history of putting his shell companies into (questionable) bankruptcy. *See supra* at 4. The appointment of a receiver is particularly warranted where, as here, the property is \"intangible, lacks a ready market, and presents nothing that a sheriff can work with at an auction.\" *Blue Citi*[, 2019 WL 6976972, at \\\\*2;](http)&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6976972) *see also Spotnana, Inc. v. Am. Talent Agency, Inc.*, [No. 09-CV-3698, 2013 WL 227546, at \\\\*6](http)&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+227546) [\\(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013\\)](http)&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+227546) (explaining that the defendants' \"ownership of closely-held entities conducting business internationally\" are just the \"sort of intangible interests that lack a ready market for which receivership is especially appropriate\").\n\nThe receiver could be a third party, PAX, or its designee. Under [CPLR 5228,](http)&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5228) \"the judgment creditor may itself be appointed receiver.\" *[Daum Glob. Holdings Corp. v. Ybrant](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+2122816) Digital Ltd.*[, No. 13-CV-3135, 2018 WL 2122816, at \\\\*2 \\(S.D.N.Y.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+2122816) May 8, 2018). In *Daum*, the court issued an order \"compelling [the judgment debtor] to turn over [its] stock certificates\" to the judgment creditor that had been appointed receiver. *Id.* [at \\\\*4.](http)&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+2122816) The Court should appoint PAX here because PAX is in the best position to take action designed to satisfy the Judgment.\n\n## **III. Kwok's Anticipated \"Defenses\" Are Specious.**\n\nAlthough this should be an open-and-shut motion, PAX anticipates that Kwok and his shell companies (through different lawyers but all acting at Kwok's direction) will litter the record with arguments that turnover is inappropriate for two principal reasons. Both would be specious.\n\n## **A.** *Genever NY's Questionable Bankruptcy is Irrelevant to PAX's Requested Relief.*\n\nPAX expects that Kwok may point to the fact that Genever NY is in bankruptcy, with an automatic stay in place, as a basis to oppose this motion. But even assuming the questionable\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 170 of 269\n\nbankruptcy of Genever BVI's subsidiary were properly filed and maintained, chapter 11 does not preclude (and is irrelevant to) PAX's entitlement to turnover relief against the *non-debtor* parent BVI company.9 The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay is limited to the *debtor's* estate: \"operat[ing] as a stay of any act to obtain property of the estate or of property from the estate.\" *In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.*[, 38 B.R. 75, 78 \\(Bankr. D.](http)&userEnteredCitation=38+B.R.+75) Vt. 1984). Shares of Genever BVI—the debtor's foreign parent—are not part of the debtor's estate and so are not affected by either the (questionable) Genever NY bankruptcy filing or its related limited automatic stay.\n\n## **B.** *Kwok's Predictable Pretense that his Son, through Bravo Luck, is the Beneficial Owner of the Genever Entities and the Residence Is Frivolous.*\n\nKwok's newly minted fiction (first floated in the recent bankruptcy and BVI proceedings) is that one of his other shell companies that he claims is now 100% owned by his son—Bravo Luck—is the true beneficial owner of Kwok's two Genever shell entities. But this is just Kwok being Kwok, again suggesting that one of his offspring owns (through, of course, a shell company with no offices, employees, or other business or holdings) assets that are really his. This latest Kwok ploy is as frivolous as all his others.\n\nIf necessary, PAX will demonstrate at the appropriate time that (i) Kwok's new position is entirely inconsistent with his clear, repeated judicial admissions and legal arguments in this case over the past four years, and (ii) the belatedly produced, so-called \"trust agreement\" which PAX expects Kwok will try to rely on to claim that Bravo Luck beneficially owns\n\n9 PAX entered into a settlement agreement (pending approval by the court) in the bankruptcy case to address stay relief and a consensual process for the sale of the Residence (with proceeds to be retained in an escrow account), while the non-bankruptcy litigation is resolved. Nothing in that settlement agreement affects (or limits) PAX's rights to enforce the Judgment against nondebtor third parties here. PAX reserves all of its rights in the event that the settlement agreement (as submitted for approval) is not approved and/or there is a material change in circumstances with respect to the status of the debtor (Genever NY) or Kwok.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 171 of 269\n\nGenever BVI and Genever NY—is a fraudulent, backdated document that is not worth the paper on which it was printed. Indeed, the Sherry-Netherland certainly does not believe that Bravo Luck is the rightful owner of the entities owning the Residence10 and—critically—*in four years*\n\n## *of litigation, Kwok never once dared raise this dishonest argument before this Court*.\n\nIt is also possible that Bravo Luck may seek to intervene in this proceeding to try to oppose this motion (if it even has standing). If it does so, we expect that Kwok (through Bravo Luck) will try to make this specious trust deed argument with a straight face. But to avoid having to make that argument before this Court, Bravo Luck may first try to argue that the matter should be decided in the BVI because PAX filed there and the Bravo Luck issue is already teed up before the BVI court. That would be the wrong result. PAX filed the BVI action *before* PAX obtained its judgment against Kwok, and thus turnover was not an option at that time. Given this new, post-judgment posture, PAX is now pursuing its statutory turnover rights here, and given this Court's longstanding familiarity with this case and its unique issues, PAX respectfully submits that, if it is raised at all, the Bravo Luck issue is appropriate to be heard by this Court.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons above, PAX respectfully asks the Court to issue an order (i) directing Kwok to turn over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership in Genever BVI; (ii) directing Kwok to execute an Instrument of Transfer by which he conveys his shares in Genever BVI to PAX or its designee; (iii) directing Kwok to send the executed Instrument of Transfer to\n\n10 After Bravo Luck surfaced in the bankruptcy, the Sherry-Netherland submitted a filing informing the bankruptcy court that \"Kwok and his personal attorney represented, among other things, that *Kwok was the beneficial owner of the Debtor [Genever NY] and the Debtor's parent, Genever [BVI]\"* and that the Sherry-Netherland approved the sale \"[i]n reliance upon those representations.\" Joinder and Reservation of Rights at ¶ 2, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, No. 20-12411-jlg (S.D.N.Y. Jan 27, 2021) [\\(ECF No. 45\\)](http). The Sherry-Netherland also called out Kwok's and Genever NY's related *\"misrepresentations and fraudulent behavior*.\" *Id*. at ¶ 4.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 172 of 269\n\nGenever BVI's registered agent; (iv) directing Kwok to execute and deliver to the registered agent a corporate resolution instructing that Genever BVI's Register of Members be updated to reflect the new 100% ownership); and (v) appointing a receiver over Kwok's Genever BVI shares, including with the power to instruct the Genever BVI registered agent to update Genever BVI's Register of Members to reflect PAX or its designee as the sole legal owner and to exercise voting rights with respect to all of Genever BVI's shares.\n\nDATED: June 21, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of\n\nCommercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word,\n\nand the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and\n\nsignature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: June 21, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 174 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 30**\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| | 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. | 018 |\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| | | | |\n\n Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 018 by PAX for a post-judgment turnover pursuant to CPLR 5255 of Kwok's shares in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\") and other relief. In accordance with the transcript of proceedings of September 22, 2021, the motion is granted to the extent of directing Kwok to take the steps necessary to effect the turnover his shares in Genever BVI to PAX. This order is expressly subject to the approval of Justice Adrian Jack who issued a stay in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") in the related BVI litigation. The Court declines to appoint a receiver at this time.\n\nAccordingly, it is hereby,\n\nORDERED that Kwok Ho Wan take whatever steps are necessary in the British Virgin Islands to turnover all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership interest in Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"); and it is further\n\nORDERED that this decision and order is expressly contingent on the approval of Justice Jack in the related proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. Any actions affecting Genever\n\nHoldings LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Genever BVI, are subject to the jurisdiction of Justice Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving Genever Holdings LLC, in which PAX is participating.\n\nA status conference is scheduled for November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: September 22, 2021\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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 177 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 31**\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1078 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 178 of 269\n\n## **NOTICE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING IS TO PUNISH YOU FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SUCH PUNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF A FINE, IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH ACCORDING TO LAW.**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot. Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\n**NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT MILES KWOK FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 TURNOVER ORDER**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that upon the annexed January 7, 2022 Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s (\"PAX\") Motion for an Order of Civil Contempt as to Defendant Miles Kwok for his Failure to Comply with the Court's September 22, 2021 Turnover Order, and the Affirmation of Stuart Sarnoff, Esq., dated January 7, 2022, and the exhibits attached thereto, and the Affidavit of Andrew Willins, dated January 7, 2022, and the exhibits attached thereto, PAX will move the Court at the New York County Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007, on the 25th day of January, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon after that as counsel may be heard, for an order, under N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753 and N.Y. CPLR § 5104, (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's September 22, 2021 Turnover Order; and (ii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that, under CPLR 2214(b), answering papers, if\n\nany, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven days before the return date of\n\nthis motion.\n\nDATED: January 7, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n## CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Edward Moss* Edward Moss (emoss@cahill.com) Lauren Riddell (lriddell@cahill.com) 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 (212) 701-3838\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 180 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 32**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 181 of 269\n\n> SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\n> > Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\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, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nPart 61\n\nMotion Seq. No. 26\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT MILES KWOK FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 TURNOVER ORDER**\n\n### **TABLE OF CONTENTS FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 182 of 269\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 | | | |\n|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | ARGUMENT 2 | | |\n| I. | The Turnover Order is an Unequivocal Mandate that Does Not Require
Bankruptcy Court Approval—and Kwok Knows it 2 | | |\n| II. | There is No Impediment to Kwok Initiating Compliance with the Turnover Order.
4 | | |\n| III. | Kwok's Failure to Comply Prejudices PAX. 5 | | |\n| CONCLUSION 6 | | | |\n\n### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 183 of 269\n\n## **Page(s)**\n\n| Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC., |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at *4 (Sup. Ct. 2010) 4 |\n| In re Bray Enterprises, Inc., |\n| 38 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984) 3 |\n| McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 (1983) 6 |\n| Statutes |\n| New York Judiciary Law § 753 6 |\n\n\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nIn his attempt to avoid a second civil contempt sanction, Kwok has filed another misleading pleading with this Court.\n\nFirst, Kwok's Opposition1 falsely argues that the Court conditioned its Turnover Order on PAX obtaining Bankruptcy Court pre-approval—even though, as Kwok knows, this Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court *expressly rejected that argument* both on the record at the September 22, 2021 hearing and in the written Turnover Order itself.\n\nKwok then takes that misrepresentation to the next level. He claims that even though the Turnover Order's only condition precedent was satisfied on December 6, 2021—when BVI Justice Jack modified his prior orders to enable the Genever BVI share transfer—he nevertheless cannot initiate the turnover process by issuing the Stop Notice to Bravo Luck until PAX similarly obtains Bankruptcy Court pre-approval. That is also wrong. Bankruptcy Court approval is not a condition precedent to Kwok issuing the Stop Notice. In fact, Kwok's compliance with the Turnover Order *does not implicate* the Bankruptcy Court at all. As this Court recognized,2 Genever BVI is not a party to the New York bankruptcy proceeding and is not encumbered by the automatic stay governing debtor Genever NY. Rather, Kwok has complete control over Genever BVI and is entirely free to issue notice to Bravo Luck (*i.e.*, Kwok's son) at any time; he has just *refused* to do so. Thus, with every passing day, Kwok willfully violates the Turnover Order by failing to \"take whatever steps are necessary in the [BVI] to turn[]over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership\" in Genever BVI.\n\n1 This brief refers to PAX's January 7, 2022 opening brief [\\(Dkt. No. 1079\\)](http) as the \"Motion\" or \"Mot.\" and Kwok's January 18, 2022 opposition brief [\\(Dkt. No. 1104\\)](http) as the \"Opposition\" or \"Opp.\" Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Motion, (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted. 2 *See* [Dkt. No. 1086](http) (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:12–18\\)](http).\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 185 of 269\n\nFinally, Kwok argues that his disregard for the Court's lawful Turnover Order has not prejudiced PAX because there already are other court orders in place—the BVI freeze orders and the Bankruptcy Court automatic stay over Genever NY's assets—that are sufficient to protect PAX's interests. That is ironic; as this Court well knows, *court orders provide PAX no protection against Kwok.* One need only look to the current location of Kwok's \"restrained\" yacht, the Lady May—floating beyond the Court's jurisdiction off the coast of Italy despite incurring a \\$500,000 daily fine—as Exhibit A for that proposition.\n\nKwok has repeatedly demonstrated little regard for this Court's authority. More than *six weeks* have elapsed since Justice Jack cleared the way for Kwok to begin to comply with the Turnover Order, but he has failed and refused to take even the first step. The Court should once again hold Kwok in civil contempt.\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. The Turnover Order is an Unequivocal Mandate that Does Not Require Bankruptcy Court Approval—and Kwok Knows it.**\n\nKwok asserts that because the Turnover Order provides that \"[a]ny actions affecting *Genever* [*NY*], a wholly owned subsidiary of *Genever BVI*, are subject to the jurisdiction of [Judge] Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving *Genever* [*NY*],\"3 PAX is required to obtain the Bankruptcy Court's pre-approval before Kwok is obligated to takes steps to effect turnover of his Genever BVI shares.4 This is false, and Kwok knows it; he and the Genever Defendants briefed and argued the same position in connection with PAX's turnover motion and *this Court rejected it*.\n\n3 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.](http) 4 [Opp. at 6–8.](http)\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 186 of 269\n\nThe Turnover Order—which Kwok did not appeal—was contingent *only* on Justice Jack\n\nmodifying his prior orders in the related BVI action, which Justice Jack did on December 6,\n\n2021.5 Kwok knows full well that the Turnover Order's reference to the Bankruptcy Court\n\nactually derives from the Court's consideration and *repudiation* of Kwok's argument that PAX\n\nwas seeking to circumvent the bankruptcy proceedings and the automatic stay.6 This is because\n\nPAX sought turnover only of Kwok's shares of Genever BVI—a *non-debtor* third party to which\n\nthe Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay *does not apply*. 7 As the Court explained, Kwok's\n\nturnover to PAX of his Genever BVI shares affects Genever BVI, *not Genever NY:*8\n\nIt is undisputed that the Sherry Netherland apartment is owned by Genever [NY], which is a subsidiary of Genever BVI. Genever [NY] is involved in bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of New York …. And so any action which PAX may wish to take with respect to Genever [NY] requires approval of Judge Garrity in the New York bankruptcy proceedings involving Genever [NY], because Genever [NY] is in bankruptcy. *All this Court is doing today is directing … Genever BVI's registered agent to update Genever BVI's registered members to reflect that PAX, or its designee, is the legal owner of Mr. Kwok's shares in Genever [] BVI*. 9\n\nThough one would not know it from Kwok's Opposition, his counsel has in fact\n\nexpressly acknowledged—in an October 8, 2021 letter to PAX—that the only hurdle to Kwok\n\ninitiating the turnover process was Justice Jack's since-modified freeze orders: \"[i]n order to\n\ncomply with the Court's Turnover Order,\" \"*Mr. Kwok will be acting in accordance with any*\n\n*subsequent court order issued by Justice Jack* as it relates to any modification of the stay orders\n\n5 *See* [Dkt. No. 1089.](http) Specifically, on December 6, 2021, Justice Jack modified his prior order to \"[p]ermit [Kwok] to transfer the shares registered in his name in [Genever BVI] to [PAX] in compliance with the Turnover Order,\" and to \"[p]ermit [Genever BVI] (and its Registered Agent) to update the Register of Members of [Genever BVI] to reflect the transfer by [Kwok] of the shares registered in his name to [PAX].\"\n\n6 *See* [Dkt. No. 874 at 4–6;](http) [Dkt. No. 896 at 4–5.](http) 7 [Dkt. No. 899 at 10](http) (citing *In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.*[, 38 B.R. 75, 78 \\(Bankr. D. Vt. 1984\\)\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_164_78).\n\n8 *See* [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.](http) 9 [Dkt. No. 1086](http) (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:2–17\\)](http).\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 187 of 269\n\nor relating to the shares of Genever BVI.\"10 Tellingly, Kwok's counsel did not claim back in October that Bankruptcy Court pre-approval was also required—because he knew it was not. Making this argument now is just Kwok's latest antic to try to avoid contempt while continuing to flout the Turnover Order.\n\nNo matter how many times Kwok tries to suggest otherwise,11 this Court has already ruled—in the Turnover Order that Kwok did not appeal—that turnover of Kwok's Genever BVI shares to PAX does not require Bankruptcy Court pre-approval.12\n\n## **II. There is No Impediment to Kwok Initiating Compliance with the Turnover Order.**\n\nNext, Kwok builds on his false \"bankruptcy pre-approval requirement\" premise by injecting a new, equally flawed argument relating to Bravo Luck's issuance of the December 10, 2021 Stop Notice. Specifically, Kwok now suggests that he cannot even have Genever BVI (*i.e.,* himself) provide notice to Bravo Luck (*i.e,* his son) until PAX first obtains Bankruptcy Court approval.13 This is circular nonsense. As explained above, the Turnover Order included only *one* condition precedent, and that was fully satisfied in early December when Justice Jack modified his prior BVI orders to enable turnover.14\n\n10 *See* [Dkt. No. 1081.](http) 11 Kwok's attempt to relitigate this issue after it was rejected and not appealed is not only improper, but futile. The Court's decision was correct in September 2021, and remains so today.\n\n12 In the context of this motion, Kwok's observation that courts \"generally defer\" to the Bankruptcy Court concerning the applicability of the automatic stay is a non sequitur. The single case Kwok cites, *[Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, addressed whether individual guarantors who filed for bankruptcy protection should have the automatic stay extend to their wholly owned property. [26 Misc.3d 1215\\(A\\), 907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at \\\\*4 \\(Sup.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) [Ct. 2010\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) That situation is inapposite here, as Genever BVI is the non-debtor parent company of Genever NY, not its wholly owned property.\n\n13 *See* Opp. [at 8–9.](http) 14 *See supra* at 3.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 188 of 269\n\nAs the sole owner and director of Genever BVI,15 Kwok unquestionably has the unfettered ability to send the Stop Notice—which he is legally obligated to do under the Turnover Order's express mandate that he \"take whatever steps are necessary\" in the BVI to effectuate turnover.\"16 Kwok's new suggestion that giving notice would somehow \"circumvent the procedural process\" \"currently underway\" in the BVI17 is baseless, as there is no ongoing BVI proceeding that in any way addresses turnover or inhibits Kwok from beginning to comply with the Turnover Order by issuing notice to Bravo Luck. Moreover, none of the requisite steps that Kwok must take to effect turnover are contingent in any way on either PAX or the Bankruptcy Court doing anything. Nevertheless, over six weeks have passed since Bravo Luck (*i.e.*, Kwok's son) issued a Stop Notice, and in the interim Kwok defiantly has not taken *any steps* towards compliance with that order.\n\nEnough is enough. The Court should sanction Kwok's blatant disobedience and gamesmanship.18\n\n## **III. Kwok's Failure to Comply Prejudices PAX.**\n\nFinally, Kwok argues that PAX has not been prejudiced by his failure to comply with the Turnover Order because *judicial orders already exist in the related actions \"to maintain the status quo.*\"19\n\n19 [Opp. at 9–10.](http)\n\n15 [Dkt. No. 756 at 9.](http) 16 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1.](http) 17 [Opp. at 9.](http) 18 To the extent Kwok is suggesting that he hasn't disobeyed the Turnover Order because \"it is for Genever BVI to provide the written notice required by the Stop Notice and not Mr. Kwok personally,\" [\\(Nader Aff. ¶ 4\\(b\\),](http) [Dkt. No. 1105\\)](http), that argument doesn't pass the laugh test. By his own admission [\\(Dkt. No. 756 at 9\\)](http), Kwok is the only person authorized to instruct Genever BVI to issue the requisite notice.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 189 of 269\n\nThe irony likely is not lost on the Court. As PAX has explained,20 Kwok's disobedience \"deprive[s]\" PAX of its right to possess property (the shares of Genever BVI) that \"can be turned over in satisfaction of a money judgment\"—and to which it is entitled.\"21 *[McCormick v.](http) Axelrod*[, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 \\(1983\\).](http) Possession of the Genever BVI shares is especially critical to PAX in this case, given Kwok's demonstrated practice of secreting his assets beyond PAX's reach in blatant defiance of court orders. The Court need look no farther than to Kwok's fugitive, multimillion-dollar luxury yacht, the Lady May—which for over a year now has remained beyond this Court's jurisdictional reach in defiance of its October 15, 2021 Order—as proof positive that *valid court orders provide no deterrence to Kwok, and no protection to PAX*. 22 Guarding against this very risk by obtaining physical possession of the Genever BVI shares is what motivated PAX to move for turnover in the first place, and Kwok's refusal to take\n\nthe steps necessary to effect that share transfer prejudices PAX's rights.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nKwok treats compliance with lawful orders of this Court as optional. That must stop. PAX has established all of the civil contempt elements set forth in [New York Judiciary Law §](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) [753.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Accordingly, PAX respectfully requests that the Court find Kwok in civil contempt of its September 22, 2021 Turnover Order and impose whatever sanction it believes is warranted to induce Kwok's immediate compliance.\n\n20 [Mot. at 7–8.](http) 21 [Dkt. No. 1086](http) (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [16:13–15\\)](http).\n\n22 The Marine Traffic Yacht Tracker locates the Lady May off the northern coast of Italy as of January 24, 2022. *See* Jan. 24, 2022 Aff. of Stuart Sarnoff in Further Supp. of PAX's Mot. for an Order of Civil Contempt, Ex. 1.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 190 of 269\n\nDated: January 24, 2022 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York\n\n## O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n\n\n## **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of\n\nCommercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word,\n\nand the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and\n\nsignature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: January 24, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 192 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 33**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1191 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 193 of 269\n\n**COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. MOTION JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK**\n\n\n\n**Motion 026**\n\n**Index No.**\n\n**652077/2017**\n\n**Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n**- v. -**\n\n**Kwok Ho Wan et al**\n\n## **COURT NOTICE**\n\nFiling on Behalf of - Rose Ann Magaldi, Principal Law Clerk to Justice Ostrager\n\nIn light of the bankruptcy filing by Mr. Kwok, the Court proposes that plaintiff either withdraw the pending contempt motion (026) without prejudice to an appropriate application in the Bankruptcy Court and/or without prejudice to renewal before this Court, if appropriate, upon the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court prefers not to keep fully submitted motions pending for an indefinite time. If counsel have an alternative suggestion, the Court will, of course, consider it.\n\nWe ask that plaintiff, and any other interested party, efile a letter by March 3, 2022 addressing the issues raised in this Court Notice. Thank you. DATED 02/18/2022 FILED By RoseAnn Magaldi\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 194 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 34**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 195 of 269\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\nv.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that, on February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the \"**Debtor**\"), a defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit, filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the \"**Bankruptcy Code**\"), with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"**Bankruptcy Court**\"). A copy of the Debtor's voluntary petition is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**. The Debtor's chapter 11 case is being administered in the Bankruptcy Court under case number 22-50073.\n\n**PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE** that, pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor's filing of his voluntary petition operates as a stay of, among other things: (a) the commencement or continuation of all judicial, administrative, or other actions or proceedings against the Debtor (i) that were or could have been commenced before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case or (ii) to recover any claims against the Debtor that arose before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case; (b) the enforcement, against before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case; or (c) any act to obtain possession of\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 196 of 269\n\nproperty of or from the Debtor's bankruptcy estate, or to exercise control over property of the\n\nDebtor's bankruptcy estate.\n\nThis Suggestion of Bankruptcy is provided for informational purposes only, and does\n\nnot constitute an appearance or intent to appear in this proceeding by the undersigned.\n\nDated: February 15, 2022 New York, New York\n\n */s/ William R. Baldiga* William R. Baldiga, Esq. Uriel Pinelo, Esq. Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com upinelo@brownrudnick.com Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801\n\n*Proposed Counsel for Debtor*\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 197 of 269\n\n## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Debtor's Voluntary Petition**\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM
Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073
Doc 183-4
Doc 1
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 | Filed 02/15/22
Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52
Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | INDEX NO. 652077/2017
Page 1 of 14
Page 198 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Fill in this information to identify your case: | 269 | | |\n| United States Bankruptcy Court for the:
District of Connecticut
________________ District of ________ | | | |\n| Case number (If known): _________________________ Chapter you are filing under: | ‰ Chapter 7
✔
‰ Chapter 11
‰ Chapter 12
‰ Chapter 13 | | ‰
Check if this is an
amended filing |\n| | | | |\n\n## Official Form 101\n\n## Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy **/**\n\n**The bankruptcy forms use** *you* **and** *Debtor 1* **to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a** *joint case***—and in joint cases, these forms use** *you* **to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, \"Do you own a car,\" the answer would be** *yes* **if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses** *Debtor 1* **and** *Debtor 2* **to distinguish between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as** *Debtor 1* **and the other as** *Debtor 2***. The same person must be** *Debtor 1* **in all of the forms.**\n\n**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer every question.**\n\n### Part 1: Identify Yourself\n\n| | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Your full name
1. | | |\n| Write the name that is on your
government-issued picture
identification (for example,
your driver's license or | Ho Wan
__________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name |\n| passport).
Bring your picture | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Kwok
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| identification to your meeting
with the trustee. | Last name
___________________________ | Last name
___________________________ |\n| | Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) | Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) |\n| All other names you
2. | Miles
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________ |\n| have used in the last 8
years | First name
__________________________________________________ | First name
__________________________________________________ |\n| Include your married or
maiden names. | Middle name
Kwok; Guo
__________________________________________________ | Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | Last name | Last name |\n| | Wengui
__________________________________________________
First name | __________________________________________________
First name |\n| | __________________________________________________
Middle name
Guo
__________________________________________________ | __________________________________________________
Middle name
__________________________________________________ |\n| | Last name | Last name |\n| | | |\n| your Social Security | 9
5
9
5
xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____ | xxx
– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____ |\n| Individual Taxpayer
Identification number | 9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ | 9
xx
– xx
– ____ ____ ____ ____ |\n| Only the last 4 digits of
3.
number or federal
(ITIN) | OR | OR |\n\n### Official Form 101 **Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy** page 1\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 | |\n|--|-----------------------|--|\n| | | |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| | About Debtor 1: | About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case): |\n| Any business names
and Employer
Identification Numbers
(EIN) you have used in | ✔
‰
I have not used any business names or EINs. | ‰
I have not used any business names or EINs. |\n| the last 8 years | _________________________________________________
Business name | _________________________________________________
Business name |\n| Include trade names and
doing business as names | _________________________________________________
Business name | _________________________________________________
Business name |\n| | | |\n| | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN |\n| | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN | ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
EIN |\n| Where you live
5. | | If Debtor 2 lives at a different address: |\n| | c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.
_________________________________________________
Number
Street | _________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n| | 162 East 64th Street
_________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | New York
NY
10065 | |\n| | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code |\n| | New York
_________________________________________________ | _________________________________________________ |\n| | County | County |\n| | If your mailing address is different from the one
above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to you at this mailing address. | If Debtor 2's mailing address is different from
yours, fill it in here. Note that the court will send
any notices to this mailing address. |\n| | _________________________________________________
Number
Street | _________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n| | _________________________________________________
P.O. Box | _________________________________________________
P.O. Box |\n| | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code | _________________________________________________
City
State
ZIP Code |\n| Why you are choosing | Check one: | Check one: |\n| 6.
this district to file for
bankruptcy | ✔
‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district. | ‰
Over the last 180 days before filing this petition,
I have lived in this district longer than in any
other district. |\n| | ‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.) | ‰
I have another reason. Explain.
(See 28 U.S.C. § 1408.) |\n| | ________________________________________ | ________________________________________
________________________________________ |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|--|-----------------------|\n| | |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
Last Name | _______________________________________________________ | | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Part 2:
Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case | | | | | | | |\n| The chapter of the
7.
Bankruptcy Code you | Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing
for Bankruptcy (Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box. | | | | | | |\n| are choosing to file
under | ‰ | Chapter 7 | | | | | |\n| | ✔
‰ | Chapter 11 | | | | | |\n| | ‰ | Chapter 12 | | | | | |\n| | ‰ | Chapter 13 | | | | | |\n| How you will pay the fee
8. | ✔
‰
I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk's office in your
local court for more details about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee
yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier's check, or money order. If your attorney is
submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check
with a pre-printed address.
‰
I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the
Application for Individuals to Pay The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A). | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | ‰ | | Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition. | | | I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7.
By law, a judge may, but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is
less than 150% of the official poverty line that applies to your family size and you are unable to
pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out the Application to Have the | |\n| Have you filed for
9. | ✔
‰
No | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| bankruptcy within the
last 8 years? | ‰ | | Yes. District __________________________ When | | | _______________ Case number ___________________________ | |\n| | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | | | District __________________________ When | | MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | | | District __________________________ When | | MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | ✔ | | | | | | |\n| cases pending or being | ‰ No
‰ | | Yes. Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you | | | _______________ Case number ___________________________
_______________ Case number ___________________________
_____________________ | |\n| filed by a spouse who is
not filing this case with | | | District __________________________ When | | | | |\n| you, or by a business
partner, or by an | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | _______________ Case number, if known____________________ | |\n| affiliate? | | | | | | | |\n| | | | Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you
District __________________________ When | | | _____________________
_______________ Case number, if known____________________ | |\n| | | | | | MM / DD / YYYY | | |\n| | ✔
‰
No. | Go to line 12. | | | | | |\n| 10. Are any bankruptcy
11. Do you rent your
residence? | ‰ | ‰ | Yes. Has your landlord obtained an eviction judgment against you?
No. Go to line 12. | | | | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan | Kwok
_______________________________________________________ | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Part 3: | First Name
Middle Name | Last Name
Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor | |\n| | 12. Are you a sole proprietor
of any full- or part-time | ✔
‰
No. Go to Part 4. | |\n| business? | | ‰
Yes. Name and location of business | |\n| | A sole proprietorship is a
business you operate as an
individual, and is not a
separate legal entity such as
a corporation, partnership, or | Name of business, if any
Number
Street | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________ |\n| LLC.
If you have more than one
sole proprietorship, use a
separate sheet and attach it
to this petition. | _______________________________________________ | _______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
__________________________ | |\n| | | City | State
ZIP Code |\n| | | Check the appropriate box to describe your business: | |\n| | | ‰ | Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)) |\n| | | ‰ | Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)) |\n| | ‰
Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)) | | |\n| | ‰ | Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)) | |\n| | ‰
None of the above | | |\n| 13. Are you filing under
Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code and
are you a small business
debtorRUDGHEWRUDV | | | If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtorRUDGHEWRU
FKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9 so that it can set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you
are a small business debtorRU\\RXDUHFKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9, you must attach your
most recent balance sheet, statement of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or
if any of these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B). |\n| | GHILQHGE\\86&† | ‰
No. I am not filing under Chapter 11. | |\n| ? | For a definition of small | ✔
‰
the Bankruptcy Code. | No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in |\n| | business debtor, see
11 U.S.C. § 101(51D). | ‰ | |\n| | | ‰ | &RGHDQG,GRQRWFKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU
|\n| | | | %DQNUXSWF\\&RGHDQG,FKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU |\n\n| Ho
Wan
Debtor 1
First Name
Middle Name | | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Part 4: | | | Report if You Own or Have Any Hazardous Property or Any Property That Needs Immediate Attention |\n| 14. Do you own or have any | ✔
‰
No | | |\n| property that poses or is
alleged to pose a threat | ‰
Yes. | What is the hazard? | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| of imminent and
identifiable hazard to | | | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| public health or safety?
Or do you own any | | | |\n| property that needs
immediate attention? | | | If immediate attention is needed, why is it needed? _______________________________________________ |\n| For example, do you own
perishable goods, or livestock | | | ________________________________________________________________________ |\n| that must be fed, or a building
that needs urgent repairs? | | | |\n| | | | Where is the property? ________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street |\n| | | | |\n\n| FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM | | | | | | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Case 22-50073
Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4
Doc 1 | Filed 02/15/22
Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52 | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | Page 6 of 14
Page 203 of | |\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 | | Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4
Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45
Page 203 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 |\n|----------------------|--|---------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | 269 | |\n\nDebtor 1 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Case number (*if known*)\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ First Name Middle Name Last Name\n\nPart 5: Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling\n\n### **15. Tell the court whether you have received a briefing about credit counseling.**\n\nThe law requires that you receive a briefing about credit counseling before you file for bankruptcy. You must truthfully check one of the following choices. If you cannot do so, you are not eligible to file.\n\nIf you file anyway, the court can dismiss your case, you will lose whatever filing fee you paid, and your creditors can begin collection activities again.\n\nHo Wan Kwok\n\n*You must check one:*\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of completion.** ✔\n\nAttach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a certificate of completion.**\n\nWithin 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if any.\n\n **I certify that I asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days after I made my request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.**\n\nTo ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.\n\nYour case may be dismissed if the court is dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.\n\nIf the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file. You must file a certificate from the approved agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case may be dismissed.\n\nAny extension of the 30-day deadline is granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days.\n\n### **I am not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling because of:**\n\n- **Incapacity.** I have a mental illness or a mental deficiency that makes me incapable of realizing or making rational decisions about finances.\n- **Disability.** My physical disability causes me to be unable to participate in a briefing in person, by phone, or through the internet, even after I reasonably tried to do so.\n- **Active duty.** I am currently on active military duty in a military combat zone.\n\nIf you believe you are not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling, you must file a motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.\n\n**About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):**\n\n*You must check one:*\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of completion.**\n\nAttach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.\n\n **I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a certificate of completion.**\n\nWithin 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if any.\n\n **I certify that I asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days after I made my request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.**\n\nTo ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.\n\nYour case may be dismissed if the court is dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.\n\nIf the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file. You must file a certificate from the approved agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case may be dismissed.\n\nAny extension of the 30-day deadline is granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days.\n\n### **I am not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling because of:**\n\n| ‰
Incapacity. | I have a mental illness or a mental
deficiency that makes me
incapable of realizing or making
rational decisions about finances. |\n|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ‰
Disability. | My physical disability causes me
to be unable to participate in a
briefing in person, by phone, or
through the internet, even after I
reasonably tried to do so. |\n| | |\n\n **Active duty.** I am currently on active military duty in a military combat zone.\n\nIf you believe you are not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling, you must file a motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|---|-----------------------|\n| : | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| Part 6: | | Answer These Questions for Reporting Purposes | | | | | |\n| | 16. What kind of debts do
you have? | 16a. Are your debts primarily consumer debts? Consumer debts are defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8)
as \"incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.\" | | | | | |\n| | ✔
‰
No. Go to line 16b.
‰
Yes. Go to line 17. | | | | | | |\n| | 16b. Are your debts primarily business debts? Business debts are debts that you incurred to obtain
money for a business or investment or through the operation of the business or investment. | | | | | | |\n| | | ✔
‰
No. Go to line 16c.
‰
Yes. Go to line 17. | | | | | |\n| | | 16c. State the type of debts you owe that are not consumer debts or business debts.
Litigation expenses, claims, and judgments
_______________________________________________________________ | | | | | |\n| | 17. Are you filing under
Chapter 7? | ✔
‰
No. I am not filing under Chapter 7. Go to line 18. | | | | | |\n| ‰
Do you estimate that after
any exempt property is
excluded and
‰
No
administrative expenses
‰
Yes
are paid that funds will be
available for distribution
to unsecured creditors? | | | | Yes. I am filing under Chapter 7. Do you estimate that after any exempt property is excluded and
administrative expenses are paid that funds will be available to distribute to unsecured creditors? | | | |\n| | 18. How many creditors do
you estimate that you
owe? | ‰
1-49
✔
‰
50-99
‰
100-199
‰
200-999 | ‰
1,000-5,000
‰
5,001-10,000
‰
10,001-25,000 | ‰
25,001-50,000
‰
50,001-100,000
‰
More than 100,000 | | | |\n| | 19. How much do you
estimate your assets to
be worth? | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
✔
‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000
‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000
‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million
‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion
‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion
‰
More than \\$50 billion | | | |\n| | 20. How much do you
estimate your liabilities
to be? | ‰
\\$0-\\$50,000
‰
\\$50,001-\\$100,000
‰
\\$100,001-\\$500,000 | ‰
\\$1,000,001-\\$10 million
‰
\\$10,000,001-\\$50 million
‰
\\$50,000,001-\\$100 million
✔ | ‰
\\$500,000,001-\\$1 billion
‰
\\$1,000,000,001-\\$10 billion
‰
\\$10,000,000,001-\\$50 billion | | | |\n| Part 7: | Sign Below | ‰
\\$500,001-\\$1 million | ‰
\\$100,000,001-\\$500 million | ‰
More than \\$50 billion | | | |\n| For you | | I have examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and
correct. | | | | | |\n| | If I have chosen to file under Chapter 7, I am aware that I may proceed, if eligible, under Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13
of title 11, United States Code. I understand the relief available under each chapter, and I choose to proceed
under Chapter 7. | | | | | | |\n| | If no attorney represents me and I did not pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help me fill out
this document, I have obtained and read the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b). | | | | | | |\n| | | I request relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, specified in this petition. | | | | | |\n| | | I understand making a false statement, concealing property, or obtaining money or property by fraud in connection
with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to \\$250,000, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571. | | | | | |\n| | | 8
/s/ Ho Wan Kwok
______________________________________________ | 8 | _____________________________ | | | |\n| | | Signature of Debtor 1 | | Signature of Debtor 2 | | | |\n| | | 02/15/2022
Executed on _________________ | | Executed on __________________ | | | |\n\n| | INDEX NO. 652077/2017 |\n|--|-----------------------|\n| | |\n\n| Debtor 1 | Ho
Wan
First Name
Middle Name | Kwok
_______________________________________________________
Last Name | | Case number (if known)_____________________________________ | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| For your attorney, if you are
represented by one
If you are not represented
by an attorney, you do not | to proceed under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have explained the relief
knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with the petition is incorrect. | | I, the attorney for the debtor(s) named in this petition, declare that I have informed the debtor(s) about eligibility
available under each chapter for which the person is eligible. I also certify that I have delivered to the debtor(s)
the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) and, in a case in which § 707(b)(4)(D) applies, certify that I have no | | | |\n| | need to file this page. | 8
_________________________________
/s/
William
R.
Baldiga | Date | _________________
02/15/2022 | | |\n| | | Signature of Attorney for Debtor | | MM
/
DD
/ YYYY | | |\n| | | Firm name
7 Times Square
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Number
Street
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\n| | | New York
______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ | NY | 10036 | | |\n| | | City | State | ZIP Code | | |\n| | | (212) 209-4800
Contact phone _____________________________________ | Email address | wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
______________________________ | | |\n| | | 4813846
______________________________________________________ ____________ | NY | | | |\n| | | | State | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 206 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 36**\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, | | | | | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 | | | | |\n| KWOK | HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | | | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued\n\nthree orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30,\n\n2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from,\n\namong other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc.\n\nNo. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\" *Id.* On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's\n\nmotion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. 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. Specifically, 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\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\nPlaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, 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.\"\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.\n\nA status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: March 16, 2021\n\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | | | |\n|-----------------------|---|----------------------------|--|--------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------|--|\n| | X | GRANTED | | DENIED | | 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 210 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 35**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2022 12:16 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 211 of 269\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | | |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|--|--|\n| | Justice | | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | | | |\n| L.P., | | | | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | | |\n| | -
v - | | | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION DATE | | | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | 026 | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | | | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | | |\n| | CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, | | | | |\n| | Defendants. | | | | |\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn light of the bankruptcy filing by defendant Ho Wan Kwok (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1190), the Court hereby permits plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. to withdraw its motion for an Order of Civil Contempt based on Mr. Kwok's alleged noncompliance with this Court's September 22, 2021, Turnover Order (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 1192). A status conference is scheduled for December 6, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. via Microsoft Teams. The Court requests that Mr. Kwok's counsel efile a letter as to the status of the bankruptcy proceedings at least one week before the conference date, along with an updated appearance sheet for Teams.\n\nDated: March 4, 2022\n\n| CHECK ONE: | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | | | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|--|--------|-----------------------|-----------------------|---|-----------|\n| | GRANTED | | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | X | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | SETTLE ORDER | | | | SUBMIT ORDER | | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | | REFERENCE |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 212 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 37**\n\nSupreme Court of the State of New York **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 01/20/2022 09:38 AM** 2021-01010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/20/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 213 of 269\n\nAppellate Division, First Judicial Department\n\n| PRESENT:
Hon.
Rolando T. Acosta,
Dianne T. Renwick
Tanya R. Kennedy | Presiding Justice, | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|------------|--|--|\n| Manuel J. Mendez, | Justices. | | | |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P., | Motion No. | 2021-04127 | | |\n| Plaintiff-Respondent, | Index No. | 652077/17 | | |\n| | Case No. | 2021-01010 | | |\n| -against | | | | |\n| Kwok Ho Wan, also known as Kwok Ho, etc.,
Defendant-Appellant, | | | | |\n| Genever Holdings LLC, et al., | | | | |\n| Defendants. | | | | |\n\nDefendant-appellant having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court, entered on November 04, 2021 (Appeal No. 14555),\n\nNow, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,\n\nIt is ordered that the motion is denied.\n\nENTERED: January 20, 2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 214 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 38**\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 08:26 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1098 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 215 of 269\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | MOTION DATE | |\n| | -
v - | | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | MOTION SEQ. NO. | 019 |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | THIRD | INTERIM DECISION + |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | | ORDER ON MOTION |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n\n## HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBy Interim Decision & Order dated July 21, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 873), the Court determined plaintiff's motion to hold defendant Kwok Ho Wan in civil contempt and the crossmotion by defendant for a stay pending appeal to the extent of holding the motion in abeyance pending a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, on an appeal calendared for the September Term. The Appellate Division determined the appeal by Decision and Order dated November 4, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 953). Further argument on the contempt motion was heard on January 14, 2022 and the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to be held on February 2, 2022 commencing at 9:30 a.m.\n\nDirect testimony will be offered by affidavit. The Court will not consider the affidavit of any person who is not available for cross-examination. The parties will confer and prepare a Joint Exhibit Binder by January 24, 2022. Plaintiff will efile direct testimony affidavits by January 26, 2022. Defendants will efile direct testimony affidavits by January 28, 2022. Hard copies of all documents shall be delivered to Courtroom 232 by noon on January 31, 2022.\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 08:26 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1098 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 216 of 269\n\nThe parties are directed to efile on or before January 24, 2022 a letter containing a Joint Appearance Sheet for the February 2, 2022 hearing.\n\nDated: January 14, 2022\n\n| CHECK ONE: | CASE DISPOSED | | X | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|--------|---|-----------------------|------------|\n| | GRANTED | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | X
OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | SETTLE ORDER | | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 217 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 39**\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOKHO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/kla GUO WENGUI, a/kla GUO WEN GUI; a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/kla MILES KWOK, a/kla HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nv.\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No: 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n**[Fl4QjL08ED]** FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT\n\nMotion Sequence No. 19\n\nWHEREAS this Co~rt's conditional order of civil contempt, dated March 16,2021, directed that if Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") failed to return the Lady May yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 15, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000 fine-for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction;-\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 218 of 269\n\nWHEREAS the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction by May 15, 2021;\n\nWHEREAS on November 4,2021, the Appellate Division's First Department affIrme,d this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of .\\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing,\" and \\_instructing this Court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties;\n\nWHEREAS Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction;\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 219 of 269\n\nWHEREAS both Kwok and the registered title holder of the Lady May, HK International (q)peCt.r~(i by *co~V\\\\$e \\* Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, were pregent at the hearini proffered evidence and were represented by counsel; and\n\nWHEREAS, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court determines that\n\nPAX has clearly and convincingly established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control\n\n. h L d M *AS se--'- r-*--l\\_ I \"\" ~ Cr, \\A.,/t \\:> 'R-'v;,VIMt *Uf* '1, *;:).0* 'd---1-. over tea y aYj \"'- ., .~ \" ~ ( \\)~ C\\-'> \\'c)v\\ ltA,Ad. CJv~ . . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n\n- 1. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law 9753 and is civil contempt of this Court's orders.\n- 2. Kwokis directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the amount of \\$134,000,000, representing \\$500,000 for each day between May 15,2021 and February 7,2022.\n- \"3. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at t~~rate of \\$500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction, which additional accrual shall begin ten . ~ e'fv,'(;Il.. ~ *N* f.,' ..L.. *'C* iv business days from t e Bltte of this Order, \"'VJ1'~. *i>* u... *crl v* 11 *Y* I\n- 4. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five se...rv *,'(JL , .*f f..rv business days of the ~ of this Order, w I~ No-t-t (...L. *t!) .* GVt,. *I .*\n\n;:\", ' 1'l;::t\"l 5. The Court shall exercise its full authority under NeWYork Judiciary Law 9 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid to PAX.\n\nIt is SO ORDERED this ?-'\" ~ day of *Ii b VYt a* '='Cd' ,2022. R. OSTRAGERJ...\\$.C. **A.OSTRAGER .** ,,~SC;}\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 220 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 40**\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/14/2022 10:10 AM** 2022-00609 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 221 of 269\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 (\"Mr. Kwok\"), hereby\n\nappeals to the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, from the Decision and Order of the\n\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Ostrager, J.), dated February 9,\n\n2022, and entered in the office of the New York County Clerk on February 9, 2022 (NYSCEF\n\nDoc. No. 1181), and from each and every part thereof.\n\nDated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, February 10, 2022\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\n By: *\\_/s/ John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_* John Siegal Melissa Carvalho 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n*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## **,@,uprtmt Qlnurt nf t4t** *,@,tatt* **nf Ntw lnrk** *l\\pptllatt* **mtutsinn: First ~uhtrtal 1lltpartmtnt**\n\nInformational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil\n\n| Case Title: Set fotih the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to
For Court of Original Instance
show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended. | | | | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P | | | | | | | |\n| - against - | | | Date Notice of Appeal Filed | | | | | |\n| KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a
For Appellate Division
GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN
GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGSCORPORATION | | | | | | | | |\n| Case Type | | Filing Type | | | | | | |\n| Civil Action
D
CPLR article 75 Arbitration | D CPLR article 78 Proceeding
D
Special Proceeding Other
D Habeas Corpus Proceeding | Appeal
D
Original Proceedings
• CPLR Article 78
D Eminent Domain
D Labor Law 220 or 220-b
D Public Officers Law § 36
D Real Property Tax Law§ 1278 | D Transferred Proceeding
0 CPLR Article 78
D Executive Law§ 298
• CPLR 5704 Review | | | | | |\n| Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case. | | | | | | | | |\n| D Administrative Review | Business Relationships | Commercial | Contracts | | | | | |\n| D Declaratory Judgment | D Domestic Relations | D Election Law | D Estate Matters | | | | | |\n| D Family Court | D Mortgage Foreclosure | D Miscellaneous | • Prisoner Discipline & Parole | | | | | |\n| D Statutory
D Real Property
D Taxation
D Torts
( other than foreclosure) | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 183-4 | Filed 04/06/22 | Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 | Page 223 of | |\n|----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 | | 269 | | | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 |\n\n| d 04/06/22 17:07 [421vER ਕ੍ਰਿਉਣ੍ | | |\n|----------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | |\n\n| Paper Appealed From (Check one only): | | If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\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| • Amended Decree | • Determination | • Order | • Resettled Order | | |\n| Amended Judgement | Finding | l!iii!l Order & Judgment | • Ruling | | |\n| • Amended Order | Interlocutory Decree | Partial Decree | • Other (specify): | | |\n| Decision | • Interlocutory Judgment | • Resettled Decree | | | |\n| • Decree | • Judgment | • Resettled Judgment | | | |\n| Court:
Supreme Court | | New York
County: | | | |\n| 02/09/2022
Dated: | | Entered: 02/09/2022 | | | |\n| Judge (name in full): Hon. Barry Ostrager | | Index No.: 652077/2017 | | | |\n| • Interlocutory
l!iii!l Final • Post-Final
Stage: | | Trial:
No
Yes | Non-Jury
If Yes: | | |\n| | Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? | | | • No
Yes | | |\n| If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal. | | | | | |\n| 2021-00740 | | | | | |\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| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | Original Proceeding | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Commenced by: | D Order to Show Cause • Notice of Petition • Writ of Habeas Corpus | | Date Filed: | | |\n| Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: | | | | | |\n| | Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| Choose Court
Court: | | County: | Choose Countv | | |\n| Judge (name in full): | | Order of Transfer Date: | | | |\n| | CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: | | | | |\n| Court: | | County: | | | |\n| Choose Court
Judge (name in full): | Dated: | | Choose Countv | | |\n| | Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\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 pa rte order to be reviewed. | | | | | |\n| Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan is appealing the Decision and Orders in this action entered February | | | | | |\n| 9, 2022 granting a final order of contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753. | | | | | |\n\nInformational Statement - Civil\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 224 of 269\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\nWithout limiting the arguments that may be presented on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan states: that the Decision and Orders were in error, should be reversed in their entirety, and the contempt proceedings must be dismissed. The Supreme Court Decision and Orders, inter alia, granted a final order of contempt that was not legally or factually supported by the record. Even if the contempt finding was proper (it was not), the nature and the amount of the fine imposed was disproportionate, excessive, unauthorized by law, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of Defendant-Appellant's constitutional rights under the federal and state Constitutions.\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 | Respondent |\n| 2 | Kwok Ho Wan | Defendant | Appellant |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings LLC | Defendant | None |\n| 4 | Genever Holdings Corporation | Defendant | None |\n| 5 | | | |\n| 6 | | | |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 225 of 269\n\n### Attorney Information\n\nInstructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked \"Pro Se\" must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided.\n\n| | Attorney/Firm Name: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------|\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: | • Assigned
lii!!i Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\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 | IZip:10111 | I Telephone No: 212-589-1400 |\n| E-mail Address:jsiegal@baker1aw.com | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
lii!!i Retained | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | 2 |\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
lii!!i Retained | D Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | | | |\n| | Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | | |\n| | | | 3, l-f |\n| | | | |\n| Address :
City: | | | |\n| E-mail Address: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Retained
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Address: | | | |\n| Attorney/Firm Name:
Attorney/Firm Name:
City: | I State: | I Zip: | I Telephone No: |\n| E-mail Address: | | | |\n| Attorney Type: | • Assigned
• Retained
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): | • Government | • Pro Hae Vice
• Pro Se |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Attorney/Firm Name:
Address: | | | |\n| City:
E-mail Address: | I State:
• Assigned | I Zip:
• Government | I Telephone No:
• Pro Hae Vice |\n\nInformational Statement - Civil\n\n### ¡¢ £¤¥¦§¤¨©ª«¬®®¯¬°® ¤±²³¦´¥¨³©¤¨©°°µ° ¶¦³¦£·¦¥¤±²³¦´¸¬¯¹¯¬¬¬ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 226 of 269\n\n### - -\n\n|
|
|
|
|\n|-------|------------------------------------------|-----------|--------------|\n| | | | |\n| | | ! | |\n| | 01234321553162718319009:;<63;=4<6> | | |\n| 5?0?@ | | \"# | \\$%&'(()&'*( |\n| | 0ABCDECFF@ | | |\n| |
GHG |
\" | |\n| | IJ9IK9J16@B)L)BIJ9IK9@B)L)BMJ9J76 | | |\n| | M<3@B)L)BM<9J76M<3@B)L)BM<9J76GM<3@B)L)B | +
| ,-. |\n| | J16M<7K19=<6@B)L)BN3578IJ9I@B)L)B | | |\n| | K19=<6M<9@M767O7:PK95>36M8552@BDQ | | |\n| | M767O7:K95>36M829:09:1;396@ | \"
| /\t\"
|\n\n>RFRDQBDES? !\n\nK96?T1::=:?98;:1M7: 3DEUCS&'\\*(VBSRWCEU\\*@\\*X'QYVLRERDEZCRS[BA\\YSEBAAYFWUCVUCDHYAHRQRFRDQBDEIWYL KYJBD]^\\_`abcdefRFFYZESEYBHYCQBDQQRVRCHRUCSVZRQCEYZSghiBZLCDjUCSSkgSEBDECBAiRZSYDBA BSSRESWCEUBSRZCRSYFVYZiYZBECYDS@EZkSERQVYDFCQBDES@BDQFB\\CAh\\R\\gRZSGGEUCS2YkZECSVBAARQ kiYDEYQRERZ\\CDRWUREURZEURiABCDECFF@lmnoponqrromsntq^omuvvcwxysoxz{ys|}~l~\\_`lqe UBS\\REEURgkZQRDYFRSEBgACSUCDjEUBEEUR2YkZESUYkAQRDERZBFCDBA9ZQRZYF2CHCA2YDER\\iE BjBCDSEIWYL?4YZEURZRBSYDSEUBEFYAAYW@EUCS2YkZECSSC\\kAEBDRYkSAhCSSkCDjBFCDBA9ZQRZYF\n\n2CHCA2YDER\\iE? 01SRVkZRQBkQj\\RDEBjBCDSEIWYLCDEURSk\\YF\\*\\*\\$@'&@'\\*?%(YD4RgZkBZh@ &'&\\*6=8274>YV?6Y?(\\*\\$f?;URZRBFERZ@01ys|twxccdmztmw]^rcstppcwxxctspcwntox^ kQj\\RDEghFCZSECQRDECFhCDjBDQEURDBEER\\iECDjEYARHhyvcsabcd]^m^^tx^CDEUR\n\n <= <=,6'?-\"\\*@'.6-A2B.6/2%/0-/'\\$C9\n\n7\n\nD E\n\n FGHIJK\n 7LM 7 3N6CO('&#\\$%P'6-\"\\*6\\*+/2-\\*6\\*%'(\\$\\*62',-\"\\*1#0\"-Q-\"\\*RS#%1N#1A5,6'?)\\*#4/\\$+-\"\\* T\nUVWD8XYVZE [\n FGHIJ \\ D <=8\nD E 7LM\n7\n\n <=\n 7 ]\n7 =LZ L8\n\n <=T\n\n8=EL L T^M <=\nT 8 #,,/6?\\*%-\"/2@'.6-A2'6%\\*6\"')%/\\$+O('&/\\$ 0'\\$%/-/'\\$#)0/4/)0'\\$-\\*?\\_-Q,/\\$%/\\$+-\"#-3-\"\\*%#/)1,/\\$\\*',`abbQbbbCbb(#2/\\$-\\*\\$%\\*%-'2-6'\\$+)1\n\n9 Y\n\nY\n\n> -\n\n### ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©©ª§¨«© ¬®¡¯ £®¤£¤««°« ±¡®¡²¡ ¬®¡¯³¨§ª¨´ª§¨§§ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 228 of 269\n\n !\"# \\$\"%&\" '&(&#)\\*\\$\n+\n, \\*\n\n+\n\n - + +\n\n+\n\n .\n\n+ /0123456/73891:;/08/<<=>2/?@8>ABCCDEFGCHIJKLDEFGCHIJK&M\"# & N&(#!OP Q -R ST!\")U\\*\n\n +\n - +\n\n-\n\n V\n\n\\$\n+WX\n\n -&&(&& +\n - +\n\nY. - -\nY.\n\n-\n\n -&&(&& + +-+.\n\\$ +-Z\n R - [ \\]^=>\n+-\nV\\_&T&`& \"(#\\*+\n\n\\$\n\n Y.\n+\n+\n\nY.\n\nabcdCKebfJghgJifECBjkchL lcKemCKe#!T(&!n&(&( `&(#T/0o@/7@po9q79r1:;/0>;s958t>3u32;:/\n++ HfB#!&v\n\n w;6xy;xzzzA{9r1:;/08|`((#)At8@3}30?{9r1:;/08~\\* {9r1:;/0863>72/s3>po9q;>;0t958>19q3072/8/79<8@3{{\\o@9@;>?90389?23;8t\n\nV 8@3{@/03>3?9u320r308z\\* dJBHfKecKcB\n\n +\nV\n\\*\n+ &(&(\nR -[ - [\n\n -\n\nt\\^23<32>89\\:;/08/<<=>2/;:\n\n### tuvwxyzw{|}~}z|vw~y ¡ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 229 of 269\n\n !\"#\\$! % &'()\\*+ %, -%.%\\*+. +)&'/\n0/%&'+' +(123\\* +% )/ \\*4 + 5+ &\\*6+1,%%%)/7 & 8 9#:;+4 /5//+// 1 <\\* 0%(&&) &\\* \\* +%.)!==# / +/( %&%4%%./(& 0%+ &\\*\n' %\n\n//(%%&%+/\\* >&(6(%&\\* ) +% 05 +\\*?)+%&\\* -)&/5+ 1\n\n8 9 =@8AB=C@8 A2DEF\"==!=\\$=GHIJ8 9= KLLM% + %NO% +%%/% P)Q)R +%%& +%161P) +) &')% \\* 0/(1<\\* + + / &?\\*%%&%S '+)+(TU TLKVNO% +%%/5)+\\* &\\* >&(6( +WTX0//%Q,Y1Z 0%(&&) & \\* \\* +%. '/\\* &\\* )+ )%&5)+\\* \\* >&(6(')\\* )%%+& & 0%(8 9#=![\\! '/\\* &\\*61P)&&%5+4& \\* )%& 5)+\\* \\* (\\*1<+1]]1T?% ^) %/(+ %'/ % + % \\*\n5+4& &\\* )%&NO% +%%/\\*\\* + ) &5)+\\* \\* (\\*1O)%&5) &\\*61P) = :B=\"[\"8 9#=!\\_[\\!\\_%++)%&R)% K` TLK` +aK+%%& +%1<+1]`1b+&%.[E\\!#=CcdefghEcE KKiTj61Q))/0 /(+% ++ &% +\\*5 \\* >&(6(\\* )++ %/ \\*/& +N O% +%%/S)%&O%4 0 %klmbjB=\\_BBC@8neo2DE61Q) )+\\* +4 +\\* \\* \\* / % + Nlmb/\\*).\\*// \\* 0)/p0//%&//+%%)/ q5 % +\\*\n\n -\n\nrFE2:=\"\\_=cdefghEcEKK`s1\n\n### defghijgklmnopmqjrlpfgnostusvutsttswixxyz {|}~| |~}| ~~{~}|~ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 230 of 269\n\n !\"#\\$%&'()\\*+,(-./0 12 3 1\n1\n 4 56 47 11 1 1 8 9:.#;\\$<:1 88 =>'?\\$+\\*\\$+@='=+@(:@?=,\\$(:%'@&,(-=\\$9:.#;\\$<:@?A;,:,=,\\$(\\$B=>'=,=%'=\\$=>'C@?>=. 3 1 1D\n1 7\n1 1 88 11\n1D\n 4 5E\n\nF1 1 121 81 1\n1 D 4 4 GGHGIJK 4 L@&C9@C<:?@\\*=@,(=':=,B,'&=>@=MN\\$O11 1P\n3\n\n1 JKJK 11 1 1 1\n1\n 1\n 4 4 GEHJ5IGGHE ;Q:'A;'(==\\$=>,:R\\$;+=<:)'\\*='SQ'+TUVWUWU 1 F FJKJK11 X Y1 1 11\n1D 1Z FJKJ[\n 1 11=>,:R\\$;+=<:\\K JKJK1 ]+&'+@(&=>,:R\\$;+=<::;Q:'A;'(=[6JKJ[F =>'R\\$;+=<:^; 1\n\n4 \\_\\_`\\_EI6K`6J 9:.#;\\$=':=,B,'&=>@=\\$(=>'\\$('>@(&V:>'&,+'?='&=>'L@&C9@C<:,=,('+@+C 1 1\n 211 a 4 \\_J\n1 1 18 4 \\_K 4 11\n8 1 Q'+'S\\$b'&B+\\$S=>,:R\\$;+=<: c\n 1 FJKJK 1\n 1 FJKJK1 1\n\n -\n\n### opqrsturvwxyz{x|u}w{qryz~~~~t INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 231 of 269\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 ./012 .34 , ! !\n'( '(\n# , ! 56789:6;<=>87?@8AB8C6:;D6;:8E6@A8:7?@FG?@H:6HI\nJ #\n&%&%K\n\n8H<8@RSTUSUSV@:8@W\nX3 Y868@8AL@I8:A?AB8N?L@AO;D6;4&%&4K./01 2 .c&XW\n\n ( J\n\n K\n#\nW defghijJ\n\n-(/ ! \"2 / kl-, \" \" \" 'l ! &%&4 \"\" 'l\n#\n!\ncX \" !\" m\nX&nI?!93\"349;7 9%63;3#@2\n\n& ,\n\n ,5A7 %%B? !934:%<#\"#:CD6E\\$%<\"F#963%D F\"BF8B\n\n7 G849F# 9H#%6 ;49%6!\"7\" #?#6\"F9I9B7 6F493HJ@KLLMNOMPQMRSTKUVWRXOYMUZ\n\n[NVT=\\\\\\]J^J\\_4\\_`=\\_`a\\%#^7\\$#\\b`cdaF9#93HeJfJg849F9\" ?h\"DijckdJl/01\n\n m n\n\no&p\n o)p\nm\n\n oqpr o1p E36DB4H6!#F68 #\\$%6 4 =\"B#68H9#9%36#3F%%\" ?#\"##6 4 \"F#8\"BB? ospt\nu\n\n vwMMxyYYzvPNTS{WwxMR|T}YyzZ[NVTq+)~))0s~)/\nql,l)sq+)~ VYRQPVSMwRYz0q0/s0\\*1WQMNzMz~+q~0q)\\*1&\n\nr\nXMMWVPPVwwPWNVMUPWKLLYRxNPxvNzT)1sq1 ) ^7\\$q+q)da5:]\"%<%#\">B9%4>?FB\" \"34F63I93F93HI943F#\"#:CD6E?@@?A13!B!! (&!#\"! B\\*&\"C#D\"2( E (!\"& (F& 1 & G\\*,!&# &\\$B (&F3 A1HI &! &&#B (# ('3 D !(#C\"'#\" \" ! (! BJ#D\\$#\" & &&\\$\\$ G\\*K 9\nL 6 M NOP QOP5RST@@?GUVG1/D\\$#\" & &WH#I'( ! - #B&!3 ('GGG#&!!& !\"'#\" \" ! (# ('G%\\*XYZY[\\]^\\_`a\\bcdefgYh`]i a[c^A@Ujkl\\$7%:/289-:;0:#-?@7\\$,-:&-:21\\$84\\*0-8\\$:\\$83428:&%80334285\\$8-2-:&8:089\n \" A\"\nB\n<\n\nC <<\n\n :2-&-:0D32-;&9E&\\*F\\$%+30\\*:;0:0G0%:4,-28'\\$50:2\\$8\\$/:;&H2/:; I1&891&8:28052'23G%\\$5&&928J.104/\\$%1:;&D0-2-\\$/0809'&%-&/05:70328/&%&85&?6KLMNOPQ RSTNUVPQPLUNWXXYZ[[\\\\]^^\\_`-:a&G,:`bcbd?I809'&%-&28/&%&85&104D&0GG32&9\n\n\"\n ! \" eSfSTSRSKgUhOiLj^W\\^XklZYmnlYopn[^W]qkr^^[[ksW^ lBZjtZ W\\[^W]nuvvwx(yz`H?IGG,{|}\\_~9>2%?~`ydPMgiiPRSOPiLeihiLQW^ ]WW^W[^[Xl[\nW\\\\n\n\n21230%34(789&%:;&12--28J\\*2:8&--%73&(.0:%2&%\\$//05:1049%0\\*:;&-:%\\$8J&-: 28/&%&85&:;0::;&\\$GG\\$-28J&'29&85&G&%12:-0J028-:0\\*2:8&--\\*;\\$/023-:\\$:&-:2/4?6TUNLURS LQLQfgPSOS(``I?a?}9}y(}y`\\_`-:a&G,:~zd\\_0GG3428\n\n \\*;&%&9&/&8908:\\*;\\$/023&9:\\$0GG&0%.\\*\\$739D&+8\\$\\*3&9J&0D3&0D\\$7:010:&%2032--7&%02-&9D4 :;&&'29&85&6d? pY\n\nY\n <285%21280:2\\$828%&-G\\$8-&:\\$I,-G\\$-:<\n\"\n\" q\n\n> -\n\n### ¡ ¢££¤¥ ¦§¨©ª§«¬®¯°±±²¯°³± §´µ¶©·¨«¶¬§«¬³³¸³ ¹©¶©¦º©¨§´µ¶©·»°¯²°¼²¯°¯¯ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 235 of 269\n\n ! \"# \\$\n %&'!\"( (\"(#)'\"# '\"\\*(\\* +,-./'0\"## 0 1'23'()14''3) \\$1 (! 5\\*\"6' 0 72' 3 ( #!)( 0 '((1!\"(0\")\"# 819:9,;<<=<>?@FGHI,J,K1LMNFOML PQRQS\nTUVWSXXTYWZ\n Z (\"([ \\' (! \"#4 0)#!FDBILED
NYSCEF | FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/15/2022 03:13 PM
1ST
: APPELLATE
DIVISION
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5
-
. 3
suMMARY
STATEMENT
DOC.
NO | 269
2022-00609
2022-0
0609
DEPT
02/l4/2022
02
: 37
PM
)
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022
1uit
VED
/14/2
02
022
NYSCEF
:
APPLICATION
oN |\n|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | EXPEDITED
SERVICE | AND/OR
INTERIM
RELIEF |\n| | (SUBMITTED | MOVING PARTY)
BY |\n| | Date:
February 14, 2022 | Case#
2022-00609;2022-00610 |\n| | Title
Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.
of | 652077/2017
Index/Indict/Docket# |\n| | Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a,
al.
Matter
et
v. | |\n| | [Z]
Order
D
Appeal
iudgment
of
D
Defendant
by
from Decree | IZJ
Count~e_w_Y_o_rk
Supreme
____
_
Surrogate•sO
D
Feb. 9
2022
,20
Court entere.d on
Family |\n| | of
Name
Barry
R.
Ostrager
Judge | Notice
of
Appeal
22
Feb. 10
filed on
.20 |\n| | If
from
administrative determination, state agency | ___________________
_ |\n| | Breach
of
Contract
Nature
of | |\n| | action
proceeding
or | ---==------------------------------ |\n| | _A_I
Provisions
of
appealed from
~-~:::~tent
t:jdecree | _I
__________________
_ |\n| | | |\n| | appellant
a stay
is
fo~
This application by
respondent | of
a contempt order pending appeal. |\n| | Defendant-Appellant seeks a stay prior to February 16, | 2022,
by
which date |\n| | he has been ordered
pay a \\$134,000,000
to | contempt fine
Plaintiff.
to |\n| | If
applying for a stay, state reason why requested | The \\$134,000,000
contempt fine is excessive, |\n| | disproportionate, and unconstitutional, and the motion court has invoked | the prospect |\n| | of
imprisonment
if | it is not paid within five business days, i.e. by February 16,
2022. |\n| | N
Has any undertaking been posted
_o_.
_________
_ | If\"yes\",
state amount and type
_
___
_ |\n| | | |\n| | Has application been made to
No.
court below for this
relief
~~-------- | If
\"yes\", state
Disposition---------------,-- |\n| | Has there been any prior application
here
in
this court
___________
_ | lf\"yes\",
state dates
and nature
______________
_ |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n269\n\n| Name Ira Brad Matetsky and Jason T. Cohen | | O'Melvany & Myers LLP |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| Address 360 Lexington Avenue | | 7 Times Square |\n| New York, New York 10017 | | New York, New York 10036 |\n| | | 212-326-2000 |\n| Tel. No. 212-365-3391 (cell); 2120922-9149 (office) | | New York |\n| Emai I
imatetsky@ganfershore.com | | |\n| Appearing by _lr_a_B_. _M_a_te_ts_k-'-y--------- | | Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com); 212-326-2293 |\n| Jason T. Cohen Qcohen@ganfershore.com); 646-250-4141 | | Anton Metlitsky (ametlitsky@omm.com); 212-316-2291 |\n| Mark C. Zauderer (mzauderer@ganfershore.com); 917-331-7762 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | (Do not \\Hite below this line) | |\n| DISPOSITION
Appellant's application for a stay is denied. | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\nFili' Dnte *1,/* 2:A Reply \\_\\_ J'-1/,\\_\\_J\\_f\\_\"\"-'/())~, *a\\_&.....\\_.tl) \\_\\_ \\_* II Motion Date \\_\\_\\_ &-\\_· *+-/\\_J\\_t\\_,/\\_J\\_J-- \\_\\_\\_* 0 pposition I EXPEDITE ---\"'-V\\_;\\_' \\_\\_ PHONE ATTORNEYS \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ \\_ DECISION BY \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ \\_ ALL PAPERS TO BE SERVED PERSONALLY. Court Attorney\n\n\"Revised 10/19\"\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 239 of 269\n\n# **EXHIBIT 42**\n\nThis website uses cookies and local storage. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies and local storage. **MfHM-M** Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 240 of\n\n\n\nDocument title: LADY MAY Current position (Yacht, IMO 1012359) - VesselFinder [Capture URL: http](http) Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:38:05 GMT Page 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 241 of 269\n\n## **EXHIBIT 43**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 242 of 269\n\n1 tav SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: TRIAL TERM PART 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, - against - 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 CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Index No. 652077/2017 October 15, 2020 Teams Proceeding B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Justice A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys at Law 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys at Law 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. (Appearances continued on next page.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 243 of\n\n| 1 | A P P E A R A N C E S:
(Continuing) |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC
Attorneys at Law |\n| 3 | 162 East 64th Street
New York, New York 10065 |\n| 4 | BY:
AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ. |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR
Official Court Reporter |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | tav |\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 244 of 269\n\n| | 3
Proceedings |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 2 | There are a few housekeeping matters that I want |\n| 3 | to address before we discuss the application for a temporary |\n| 4 | restraining order. |\n| 5 | If you are not speaking, please mute your |\n| 6 | microphone so we don't get static.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | So, as I started to say, there are a few |\n| 8 | housekeeping matters I want to resolve before we address the |\n| 9 | application for a temporary restraining order.
We are |\n| 10 | technically scheduled to discuss plaintiff's application for |\n| 11 | attorney's fees, and there's in the motion part a motion by |\n| 12 | the defendant to add an affirmative defense of failure to |\n| 13 | mitigate damages.
With respect to the latter issue, |\n| 14 | Mr. Moss, I would like you to stipulate that at trial we |\n| 15 | will conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at the |\n| 16 | trial, and because I addressed the mitigation of damage |\n| 17 | issue in my September 15th decision and order, and because |\n| 18 | that issue has always been at least peripherally in the |\n| 19 | case, I would like you to stipulate that that will be one of |\n| 20 | the issues that will be addressed at the plenary trial, and |\n| 21 | avoid the necessity of motion practice, and so I would like |\n| 22 | to mark that motion as withdrawn without prejudice on |\n| 23 | consent.
Is that acceptable to you? |\n| 24 | MR. MOSS:
Your Honor, I just -- I just would like |\n\n25\n\ntav\n\nto understand, my understanding was that the Court was going\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 245 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n21\n\n## Proceedings\n\n4\n\nto make a determination on damages. You had ordered us to put our calculation in. I thought the mitigation issue had already been decided by the Court on summary judgment, and that there was not going to be a trial on damages, that this was going to be done so that you could get the calculation so that the Clerk of Court could issue the judgment. That's what was in the order, and so I did not understand that there was going to be a trial, and we do not believe that there are any issues of fact for a trial.\n\nTHE COURT: My understanding is that I granted you summary judgment on liability which is why you're privileged to make the 5229 application that you're making today, and we deferred the calculation of damages because there are issues of fact relating to the quantum of damages. I found that your proof was insufficient for me to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages. So that's something that's going to be addressed at the hearing which I believe we scheduled for January. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nMR. MOSS: So my understanding, your Honor, was that the January trial was on the veil piercing issues -- 19 20\n\nTHE COURT: It is, it is.\n\nMR. MOSS: -- and that the only defense on damages that Mr. Kwok has proffered, your Honor, is mitigation. Mitigation was something that the Court has already rejected as a matter of Hong Kong law on summary judgment. 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 246 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n## Proceedings\n\n5\n\nTHE COURT: I specifically referenced it in the September 15th decision. Now I referenced it in a manner suggesting that I thought it was a dubious claim, and I still think it's a dubious claim because I don't think it was incumbent upon your client post facto to purchase an apartment from the Communist Chinese Party at what would appear to be an above-market price, and that's what I said in my September 15, 2020, decision.\n\nSo there's a motion by the defendant to amend his answer to assert a defense of failure to mitigate damages. Whenever we get around to assessing damages, I'm going to hear the defendant on the mitigation issue. Now if you want him to make a motion, and you want me to decide the motion, there is nothing I can do other than allow him to make the motion, have you respond to the motion, and then decide the motion. And since any hearing that we have is one at which I'm going to conform the pleadings to the proof that's adduced at trial, I thought as a housekeeping matter we'd have the defendant withdraw that motion without prejudice and for you to be content with that state of play. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nMR. MOSS: Okay, that's fine. If your Honor is going to grant the motion anyway on the motion for leave to amend, we can stipulate to that.\n\nWe have a pending motion for damages, and they -- THE COURT: Yes. 24 25\n\n## tav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 247 of 269\n\n6 Proceedings MR. MOSS: So how would your Honor like to resolve the damages issue? THE COURT: We are going to have a hearing on the damages issue and that hearing is not today. MR. MOSS: Yes. THE COURT: So at that hearing whatever the defendant wants to proffer in connection with this mitigation of damage theory which I strongly indicated in my September 15, 2020, decision and order is quite dubious, they will be permitted to adduce whatever evidence they have, if any, on that theory in connection with the damages hearing. Let me ask counsel for the defendant if we can mark the motion to amend the answer as withdrawn without prejudice in light of what is now on the transcript of proceedings of today? MR. SIEGAL: Yes, John Siegal, Baker Hostetler, for defendant Kwok. We certainly consent to that result, and will serve our Second Amended Answer following today and file it so it's of record and that's the basis on which we will proceed to the hearing. THE COURT: Fair enough. It's really not necessary for you to file a Second Amended Complaint, but I think it's very clear on the transcript of the proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 248 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n## Proceedings\n\n7\n\nof today 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 portion claim, and it's really just burdensome to the Court and burdensome to the plaintiff for you to file a Second Amended Complaint and for the plaintiff to have to respond to it.\n\nSo the record speaks for itself. I would just like a little cooperation from you and Mr. Moss here.\n\nMR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. We appreciate the Court allowing us the opportunity to adduce evidence on that issue, and we will be ready at the hearing, and we have had good cooperation with Mr. Moss since we have appeared in the case, and I'm sure we will continue to, and we look forward to that opportunity to try to convince your Honor, who we understand it's dubious, that on full examination there's a mitigation defense here that has a very substantial impact on the damages, so thank you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nWe will not have any Second Amended Complaint, and we are not going to have any motions, correct?\n\nMR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor, understood.\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nNow the second housekeeping matter that we have is attorney's fees. Since there are going to be further 24 25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 249 of 269\n\n8 Proceedings proceedings, it doesn't make any sense to address attorney's fees today because there will be more attorney's fees in connection with the two hearings that we are going to have, one on damages and the other that's been previously scheduled for January 15th. So with your consent, Mr. Moss, I would like to adjourn your application for attorney's fees to a more appropriate time. MR. MOSS: That's fine. That's fine, your Honor. I guess, you know, the attorney's fees are contract damages just like the principal and interest, and I would propose that we submit our evidence at the hearing or concurrently with the hearing. I guess we really wouldn't have any witnesses on the attorney's fees other than Mr. Lewis. I think we should do it at the hearing, your Honor, that would make the most sense to me, at the damages hearing, because they are really part of the damages. THE COURT: When all proceedings in this case are concluded you will be awarded whatever contractually entitled attorney's fees are due you. It's just not a today issue, it's an issue that awaits future resolution. All right. MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nAnd do we have -- do you have a sense of when you would like to conduct the hearing on damages? 24 25\n\n## tav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 250 of 269\n\n| | 9
Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
As soon as I can. |\n| 2 | Not for anything, you're all aware of the fact |\n| 3 | that Justice Scarpulla has been elevated to the Appellate |\n| 4 | Division, Justices Friedman and Sherwood are retiring in the |\n| 5 | near term, so there are only five Commercial Division judges |\n| 6 | who are currently in the wheel, and Justice Scarpulla's |\n| 7 | cases have been reallocated to the five justices who remain |\n| 8 | in the wheel.
So we are all a little busy now. |\n| 9 | MR. MOSS:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
You have a January 15th date on your |\n| 11 | other issue.
We will try and find a convenient time to |\n| 12 | resolve damages and attorney's fees. |\n| 13 | So now let's get to the only thing that I want to |\n| 14 | deal with this morning which is your application under CPLR |\n| 15 | 5229 for a restraining order that extends to Mr. Kwok's |\n| 16 | assets, and which you believe should be extended to entities |\n| 17 | that he controls whether they be single purpose LLCs or |\n| 18 | family members like his son. |\n| 19 | So I will hear you, Mr. Moss. |\n| 20 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | Your Honor, as far as the relief goes under 5229, |\n| 22 | I don't think Mr. Kwok disputes that we are entitled to some |\n| 23 | relief.
He does not contest that Pacific Alliance meets the |\n| 24 | standard.
He does not dispute our contention that he |\n| 25 | intends to dissipate his assets, a process that has already |\n| | |\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 251 of 269\n\n10\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | begun with this sham bankruptcy proceeding. |\n| 2 | The Court has suggested that there's a showing |\n| 3 | necessary beyond the fact of just prevailing on the |\n| 4 | judgment.
We have submitted that all you need to do is |\n| 5 | prevail on summary judgment.
The Court suggested that there |\n| 6 | might be a an additional showing necessary so we did set |\n| 7 | that forth in our papers. |\n| 8 | There's a clear and significant risk here that if |\n| 9 | left unchecked Mr. Kwok will continue to do everything in |\n| 10 | his power to shield assets and render this judgment |\n| 11 | uncollectible whether it's committing perjury, whether it's |\n| 12 | disobeying Court orders or whether it's making this sham |\n| 13 | bankruptcy petition.
We have been saying this judge for |\n| 14 | years.
It's why we requested the attachment.
We also knew |\n| 15 | what was going to happen.
We would win because Mr. Kwok had |\n| 16 | no legitimate defense, and then Mr. Kwok would evade the |\n| 17 | judgment, and that he would do whatever he can do to ensure |\n| 18 | that my client is left holding the bag. |\n| | |\n\nSo the two issues specifically before the judge on the 5229, there are two arguments that Mr. Kwok makes to sort of limit the relief that we are requesting. So I will deal with it, what I think is the easier one first.\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nFirst, Mr. Kwok does not dispute that we are entitled to depose him and to discovery into him, but he argues that the discovery should only be into assets that we 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 252 of\n\n## 11 Proceedings have not sought discovery for, that we have not gotten discovery for. The only asset related to discovery in this case was during the attachment phase, and Mr. Kwok and his prior counsel vehemently and consistently refused to provide any discovery into any assets other than the Sherry-Netherland residence. I think we are all in agreement, actually, that all of the other assets are fair game. As for the apartment, the residence, there's no reason to limit the discovery on that. This is the only asset we have identified that Mr. Kwok has in New York. It seems to be the largest asset that he has in this country, and it's perhaps the largest asset he has anywhere that has not been frozen by the Chinese government. Now, Mr. Kwok's prior counsel denigrated us, they said we were hysterical, we were afraid of the merits because we kept seeking to attach the apartment. We knew who we were dealing with and we knew we would end up here, that this asset was our best chance to collect. We are entitled to discovery into that asset. There's no appreciable burden associated with this discovery, and we have not taken any discovery on the apartment for two years. There are new arguments, there are new things to discover. For example, Mr. Kwok is now claiming in his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 269\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 253 of 269\n\n12\n\nProceedings bankruptcy petition that there's another company, not just the New York company owned by the BVI company, the two Genever entities, there's a new company, a new shell company called Bravo Luck, and that's really the beneficial owner of the apartment, and that has been paying the expenses, and that is owned wholly by his son. So his argument in the bankruptcy is not that he has any legitimate creditors, it's that the apartment is held in trust for his son, and his son should take priority over Pacific Alliance. It's all a shell game. We are entitled to explore that and whatever else had is happening in the last few years. They put the apartment on the market, and then they took it off the day of the attachment proceeding so that they could argue to you in court, hey, it's not on the market any more, you shouldn't attach it. We are entitled to that discovery, and that's what CPLR 5229 is intended to give us, giving the judgment creditor precisely the information of who owns the assets, where they are located. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nThe second issue that they raise, your Honor, and that's the one that you started this conversation with, is what should be the scope here, should the restraining order relate only to Mr. Kwok's assets, to Mr. Kwok's assets that he indirectly and directly owns? What they are trying to say here is that it should only pertain to assets he \"owns directly.\" That is an exception that would swallow the rule 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 254 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n23\n\n13\n\n## Proceedings\n\nbecause Mr. Kwok does not hold any assets directly. That is his MO. He holds assets through multiple layers of family members, multiple layers of shell companies precisely for this reason so creditors like us can't reach them.\n\nMr. Kwok admitted it in his deposition in another case. He said, he testified under oath, we quote this, \"In reality I don't have any assets under the law. I'm penniless.\" He makes those claims because of the way he structures his holdings like the apartment. I told you, for example, shell company, shell company that he now says his son owns, and this is a company, Bravo Luck, that he says his son owns even though he used to hold it, 50 percent of it, and apparently says now he sold it to his son for a dollar based on documents he didn't produce in this case, backdated, forged documents. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nThis entire thing is a sham, that his 20-something year old son at the time was really the one to pay \\$70 million for the apartment, he's the rightful owner of the apartment? It's all a game to make sure we are unable to collect.\n\nThere's also a 30 million-dollar yacht. That one is held by a Hong Kong company. 21 22\n\nTHE COURT: I thought it was \\$27 million.\n\nMR. MOSS: I'm sorry, I was rounding up. I was rounding up. 24 25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 255 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n25\n\n14\n\n## Proceedings\n\nThere's a 27 million-dollar yacht held by a Hong Kong company, and once we are allowed to take discovery we will find more assets held by more shell companies of which Mr. Kwok or one of his children is the sole owner.\n\nHere's the issues: If they ask you to only enjoin him from dissipating his assets that he holds directly, that would exclude everything, and it would exclude everything even though Mr. Kwok has said that these are his assets.\n\nHe submitted an affidavit to this Court saying he owned the apartment. He submitted, he filed a complaint last month in New York saying that the yacht was \"his yacht.\" These are his assets, and it's permitted by the statute, CPLR 5229, to have a restraining order that applies to assets held directly and indirectly. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nCPLR 5229 provides that a plaintiff can have prejudgment restraint in the same way it can have post-judgment restraint. Post-judgment restraint is governed by CPLR 5222, and that says that the restraints apply to property in which he or she, meaning the judgment debtor, \"has an interest.\" It doesn't say direct interest, it says an interest. Mr. Kwok has already testified, he's already submitted evidence in this case that he owns the apartment, and he has judicial admissions that he owns the yacht. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nSo their cases that they cite for the proposition\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 256 of\n\n25\n\n| | 15
Proceedings |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that CPLR 5229 and 5222 only apply to direct assets are |\n| 2 | completely inapposite because none of them involve a |\n| 3 | situation whereas here the defendant has actually claimed |\n| 4 | that he owns these assets. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Moss, I understand your argument. |\n| 6 | Let me hear from Mr. Siegal. |\n| 7 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 8 | MS. CARVALHO:
Good morning.
Melissa Carvalho |\n| 9 | from Baker & Hostetler for Mr. Kwok. |\n| 10 | I just want to begin by saying we have repeatedly |\n| 11 | heard this morning Mr. Moss saying \"Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy.\" |\n| 12 | The bankruptcy petition that was filed was not Mr. Kwok's. |\n| 13 | We have been made aware of it as the Court has been made |\n| 14 | aware of it.
On its face it says that it's filed by an |\n| 15 | entity, one of the entities who has counsel here present |\n| 16 | today.
So if any questions or issues are arising relating |\n| 17 | to the bankruptcy, I cannot speak to it, but Mr. Mitchell |\n| 18 | certainly can. |\n| 19 | So on CPLR 5229 the relief being sought by |\n| 20 | plaintiff in the TRO and order to show cause is far broader |\n| 21 | than that provided under CPLR 5229.
Plaintiff seeks to |\n| 22 | enjoin and restrain defendant Kwok with respect to \"any |\n| 23 | property in which he has an interest,\" but CPLR 5229's |\n| 24 | application is limited to Mr. Kwok, the adverse party. |\n\n269\n\nCPLR 5229 specifically states that \"the trial\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 257 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n16\n\n## Proceedings\n\njudge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment.\" Courts have strictly construed the language of CPLR 5229. The adverse party is Mr. Kwok, and the Court's decision and order on summary judgment is limited to him individually.\n\nPlaintiffs have spent a lot of time in their reply seeking to continue to poison the well against Mr. Kwok, but that is simply because plaintiff cannot present authority to support its unilateral expansion of CPLR 5229.\n\nPlaintiff presented the Court with various categories of cases where CPLR 5229 relief has been granted, but that goes to the Court's discretion to grant this relief. The statute says the Court \"may order relief under 5229,\" and we are not disputing that. Yes, a Court can award CPLR 5229 relief in many different fact patterns, but the relief is still limited to what is provided in CPLR 5229, and plaintiff has not shown any basis supporting its unilateral expansion of the statute besides it's just what they want. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nThe cases cited by plaintiff, in fact, do not expand the scope of CPLR 5229. The APF case, Gallegos case, Safeco case, Unex case and Leser case all limit the relief to the specific adverse party and not to any \"interest\" that party may have. In the Eastern District of New York in the 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 258 of 269\n\n17\n\n## Proceedings Leser v. U.S. Bank case the Court specifically stated, \"Plaintiff is correct, however, that the scope of the order should be limited to the restraint on the assets of plaintiff Leser.\" USB had originally sought restraints against \"plaintiff Leser and any person, company or other entity controlled by him,\" but then USB conceded during argument that it was only seeking restraint as to plaintiff Leser, and the Court found that appropriate and proper. Nothing plaintiff says can change that. The statute only provides the relief that it provides. So let's look at the statute. The statute provides for examination and restraints. Examination: Here Mr. Kwok's assets have already been addressed in discovery. Mr. Kwok has been deposed three times in this matter, on October 3rd, 2018, November 25, 2019, and December 11, 2019. Mr. Kwok has produced over 14 pages of documents. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to sufficiently examine Mr. Kwok, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nand, in fact, if you look at plaintiff's second set of document requests attached to my affirmation you see that they were, in fact, targeting assets.\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nNow plaintiff argues that passed discovery is insufficient, but the record shows that there was, in fact, disclosure. Objections were certainly made based on the scope. There were questions asked of Mr. Kwok such as, 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 259 of 269\n\n18\n\nProceedings \"Were any of your assets received by the Chinese government,\" but by not allowing fishing expeditions that does not mean that discovery was not sufficient. I also note there were disputes in the past, and those discovery disputes have been resolved, but creating confusion by making these broad-sweeping statements, and attaching e-mails without original letters that they are responding to does not change that. Now turning to the second part that the statute allows restraint, but restraint is limited to CPLR 5229 and is distinguishable from the restraint provided under CPLR 5222. The relief sought here pursuant to 5229 is applicable before a judgment has been entered so unlike post-judgment devices which are available against third-parties, the restraining powers under CPLR 5229 can only be used against \"the adverse party.\" However, at any posture restraint is always limited to property in which Mr. Kwok has a direct and actual interest. Restraint will not apply to indirect interests including interest held in a corporation, proceeds of property, or even assets of an alter ego until alter ego status has been adjudicated and liability has been determined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nPlaintiff also cannot use CPLR 5229 as an end run under the requirements for prejudgment attachment statutes. Here plaintiff's application relies ad nauseam and we have\n\ntav\n\n### 18 of 28\n\n23\n\n24\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 260 of 269\n\n19\n\n## Proceedings\n\nheard his counsel repeat this morning and admit that the sole focus here is on the ownership of the residence at the Sherry. Plaintiff himself says Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. The Court has acknowledged and stated Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. And even though Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry, he agreed on consent to a court order where he would provide plaintiff with immediate written notice of any contract to sell, assign, pledge or transfer any assets of the respective defendant entity to any third-party. So plaintiff has received broader relief on subsequent than it would have been entitled on this instant publication under CPLR 5229 so, therefore, there's no concern with respect to dissipation of the Sherry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nNow plaintiff argues that Mr. Kwok is trying to weaken the relief that they are seeking, but in actuality we are adhering to the statute and the powers that the Court has given under the statute. Plaintiff is relying on statements allegedly made by Mr. Kwok regarding his ownership of assets. Mr. Kwok can say anything he wants to, ownership is a factual legal issue. If he does not own it, he does not own it, period. That is not enough to give you broader relief under CPLR 5229. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nDiscovery has been conducted. The plaintiff's focus here is solely on the Sherry, as we have repeatedly 24 25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 261 of 269\n\n20\n\nProceedings heard this morning. Any further examination is a waste of time and money. The subject is already -- the Sherry is already subject to an order and it's restrained. None of plaintiff's arguments change the application of CPLR 5229 here. That's it. Now importantly relief under 5229 rests within the sound discretion of the Court, absolutely, but Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and any further examination should be limited to assets and topics not previously addressed in discovery. Redundant and duplicative discovery are not authorized under CPLR 5229. And the transfer of the Sherry, as we have already mentioned several times, it's already been restricted, and any further restraints should be denied. We have a consent order in place that Mr. Kwok has agreed to, and Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry. So Mr. Kwok requests that this Court vacate the TRO, deny plaintiff's motion for CPLR 5229 relief as it far exceeds the scope of CPLR 5229. Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and his assets have already been discovered and restrained by this Court, but should this Court be inclined to grant plaintiff's relief under CPLR 5229, Mr. Kwok would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nrequest that this Court use its discretion to modify such relief to Mr. Kwok's assets in his individual capacity as\n\ntav\n\n### 20 of 28\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 269\n\n21\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the \"adverse party,\" and Mr. Kwok's assets not previously |\n| 2 | the subject of prior discovery and court orders relating to |\n| 3 | a transfer. |\n| 4 | Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Does anybody from Genever want |\n| 6 | to say anything? |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL:
No, your Honor.
I think that was |\n| 8 | well said.
I join Ms. Carvalho in her argument. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 10 | Look, this is a 2017 case.
We've had multiple |\n| 11 | motions relating to Mr. Kwok's assets.
The Court believes, |\n| 12 | as reflected in the September 15, 2020, order that Mr. Kwok |\n| 13 | has attempted to mislead the Court.
The Court believes that |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game |\n| 15 | with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court |\n| 16 | orders, the spirit of court orders.
This is going to come |\n| 17 | to an end on or shortly after January 15, 2021, when we have |\n| 18 | the trial on the alter ego issue, but between now and the |\n| 19 | commencement of the January 15, 2021, trial Mr. Kwok and any |\n| 20 | entities that he directly or indirectly controls are |\n| 21 | restrained from alienating or transferring any property that |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok has a direct or indirect interest including most |\n| 23 | specifically the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel |\n| 24 | which was the subject of 2018 discovery and a consent order |\n| 25 | to which counsel for Mr. Kwok referenced, and also the yacht |\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 263 of\n\n269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n22\n\n25\n\n22\n\n| which Mr. Kwok has at various times claimed ownership of. |\n|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| So the net result is that I exercise my discretion under |\n| CPLR 5229 to restrain any further transfers of the |\n| Sherry-Netherland apartment which Mr. Kwok once owned, and |\n| the 27 million-dollar yacht which Mr. Kwok once claimed to |\n| have owned. |\n\nProceedings\n\nSo we are not going to have any more shell games. Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside, and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.\n\nIn the interim, between now and the January 15, 2021 trial on the alter ego issues, the plaintiff can conduct discovery of any of the entities that claim to own the Sherry-Netherland apartment or the yacht, and counsel for Genever and counsel for Mr. Kwok are directed to forthwith provide counsel for the plaintiff with information identifying the record owners of those two assets. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThat's the order of the Court.\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Your Honor, could I ask for some clarification? 23 24\n\nWe understand the order of the Court today,\n\n## tav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 264 of 269\n\nProceedings\n\n23\n\n| 1 | however, I am confused where it comes to indirect ownership |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | because, I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, |\n| 3 | there could be entities that will be restrained from |\n| 4 | conducting regular and ordinary business, and to what extent |\n| 5 | can someone decide that something would be an indirect |\n| 6 | interest and prevent ordinary transfers?
I mean, I don't |\n| 7 | know how far this goes with other independent autonomous |\n| 8 | companies. |\n\nTHE COURT: It goes this far: There is no ordinary course transfer of a 70 million-dollar apartment at the Sherry-Netherland. There is no ordinary course transfer of a 27 million-dollar yacht. If Mr. Kwok wants to get a haircut or if Mr. Kwok wants to buy a newspaper or if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, that would be ordinary course, but I think everybody on this Microsoft Teams platform understands that there's been a lot of moving around of these two assets that have an aggregate value of at least \\$75 million, and the plaintiff is entitled to ascertain the entity that presently has title to these assets, how those entities came to have title to those assets, and any intermediate transfers that were made between the time Mr. Kwok was the record owner of these assets and the time that the present record owner came into possession of these assets. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Understood.\n\n25\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 265 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n24\n\n## Proceedings\n\nSo the assets specifically are the Sherry and the yacht, but the position, just to make sure I understand it, is that with respect to other autonomous corporations, they can continue in the ordinary course, there's no ceasing or stopping of business for other legally autonomous entities.\n\nTHE COURT: It's not clear to me what other business and what other entities Mr. Kwok has formed. The intent here which is very clear and specific is that in this 2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a great deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders, I want to know if any transaction is going to take place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something other than an ordinary course of business transaction. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\n> MS. CARVALHO: Okay. I think we understand. Thank you, your Honor.\n\nMR. MOSS: Your Honor, if I may, just two points. Number one, in terms of the assets, we know that\n\nthere are also shell companies in Connecticut that own Greenwich real estate that he just bought for like \\$7 million. I think the most efficient -- and we don't know what we don't know. I think the most efficient way to proceed would be for us to be able to serve some sort of interrogatory at the outset, what are the assets and what are the entities that hold them, and then we can proceed to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 266 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n25\n\n## Proceedings\n\ndepose Mr. Kwok and those entities if they are entities or Mr. Kwok as the 30(b)(6) for those entities. I want to do this efficiently and with minimal burden, and rather than just asking him questions that he is going to say he does not know the answer to, I think the most efficient way would be to try to use written discovery to get a list of what the actual assets are.\n\nTHE COURT: Look, I'm not going to tell you how to practice law. You have the transcript of today's proceedings. I think I've made it very clear what you can do.\n\nYou can conduct discovery of any assets -- you can conduct discovery of any entity that you have a good faith basis for believing Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly controls. It can be written discovery, it can be oral discovery. I'm not going to play schoolyard monitor while you jockey back and forth with discovery disputes about the scope of what you can do. I think Mr. Kwok's counsel and I think Genever's counsel full understand what is reflected in the transcript of proceedings. We are dealing with a telescoped period of time here. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThere's a restraining order that's been entered with respect to two specific assets, and only two specific assets, and there's an alter ego trial that's scheduled for January 15, 2021, and there's a damages hearing that's going 22 23 24 25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 267 of 269\n\n| | 26
Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to take place sometime before or in conjunction with the |\n| 2 | alter ego trial. |\n| 3 | Again, this is a 2017 case, and it's occupied a |\n| 4 | considerable amount of the Court's time.
It's resulted in |\n| 5 | several written decisions.
While orders of the Court are |\n| 6 | either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and |\n| 7 | while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have |\n| 8 | misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going |\n| 9 | to have closure in this case in January of 2021. |\n| 10 | So the court reporter will give you her e-mail |\n| 11 | address.
You will order a copy of the transcript.
I can't |\n| 12 | be any clearer than I've been on this transcript. |\n| 13 | If any party or any counsel disregards the orders |\n| 14 | of the Court, there will be serious sanctions. |\n| 15 | Are we all clear? |\n| 16 | MR. MOSS:
Yes. |\n| 17 | Your Honor, may I just -- one question on the |\n| 18 | damages motion. |\n| 19 | We filed our motion, they opposed.
I understand |\n| 20 | the Court is going to have a hearing as soon as possible on |\n| 21 | this issue.
May we reply because there are some things we |\n| 22 | would like to put before the Court given that they have |\n| 23 | opposed and we have not yet replied? |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
If you wish.
I have explained to you |\n| 25 | that I am backed up with trials and motions.
I have carved |\n| | tav |\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 268 of 269\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n25\n\n27\n\n## Proceedings\n\nout a January 15th date. That's chiseled in stone. We will have the alter ego trial on January 15, 2021, if we can get to the damages hearing before, then we will, but there's not a lot of time between now and January 15th, and you, Mr. Moss, are probably going to be quite busy.\n\nMR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor.\n\nMR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, one last question regarding the order here today just because, as you're aware, Genever New York has filed bankruptcy. I doubt that any assets within the bankruptcy estate would be sold or anything between now and January 15th, but I want to make sure that myself particularly or any party to the action wouldn't draw the ire of a potential sanction for whatever happens in the bankruptcy court.\n\nTHE COURT: No, I cannot -- I have no jurisdiction over any entity that's in bankruptcy. That doesn't mean applications can't be made by Mr. Moss to the bankruptcy court. It doesn't mean that Mr. Moss can't refer in any proceedings before the bankruptcy court to the transcript of the proceedings here today, but I well understand the automatic stay of the bankruptcy court with respect to entities that have filed for bankruptcy. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nMR. MITCHELL: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 23 24\n\nTerry, can you give the parties your e-mail\n\ntav\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 269 of 269\n\n| | 28
Proceedings |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | address from which they can order a copy of the transcript |\n| 2 | which will be so ordered and e-filed? |\n| 3 | Thank you very much. |\n| | |\n| 4 | Have a nice day everyone. |\n| 5 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 6 | *** |\n| 7 | C E R T I F I C A T E |\n| 8 | I, Terry-Ann Volberg, C.S.R., an official court reporter of |\n| 9 | the State of New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing |\n| 10 | is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes. |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | _______________________
Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR |\n| 13 | Official Court Reporter |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n| | tav |","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 1 页，共 269 页\n证物 25\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） 2018年10月3日\n\n原始文件 247294.TXT Min-U-Script® 附词语索引\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 3 页，共 269 页\n\n1 纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）\n\n2 纽约县（COUNTY OF NEW YORK）\n3 ------------------------------------------------x\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n4 原告，\n5 -诉-\n6 KWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\n7 GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，\n又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\na/k/a HAOYUN GUY，\n8 被告。\n\n10 案卷编号：652077/2017\n\n12 7 Times Square\n13 New York, New York\n14 2018年10月3日\n上午 9:39\n\n16 对 MILES KWOK（郭文贵）进行庭前录像询问，\n17 由纽约州公证人 Kristi Cruz（克里斯蒂·克鲁兹）主持。\n18 \n\n23 ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC（艾伦·格劳尔法庭记录有限责任公司）\n24 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n25 212-750-6434\n参考编号：\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 4 页，共 269 页\n\n1 出庭人员：\n\n3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n4 原告代理律师\n5 Times Square Tower\n6 7 Times Square\n7 New York, New York 10036\n8 代理律师：\nEDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（爱德华·莫斯，律师）\n9 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，律师）\n10 SARA N. PAHLAVAN, ESQ.（萨拉·N·帕拉万，律师）\n11 212.326.2000\n12 emoss@omm.com\n13 ssarnoff@omm.com\n14 spahlavan@omm.com\n\n17 HODGSON RUSS LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）\n18 被告代理律师\n19 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300\n20 New York, New York 10158\n21 代理律师：\nMARK A. HARMON, ESQ.（马克·A·哈蒙，律师）\n22 JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ.（吉莉安·玛丽·瑟尔斯，律师）\n23 212.751.4300\n24 mharmon@hodgsonruss.com\n25 jsearles@hodgsonruss.com\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 5 页，共\n\n1 出庭人员：\n（续）\n\n3 其他出席人员：\n4 ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG（江瑶英），普通话口译员\n5 DAN MACOM（丹·麦考姆），录像师\n6 KARIN MAISTRELLO（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛），Golden Spring（金泉）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 6 页，共 269 页\n\n1 ------------------- 索引 -------------------\n\n2 证人 询问人 第\n3 MILES KWOK MOSS 律师 8\n\n6 指示： 页\n17、18、19、58、59、61、\n7 62、67、70、71、72、73、\n8 78、101、102、117、118、\n9 126、128、129\n\n12 --------------- 文件请求 ---------------\n13 页：\n129 证明与 Zhang Wei（张伟）就\n14 该酒店达成协议的\n15 文件\n\n18 ---------------- 证物 ----------------\n19 KWOK 说明 供辨认\n20 证物 1 Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司） 33\n21 公司文件\n22 证物 2 YouTube 打印件 59\n23 证物 3 联邦起诉状 69\n24 证物 4 附有财务资料的信函 73\n25 财务资料\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 7 页，共\n\n1 ------------ 证物（续）------------\n\n2 KWOK 说明 供辨认\n3 证物 5 UBS Hong Kong（瑞银香港）关于 Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）的对账单 82\n4 关于 Bravo Luck Limited\n5 题为《扣账通知》\n6 证物 6 Realtor.com 打印件 88\n\n10 （待出示的证物）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 8 页，共 269 页\n\n1 约 定\n\n2 兹由本案各方律师约定并同意，放弃提交及密封手续。\n\n7 进一步约定并同意，除对问题形式提出的异议外，所有异议均保留至审判时提出。\n\n11 进一步约定并同意，本案证言记录可在任何获授权主持宣誓的官员面前宣誓并签署，其效力与在法院面前签署并宣誓相同。\n\n17 进一步约定并同意，应向证人律师提供本案证言记录的副本。\n\n23 - oOo -\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 9 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 录像？\n3 哈蒙律师：\n同一异议。同一\n4 指示。\n5 答：\n拒绝回答。\n6 莫斯律师：\n我要将其标记为——\n7 我们现在是第几号证物？\n8 实际上，我们能否暂时停止记录？\n9 \n10 录像师：\n现停止记录，\n11 时间为上午 11:43。\n12 （记录外进行了讨论。）\n13 录像师：\n现恢复记录。\n14 时间为上午 11:44。\n15 （Kwok 证物 2，YouTube 打印件，\n16 于本日标记以供辨认。）\n18 莫斯律师询问：\n19 问：\nKwok 先生，已向您出示\n20 证物 2，该证物是一份 YouTube 打印件，\n21 标题为“Guo Wengui (Kwok Miles) is\n22 planning to sell his private jet and yacht.”\n23 我仅想在记录中说明，\n24 太平洋联盟在其财产扣押动议中援引了该 YouTube 视频，\n25 并且在\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：785 案卷编号：652077/2017\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM\n案号 22-50073\n文件 183-4\n提交日期 04/06/22\n录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45\n第 10 页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021\n\n1 KWOK\n2 针对其财产扣押动议的反对中，Kwok 先生\n3 提交了一份日期为 May 16, 2018 的书面陈述，其中\n4 在第 15 页就此问题载明如下：\n5 \n6 “然而，Frances，”即 PAX 的\n7 调查员，“除其本人断言外，未提供任何证据证明\n8 该等声音属于 Kwok\n9 及其关联人士，或证明 Kwok 或与其有关联的任何人\n10 上传了所涉录音，\n11 并且有充分理由质疑该录音的\n12 真实性，以及上传该录音并声称\n13 事实上是 Kwok 作出所涉陈述的个人或实体\n14 背后的动机。”\n15 \n17 现在我要播放该音频。\n18 （随即播放音频/视频。）\n20 证人：\n我拒绝听。\n21 我不会听。\n22 问：\n抱歉，Kwok 先生，您刚才是在捂耳朵吗？\n23 \n24 答：\n这全都是共产党。\n这里的\n25 一切都是共产党。除非你证明这\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 11 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 不是共产党，否则我不会听。他们\n3 录制了上百万个虚假的税务音频、\n4 视频。除非你能证明\n5 这是真的，否则我不会听。\n6 这与我有什么关系？除非\n7 你能证明这是我说的，\n8 这是我的话、我的音频、我的视频，否则我\n9 不会听。\n10 问：\n你拒绝听该视频吗？\n11 哈蒙律师：\n我基于同一\n12 理由提出异议，并指示证人不要回答\n13 该问题。\n14 答：\n如果你播放那个，我有自杀的感觉。\n这\n15 是共产党。非常简单。有\n16 一些地方，共产党已经被 FBI 证明为伪造。\n17 所以，\n18 你想让我自杀吗？你在这里是要\n19 杀我吗？我在此郑重声明，对于你将要出示的所有\n20 超出范围并导致我精神困扰的视频，\n21 我保留提起诉讼的权利。\n22 我要求我的\n23 律师记录，我保留针对对方对我作出的\n24 人身攻击的权利，\n25 \n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 12 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 我要求核实该文件及其所涉人员的真实性。\n3 我要求对其进行调查。\n我说完了。\n6 问：\n那么，Kwok 先生，您不会回答\n7 任何有关该视频的问题吗？\n8 哈蒙律师：\n同一异议。同一\n9 指示。超出我认为在证据开示中\n10 适宜提问的范围。\n11 答：\n我认为这是羞辱，这是威胁，\n12 并且你们将需要为这些行为承担\n13 责任。\n14 莫斯律师：\n请在记录中注明，\n15 当 Kwok 先生要求我\n16 停止播放该视频时，我停止了播放\n17 该视频。我不会再播放它。\n18 我注意到哈蒙律师已对\n19 这一询问路线提出异议，并指示\n20 Kwok 先生不要回答任何有关\n21 该视频的问题。\n22 我说得对吧，\n23 哈蒙律师？\n24 哈蒙律师：\n抱歉？\n25 莫斯律师：\n我说得对吗？您\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2022 17:07:45 第 13 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 是在指示——\n3 哈蒙律师：\n我以为你说的是“我\n4 有那个权利”，而不是“这是我的某项权利”。\n5 \n6 莫斯律师：\n可以。\n我\n7 说得对，您正在指示证人——\n8 哈蒙律师：\n我正在指示\n9 证人不得回答该等问题，\n10 理由已在记录中说明。\n12 问：\nGolden Spring New York Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）是什么？\n13 答：\n它是 Hong Kong Golden Spring（香港金泉），一家\n14 在纽约扩展业务的公司。\n15 问：\n“他们”是谁？\n16 答：\n香港金泉。\n17 问：\n谁拥有纽约金泉？\n18 答：\n香港金泉拥有。\n19 问：\n谁拥有香港金泉？\n20 答：\nGuo Qiang（郭强）。\n21 口译员：\nG-U-O，Q-I-A-N-G，\n22 按发音拼写。\n23 问：\n郭强是您的家庭成员吗？\n24 \n25 答：\n是。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 14 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 问： 是什么关系？\n3 答： 我儿子。\n4 问： 您在香港金泉中是否拥有任何所有权权益？\n5 \n6 答： 否。\n7 问： 郭强是否就是 Mileson，还是另一名儿子？\n8 \n9 答： 是同一个人。\n10 问： 您在纽约金泉中是否拥有任何所有权权益？\n11 \n12 答： 否。\n13 问： 那么金泉由您儿子所有？\n14 \n15 答： 我儿子也代表家族持有该公司。\n16 \n17 问： 您儿子是否代表您持有该公司？\n18 \n19 答： 否。\n20 问： 您儿子代表其他家庭成员持有该公司？\n21 \n22 答： 是。\n23 问： 您儿子是否代表张伟持有金泉？\n24 \n25 答： 是。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 15 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 问：\n您儿子是否为金泉的唯一股东？\n3 \n4 哈蒙律师：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n5 \n6 答：\n我不太确定。\n7 问：\n您是否知道金泉的其他\n8 股东？\n9 哈蒙律师：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n10 \n11 答：\n我不确定。我不知道。\n12 问：\n金泉是否有任何\n13 董事？\n14 哈蒙律师：\n对问题形式提出异议。\n15 \n16 答：\n我不确定。\n17 莫斯律师：\nMark，怎么了，你不喜欢\n18 我没有使用其中一个实体名称吗？\n19 \n20 哈蒙律师：\n我不知道是哪个\n21 实体——\n22 莫斯律师：\n香港还是纽约？\n23 哈蒙律师：\n我不知道你说的是哪一个，\n24 还是两个都说。\n25 问：\n任何金泉实体是否\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 05/07/2021 07:59 PM 案卷编号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：785 NYSCEF 收件日期：05/07/2021 案号 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 16 页，共 269 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 有雇员吗？\n3 答。\n是的，有雇员。\n4 问。\n纽约的 Golden Spring（金泉）有雇员吗？\n5\n6 答。\n是。\n7 问。\nGolden Spring 从事什么业务？\n8 答。\n投资房地产、媒体。\n9 问。\n你在纽约 Golden Spring 担任何职务吗？\n10\n11 答。\n我是顾问。\n12 问。\n你作为顾问做什么？\n13 答。\n他们没有，我提供建议。\n14 问。\n纽约 Golden Spring 与 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）有任何关系吗？\n15\n16\n17 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n18 你可以回答。\n19 答。\n没有。\n20 问。\n纽约 Golden Spring 与 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）有任何关系吗？\n21\n22 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n23\n24 答。\n没有。\n25 问。\n香港 Golden Spring 是否与任一 Genever 公司存在关系？\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 17 of 269\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 与任一 Genever 公司存在关系？\n3\n4 答。没有。\n5 问。纽约 Shiny Times（闪亮时代）是否在 800 Fifth Avenue 设有办公地点？\n6\n7 答。我不知道。\n8 问。你是否知道 Shiny Times 是否与一家名为 Urbana Properties（乌尔巴纳地产）的公司就纽约市办公地点签有租约？\n9\n10\n11 答。我不知道。\n12 问。你是否知道 Golden Spring 是否曾拖欠其办公地点的任何租金？\n13\n14\n15 答。我不知道。\n16 问。Yvette（伊薇特）在 Golden Spring 是否担任任何职务？\n17\n18 答。首席执行官。\n19 问。还有其他职务吗？\n20 答。我不太确定。\n21 问。她是总裁吗？\n22 答。是，我想是的。\n23 问。你的某些资产是否已被中国政府扣押？\n24\n25 HARMON 先生：再次，我认为……\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 18 of 269\n证物 26\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 19 of 269\n\n1 纽约州纽约县最高法院：第 61 庭\n2 -------------------------------------------------X\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙企业），\n3 原告，\n4 — 诉 —\n5 KWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），\n6 又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（郭浩云），又名 MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名 HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），\n7 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n8 被告。\n9 -----------------------------------------------------X Index No. 652077/2017\n10\n11 February 2, 2022 — 通过 Microsoft Teams（微软团队）\n12\n13 出庭法官：尊敬的 BARRY OSTRAGER（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官，JSC\n14\n15 出庭人员：\n16 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n17 7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n18 代理律师：STUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），ESQ. DAVID HARBACH（大卫·哈巴赫），ESQ.\n19 LAURA ARONSSON（劳拉·阿伦松），ESQ.\n20\n21 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan 代理律师\n22 45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n23 代理律师：JOHN SIEGAL（约翰·西格尔），ESQ. TRACY COLE（特蕾西·科尔），ESQ.\n24 ERICA BARROW（埃丽卡·巴罗），ESQ.\n25\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 20 of\n1 出庭人员续：\n\n3 CHIESA SHAHINIAN GIANTOMASI PC（基耶萨·沙希尼安·贾恩托马西律师事务所）\nHK International（香港国际）代理律师\n11 Times Square, 34th Floor\nNew York, New York 10036\n5 代理律师：\nLEE VARTAN（李·瓦尔坦），ESQ.\n\n8 - 0 -\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 21 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff（萨诺夫）\n\n1 法庭：好的。我对双方的主办律师有一个想法。我们需要所有人将自己静音。\n3 Siegal 先生，我希望你和 Harbach 先生与所有拨入人员保持线路畅通。\n5 我希望我们三人，即律师和法庭，进行一次不公开的电话通话。这不会超过五至十分钟。之后我们将返回 Microsoft Teams 听证会通话，好吗？\n9 SIEGAL 先生：是，法官阁下。\n10 HARBACH 先生：是，法官阁下。\n11 法庭：非常感谢。\n12 （进行了不记录在案的讨论。）\n13 法庭：好的。我们将恢复本次听证。双方律师将分别作简短的开庭陈述。随后，被告将对原告直接证言的宣誓陈述人进行交叉询问。\n18 Harbach 先生。\n19 SARNOFF 先生：法官阁下，我是 Stuart Sarnoff。我原本打算作开庭陈述，然后交由 Harbach 先生继续。\n22 法庭：好的。\n23 SARNOFF 先生：先生，我会尽量简短。正如您所记得，PAX 在就……进行辩论时证明了\n25 Rachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 22 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff\n\n1 January 14，Lady May（梅夫人号）是且一直是 Kwok 先生的游艇。尽管他笨拙地试图先将法定所有权置于家族商业伙伴名下，随后又置于其包租安排之下，事实仍是如此。\n\n5 那么，截至 January 14，Kwok 先生提出了哪些反对论点？有两项。第一，他主张其女儿实际上是现任产权持有人；PAX 并未对此提出异议，但这并非相关标准。第二，他暗示我们的部分证据——包括 Kwok 在其社交媒体帖子中亲口炫耀 Lady May 是其所有——尚未得到充分认证。但是，就其本人社交媒体存在任何认证问题而言——事实上并不存在，法官阁下——责任应由 Kwok 先生承担，因为这将直接源于他在判决后资产调查中援引《第五修正案》并拒绝于今日作证。\n\n18 那么，回到 January 14 的辩论，您或许记得，我曾预测，如果法庭举行证据听证会——据我了解，上诉分庭曾要求举行该听证会——Kwok 先生将无法提出任何新证据，除了 Mei Guo（郭美）来到这里，以自利的方式称自 2017 年起她便拥有并控制该游艇；结果证明我是对的。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 23 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff\n\n1 正如我们在 January 14 所证明的，除形式上的公司产权文件外，案卷中没有任何一份文件表明，自 Guo 女士于 2017 年年中取得法定所有权以来的三年半期间，直至该游艇于 2020 年末违反您的命令擅自离去，她曾作为 Lady May 运营的控制人行事。这一点相当说明问题，不是吗？\n\n9 您可能会听到 Siegal 先生声称，除这些推文和社交媒体帖子外，我们没有提出任何显示 Kwok 先生日常运营的确凿书面证据；但是，同样，这也应由 Kwok 先生承担责任，因为他援引了《第五修正案》，从而阻止我们对此进行探究。\n\n15 我刚刚在过去几分钟所描述的，是导致今日听证会之前的证据记录状况。因此，法官阁下面前的问题很可能是：随着 Kwok 先生于 January 28 提交五份宣誓书，发生了什么变化？完全没有。\n\n20 正如法官阁下可从包含五份证物的证物册——即被告证物册——中看到，前四份均为本案中一向已列入证据的公司形式文件，Kwok 先生未提交哪怕一份文件作为证据——没有合同、没有电子邮件、没有短信或任何此类性质的文件——以表明\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 24 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff\n\n1 Guo 女士实际上在相关的 2017 年至 2020 年末期间控制该游艇的运营。事实上，她提交的唯一文件，即被告证物 5，是一份据称与名为 Phoenix Crew（凤凰船员）的机构签订的服务协议；即使假定其真实——而其存在一些问题，我们稍后会谈及——它也仅于 2021 年末生效，即 Kwok 先生实施藐视法庭行为一年之后。\n\n9 简要而言，Kwok 先生作为证据提交的五份宣誓书如何？现任船长 Ivanov 先生显然没有任何具有证明力的内容可说，因为他——这里是有意使用双关语——是在去年 2021 年 October 才首次登船，当时该游艇已违法停泊于欧洲。顺便说，他确认，他从未接受过 Guo 女士的指示，甚至从未与她沟通。Yachtzoo SARL（游艇动物园有限责任公司）的代表 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）也是如此；其欧洲管理公司也是在 May 2021 才首次介入这艘在逃游艇，而且他似乎同样从未与 Guo 女士交谈或沟通。因此，鉴于这些事实，这两份宣誓书不仅无关，而且 Kwok 先生用其主张她在 2021 年中后期实际控制游艇运营，是一项严重的误判。Ivanov 先生和 Stockil 先生鲜明地凸显出，完全缺乏任何相应证据证明她控制该游艇\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff 269\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 25 of\n\n1 在相关期间，即自 ’17 至 ’20，的运营。\n\n2 前任船长 Craig Heaslop（克雷格·希斯洛普）如何？我的同事 David Harbach 将在交叉询问中探讨该宣誓书的一些问题。但请允许我先指出，他称，他仅在 Guo 女士登上游艇时与她“互动”，以及“偶尔通过电话或短信”与她互动。Heaslop 先生未说的话更具说明力。他没有说他接受 Guo 女士的指示，也没有说他理解她控制该游艇。因此，这就引向 Mitchell 先生——Kwok 先生的私人律师——以及随后 Guo 女士的情况。\n\n13 请记住，Mitchell 先生曾于 September 2020 代表 Kwok 先生在本州法院签署一份诉状，称 Lady May 是 Kwok 先生的游艇。Mitchell 律师甚至在该诉状中附上一篇文章，该文章无论在标题还是正文中均提出了 Kwok 拥有该游艇这一点。如法官阁下两周前指出的，这一司法承认对 Kwok 先生极为不利，因此 Mitchell 先生自然试图收回该说法，称他提交的一份诉状并不具有其字面所表达的含义。但他已于 December 18 向法官阁下提出过这一论点。当时不可信，现在同样不可信。我快结束了，法官阁下。因此，剩下的只有 Kwok 先生的女儿 Mei Guo。让我强调其中几个主要\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 26 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff\n\n1 问题。\n\n郭美女士称，“Lady May”号游艇原本一直是为她准备的；但这忽略了这样一个事实：当她父亲以 $30 million 购买该游艇时，他先将其置于自己的公司 Hong Kong International, Hong Kong（香港国际香港公司）名下，以及其家族企业关联人士曲女士名下。仅在数年后，曲女士才以一美元将该游艇转让给郭美女士。当然，这并不能解释，曲女士为何以及如何会仅仅因为一名商业伙伴的年轻女儿终生热爱水上活动，便自愿放弃一项价值 $30 million 的资产。法官大人，我真希望我也有这样的同事。至少可以说，法官大人，对一项价值 $30 million 的资产玩击鼓传花极不寻常；但对郭文贵先生而言，这并不罕见，其财产一贯在文件上被不断转移，构成一场无休止的空壳游戏，旨在遮蔽其巨额资产，同时保留对其的最终控制权；该游艇、Sherry Netherland 公寓，以及郭文贵先生关联公司网络中的诸多其他资产。\n\n接着，郭美女士称，她曾签署并指示与“Lady May”号船员订立若干保密协议。再次，这似乎是试图证明其对游艇的运营控制权。但这些保密协议在哪里，法官大人？它们不在被告的五份证物装订册中，今日的证据中也没有其他地方载有这些协议。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙），CSR，RMR，CRR\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 27 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——原告方——Sarnoff（萨诺夫）\n\n她还称，她将其违反法官大人命令、把游艇驶离纽约的指示传达给了其父亲的空壳公司 Golden Spring（金泉公司），而不是传达给她的雇主——不是传达给她的雇员 Craig Heaslop（克雷格·希斯洛普）。姑且假定这是真的。法院完全清楚 Golden Spring New York（金泉纽约公司）是什么，以及由谁控制。郭文贵先生。\n\n我们甚至不能确定 Golden Spring 的说法是否属实，法官大人，因为被告并未就此提交任何 Golden Spring 的佐证宣誓书，而且郭美女士的传闻陈述与 Golden Spring 律师向 PAX 所作的陈述直接矛盾；该律师称，实际上没有任何 Golden Spring 人员知悉谁拥有并控制该游艇。\n\n最后，法官大人，我想指出，依据其宣誓书的最后一段，看来郭美女士可能和她父亲一样，对法院权威和法院命令缺乏足够尊重。若采信郭美女士所言，她称自己知道本院已命令“Lady May”号于 May 2021 前返回纽约，但她决定置之不理。当然，尽管 PAX 怀疑决定让游艇留在国外的人实际上是她父亲而非她本人，但蔑视法庭的行为似乎在这个家族中代代相传。\n\n总而言之，法官大人，正如即将进行的交叉询问将进一步证实的那样，显然郭文贵先生迄今未能提出任何具有证明力的证据，更不用说足以反驳 PAX 以明确且令人信服的证据所证明的事实：郭文贵先生对其“Lady May”号游艇拥有、并且在所有相关期间一直拥有受益权益。谢谢您，法官大人。接下来将由 Harbach（哈巴赫）先生继续。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nSiegal（西格尔）先生，请继续。\n\n西格尔先生：谢谢您，法官大人，大家早上好。\n\n我是 Baker Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒）律师事务所的 John Siegal（约翰·西格尔），代表被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）。与我一同出席的是我的同事 Tracy Cole（特蕾西·科尔），她将负责对原告证人的交叉询问；以及 Erica Barrow（埃丽卡·巴罗），她希望将在本次听证会稍后处理某些法律问题。\n\n我一向理解，开庭陈述不应就法院尚未听取的证据进行辩论，因此我不会这样做；但开庭陈述也不是歪曲其他无争议事实的机会。因此，先让我纠正 Sarnoff 兄弟所说的、被案卷材料完全否定的两件事。\n\n第一，Sarnoff 先生提到郭文贵先生首次购买游艇之时。PAX 的文件已承认，毫无争议，毫无争议，郭文贵先生从未拥有这艘游艇。因此，上诉分庭就所有权问题发回重审的内容中，有一半甚至不存在争议，而该陈述并不准确。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙），CSR，RMR，CRR\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 28 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——被告方——Siegal（西格尔）\n\n第二，Sarnoff 先生断言 Golden Spring 是父亲的公司。没有证据支持该说法，而有证据表明 Golden Spring 是一个大家族的家族办公室，该大家族不仅包括被告郭文贵先生及其女儿郭美，还包括其儿子和其他叔伯及堂表兄弟姐妹；其中所有人——其中许多人，当然包括其儿子——均有各自独立的商业生活和各自独立的资金来源。\n\n音乐家之间有一种说法：如果你演奏某样东西，接近到足以成为爵士乐就行，对吧？如果你足够接近，也许听起来不错。但该标准不适用于法院；你不能坐在那里说，哦，这么多公司看起来相互交织；因此，法官，就忽略那些形式要件吧。这不是本案适用的标准。\n\n第二，我们都是公司法律师。我们喜欢文件，但证据规则或法律中没有任何规定要求必须以书面证据证明某一事项。最好的证据是具有亲身知情的证人到庭并直接作证。\n\nSarnoff 先生说，他会喜欢一位替他取得某项资产所有权、然后日后再将其转让给他的同事；并不是说本案发生了这种情况；但如果 Sarnoff 先生想生活在这类安排存在的世界里，就让他去中华人民共和国生活，那里政府惯常任意、随意地没收失宠者的资产。这根本不是适用的论点。法官，更好的论点是：我儿子拥有一套公寓。我可以去拜访他的公寓。我可以住在那里。门卫会让我进去。他会向我致意。大楼的其他雇员并不知道谁拥有它。也许有一家管理公司作为中间人，向他们发出指示。这才是本案更恰当的类比。最后的论点，实质上是主张应当由女儿承担父亲据称犯下的罪过。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙），CSR，RMR，CRR\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 29 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——被告方——Siegal（西格尔）\n\n因此，本案的争点，本案唯一的争点，是在藐视法庭期间谁控制了这艘游艇。这是唯一的争点。PAX 继续主张的 CPLR 5223 项下受益权益，并不是适用标准。上诉分庭在发回以确定控制权时已默示明确了这一点。损害问题已由上诉分庭裁定，但我对其持续提出这一错误论点感到沮丧，因此我做了更多研究。根据纽约州法律，绝对再清楚不过的是——\n\n根据纽约州法律，受益所有权——更确切地说，是受益权益，而不是所有权。5223 项下的受益权益并非藐视法庭动议的法律标准。我之所以这样说，是因为 Court of Appeals（上诉法院）在 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. CIBC（北马里亚纳群岛联邦诉 CIBC）一案中，25 NY3d 55，2013，回答了第二巡回法院提交给上诉法院的认证问题，并裁定 5225(b)，即移交法，不涵盖控制权问题。控制权不同于移交法项下的受益权益。它们是两种不同的法律标准，是两套不同的制度。唯一需要确定的争点是在藐视法庭期间谁控制了这艘游艇。\n\n本案的争点不是损害。该动议的争点不是——不是该资产如在纽约，原告作为判决债权人是否可对其进行追索。争点在于，我们代表郭文贵先生提出抗辩，即他没有能力遵守法院的附条件命令，因为他不控制该游艇。原告负有责任，以明确且令人信服的证据证明郭文贵先生在藐视法庭期间控制该资产。\n\n在控制权问题上不存在不利推定，可能有多种理由，但有两个最基本的理由。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙），CSR，RMR，CRR\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 30 of 269\n\n开庭陈述——被告方——Siegal（西格尔）\n\n第一，抗辩是郭美控制了该游艇。郭美是就控制权问题作证的证人。郭文贵先生并非控制权问题上的缺席证人，因为他不是该证人。郭美才是，而且她将出庭。因此，在控制权问题上不存在不利推定。\n\n根据 United States Supreme Court（美国联邦最高法院）的判例，除非并且直至援引第五修正案特权的一方拒绝就针对其提出的具有证明力的证据作证，否则不利推定不适用。这是我方书面陈述第 8 页引用的 Baxter v. Palmigiano（巴克斯特诉帕尔米贾诺）案。\n\n除非并且直至 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）就被指称藐视法庭期间的控制权提出可采证据，否则不存在不利推定。鉴于 Pacific Alliance 未就藐视法庭期间游艇控制权提出任何积极证据——所有那些零星、经过剪辑且不可靠的视频和社交媒体帖子，其真实性和可靠性将是今天上午的争点，它们全都远早于本院的藐视法庭命令和本院的附条件藐视法庭命令。\n\n因此，法官大人，所有这些证据与相关期间的控制权问题均无关，且没有任何一项足以证明争议事项的具有证明力的证据，从而触发不利推定。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n庭审记录 已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 33 of 269\n\n因此，法官大人，我感谢有机会作开庭陈述并举行本次听证会。我的同事 Tracy Cole（特蕾西·科尔）将负责原告方案件的交叉询问。\n\n谢谢您，法官。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n我想向双方当事人作出的唯一说明是：在作出藐视法庭命令时，法院面前已有在该藐视法庭命令作出之前即刻提交的诉状，其中Kwok先生（郭文贵）主张对该船舶拥有所有权和控制权。虽然这并非决定性因素，但我已向你们说明，若基于必须形成并审议的事实记录维持藐视法庭制裁，则该等记录将使法院确信有条件的藐视法庭命令被适当地作出；而目前藐视法庭制裁的金额已超过该船舶的价值，这也是我们在本次听证开始前进行庭边交谈的原因。\n\n原告应传唤其第一名证人接受交叉询问。请继续，Harbach先生（哈尔巴赫）。\n\nHARBACH先生：早上好，法官阁下。按照法院的指示，我们愿意传唤Nat Francis先生（纳特·弗朗西斯）接受交叉询问，并以其宣誓书作为其主询问证言。\n\n法院：Francis先生，请举起右手。Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017，NYSCEF文件编号：1179，NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022，案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第34页，共269页\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole\n\n1 （Nathaniel Francis（纳撒尼尔·弗朗西斯）已依法宣誓／确认。）\n\n2 法院：\n可以开始交叉询问。\n\n3 Nathaniel Francis，经原告方传唤，并已先经依法宣誓后，接受询问并作证如下：\n\n6 交叉询问\n\n7 由COLE女士（科尔）进行：\n\n8 问\nFrancis先生，我是Tracy Cole（特蕾西·科尔）。你的宣誓书在你面前吗？\n\n10 法院：\nCole女士，你的音频有问题。\n\n11 看看你能否解决。我需要除Cole女士和Francis先生外的所有人关闭麦克风。\n\n13 COLE女士：\n我昨天测试过。那时运行正常。现在所有人静音后正常了吗？\n\n15 法院：\n仍然不够理想。\n\n16 COLE女士：\n好的。让我看看能否用我的手机接入。\n\n18 法院：\n可以。你可以保留视频画面，然后音频通过你的手机传出。\n\n20 COLE女士：\n我现在就这样做。感谢您的耐心。\n\n22 （短暂停顿）\n\n23 法院：\n好的。Cole女士，你现在的情况似乎正常了，那么我们继续。\n\n25 COLE女士：\n非常感谢您的耐心。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017，NYSCEF文件编号：1179，NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022，案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第35页，共269页\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole\n\n1 由COLE女士进行：\n\n2 问\nFrancis先生，你提交了数份宣誓书，并宣誓称你是一名高级调查员和注册舞弊审查师，对吗？\n\n5 答\n对。\n\n6 问\n你并非以任何种类的社交媒体技术专家身份提供证言，对吗？\n\n8 答\n对。\n\n9 问\n而你对Twitter和Instagram的熟悉程度，来自于使用它们，以及或许从中提取数据；但你不是工程师或类似人员，对吗？\n\n12 答\n是的。\n\n13 问\n你从未受雇于任何社交媒体实体，例如YouTube、Twitter、Instagram或Facebook，对吗？\n\n15 答\n对。\n\n16 问\n并且你在影片编辑、图像操纵，或者图像如何以显而易见或不显而易见的方式被修改方面，没有任何特别专长，对吗？\n\n19 答\n对。\n\n20 问\n那么，让我们从你关于PX 25的具结陈述开始，该具结陈述的案卷编号为1121。\n\n22 法院：\nCole女士，证物活页夹中载有Francis先生的六份以上声明；因此，如你能按活页夹中的编号指明具体的具结陈述，这将有助于法院。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017，NYSCEF文件编号：1179，NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022，案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第36页，共269页\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole\n\n1 这将有助于法院。\n\n2 COLE女士：是的，法官阁下。抱歉。\n\n3 法院：这就是活页夹的用途。\n\n4 HARBACH先生：法官阁下，我不知道通话中的其他人是否也有这个问题，但我们现在听到了回声。\n\n7 法院：接入本次通话的所有人均已静音，因此——\n\n9 由COLE女士进行：\n\n10 问\n你现在看到的是——\n\n11 法院：Cole女士，你的音频时断时续。如果我们无法解决这些问题，就必须在公开法庭进行本次听证。因此，我将给予五分钟解决技术问题。如果你们无法解决这些问题，我们将休庭并进行公开法庭程序，因为我们无法在有回声的情况下进行本程序。\n\n18 COLE女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n19 法院：让你们的技术人员调查此事。我们将休庭五分钟。\n\n21 （短暂停顿）\n\n22 法院：好。现在是10:37。我们现在可以开始了。\n\n24 请继续，Cole女士。\n\n25 COLE女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole 提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017，NYSCEF文件编号：1179，NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022，案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第37页，共269页\n\n1 交叉询问\n\n2 由COLE女士进行：\n\n3 问\n翻到标签页1，你表示你于January 24截取了一则日期为August 21, 2018的Instagram帖文的屏幕截图。该Instagram帖文的所有者——该Instagram账户的所有者，你知道是谁吗？\n\n7 答\n我知道该账户名是GuoWenGui。\n\n8 问\n你表示该账户名指向一个用户名为@KwokMiles的Twitter账户，对吗？\n\n10 答\n对。\n\n11 问\n那么，除此之外，还有什么使你认为你知道该Instagram账户的所有者是谁？\n\n13 答\n我认为就这些。\n\n14 问\n好的。\n\n15 你不知道谁控制该账户，对吗？\n\n17 答\n对。\n\n18 问\n你不知道谁有权访问该账户，对吗？\n\n19 答\n对。\n\n20 问\n并且，根据你的个人经验，你知道有多个社交媒体账户发布与Kwok先生有关的照片和内容，对吗？\n\n23 答\n我不确定你的意思。\n\n24 问\n你是否知道，有些帖文或互联网发布内容并非归属于Kwok先生，或者据你所知并非由他发布，但仍与他有关？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第38页，共269页\n\nNYSCEF文件编号：1179 NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole\n\n1 答\n如果你的意思是指其他人发布有关他的内容，我知道。\n\n4 问\n是的，正是如此。\n\n5 因此，如果有人发布Kwok先生的照片，你并不会个人认定那些照片是由Kwok先生发布的，对吗？\n\n8 答\n对。\n\n9 问\n现在，你提交了一则日期为August 21, 2018的特定Instagram帖文，对吗？\n\n11 答\n是。\n\n12 问\n而你不知道它实际是在何时发布的？\n\n13 答\n对。\n\n14 问\n并且你不知道是谁发布的，对吗？\n\n15 答\n是。\n\n16 问\n或者它是在何种情况下发布的，对吗？\n\n18 答\n对。\n\n19 问\n你没有关于该帖文内容的任何信息——没有个人知情；你没有在任何事件发生时在场，也无法说明其如何被报道、其上的文字，或其他任何事项，对吗？\n\n23 答\n是。\n\n24 问\n你无法告诉我们是谁制作了图像，该图像是否经过操纵或修改，谁写了那些文字，它们是否与图像同时制作，或者有关该帖文内容的任何其他实质性信息，对吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017，案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第39页，共269页\n\nNYSCEF文件编号：1179 NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole\n\n1 答\n对。\n\n4 问\n谢谢。\n\n5 让我们翻到你的标签页2——抱歉，是标签页6，对不起。标签页6是一份宣誓书，案卷编号1133，涉及一段题为“Lady May, Miles Kwok Super Yacht”的YouTube视频，对吗？\n\n9 答\n对。\n\n10 问\n你同意，该证物PX 2是一组不同视频的集合——抱歉。它是标签页6。它与一份名为“Lady May Miles Kwok Super Yacht”的证物相连，我认为该证物是PX 2。\n\n14 BARROW女士（巴罗）：是的，正确。\n\n15 问\n好的。\n\n16 所以你观看了该视频，对吗，并且你说你将浏览器导航至YouTube，对吗？\n\n18 答\n是。\n\n19 问\n你观看了该视频，看到其与用户Richard Conley（理查德·康利）有关。你下载了该视频，并观察到元数据表明该视频于October 14, 2017上传，对吗？\n\n23 答\n是。\n\n24 问\n现在，你同意该视频看起来像是由不同视频片段拼接而成的集合，对吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第40页，共269页\n\nNYSCEF文件编号：1179 269 NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole\n\n1 答\n是。\n\n2 问\n它们看起来是在不同地点和时间拍摄的，对吗？\n\n4 答\n对。\n\n5 问\n它们显示不同的人、不同的时间段？\n\n7 答\n对。\n\n8 问\n并且你并非该视频中任何事件的目击者，对吗？\n\n10 答\n我不是。\n\n11 问\n你没有录制视频中的任何片段，也不知道是谁录制的，对吗？\n\n13 答\n是。\n\n14 问\n你没有维护、操作或安装录制视频任何片段的设备，也不知道是谁做了这些事情？\n\n17 答\n对。\n\n18 问\n你不知道这些片段中任何一段是在何时录制的、在世界上何处录制的，或者是在何种情况下录制的，对吗？\n\n21 答\n是。\n\n22 问\n你不知道是谁制作了这一汇编，对吗？\n\n23 答\n不知道。\n\n24 问\n并且你不知道制作这一汇编是为了什么目的？\n\nFrancis—由原告方交叉询问／Cole NYSCEF文件编号：1179 NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022 案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第41页，共269页\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017\n\n1 答\n不知道。\n\n2 问\n你知道该视频所附的YouTube账户名称是Richard Conley。关于这个Richard Conley，你没有其他信息？\n\n5 答\n没有。\n\n6 问\n关于此人可能与谁有关联或其他任何事项，你没有其他信息，对吗？\n\n8 答\n对。\n\n9 问\n你同意，该视频上显示有英文字幕，对吗？\n\n11 答\n对。\n\n12 问\n这些字幕贯穿整段视频出现，而你不知道是谁制作了它们，对吗？\n\n14 答\n对。\n\n15 问\n你并不为这些字幕的准确性作担保，对吗？\n\n17 答\n我不作担保。\n\n18 问\n事实上，你所取得的该视频部分内容的认证译文，在某些方面与字幕不一致，对吗？\n\n21 答\n你能重复一下吗？\n\n22 问\n你取得了该视频一部分内容的认证译文，对吗——哦，等等。我可能援引的是较早的一份。请稍候。\n\n25 （短暂停顿）\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案号：652077/2017，NYSCEF文件编号：1179，NYSCEF接收日期：02/07/2022，案件22-50073，文件183-4，提交日期04/06/22，登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45，第42页，共269页\n\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n1 问\n你知道该问题的答案吗？\n2 答\n不知道。\n3 哈巴赫律师（MR. HARBACH）：\n这并不完全是异议。\n我\n4 仅向法院说明，在这份宣誓书的附件标签\n5 6，案卷编号 1133 中，并无弗朗西斯先生称其已取得\n6 该特定证物译文的陈述，因此我不知道他是否具备资格\n7 回答律师向其提出的\n8 问题。\n9 科尔律师（MS. COLE）：\n看来是这样。明白了。谢\n10 谢。\n11 问\n你同意该视频配有音乐音轨，\n12 对吗？\n13 答\n对。\n14 问\n并且你不知道任何部分音频由谁制作，\n15 对吗？\n16 答\n对。\n17 问\n这些片段似乎至少在被拼接在一起的意义上\n18 已被改动，对吗？\n19 答\n我对该类技术了解不足，\n20 无法回答。\n21 哈巴赫律师：\n我只要求律师澄清，\n22 我们所说的是整个证物中的片段，\n23 还是 2:50 至 4:15 时间段内的片段；后者是 PAX 提出\n24 并据以依赖的内容。\n25 科尔律师：\n我将从完整视频开始。\n\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole） 25 1 问 该视频中的部分，在你看来是否完整，如同没有任何内容被 2 删除？ 3 答 我不确定。 4 问 在 2:50 至 4:15 的部分内，即其提出的 5 部分，你知道那是哪一部分吗？你 6 知道我所指的是什么吗？ 7 答 我得再看一遍。 8 问 我想应当这样问：你现在坐在这里时，是否知道有任何部分 9 看起来完整且未被改动？ 10 答 不知道。 11 法院（THE COURT）：科尔律师，弗朗西斯先生对任何事情均无 12 第一手知情。他是原告雇用的一名注册舞弊审查师。 13 弗朗西斯先生的各份宣誓书中，没有任何一份能够完全决定 14 本次听证中的争议。因此，我们尽量继续进行。 15 科尔律师：明白，法官阁下。我会 16 简短一些。 17 问 对于任何证物，我认为你已证称，你没有相关背景知识以回答 18 图像是否被改动的问题，对吗？ 19 答 对。 20 问 或者图像是否以某种方式被操纵，对吗？ 21 答 对。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 43 页，共 269 页\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 44 页，共 269 页\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n1 问 因此，你不能证称它们真实、\n2 准确，并展示其声称展示的内容，对吗？\n3 答 我只能证称我是从何处取得它们的，对。\n4 问 好的。\n5 那么，我向你提出的仅有其他问题涉及\n6 — 附件标签 2，你面前有该文件吗？\n7 答 有。\n8 问 你现已宣誓陈述，你截取了两则推文的屏幕截图，日期分别为\n9 May 10 和 August 27, 2017，该两则推文\n10 出现在与用户名\n11 @KwokMiles 有关的 Twitter（推特）信息流中，对吗？\n12 答 是。\n13 问 你称，证物 A 是该等\n14 屏幕截图的真实准确副本，对吗？\n15 答 是。\n16 问 那么，证物 A 是否为该等推文在 Twitter 页面 @KwokMiles 上显示时的\n17 真实准确副本？\n18 答 是。\n19 问 为取得截图，你没有登录 Twitter，\n20 没有在搜索栏中搜索 KwokMiles，也没有访问 Twitter.com，对两则推文而言\n21 都是如此，对吗？\n22 答 我不确切记得我是如何进入该页面的。\n23 问 你不记得，好的。\n24 我将向你出示我要询问的内容—\n25 嗯，它已标记供识别使用。它附在我们的\n蕾切尔·C·西蒙娜（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 45 页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 269 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n\n27 1 书状，即审前书状，作为证物— 埃丽卡（Erica），你能调出来吗？ 2 巴罗律师（MS. BARROW）：可以，我可以共享屏幕。该文件 3 此前已向法院提交，其案卷编号为 4 1169。它是周三提交的西格尔宣誓陈述（Siegal affirmation）的 5 证物 B。 6 我可以共享屏幕吗，法官阁下？ 7 法院：抱歉？ 8 巴罗律师：您希望我共享屏幕吗？ 9 法院：我听不见说话者是谁。 10 巴罗律师：法官阁下，我是贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所（Baker Hostetler）的埃丽卡·巴罗（Erica Barrow）。 11 您现在能听见我吗？ 12 法院：能。 13 巴罗律师：您应当有该文件的纸质副本， 14 所有人都应当有；但我也可以提供电子副本。 15 它是 NYSCEF 11619。 16 法院：我有纸质副本。 17 巴罗律师：好的。 18 弗朗西斯先生，您想看该证物吗？ 19 证人：是，请。 20 巴罗律师：当然。 21 法院：那么，你要将其作为证物出示给 22 弗朗西斯先生？ 23 科尔律师：是，法官阁下。我想向 24 弗朗西斯先生出示它。 25 蕾切尔·C·西蒙娜（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 46 页，共 269 页\n\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n1 （短暂停顿）\n2 巴罗律师：\n看来我没有屏幕\n3 共享功能。\n4 科尔律师：\n让我这样试一下。\n5 问\n你知道一项名为 Tweet Tunnel（推文隧道）的服务吗？\n6 答\n知道。\n7 问\n你曾使用过 Tweet Tunnel 吗？\n8 答\n如何使用？用来做什么？\n9 问\n你曾从 Tweet Tunnel 获取过推文吗？\n10 答\n我不知道我是否曾这样做过。\n11 问\n好的。\n12 我具体要问的是，你是否\n13 从 Tweet Tunnel 获取过其中一则特定推文。我\n14 不知道你面前是否有巴罗律师所说的证物，\n15 也不知道如何将其放到你面前；但向你出示该文件的目的，\n16 是为了看它是否能唤起你对自己是否可能\n17 使用 Tweet Tunnel 获取该则推文的记忆。\n18 答\n我不知道我是否从 Tweet Tunnel 获取过它。\n19 问\n是否有一种方式— 假定是 Tweet Tunnel，你是否\n20 知道— 首先，你知道 Tweet Tunnel 是什么吗？你能\n21 大体说明它是什么吗？\n22 答\n据我了解，它存档旧推文。\n23 问\n这就是你了解的全部吗？\n24 答\n是。\n25 蕾切尔·C·西蒙娜（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 第 47 页，共\n\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n1 问 你知道它如何存档推文吗？\n2 答 不知道。\n3 问 或者导入推文的机制？\n4 答 不知道。\n5 问 或者其对推文采取的安全性、质量控制或核验措施？\n6 答 不知道。\n7 问 或者其如何保护其内容，对吗？\n8 答 对。\n9 问 好的。\n我们回到那则推文。\n10 就 KwokMiles 账户而言，你的\n11 理解是，该账户与郭先生有关联，\n12 对吗？\n13 答 是。\n14 哈巴赫律师：\n为明确记录，\n15 是与哪个网络平台上的账户有关联？你说的是\n16 Twitter 还是 Tweet Tunnel？\n17 科尔律师：\n抱歉。我说回到\n18 Twitter。感谢你提醒我。\n19 问 按你的理解，Tweet Tunnel 不是 Twitter，\n20 对吗，它是一个不同的网站？\n21 答 对。\n22 问 那么我们回到 Twitter 本身。\n23 你的理解是，@KwokMiles 是一个\n24 Twitter— 与郭先生有关联，对吗？\n25 蕾切尔·C·西蒙娜（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 48 页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 269\n\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n\n30 1 答 是。 2 问 你知道谁曾在任何时候在该网站上的该账户发布内容吗， 3 如果有任何人的话？ 4 答 不知道。 5 问 你知道该账户是否曾在任何时候被未经授权使用吗？ 6 答 不知道。 7 问 并且你实际上并未将该账户追踪至郭先生持有的任何 8 电子设备或类似设备，对吗？ 9 答 对。 10 问 该账户已被暂停，因此现阶段任何人，包括我们任何人，均无法 11 核验内容；对吗？ 12 答 我不知道该问题的答案。我不知道是否存在 13 实现该目的的技术方式。 14 问 但你当然没有尝试这样做，也未能这样做，对吗？ 15 答 对。 16 问 好的。 17 科尔律师：关于 Tweet Tunnel，我们是否要 18 约定其准确性？你们是否愿意 19 约定该通信内容的准确性，还是我们现在 20 准备向弗朗西斯先生出示？ 21 巴罗律师：该文件在我与所有参与者共享的聊天中。 22\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 49 页，共 269 页\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n\n31 1 科尔律师：哦，好的。 2 哈巴赫律师：法官阁下，如获准许，我可否直接 3 与科尔律师谈片刻，以期 4 简化此事？如果我们在法庭内，我会走到 5 律师席旁低声告诉她。 6 法院：可以。 7 哈巴赫律师：科尔律师，你可以出示该文件—我认为你一直在寻找的 8 文件，是我们律师事务所发给你们的文件，作为占位文件， 9 以让你们知道该证物是什么。我提醒你， 10 我不知道弗朗西斯先生以前是否看过该版本。 11 仅此而已。 12 科尔律师：好的。我只是好奇它是否会 13 唤起他的记忆。若不能，也没有关系。 14 哈巴赫律师：好的。 15 科尔律师：那么我们就看一下。 16 巴罗律师：弗朗西斯先生，你看到以证物 B 开头的 17 文件了吗？ 18 证人：我看到一页写着证物 B。我正在寻找实际 19 内容。好的，我现在能看到了。 20 由科尔律师询问： 21 问 那么，你看到那里有两行提到 22 图 1 来源和图 2 来源吗？ 23 答 我看到案卷编号 1126、证物 B，但我不确定 24 蕾切尔·C·西蒙娜（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 50 页，共 269 页\n弗朗西斯（Francis）— 由原告交叉询问 / 科尔（Cole）\n\n32 1 是什么— 然后我看到两张图像。 2 法院：我看不到你向证人出示的内容。 3 我不确定哈巴赫律师是否也能看到。 4 哈巴赫律师：我有纸质副本。它是黑白的。 5 我可以尝试将它展示给摄像头。 6 法院：我的意思是，该事项的证明价值 7 接近于零。我们不要把整个上午浪费在这上面。 8 问 弗朗西斯先生，如果答案是你不记得是否 9 从 Twitter 或 Tweet Tunnel 获取该则推文，那么 10 这就是答案。 11 答 这就是答案。 12 问 没关系。 13 科尔律师：法官阁下，我相信我没有 14 其他问题。 15 法院：好的。弗朗西斯先生，你可以离开了。 16 哈巴赫律师，传唤你的下一位证人？ 17 哈巴赫律师：法官阁下，我不愿考验 18 法院的耐心— 19 法院：我不会审理任何复询。 20 哈巴赫律师：好的，法官阁下。 21 法院：弗朗西斯先生提交了六份宣誓书，均 22 提及各类社交媒体平台。法院将对该证据赋予其应得的 23 权重。继续进行。 24\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 51 页，共 269 页\n\n普莱斯——由原告方交叉询问／科尔\n\n哈巴赫先生：法官阁下，我方下一位交由交叉询问的证人是托德·普莱斯（Todd Price）。\n\n科尔女士：在传唤他之前，我们能否讨论一下普莱斯先生证词的提要？普莱斯先生是否会说，他唯一能够提供的内容——因为他的宣誓书所说的是，他于一月份某日从互联网下载——就是这些？\n\n哈巴赫先生：我们预计他将作出与已向法院提交的宣誓书一致的证言。如我先前所述，他的宣誓书不仅包含业务记录保管人一类的内容，还包含更多内容；但我们预计他的证言将与向法院提交的内容一致。\n\n科尔女士：除证明他下载当日互联网所显示内容的准确性之外，他还能就其他事项作证吗？\n\n哈巴赫先生：我不会回答那个开放式问题。您可以对他进行交叉询问。\n\n科尔女士：好的，我会问他。\n\n哈巴赫先生：法官阁下，如法院许可，我的一位同事劳拉·阿伦松（Laura Aronsson）将交由交叉询问该证人，因此我将把这个座位让给她。\n\n阿伦松女士：谢谢。\n\n早上好，法官阁下。雷切尔·C·西蒙娜（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR。\n\n普莱斯——由原告方交叉询问／科尔 34\n\n法院：普莱斯先生，请举起您的右手。\n\n（托德·普莱斯已依法宣誓／确认。）\n\n法院：科尔女士，请进行交叉询问。\n\n托德·普莱斯经原告方传唤，在依法宣誓后，接受询问并作证如下：\n\n交叉询问\n\n由科尔女士进行：\n\n问：普莱斯先生，您在宣誓书中作证称，您是Page Vault（网页档案库）的首席技术官，并且您被要求——嗯，我不知道是否有人要求您这样做，但您称您从各个网站收集了信息；这是否正确？\n\n答：正确。但并非我本人，而是我们的软件所为。\n\n问：您能够作证称，您所收集的信息，是其在您收集之日于网站上显示的样子；这是否是您证言的实质内容？\n\n答：是的，正是如此。是。\n\n问：因此，由于我不是技术人员，正如您所能看出的，您是在某一日期从网站收集内容，对吗？\n\n答：是。再次澄清一下，并非我本人所为。我只能作证称，我们软件的用户收集了该内容，并且该内容在特定日期和时间存在于特定网站上。\n\n问：而您的职责，或者您公司的职责，是保存其在该日期所显示的样子？\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 269\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 52 页，共 269 页\n\n诉讼记录 提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 53 页，共 269 页\n\n35\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您能否进一步说明所下载内容的准确性或真实性？\n\n答：不能，不能说明。\n\n问：您能否说明在您于该日获取这些材料之前，这些材料内容的任何情况？\n\n答：不能。\n\n问：那么，我认为我没有进一步问题了。\n\n法院：好的。普莱斯先生，您可以退席。\n\n下一位证人。\n\n哈巴赫先生：法官阁下，我方没有其他证人。我不知道法官阁下是否希望我现在正式提交我方证物，还是我方向法院提交的材料已经足够清楚。如果我没记错，我们提交了一份表格，以便法院能够看到哪些证物经同意纳入，哪些没有。\n\n与对方律师讨论过的唯一另一名可能证人，是TransPerfect（全译通）的一名代表，该公司制作了这些译文。并且，如我们在与律师进行会谈协商的电话中向对方陈述的那样，该证人——同样，该证人不在场——只会作出与普莱斯先生刚才类似的证言，即业务记录宣誓书——\n\n诉讼记录 提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 54 页，共 269 页\n\n36\n\n是——抱歉，译文证明实际上是TransPerfect的业务记录。该人并非实际进行翻译的人。其仅为记录保管人。因此，我们没有该证人可供交叉询问。我们将向法院提交的是随译文附带的那些业务记录宣誓书。我希望这很清楚。\n\n法院是否希望我正式提交其他证物？\n\n法院：您无需正式提交其他证物。那正是您在提交材料时所做的。\n\n科尔女士，您有什么要说的吗？\n\n科尔女士：法官阁下，我想就若干证据问题以及对方在书面陈述中提出的观点发言。我不知道现在是否是这样做的时候。\n\n法院：不，现在不是这样做的时候。您已经就今天上午出庭的证人证言的证明力提交了书面陈述。并且已有书证提交，我认为该等书证不存在争议。\n\n科尔女士：嗯，我想就某些其他事项发言——您知道，他们就不利推定提出了论点。他们就可采性提出了一些我不同意的论点，也提出了一些我不同意的判例法。\n\n诉讼记录 提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 55 页，共 269 页\n\n37\n\n法院：好的，先让本案所有证言都完成。然后我们将处理听证会后的问题。\n\n科尔女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：那么，请让辩方第一位证人准备接受原告方的交叉询问。\n\n西格尔先生：法官阁下，我是约翰·西格尔（John Siegal）。\n\n最先的几名证人是香港国际（Hong Kong International）的证人，该公司是该船舶的所有人。李·瓦尔坦（Lee Vartan）将交由交叉询问这些证人。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n哈巴赫先生，您处于静音状态。我不知道您是否有意如此。\n\n哈巴赫先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我当时在和我的同事说话。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n哈巴赫先生：不过，法官阁下，我注意到郭梅（Guo Mei）刚刚出现在屏幕上；就我们在本次听证会前的谈话而言，如果由我方决定——或许并非如此——我们认为，在其他证人之后再对郭女士进行交叉询问，对法院而言会更合理，但我理解这不是我方的案件。\n\n法院：好的，被告可以按其希望的任何顺序安排证人接受交叉询问。\n\n哈巴赫先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n瓦尔坦先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是代表梅·郭（Mei Guo）的李·瓦尔坦。雷切尔·C·西蒙娜，CSR，RMR，CRR。\n\n诉讼记录 提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 56 页，共 269 页\n\n38\n\n代表梅·郭。郭女士，如法官阁下所知，已提交一份确认书。我们将其作为她的直接证言提交，并让她接受交叉询问。\n\n法官阁下，我向法院说明，郭女士确实需要一名口译员，并且我相信她已有一名口译员可用。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n口译员：是的，我在线上。\n\n法院：郭女士，请举起您的右手。\n\n口译员：法官阁下，也许应当先让口译员宣誓？\n\n法院：是的。请说明您的姓名。\n\n口译员：艾可·林（Echo Lim）。\n\n法院：林女士，您是经认证的法庭口译员吗？\n\n口译员：不是，先生。我已获得认证，但不是由法院认证。\n\n法院：由谁认证？\n\n口译员：由机构认证。\n\n法院：由谁？\n\n口译员：机构。\n\n法院：由您的机构认证，好的。\n\n您是否宣誓，将如实、准确地口译郭女士的证言？\n\n口译员：是，先生。\n\n诉讼记录 提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 57 页，共 269 页\n\n39\n\n法院：好的。\n\n郭女士，请举起您的右手。您是否宣誓，将说出全部真相且仅说真相？\n\n林女士，您能否告诉郭女士，她处于静音状态。\n\n口译员：我刚刚已经告诉她了。\n\n法院：请向郭女士说明，我们难以听到她的声音，因为她没有对着麦克风说话，或者因为麦克风未启用。\n\n（短暂停顿）\n\n证人：抱歉，法官阁下。现在您能听到我吗？\n\n法院：能。\n\n好的。可以开始交叉询问。\n\n哈巴赫先生：法官阁下，我可能弄错了，但我认为由于技术问题，尚未完成对证人的宣誓。\n\n（梅·郭已依法宣誓／确认。）\n\n哈巴赫先生：为记录起见，翻译女士，您刚才向证人施行的是法院使用的标准宣誓，即她宣誓如实作证；对吗？\n\n口译员：是，先生。\n\n哈巴赫先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：请继续。\n\n雷切尔·C·西蒙娜，CSR，RMR，CRR。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 58 页，共 269 页\n\n郭——由被告方交叉询问／哈巴赫\n\n梅·郭经被告方传唤，通过口译员依法宣誓后，接受询问并作证如下：\n\n交叉询问\n\n由哈巴赫先生进行：\n\n问：郭女士，第一个问题，正确的称呼方式是什么？是Mei Guo还是Guo Mei？您觉得怎样最舒服？\n\n答：我的中文名字是Guo Mei，我的英文名字是Mei Guo，所以您可以称呼我为Mei Guo。\n\n问：谢谢，女士。\n\n今天上午看来很清楚，您确实会说并且懂一些英语？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：为使记录清楚，我今后提出一个要求。即使您听懂了我以英语向您提出的问题，也请在回答之前等待口译。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：这样我们可以确保您在回答之前理解我的问题。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：如果您在任何时候不理解某个问题，请直接告诉我。\n\n答：好的。谢谢。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 索引编号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 第 59 页，共\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n问 您是否持有您为与今日听证会有关而签署并提交的宣誓书副本？\n\n答 我没有随身携带。我现在手边没有。\n\n问 请稍等片刻。我想我可以解决这个问题。\n\n答 谢谢。\n\n问 我相信我现在正在共享我的屏幕。女士，您能看到吗？\n\n答 是的，我看到了。\n\nHARBACH先生：法官阁下，法院能看到吗？\n\n法庭：能。\n\n问 因此，郭女士，为记录起见，屏幕上显示的是本案的案卷记录第1162号。其标题写着“Mei Guo（郭美）的宣誓书”。\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 我将向您展示其最后一页。为记录起见，这是证物第5页。这是您所签的名吗？\n\n答 这是我的签名。\n\n问 您在签署前阅读过这份宣誓书，或者让人向您翻译过，是吗？\n\n答 是的，我读过。\n\n问 我知道它是英文的。您理解您所读的内容吗？\n\n答 是的。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 60 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n问 我关于该宣誓书的第一个问题涉及第8段。我想我应当问一下——女士，您能读英文吗？\n\n答 是的，我能。\n\n问 第8段现在显示在屏幕上。请花一点时间自行阅读，并在读完后告诉我。\n\n答 我读完了。\n\n问 该段提到一个名叫Qu Guojiao（曲国娇）的人。您提到，曲女士是您兄弟、您叔叔们和您堂兄弟姐妹们所信任的商业伙伴。\n\n答 是的，但我想补充您之前的说法，先生。Guojiao不是姓。此人的姓是Qu，Q-U。\n\n问 谢谢您澄清。\n\n我想问您的是：您的父亲也认识曲女士，这是真的吗？\n\n答 我父亲认识曲女士。\n\n问 曲女士也是您父亲所信任的商业伙伴吗？\n\n答 不，她不是。\n\n问 这是根据您父亲所说的吗？\n\n答 不是。这是根据事实。\n\n问 那么，某人是否为值得信赖的商业伙伴，取决于作出信任之人的内心想法，不是吗？\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 61 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n答 我不太理解您的问题，先生。您能否进一步说明？\n\n问 让我换一种方式问您。您是否知道您父亲是否信任曲女士？\n\n答 我不知道。\n\n问 不过，确实是您父亲于2006年创立了Hong Kong International（香港国际公司），对吗？\n\n答 是的。\n\n问 并且，他一直拥有并控制该实体，直至2014年10月将其转让给曲女士，对吗？\n\n答 据我所知，是的。\n\n问 据您所知，该转让的对价为零美元，对吗？\n\n答 关于此事，我确实记得不太清楚。\n\n问 在转让发生前后，您父亲或曲女士是否曾与您讨论过该转让？\n\n答 没有。\n\n问 您在宣誓书第3段中陈述——我现在已将其显示在屏幕上——您父亲于2015年初从中国逃往美国。您看到那里了吗？\n\n答 是的，我看到了；但是在2015年，我父亲是从香港离开中国前往美国的。\n\n问 谢谢您澄清。我的重点是时间范围。\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 该年的2月，即2015年，Hong Kong International购买了本案所涉游艇，这是真的吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 62 页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n答 是的。\n\n问 当时Hong Kong International的所有人曲女士，并不是她拿出了购买该游艇的28 million Euros，对吗？\n\n答 对。不是她支付的。\n\n问 是您父亲提供了这笔钱，不是吗？\n\n答 不是我父亲。\n\n问 您知道这笔钱来自哪里吗？\n\n答 我不知道这笔钱来自哪里，但我得知该游艇是我兄弟购买的。\n\n问 我明白。我们稍后会谈到这一点。您的证言是，在2015年初，是您兄弟购买了该游艇吗？\n\n答 是的，我兄弟为我买的。\n\n问 我的问题是钱来自哪里，因为销售单据明确表明，Hong Kong International以28 million Euros购买了该游艇。如果您知道的话，我想问您的是，那笔钱来自哪里？\n\n答 我不知道。\n\n问 那么，您先前说您父亲没有提供那28 million，事实是，您实际上并不知道是否如此，对吗？\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 63 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n答 我知道我不知道钱来自哪里，但我知道的是，这艘游艇是我兄弟为我购买的。\n\n问 如果您不知道钱来自哪里，您说“购买”是什么意思？\n\n答 当有人送我礼物时，我不需要问那个人购买该礼物的钱来自哪里，对吗？\n\n问 可以这么说，但您的意思是，该游艇是作为礼物送给您兄弟的吗？\n\nVARTAN先生：异议，该问题歪曲了证言。\n\n答 ——\n\nVARTAN先生：我对该问题的异议尚待裁定。\n\n法庭：驳回异议。\n\n口译员：异议已被翻译。\n\n问 由于法庭已驳回异议，您可以回答该问题。\n\n答 该游艇不是某人送给我兄弟的礼物。它是我兄弟送给我的礼物。\n\n问 您已经数次这样说过。即便冒着考验法庭耐心的风险，我还是要再试一次。刚才您告诉我们，或者您同意我关于Hong Kong International于2015年2月以28 million Euros购买该游艇的问题。\n\n答 是的。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 64 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n问 我问您的问题是——我问您曲女士是否拿出了$28 million，而您回答没有，对吗？\n\n答 对。\n\n问 我问这个问题的原因是，因为当时曲女士拥有Hong Kong International且是其唯一成员；对吗？\n\n答 对。\n\n问 我理解您已经说过几次的回答。您不知道最终落入该游艇卖方手中的28 million Euros来自哪里，对吗？\n\n答 是的。我知道这艘游艇是我兄弟送给我的礼物，所以我知道这是我兄弟购买的。\n\n问 但您不知道——\n\n法庭：游艇如何从Hong Kong International转让给您兄弟？\n\n证人：法官阁下，这艘游艇在以Hong Kong International名义购买时，是登记在曲女士或Qu Guojiao名下，不是登记在我兄弟名下。\n\n法庭：您是在告诉法庭，该船先从Hong Kong International转给曲女士，然后再从曲女士转给您兄弟吗？\n\n证人：法官阁下，是从Hong Kong International转给曲女士，然后转给我。它从未转给我兄弟。\n\n法庭：所以您是在曲女士从Hong Kong International收到该船之后，从曲女士处收到该船的，对吗？\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 65 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n证人：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：根据您的证言，在您取得该船之前，您兄弟没有参与任何转让，对吗？\n\n证人：对。\n\n法庭：请继续，Harbach先生。\n\nHARBACH先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n交叉询问（继续）\n\n由HARBACH先生：\n\n问 郭女士，正如您刚才告诉法官阁下的，曲女士将Hong Kong International转让给您时，对价为一美元，这是真的吗？\n\n口译员：抱歉，口译员需要澄清。是Hong Kong International在进行转让吗？\n\nHARBACH先生：是的。\n\n答 是的。\n\n问 您见过曲女士吗？\n\n答 见过。\n\n问 您知道她长什么样吗？\n\n答 知道。\n\n问 我将向您展示一张已标记为原告证物53的照片，供辨认。\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 66 页，共\nNYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n问 您能看到吗？\n\n答 能。\n\n问 原告证物53中所描绘的人是曲女士吗？\n\n答 该人与我见过的人略有不同，但我相信是她。\n\n问 您对此有多大把握？\n\n答 我有把握。\n\n问 现在，我将再次在屏幕上显示您的宣誓书。\n\nSIEGAL先生：法官阁下，我是John Siegal（约翰·西格尔）。我们对此提出异议。我没有任何第50号或其他编号的证物。该证物未被披露。它不在证物清单上。我没有任何编号高于38的证物。因此，这张照片并未通过审前程序提交。\n\nHARBACH先生：法官阁下，您希望我回应吗？\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nHARBACH先生：首先，这是一张照片，非常简单。其次，这是交叉询问，这正是其未通过审前程序提交的原因。\n\nSiegel先生的证物编号只到38的原因是，在准备本次听证会期间，我将想在交叉询问中使用的材料从第50号开始标记，因此不会有很多这样的证物。\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 67 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——由被告方进行交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\nSIEGAL先生：我们提出异议。听证会前一晚营业时间结束后，我们才收到一份简报，而现在，我们正遭遇以未披露的证物进行突袭式审判；法庭的命令已非常明确地规定，审判证物必须披露。\n\n法庭：Siegal先生，我驳回异议。我希望继续进行本次听证会。我不希望有任何阻碍。该证人到此是为了说出真相。为了说出真相并使真相得以揭示，原告有权对她进行交叉询问。\n\nSIEGAL先生：但是，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：这不是突袭式审判。\n\nSIEGAL先生：——这违反了法庭的听证会前指示，我们提出异议。\n\n法庭：好的。您的异议已记录在案。我们继续。现在是11:45，而我们只有十五分钟有实质内容的证言。\n\nHARBACH先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n由HARBACH先生：\n\n问 请看您宣誓书的第14段。\n\n答 谢谢。\n\n问 您在屏幕上看到该段了吗？\n\n答 是的。\n\n问 哦，抱歉。在我谈到——之前，我还有一个问题。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 68 页，共 269 页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 那件事。\n\n2 问 据您所知，Qu 女士是否曾登上过\n\n3 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）？\n\n4 答 没有和我一起登上过，但我不知道她在那之前是否\n\n5 登上过。\n\n6 问 好的。\n\n7 现在我们来看第14段。您说，您\n\n8 对指挥 Lady May 的航行完全负有责任。\n\n9 答 正确。\n\n10 问 当您父亲在船上时，这并不属实，对吗？\n\n11 答 属实，因为即使我父亲需要登上\n\n12 Lady May，他也需要得到我的授权。\n\n13 问 我明白您的回答，但它并未完全\n\n14 回答我的问题。我的问题是：例如，当您父亲\n\n15 在没有您的情况下登上 Lady May 时，他会指挥 Lady\n\n16 May 的航行，对吗？\n\n17 答 您的问题是指，如果我不在海上，而我的\n\n18 父亲在船上，他想去哪里就可以自由\n\n19 选择去哪里；是这样吗？\n\n20 问 这大致概括了我的问题。是的。\n\n21 答 如果我不在 Lady May 上，而我父亲在\n\n22 Lady May 上，无论他想往哪个方向去，他都有\n\n23 选择的自由。是的。\n\n24 问 您提到他需要您的授权\n\n25 才能登船？\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第69页，共\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n51 1 答 是。\n\n2 问 但关于在哪里抛锚、在哪里加油，或在哪里过夜，\n\n3 他不需要您的授权；\n\n4 对吗？\n\n5 答 ——\n\n6 VARTAN（瓦尔坦）律师：为澄清起见，您是在问她\n\n7 在船上时，还是不在船上时的情形？\n\n8 HARBACH（哈巴赫）律师：她可以回答两种情形。\n\n9 答 我可能需要就\n\n10 游艇所有权向您作简要说明。\n\n11 您刚才提到的所有这些决定，并非\n\n12 应由游艇所有人作出的重要决定。这些是\n\n13 由——这些是\n\n14 游艇船长作出的重要决定。\n\n15 问 我明白您刚才所说的，但您的\n\n16 宣誓书提到了航行、指挥航行。这就是我\n\n17 提出这些问题的原因；但我会换一种方式提问，\n\n18 然后继续。\n\n19 答 好的。\n\n20 问 当您的父亲在没有您的情况下乘游艇外出时，\n\n21 他曾多少次打电话给您，请求您许可\n\n22 他是否可以在某处抛锚？\n\n23 VARTAN（瓦尔坦）律师：异议。该问题忽略了郭女士\n\n24 刚才的证言。\n\n25 法庭：异议驳回。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第70页，共269页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 口译员：您能重复一下问题吗，\n\n2 先生？我刚才对那个问题有点记不清了。\n\n3 HARBACH（哈巴赫）律师：当然。\n\n4 问 当您的父亲独自或至少是在没有您的情况下\n\n5 乘游艇外出时；他曾多少次打电话给您，请求\n\n6 您许可他是否可以抛锚？\n\n7 答 好的。在我父亲登上游艇前，他总是得到\n\n8 我的许可，而且在得到许可之前，他有一份\n\n9 详细的行程安排。他所有的行程都会严格遵循\n\n10 该行程安排。他在游艇上航行期间从未给我打过电话。\n\n11 \n\n12 问 您有任何这些行程安排吗？\n\n13 答 我父亲的安全是一个非常敏感的问题。我们不\n\n14 可能有他的行程安排的任何打印件。他的\n\n15 行程安排通常是在他登上游艇前打电话给我时\n\n16 通过电话向我说明的。\n\n17 问 我明白。\n\n18 如果没有关于这些场合的文件记录，即您所说\n\n19 您父亲向您寻求授权的场合，您的证言是，您只是记得\n\n20 每次他外出时，\n\n21 他都向您提供了一份关于他将要前往每个地点的详细行程安排？\n\n22 答 当我父亲登上游艇时，他是我的客人。对我而言，\n\n23 不可能要求所有登上游艇的客人\n\n24 都为其行程提供一份非常详细的计划。\n\n25 问 我明白，但就在几分钟前，我\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第71页，共269页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 理解您的意思是，每当您父亲乘游艇\n\n2 外出时，第一，他必须得到您的授权，我想，\n\n3 所有客人都必须如此；第二，我相信您说过，\n\n4 每次他外出时，他都向您提供了一份详细行程安排。因此，这并非对我的——抱歉，\n\n5 口译女士。请继续。请原谅我。\n\n6 \n\n7 答 我给您举个例子，先生。\n\n8 如果游艇在纽约，我父亲在纽约登上它，\n\n9 并告诉我他要去长岛，那么我会同意。但如果\n\n10 他想在中途停靠，只要是在纽约地区内，\n\n11 那是他的自由。但如果他要把游艇开到棕榈滩，那么\n\n12 他就需要向我提供一份非常详细的行程安排。\n\n13 \n\n14 问 您的父亲是否曾在未经您许可或您不知情的情况下乘游艇外出？\n\n15 \n\n16 答 从未。\n\n17 问 我们来看——嗯，我们仍在第14段。抱歉。\n\n18 \n\n19 您谈到在2020年10月初，您不再希望使用该船，并将此告知\n\n20 Golden Spring（“金泉”）。\n\n21 答 是。\n\n22 问 然后该句的其余部分写道——该\n\n23 段写道，Golden Spring 将您的指示转达给\n\n24 Heaslop 船长。\n\n25 答 是。\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第72页，共269页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 问 您记得这件事吗？\n\n2 答 是，我记得。\n\n3 问 您的具体指示是什么？\n\n4 答 因为我的游艇每年10月进入冬季，鉴于\n\n5 天气原因，它需要停泊在佛罗里达州这样一个较温暖的地方。\n\n6 所以对我而言，这是一个非常普通的\n\n7 请求。Golden Spring 问我是否仍需要使用游艇，\n\n8 因为我的理解是，游艇需要被移往\n\n9 较温暖的地方。\n\n10 问 在提出另一个问题之前，我想确认我理解了您刚才回答的最后一部分。\n\n11 \n\n12 您是否说 Golden Spring 问您是否\n\n13 想继续使用游艇？\n\n14 答 实际上，那不是一个请求或询问，因为我\n\n15 已经知道，在这种天气条件下，游艇已不再适合\n\n16 在纽约使用。他们只是在通知我，游艇需要移往\n\n17 一个较温暖的地方。\n\n18 问 所以 Golden Spring 是在向您告知这一决定？\n\n19 答 不是告知。更像是汇报。\n\n20 问 我明白。\n\n21 那么，在您的宣誓书中，当您说由于天气原因，您不再\n\n22 希望在该季节使用该船；这是您作出该指示的原因，\n\n23 还是因为您从 Golden Spring 得知该船需要前往佛罗里达州？\n\n24 \n\n25 答 好的。先生，让我重申我的回答。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第73页，共269页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 在过去几年中，每年10月，\n\n2 都是安排将游艇移往较温暖地方的时候。因此，在那一年，\n\n3 在他们将游艇移往较温暖地方之前，\n\n4 他们通知我，他们告诉我——更准确地说，他们向我汇报，\n\n5 游艇需要被移往较温暖的地方。因此，这更像是一项例行活动。\n\n6 \n\n7 问 我明白。\n\n8 那么，您对该信息作出的指示是否确实是：\n\n9 把游艇开到佛罗里达州？\n\n10 答 是，我同意了船长提出的请求。\n\n11 问 嗯，很抱歉，但这不是您的宣誓书\n\n12 所说的。您的宣誓书提到了一项指示，所以这正是我\n\n13 试图理解的。这是我原来的问题。\n\n14 您的具体指示是什么？\n\n15 答 我通过公司的代表与船长沟通。\n\n16 公司的代表来到我这里，告诉我现在该将游艇移往\n\n17 较温暖地方了，所以我对该代表的指示是，\n\n18 是的，好的，游艇需要移往佛罗里达州。\n\n19 这就是我的指示。\n\n20 \n\n21 法庭：您与 Golden Spring 是什么关系？\n\n22 证人：法官阁下，Golden Spring 帮我支付我的\n\n23 游艇的所有费用，包括\n\n24 管理费。\n\n25 \n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第74页，共269页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 法庭：您是否在\n\n2 Golden Spring 中拥有所有权权益？\n\n3 证人：没有。\n\n4 法庭：为什么 Golden Spring 会帮您支付\n\n5 与运营和\n\n6 维护游艇有关的所有费用？\n\n7 证人：Golden Spring 属于我哥哥。\n\n8 它是我哥哥的公司。当游艇作为礼物赠与我时，\n\n9 我觉得仅仅为了尝试管理游艇而另行设立一个银行\n\n10 账户非常麻烦；因此，我请求我\n\n11 哥哥是否可以继续使用他的公司管理游艇。\n\n12 他和我就此达成了一致。\n\n13 法庭：所以您的证言是，您的\n\n14 哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人？\n\n15 证人：是的，法官阁下。\n\n16 法庭：作为您哥哥赠与您的礼物的一部分，\n\n17 他会承担维护和\n\n18 运营游艇的费用？\n\n19 证人：是。\n\n20 法庭：您知道每年维护和\n\n21 运营游艇需要多少钱吗？\n\n22 证人：法官阁下，介于 \\$2 million 至\n\n23 \\$3 million US dollars。\n\n24 法庭：好的。我们将给\n\n25 法庭记录员十分钟休息时间。她一直在努力\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 第75页，共\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n57 1 跟上整个上午的证言。我们将在12:15恢复审理，\n\n2 进行到1:00，然后午餐休庭。\n\n3 证人：好的。谢谢。\n\n4 （短暂休庭）\n\n5 法庭：好的。我们继续。\n\n6 HARBACH（哈巴赫）律师询问：\n\n7 问 郭女士，在您指示将游艇开往\n\n8 佛罗里达州时，您是否知道9月30日已经对您的父亲作出了\n\n9 一项临时限制令？\n\n10 口译员：9月30日，对吗，先生？\n\n11 HARBACH（哈巴赫）律师：是的，2020年。\n\n12 答 当时我不知道此事。\n\n13 HARBACH（哈巴赫）律师：我能否请口译员\n\n14 澄清一下？她当时不知道此事？\n\n15 口译员：她当时不知道此事，先生。\n\n16 VARTAN（瓦尔坦）律师：法官阁下，我提出\n\n17 异议。我理解法庭的命令是在\n\n18 10月而非9月作出的。\n\n19 法庭：（对证人）在2020年的任何时候，\n\n20 您是否知道已经对您的父亲作出一项临时限制令，\n\n21 禁止他将该船舶移出\n\n22 美国领海？\n\n23 证人：我在2020年底左右得知此事。\n\n24 我不记得确切日期。那是在\n\n25 冬季的某个时候。可能是在2021年初。\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件：02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第76页，共269页\n\n郭女士——被告方交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 我通过律师的电话得知此事。\n\n2 HARBACH（哈巴赫）律师询问：\n\n3 问 所以，当游艇于2020年10月初向南航行至\n\n4 佛罗里达州时，您的证言是，您不知道已于9月30日作出的任何\n\n5 限制令？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，就日期而言，提出同样的异议。当然，如果哈巴赫先生有一份文件想向证人出示，我相信她会愿意查看；但我理解日期是 October 15，而不是 September 30。\n\n哈巴赫先生：为向律师和法院澄清，法院于 September 30 of 2020 发布了一项临时限制令。该令为法院案卷中的文件第 591 号。对此，我唯一的问题是证人是否知悉该临时限制令已经作出。\n\n瓦尔坦先生：再次，法官阁下，我的理解是，September 的命令——并非要纠缠这一点——与 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）毫无关系。诚然，我当时并未参与该程序，但我的理解是，在法官阁下主持的程序中，Lady May 首次被提及是在 October，而不是 September 30。因此，再次请哈巴赫先生如其面前有相关文件，即向证人出示。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 77 页，共 269 页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n证人：回答该问题，我不知道此事；如果您有该文件，我想查看一下。谢谢。\n\n法院：女士，您三分钟前作证称，您是在 late 2020 或者或许 early 2021 的某个时候得知一项与 Lady May 有关的临时限制令。那是您的证词吗？\n\n证人：是。\n\n法院：哈巴赫先生，这就是证人的证词。我们可以继续吗？\n\n哈巴赫先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n由哈巴赫先生询问：\n\n问：您先前提到 Golden Spring（“金泉”）向您报告游艇需要在 Florida 向南航行，这在您的经验中是相当常见的事情——我撤回这个问题。抱歉。我想问的是：您是否相当经常通过 Golden Spring 对 Lady May 行使指示权？\n\n答：这类正常、日常、例行的活动，由于我们——由于各方都了解时间范围或时间点，他们只会通知我执行。但如果我有客人，或者我本人需要使用游艇，我会直接联系船长。\n\n问：我明白。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 78 页，共 269 页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n根据您与 Golden Spring 打交道的经验，是否可以说，就您根据与他们的互动所能判断，Golden Spring 的工作人员知道您控制并拥有该游艇？\n\n答：是，他们全都知道。\n\n问：好的。现在回到您的宣誓书。我现在将共享屏幕，向您出示第 20 段。您能看到吗？\n\n答：能。\n\n问：在本段开头，您提到您通过律师得知法院命令要求 Lady May 在 May 返回 New York（纽约）？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。您阅读过该命令吗？\n\n答：当时我的律师告知了我。\n\n问：我的问题是，您阅读过该命令吗？\n\n答：——\n\n瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，我只想提醒郭女士不要谈及她与律师之间的任何谈话。\n\n法院：她被问到的只是她是否阅读过法院的命令。\n\n瓦尔坦先生：明白。我只是在她回答之前事先提醒她。\n\n答：回答您的问题，先生，是的，我阅读过。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 第 79 页，共\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n问：好的。请稍等一下。\n\n答：好的。\n\n法院：抱歉，现在有待回答的问题吗？\n\n哈巴赫先生：没有，法官阁下。我正在调出该文件。抱歉耽搁了。我现在已经找到它了。\n\n问：我现在在屏幕上显示的，是我们刚才一直在谈论的命令。您认出这是您以前阅读过的命令吗？\n\n答：您能给我一些时间阅读吗？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：哈巴赫先生，您能把它放大一些，以便证人查看吗？谢谢。\n\n答：您能回到顶部吗？\n\n问：当然。请在我可以继续时告诉我，我会继续向下移动。\n\n答：该文件的日期显示为 September 30, 2020。我不太确定以前是否阅读过该文件。\n\n问：请您稍候片刻，我希望把这件事说清楚。这并非意在提出一个诱导性问题。\n\n口译员：抱歉，我没听清您问题的最后一句？\n\n问：我说我将努力帮助您。这并非意在提出一个诱导性问题。我现在在屏幕上显示的是法院案卷中的文件第 728 号。这一页载有 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）的——\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 80 页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 269 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n签名。日期为 March 16 of 2021。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：这项法院命令具体要求其返回 New York？\n\n答：好的。好的。\n\n问：那么我想问您的是：您以前见过该命令吗？\n\n答：您能否回到文件顶部，再给我看一次，因为我想重新确认。此时我无法确认。\n\n问：好的。我会再给您一点时间，但之后我会继续，因为这并不关键。\n\n法院：您能向她出示下一页吗？\n\n哈巴赫先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n答：我确实不记得以前是否看过这份文件，但我知道该文件的内容。\n\n问：好的。谢谢。回到您的宣誓书，您在第 20 段中说，您知悉法院命令要求 Lady May 于 May of '21 返回 New York，并且您是通过律师得知此事？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，我想确保我理解您何时得知法院的命令。我理解您几分钟前对奥斯特拉格法官所说的是，您认为您是在 2020 年末或 2021 年初得知一项限制令，对吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 81 页，共 269 页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n答：我现在记得的是，在 2020 年末，我的律师打电话给我，告知我 Lady May 可能会出现这样的问题，但我不记得我究竟何时得知这项命令、这项法院命令。大概是在 2021 年初，March 和 April 之间。\n\n问：好的。让我——\n\n哈巴赫先生：我非常感谢法官阁下的耐心。我正在尽可能快地进行。\n\n问：让我再补充一条信息。再次说明，我并不是要使您困惑。法院于 October 15 of 2020 发布了一项限制令。我向您陈述这一点，好吗？\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：您认为这是否就是您于 2020 年末通过律师得知的命令？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，我提出异议。我认为这个问题已经多次被问及并得到回答。此外，我们开始混淆日期。我们正在看第 20 段，该段谈及一项来自 March 的不同法院命令。哈巴赫先生现在谈论的是一项来自 October 的命令。我认为他在这里使证人困惑。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 82 页，共 269 页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n证人：谢谢。\n\n法院：只需重新表述您的问题。这并不难。\n\n问：郭女士，您第一次通过律师得知法院任何限制令是在何时？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：同样的异议。该问题已被多次问及并得到回答。\n\n法院：驳回异议。\n\n证人：我可以回答这个问题吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n答：我确实不记得具体日期，但大约是在 2021 年初。大约是在 2021 年初。我确实不记得具体日期。\n\n问：您通过律师得知该命令后，您与父亲讨论过吗？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，我只要求哈巴赫先生澄清他谈论的是哪一项命令。他提到了 September 的命令、October 的命令和 March 的命令？\n\n法院：让我们把这件事简单化。郭女士，您是否与父亲讨论过任何与 Lady May 有关的法院命令？\n\n证人：没有。我只与我的律师讨论过。\n\n问：今天代理您的律师瓦尔坦先生，是否就是提醒您存在一项与 Lady May 有关的法院命令的同一位律师？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙）, CSR, RMR, CRR\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问 / Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n答：是。\n\n问：谁支付他的服务费用？\n\n答：Golden Spring（“金泉”）。\n\n哈巴赫先生：法官阁下，您是否说过想在 1:00 暂停用午餐？\n\n法院：是的。而且我想以本次听证开始时的同样方式与您和 Siegal 先生（西格尔先生）交谈。\n\n哈巴赫先生：我可以建议我们现在暂停并进行此事吗？我对该证人的最后一部分询问涉及证据材料的出示，可能会有些繁琐。我建议午餐后立即进行。\n\n法院：好的。我们可以这样做。为记录在案，郭女士，我已将媒体排除在您的证言之外，因为我了解到您曾被 CCP（中国共产党）拘留和酷刑对待，而在您于 United States（美国）寻求庇护期间，您的行踪可能是 CCP 感兴趣的事项。如果在对您的询问中不披露您的行踪，您的询问笔录将公开。我还应补充，原告已同意这一安排，而这极不寻常。\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第84页，共269页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—由被告方进行—交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫先生）\n\n证人：法官阁下，感谢您保护我的安全，并且不允许媒体参与本程序。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我们现在休庭午餐。我希望律师拨打我先前给你们的同一电话号码联系我。\n\nVartan先生（瓦尔坦先生）：法官阁下，我能否先就一个问题发言？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nVartan先生：关于Harbach先生剩余的交叉询问，他能否大致估计一下还需要多长时间，以便我为其他证人作安排？\n\nHarbach先生：我很乐意这样做。我有几个简短的事实性问题要问，然后我有三段我们先前向法庭提出的录像，我想向证人播放其中极短的片段。我估计是30、40分钟。\n\nVartan先生：谢谢您，Harbach先生。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我们将在2:00恢复审理。\n\nSiegal先生（西格尔先生）：法官阁下，我们可以在午餐休庭快结束时给您打电话，还是您现在想听取我们的意见？\n\n法庭：我现在想听取你们的意见。\n\nGuo（郭女士）—被告—交叉询问／Guo（郭女士）67\n\nSiegal先生：好的。我会联系O'Melveny（欧迈律师事务所），然后我们会给您打电话。\n\n法庭：很好。\n\n（午餐休庭）\n\nHarbach先生：法官阁下，我可以继续提问吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n由Harbach先生询问：\n\n问：Guo女士，午餐前我们谈了各种事情，但您在其中一个回答中提到了一点，我想澄清一下。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：我相信您在其中一个回答中说过，例如，如果您需要与一些朋友一起使用游艇，您会直接联系船长？\n\n答：有时我直接联系船长。有时我会通过Golden Spring（金泉）联系船长。\n\n问：您还记得您曾直接联系过的任何船长的姓名吗？\n\n答：我主要与我以前使用过的船长，即Craig先生（克雷格先生）沟通。之后我也联系过Momchil（莫姆奇尔），即该游艇现任船长。\n\n问：您曾直接联系过他们每一个人，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 第269页，共269页\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第85页，共\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第86页，共269页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—被告—交叉询问／Guo（郭女士）\n\n问：现在让我向您出示一份已标记为原告证物19的证物。请稍等一下。我已将视频定位到我想为您播放的一个特定部分。我现在正在共享屏幕。我将播放大约十或十二秒。然后我会问您一个问题，好吗？\n\n答：好的。\n\n（播放视频。）\n\n问：那么第一个问题，Guo女士，视频中说话的是您的父亲吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我将视频暂停在6:59处。您认得那个地点，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是位于Sherry Netherlands（雪莉-荷兰人公寓酒店）的公寓内部，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我向您说明，该视频看来大约制作于2017年11月。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：您记得在录制该访谈时您是否在场吗？\n\nVartan先生：法官阁下，我仅对这一点提出异议，这与今天上午听取的交叉询问路线类似。我不知道是否有任何办法能够知道——我是说，让Guo女士知道该视频是在何时制作的。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第87页，共269页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—被告—交叉询问／Guo（郭女士）\n\n我理解律师的说明，但除此之外我们没有任何其他依据。\n\nHarbach先生：问题不是该视频是否于2017年11月制作。我向她说明其制作于2017年11月，是为了帮助她回忆自己当时是否在场。问题不是其日期；问题是她是否在场。仅此而已。\n\nVartan先生：那将不得不假定它实际上是在2017年11月制作的。\n\n法庭：不，这不会假定任何事情。他只是在问她该访谈进行时她是否在场。为回答这个问题，该访谈的日期无关紧要。\n\n答：我不在场。\n\n问：当时您是否住在Sherry Netherlands——抱歉。您在2017年11月是否住在Sherry Netherlands？\n\n答：我有时住在那里。我偶尔住在那里。\n\n问：现在我想向您播放另一段视频。请稍等片刻。\n\n答：好的。而且我也有一个问题要问您。\n\n所以，当您向我展示先前的视频时，我只看到了我父亲所说内容的文字记录，并没有听到任何——\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第88页，共269页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—被告—交叉询问／Guo（郭女士）\n\n70\n\n音频。您能否向我播放带有音频、我能够听到的视频？\n\n问：我会尝试在下一段视频中为您这样做。\n\n我接下来想向您播放的是已标记为原告证物20的录像。同样，我只会在这里播放几秒钟。我会播放几秒钟，然后问您一个问题。为记录起见，我正在播放原告证物20的开头。\n\n第一个问题是：您是否知道在五秒处出现在屏幕右侧的那名女子是谁？\n\nVartan先生：Harbach先生，没有共享任何内容。它没有播放。\n\nHarbach先生：抱歉。它可以播放。我只是忘记按一个按钮。\n\n问：现在这样可以吗？\n\n答：是，我能看到了。\n\n（播放视频。）\n\n问：问题是：您是否知道在五秒处出现在屏幕右侧的那名女子是谁？\n\n答：她是我以前的一名船员。\n\n问：在Lady May（梅夫人号）上？\n\n答：是，在我的Lady May游艇上。\n\n问：我们现在在屏幕上看到的这个场景是在Lady May船上，对吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第89页，共269页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—被告—交叉询问／Guo（郭女士）\n\n71\n\n答：是，在二层。\n\n问：那么我现在再播放几秒钟，然后问您另一个问题。\n\n在44秒处，屏幕中央身穿蓝色T恤、手持电话的男子是您的父亲，对吗？\n\nVartan先生：Harbach先生，再次说明，这没有向在场听众播放。\n\nHarbach先生：我正在努力把事情弄好。抱歉。\n\n（播放视频。）\n\n问：好的。我现在将其暂停在44秒处。Guo女士，您能看到吗？\n\n答：我现在能看到了。\n\n问：问题是：在44秒处，站在屏幕中央、身穿蓝色T恤并手持电话的那名男子是您的父亲，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：现在，我要快进到视频大约40分钟处的较后部分，并在此播放一小段。\n\n（播放视频。）\n\n问：Guo女士，您现在能看到在40:31处那艘自左向右进入屏幕的船只吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第90页，共269页\n\nGuo（郭女士）—被告—交叉询问／Guo（郭女士）\n\n72\n\n答：是，我看到了。\n\n问：那是什么？\n\n答：这艘船的名称是Lady May 2（梅夫人2号）。\n\n问：Lady May 2与Lady May有何关联？\n\n答：两艘船都是我哥哥购买的。\n\n问：谁拥有Lady May 2？\n\n答：我哥哥。\n\n问：您的哥哥拥有它？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。我会再快进一点。我现在在43:56处。看起来手持正在进行该录制的设备的人是您的父亲，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我知道有点难看清楚，但您知道在44分钟处屏幕左侧戴墨镜的男子是谁吗？\n\n答：尽管不太清楚，我可以确认这是我当时的船长，Craig船长（克雷格船长）。\n\n问：那是Craig Heaslop（克雷格·希斯洛普）吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我知道很难看清，但您能辨认出出现在视频屏幕右下角的这个标志吗？您能看到吗？\n\n答：我能清楚地看到，也能认出来。\n\n问：好的。上面写着“Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）”，对吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n庭审程序 提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第91页，共269页\n\n答：我看不清上面的措辞、文字；但我相信这是正确的。\n\n问：什么是法治基金会？\n\n答：我无法向您清楚地解释或描述，因为我没有参与该基金会。\n\n问：屏幕上显示其标志的法治基金会是由您的父亲创办的，这是真的吗？\n\n答：我确实不太了解，但我相信是这样。\n\n问：好的。谢谢。这段视频就到这里。\n\n现在，我即将向您播放的最后一段视频，Guo女士，已标记并作为原告证物2提出。\n\n程序和之前一样。我会播放一小段，然后问您一个问题。\n\n让您知道一下，显然音频没有为任何人播放，但我目前的问题只涉及视频，好吗？\n\n答：好的。\n\n（播放视频。）\n\n问：Guo女士，出现在原告证物2中、身穿白色西装、白色衬衫和白色领带的男子是您的父亲，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nHarbach先生：法官阁下，我能否请一点时间与我的同事商议？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nRachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约郡书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第92页，共269页\n\nStockil（斯托基尔）—由被告方进行—交叉询问／Harbach（哈巴赫先生）\n\n74 1 （短暂停顿）2 HARBACH先生（哈巴赫）：我没有其他问题了。3 法庭：好的。郭女士即将被解除作证义务。4 郭女士，我先前向您说明，我5 为保护您的人身安全，已将媒体排除在对您的询问之外，6 因为您此前曾被中共（CCP）拘押，且7 显然受到过酷刑。您的下落可能会8 引起他们的兴趣，我担心您的人身安全。9 此外，原告同意进行不公开程序，10 我已向您说明，这极为罕见。11 您的证言中没有任何内容以任何方式表明12 您目前的下落。因此，当本程序的13 庭审记录整理完成后，将会14 在法院电子提交系统上公开。15 证人：法官阁下，再次感谢您16 对我人身安全的保护。我确实从内心深处17 感谢您。18 法庭：好的。祝您今天愉快。19 下一位接受交叉询问的证人？20 VARTAN先生（瓦尔坦）：法官阁下，我们将代表被告传唤 Russell 21 Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）。我相信 Stockil先生22 已登录或即将登录。他是 Yachtzoo SARL（游艇动物园有限责任公司）的23 游艇经理。24 法庭：好的。我们继续。25 HARBACH先生：法官阁下，可以请证人宣誓吗？Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙娜），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 93 页，共 269 页\n\nStockil — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n1 法庭：我们继续。\n2 （Russell Stockil 已依法宣誓/确认。）\n3 RUSSELL STOCKIL，经被告方传唤，\n4 并已依法宣誓后，接受询问并\n5 作证如下：\n6 交叉询问\n7 由 HARBACH先生：\n8 问 Stockil先生，您能否为书记员拼读您的姓名？\n9 答 姓氏？\n10 问 两者都要。\n11 答 Russell，R-U-S-S-E-L-L。\n12 Stockil，S-T-O-C-K-I-L。\n13 问 您是否就是在 Pacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）一案中，\n14 向纽约州法院（New York State Court）提交宣誓书的 Russell Stockil？\n15 答 是的。\n16 问 先生，您是否持有您在本案中提交的宣誓书副本？\n17 答 持有。\n18 问 好的。\n19 HARBACH先生：为记录起见，该文件为案卷上的文件 1156。\n20 问 请稍等。\n21 （短暂停顿）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 94 页，共 269 页\n\nStockil — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n1 问 我将共享我的屏幕，以便更容易\n2 查阅我所谈及的您宣誓书中的部分。\n3 Stockil先生，您能看清吗？\n4 答 能。\n5 问 我的第一个问题涉及第 3 段。2021 年 4 月\n6 是否是您与任何与 Lady May（梅夫人号）有关联的人之间首次建立联系或业务关系的时间？\n7 \n8 答 是的，正确。\n9 问 您在第 3 段中提及的代表，\n10 即联系您的 HK USA（香港美国公司）的代表，其中没有一人是 Mei Guo（郭美），对吗？\n11 \n12 答 是的，正确。\n13 问 在第 5 段中，您提到 Hong Kong USA（香港美国公司）与 Yachtzoo 于去年 5 月 1 日签署的管理合同。您\n14 \n15 没有将该合同附在您的宣誓书中，对吗？\n16 答 没有。\n17 问 第 6 段提到一些保密协议，\n18 您称郭女士会签了这些协议。您也没有将其中任何一份\n19 附在您的宣誓书中，对吗？\n20 答 没有。\n21 问 第 6 段末尾谈及被告方证物 5。您是否有该文件的副本？\n22 \n23 答 是的，我有一份副本。\n24 问 让我把它显示在屏幕上。\n25 或许会有帮助。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 95 页，共 269 页\n\nStockil — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n77 1 答 是的，正确。2 问 这就是您所提到的被告方证物 5？3 答 是。4 问 我将翻到其最后一页。请稍等。5 6 HARBACH先生：为记录起见，我现在查看的是被告方证物 5 的第 7 页，共 7 页。7 这是该协议的签字页。8 问 该文件是以电子方式签署的，是吗？9 10 答 是的，正确。11 问 换言之，您没有亲眼看到 Mei Guo 将笔落在纸上并签署该文件？12 13 答 没有，我没有亲眼看到。14 问 好的。15 16 那么，我理解，您得出她签署该文件这一结论，是因为 DocuSign 或贵公司使用的某种软件？17 18 答 嗯，之所以得出该结论，是因为应我们要求执行协议后，19 家庭代表将该文件提供给我们。20 21 问 我明白。22 那么您本人——我不是在说您的公司。您本人，Russell Stockil，不知道究竟是谁为 Mei Guo 插入了该签名，对吗？Rachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 96 页，共 269 页\n\nStockil — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n78 1 答 不，我不能说我知道。2 问 您的假设是，签署该文件的一方在称 Mei Guo 签署该文件时对您说了实话，对吗？3 4 答 是。5 问 好的。6 而且该签名的位置也是错误的，不是吗？换言之，郭女士应当代表该组织签署，而不是代表雇主签署，对吗？7 8 答 代表该组织？9 问 让我看看能否帮您理解。我并非想要耍花招。10 11 在第一页，该组织列为 HK USA。您看到那里了吗？12 13 答 是的，正确。14 问 而雇主列为 Phoenix（菲尼克斯）？15 答 您说得对，是的。16 问 好的。这正是我所说的。17 回到您的宣誓书，第 7 段，您说您从未见过或与 Kwok Ho Wan 交谈过。Mei Guo 的情况也是如此，对吗？换言之，您也从未见过或与她交谈过，对吗？18 19 20 21 答 是的，正确。22 问 好的。第 9 段，我认为这不言自明，但我想确认一下。23 24 Lady May 的所有航行指示都来自\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 97 页，共 269 页\n\nStockil — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n79 1 郭女士并通过她的代表传达。这是否意味着，Lady May 的任何航行指示均非直接来自郭女士？2 3 答 对我们而言不是。它们通过家庭办公室传达。4 是的。5 问 Stockil先生，您知道该家庭办公室的名称，或知道其任何其他名称吗？6 7 答 我相信它名为 Golden Spring（金泉）。8 问 好的。9 HARBACH先生：法官阁下，可以给我一分钟吗？10 11 （短暂停顿）12 HARBACH先生：法官阁下，我们对 Stockil先生没有其他问题。13 14 法庭：Stockil先生，您可以离席。15 请传唤下一位证人。16 VARTAN先生：法官阁下，我们接下来将传唤 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫），我相信他此刻正在登录。17 18 BARROW女士（巴罗）：法官阁下，我是 Erica Barrow（埃丽卡·巴罗）。19 我们等待期间，作为一项事务性问题，您是否希望双方在某个时候正式提出接纳已标记为证据的某些文件的动议？20 21 法庭：是的。在听证会结束时，22 双方将正式提交其希望作为证据的文件。23 24 BARROW女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。25\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 98 页，共 269 页\n\nIvanov — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n法庭：我们将在 Microsoft Teams 上进行，而不是通过正式书面文件。\n\nVARTAN先生：Ivanov先生，请打开您的摄像头。\n\n证人：您现在应该能够看到我了。\n\nVARTAN先生：谢谢。\n\n法官阁下，Ivanov先生此前已在本案中提交一份宣誓书。我们将其作为其直接证言提交，并提供他接受交叉询问。\n\n法庭：好的。请举起您的右手。\n\n（Momchil Ivanov 登上证人席并已依法宣誓/确认。）\n\n法庭：Harbach先生，您可以开始交叉询问。\n\nHARBACH先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMOMCHIL IVANOV，经被告方传唤，并已依法宣誓后，接受询问并作证如下：\n\n交叉询问\n\n由 HARBACH先生：\n\n问 Ivanov先生，您能否缓慢地拼读您的名字和姓氏？\n\n答 我的名字是 M-O-M—— 80\n\n（因书记员连接中断，程序短暂停顿。）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 99 页，共 269 页\n\nIvanov — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n1 问 Ivanov先生，因为书记员连接中断，我们将重复前几个问题，可以吗？\n2 \n3 答 我准备好了。\n4 问 请参阅现在显示在屏幕上的您的宣誓书——为记录起见，该文件为文件 1157。当您在第 2 段中称您约于 2021 年 10 月成为 Lady May 的船长时，那是否是您与该游艇建立联系的开始？\n5 6 7 8 9 \n10 答 是的，先生，正确。\n11 问 下一个问题涉及第 8 段，您在其中称，您从未就 Lady May、其运营或其航行与 Kwok Ho Wan 会面或交谈过。就 Mei Guo 而言，情况也是如此，对吗？\n12 13 14 \n15 答 嗯，我并非直接与 Mei 女士这样做，而是通过管理公司。\n16 \n17 问 我明白您的意思。我只是想确认，您是否曾与 Mei Guo 会面或交谈过？\n18 \n19 答 没有直接会面或交谈过，先生。\n20 问 好的。那么回到您宣誓书的第 6 段，您刚才所说的是，您未曾直接与郭女士沟通。这意味着您从未直接收到郭女士的任何命令或指示，对吗？\n21 22 23 \n24 答 是的，正确。\n25 问 Lady May 目前在哪里？\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 100 页，共 269 页\n\nIvanov — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n1 答 Lady May 目前位于意大利热那亚（Genoa, Italy）。\n2 问 它在那里多久了？\n3 答 我相信该船在我上船前约一周抵达，所以我会说是 9 月下旬。我不确定确切日期。\n4 5 \n6 问 2021 年 9 月下旬？\n7 答 是的，正确。\n8 问 在您担任船长期间，Lady May 最后一次驶往任何地方是什么时候？\n9 \n10 答 我相信，该船在我担任船长期间从未航行过。自我于 10 月初上船以来，该船一直停泊在热那亚。\n11 12 \n13 问 它没有去过任何地方？\n14 答 正确，先生。\n15 HARBACH先生：法官阁下，请稍等。\n16 （短暂停顿）\n17 问 Ivanov先生，我的一位同事想知道，您此刻是否在 Lady May 上？\n18 \n19 答 是的，先生，我确实在。\n20 问 谢谢。\n21 HARBACH先生：我对该证人没有其他问题。\n22 \n23 Ivanov先生，谢谢您。\n24 法庭：Ivanov先生，您可以离席。\n25 请传唤下一位证人。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 101 页，共 269 页\n\nHeaslop — 被告方 — 交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n83 1 瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，被告方传唤克雷格·希斯洛普（Craig Heaslop）出庭作证。2 希斯洛普先生此前同样已提交一份宣誓书，双方及法庭均已持有该宣誓书。我们将其作为其直接证言提交，并再次提出供交叉询问。7 法庭：宣誓书予以接收。请找到证人，我们将为其宣誓，并对其进行交叉询问。10 瓦尔坦先生：他给我发了一张便条，说他在登录时遇到一些困难，但他一直向我通报情况。13 法庭：好的。谢谢。14 （短暂停顿）15 法庭：希斯洛普先生？16 证人：您能清楚听到我说话吗？17 法庭：可以。请举起您的右手。证人宣誓。19 （克雷格·希斯洛普已依法宣誓/确认。）20 克雷格·希斯洛普，经被告方传唤，在依法宣誓后，接受询问并作证如下：23 交叉询问 24 由哈巴赫先生（Mr. Harbach）进行：25 问：先生，您能否告诉我您的姓氏如何发音？雷切尔·C·西蒙尼（Rachel C. Simone），CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 102 页，共 269 页\n\n1 答：希斯洛普。\n\n2 问：好的。谢谢。\n\n3 请您为法庭书记员拼写您的名字和姓氏。\n\n5 答：Craig，C-R-A-I-G。Heaslop，H-E-A-S-L-O-P。\n\n6 问：我想请您看一下您的屏幕。请告诉我，您能否看到屏幕前方显示的您在本案中的确认声明？\n\n9 答：能。\n\n10 问：我要问您的第一个问题在第16段。您在那里说，当您把“梅夫人”号（Lady May）开往佛罗里达州时，您是在10月第一周离开的。您是否记得离开的确切日期？\n\n14 答：不，我记不得。\n\n15 问：您是否熟悉一个名为VesselFinder的网站？您听说过吗？\n\n17 答：是的，我知道VesselFinder。\n\n18 问：查看“梅夫人”号的VesselFinder航迹图，是否有助于您记起您离开纽约的确切日期？\n\n20 答：我不知道这是否会有助于我记起，不会。\n\n21 问：您愿意看一下吗？\n\n22 答：我可以看，是的。\n\n23 问：我已在屏幕上调出——这仅用于唤起记忆，不会作为证物提交。为记录在案，我已在屏幕上调出“梅夫人”号的航程分析图，其国际海事组织编号为1012359。雷切尔·C·西蒙尼，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 103 页，共 269 页\n\n希斯洛普——由被告方传唤——交叉询问／哈巴赫\n\n1 屏幕上显示的是“梅夫人”号，国际海事组织编号为1012359。\n\n3 答：就是这个。\n\n4 问：请再说一遍？\n\n5 答：就是这个。\n\n6 问：就是这个，好的。那么我会放大画面，同时我还要向您指出，所选的有效日期范围是2020年9月1日至2022年1月31日，明白吗？\n\n10 瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，我对此提出异议。我不知道这是否在听证会之前已被提供。因此，这与西格尔先生（Mr. Siegel）的异议相同，即——\n\n13 法庭：他可以使用任何他希望用来尝试唤起证人记忆的材料。如果它不能唤起证人的记忆，那么它就不能唤起证人的记忆。\n\n17 瓦尔坦先生：法官阁下，这正是另一点。我不认为证人说过这会唤起他的记忆。\n\n20 法庭：我明白，但让我们看看他看了之后会发生什么。\n\n22 问：希斯洛普先生，我将放大纽约市的画面。看起来有一条轨迹从曼哈顿南部驶入大西洋，该航线上有一个小三角形，日期为2020年10月9日。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 104 页，共 269 页\n\n希斯洛普——由被告方传唤——交叉询问／哈巴赫\n\n1 答：是的。\n\n2 问：沿该轨迹再往前一些，在新泽西州海岸外，还有另一个标示为2020年10月9日。因此，向您提出的问题是：这是否唤起您的记忆，即“梅夫人”号实际离开的日期是2020年10月9日？\n\n7 答：我不太关注我们离开的实际日期。对我来说，更重要的是天气情况。我根据天气选择日子和日期。\n\n10 问：好的，这没有问题。我所能做的只是问这是否有助于您记起。您说是10月第一周。如果是9日，那已经相当接近了。好的，让我们回到您的宣誓书。在第17段，您说您在离开之前与郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）先生进行过一次谈话。我的第一个问题是：那次谈话是当面进行的吗？\n\n18 答：不是。\n\n19 问：您的宣誓书称，他当时是游艇上的客人。您当时在哪里？\n\n21 答：就我个人而言？我在游艇上。\n\n22 问：这正是我想问的，只是也许表述得不够恰当。您在游艇上。郭先生在游艇上。尽管如此，那次谈话是通过电话或其他方式进行的吗？\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 105 页，共 269 页\n\n1 答：不是。我与郭先生进行那次谈话时，他不在游艇上。我们停泊在码头。\n\n3 问：好的。那么也许是我误解了您的宣誓书。请阅读第17段的第一句话。只需您自己阅读即可。我只是想弄清楚当时谁是游艇上的客人。\n\n7 答：好的。我在那里想表达的是，他曾是客人。我想这或许是更好的表述方式。我们进行那次谈话时，他并不实际在船上。他此前曾是船上的客人。\n\n11 问：我想您刚才说过，在您与他进行这次谈话时，您本人在游艇上？\n\n13 答：是的，我在游艇上。\n\n14 问：您记得这一点？\n\n15 答：是的。\n\n16 问：好的。而且——\n\n17 法庭：在2020年10月之前，您记得郭先生最后一次在游艇上是什么时候？\n\n19 证人：2020年10月之前？\n\n20 法庭：是。\n\n21 证人：他整个夏天都像往常一样时常上下游艇。至于他们何时来、何时离开的具体日期，我无法事后告诉您。\n\n24 法庭：他是否在7月的大部分时间都在游艇上？雷切尔·C·西蒙尼，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 106 页，共 269 页\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022\n\n希斯洛普——由被告方传唤——交叉询问／哈巴赫\n\n88 1 证人：那时是COVID期间。是的，他在。2 法庭：那么2020年8月期间呢？3 证人：是。5 法庭：那么2020年9月期间呢？7 证人：我相信也是，是的。8 法庭：郭美（Mei Guo）女士是否在2020年9月期间在游艇上？10 证人：夏末时我们见过郭女士。我正试图回忆是在哪一个月。我无法确切记起是哪一个月。13 法庭：在郭先生和郭女士之间，您如何比较他们各自在2020年7月、8月和9月期间在游艇上停留的时长？17 证人：在那些月份里，郭先生在游艇上停留的时间比郭女士更多。19 法庭：多很多，还是只多一点？20 证人：多很多。21 法庭：好的。22 哈巴赫先生，我打断您了。23 哈巴赫先生：没关系，法官阁下。24 由哈巴赫先生进行：25 问：您是否记得，在您离开前多久，\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 107 页，共 269 页\n\n郭先生与您进行了这次谈话，说他将不再是游艇上的客人？在您离开前多久？\n\n答：据我记忆，是几天。我想，根据记忆，不久后就出现了时机，我们便收拾好船离开了。\n\n问：您说您记得当时您在游艇上，并且您通过电话与郭先生交谈。您是否记得他有没有说他在哪里？\n\n答：不，我认为他没有说。\n\n问：您宣誓书的第17段称，您后来与香港美国（Hong Kong USA）的一名代表进行了谈话，并确认纽约已不再需要这艘游艇。那个人不是郭美，对吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n哈巴赫先生：法官阁下，我正在调整我的询问，所以如果我花几秒钟，或许是有必要的。\n\n法庭：请慢慢来。\n\n（短暂停顿）\n\n问：郭先生告诉您他将不再是游艇上的客人时，他是否还告诉您，法院于9月30日已发布一项临时限制令？\n\n答：没有。\n\n西格尔先生（Mr. Siegal）：异议。歪曲记录。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 108 页，共 269 页\n\n1 请求删除。\n\n2 法庭：驳回异议。\n\n3 西格尔先生：并没有任何临时限制令提及——\n\n5 法庭：证人已经回答了问题。当郭先生不再是船上的客人时，郭先生与该证人谈话期间并未提及临时限制令一事。9 （对证人）郭先生是否曾告诉您，游艇上曾存在一项临时限制令？\n\n11 证人：没有，先生。\n\n12 法庭：香港美国的任何人是否告诉您，游艇上曾存在一项临时限制令？\n\n14 证人：没有，先生。\n\n15 法庭：是否有人告诉您，对游艇的移动曾存在一项临时限制令？\n\n18 证人：当时没有，先生，据我记忆，没有。\n\n20 法庭：您第一次得知游艇上存在临时限制令是什么时候？\n\n22 证人：我不记得确切日期。我想是从一名经纪人那里得知的。\n\n24 法庭：抱歉？\n\n25 证人：我不记得确切日期。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 109 页，共 269 页\n\n1 法庭：您得知此事时身在何处？\n\n3 证人：我相当确定，我们当时已回到佛罗里达州。\n\n5 由哈巴赫先生进行：\n\n6 问：那是在您辞职之后吗？\n\n7 答：不是。在那之前。\n\n8 问：您刚才说您是从一名经纪人那里得知的？\n\n10 答：我想可能是的，是的，据我记忆。我坦率地说，不知道这背后是否有任何真实性，还是仅仅是经纪人的传言。\n\n13 问：游艇在拿骚和自由港进行维修和检查时，您知道这些维修大约花了多长时间吗？\n\n16 答：是的。花的时间比我们预期的更长。我们因设备问题出现延误。大约用了五个月。\n\n18 问：那么，大约是从何时到何时？\n\n20 答：我们1月去了自由港。我们一直停在那里直到——我想我们5月离开，因此大概是5月初左右。\n\n23 问：因此，从1月到5月初，游艇基本上处于停航状态？\n\n25 答：是的。我们在干船坞。传动轴被拆除。我们有——雷切尔·C·西蒙尼，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案卷索引号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1179 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 110 页，共 269 页\n\n希斯洛普（Heaslop）—由被告方交叉询问／哈巴赫（Harbach）\n\n1 为更换我们的传动轴，而公司最终寄来了尺寸错误的 2 传动轴。他们花了将近一个月才生产出新的传动轴，并在 3 从欧洲运抵。后来他们寄来的还是错误的传动轴，4 因此我们不得不再次等待新的传动轴。所以，即便有人想要移动 5 游艇，也没有人能够这样做。6 问：如果我向您说明，VesselFinder 显示该 7 游艇至少一直停留在自由港（Freeport）至 5 月 30 日，这听起来 8 是否合理？9 答：是。10 问：如果我正确理解您的证词，在您 11 提交辞呈时，即 5 月底，您 12 曾从一名经纪人处听说过一项限制令或类似事项，13 但与 Lady May（Lady May号游艇）或 HK USA（香港美国公司）有关联的人，没有就此对您说过一句话，14 是吗？15 答：没有。16 问：这是否正确？17 答：正确，是的，香港办公室没有就此 18 说过任何话。19 问：您通过经纪人听说游艇可能受到 20 限制令约束一事，是否与您决定辞职 21 有任何关系？\n\n22 瓦尔坦先生（MR. VARTAN）：法官阁下，我以无关性为由提出异议。23 法院：异议驳回。24 问：请看第 24 段，其中提到您担任船长的头两年，您与郭先生的互动是，\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案卷号：652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：1179，NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022，案件 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期：04/06/22，登记日期：04/06/22 17:07:45，第 111 页，共 269 页\n\n希斯洛普（Heaslop）—由被告方交叉询问／哈巴赫（Harbach）\n\n1 大致上，在他登上游艇的任何时候。2 我的问题是：当他在游艇上时，3 他指示游艇的航行，对吗？我并不是说他 4 驾驶游艇，而是说他告诉您他想去哪里？5 答：是。6 问：那么，这涵盖——您担任 7 船长的头两年应当是从 2017 年 9 月到 8 2019 年 9 月，对吗？9 答：正确。那是我开始任职后的两年，是的。10 问：接着您还谈到，您在最后一年通过 11 电话或短信与他有一些有限的互动。那 12 大约是从 2020 年 5 月到 2021 年 5 月？13 答：我确实记不清具体日期，14 但，是的。15 问：您可以纠正我，因为您会知道，但我刚刚 16 意识到，您的头两年与最后一年之间存在一段空档，17 因为您在那里工作了三年 18 八个月。因此，也许您并无特别用意，但我 19 试图弄清楚，从 2019 年 9 月到 2020 年 5 月期间，20 您能就您与郭文贵先生（Mr. Kwok）的互动说些什么？21 答：那是公务性的，较为正式。22 问：好的。23 答：随着我在那里工作的时间更长，我逐渐——发展出更多的，24 我想，可以说是与该家庭的一种关系。他们对我作为船长更加信任，因此，随着时间推移，我们的互动变得不那么正式。\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案卷号：652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：1179，NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022，案件 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期：04/06/22，登记日期：04/06/22 17:07:45，第 112 页，共 269 页\n\n希斯洛普（Heaslop）—由被告方交叉询问／哈巴赫（Harbach）\n\n1 正式。2 问：好的。\n\n4 哈巴赫先生（MR. HARBACH）：法官阁下，此时我原本 5 打算就法治基金会（Rule of Law Foundation）的视频询问希斯洛普先生，6 如同我询问郭女士（Ms. Guo）时那样，主要是为了 7 请他认证其中是 Lady May 号游艇，以及视频中出现的是 8 郭先生，并且他在 9 视频中表明自己的身份；但如果法官阁下认为这将是 10 重复且不必要的，那么我就不这样做。\n\n11 法院：这是重复且不必要的，12 除非该证人知悉有关法治（Rule of Law）的某些情况，13 而其相关性目前尚不明确。\n\n14 哈巴赫先生：好的。既然如此，我将 15 放弃该项询问。\n\n16 问：那么，在该段末尾，即第 24 段，17 当您谈到您与郭美（Mei Guo）的互动时，您 18 说她在游艇上时，您与她有一些互动，19 并且也偶尔通过电话和短信互动。\n\n20 根据您此前所述，我理解这些互动中没有一项 21 是关于游艇航行的，对吗？22 答：正确。\n\n23 问：最后，第 25 段，为了彻底弄清楚，那第一句关于 24 您仅从那三家公司获得有关 25 游艇航行指示的话，\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案卷号：652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：1179，NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022，案件 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期：04/06/22，登记日期：04/06/22 17:07:45，第 113 页，共 269 页\n\n希斯洛普（Heaslop）—由被告方交叉询问／哈巴赫（Harbach）\n\n1 即所列的、您理解为该家庭办公室的公司；2 这意味着，因此，指示并非来自郭美女士本人，对吗？3 答：抱歉，您能再问一遍这个问题吗？4 问：当然，因为那个问题问得很糟糕。5 您的宣誓书称，您仅从 HK International（香港国际公司）的代表、Hong Kong USA（香港美国公司）的代表，或 Golden Spring New York Limited（金泉纽约有限公司）处，获得关于游艇航行的指示。因此，8 我的问题是：这是否意味着，9 您收到的指示没有一项是直接来自郭美女士，10 对吗？11 答：正确。12 法院：先生，您确实证实，在 13 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月，郭文贵先生是游艇上的常客，14 而且推定他会告诉您他 15 想去哪里？16 证人：没错，法官阁下。有一些 17 当地航行，比如在北部地区或南部 18 地区，宾客在使用游艇时。有关他们 19 想去哪里、在任何特定一天想做什么的指示。21 我所指的——我所谈到的没有 22 指示，是指游艇按季节在 23 东北部和东南部之间重新定位。这 24 是来自办公室的。25 法院：我明白了。那么，如果郭文贵先生想去\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案卷号：652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：1179，NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022，案件 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期：04/06/22，登记日期：04/06/22 17:07:45，第 114 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审程序\n\n96 1 南塔基特（Nantucket），您会带他去那里？2 证人：当然会，是的。3 法院：如果他想去 4 缅因州巴港（Bar Harbor, Maine），您会带他去缅因州巴港？5 证人：会。6 法院：好的。7 证人：其他任何使用 8 游艇的宾客也是如此。9 哈巴赫先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。除非您 10 还有其他问题，否则我们没有了。11 法院：好的。该证人可以退庭。12 我相信还有一名证人。13 瓦尔坦先生：是的，法官阁下。我会将事项 14 交回给西格尔先生（Mr. Siegal）。15 西格尔先生：法官阁下，辩方名单上的最后一名 16 证人是亚伦·米切尔（Aaron Mitchell），就先前提交的 17 申诉书而言，如果法院希望听取 18 对米切尔先生的交叉询问。19 法院：米切尔先生，请举起右手。20 （亚伦·米切尔已依法宣誓／确认。）21 法院：好的。我们开始吧。22 哈巴赫先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。23 米切尔先生，感谢您今天到场。我们 24 没有任何问题，也不会对该证人进行交叉询问。25 法院：好吧。这真是简短明了。\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n庭审程序 已提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案卷号：652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：1179，NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022，案件 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期：04/06/22，登记日期：04/06/22 17:07:45，第 115 页，共 269 页\n\n97 1 米切尔先生，您可以退庭。2 证人：谢谢您，法官阁下。3 法院：好吧。我不需要结案陈述。4 您认为您能否在周五当天结束前 5 提交审后 6 书面材料？7 西格尔先生：嗯，我想，法官阁下，这取决于 8 我们能多快拿到一份非正式庭审记录，我们显然希望在准备审后 9 书面材料时 10 加以引用。11 法院：我会询问法庭书记员，但无意给她 12 施加任何不合理的负担。13 （短暂停顿）14 法院：我将把审后书面材料的到期时间 15 定为周一上午 10 时。我所需要的只是备忘录和拟议的 16 事实认定。17 西格尔先生：法官阁下，如果我们要到——才会拿到庭审记录，18 19 法院：这并不是什么高深难题，20 西格尔先生。如果您愿意，我可以在没有审后书面材料的情况下作出裁决。21 西格尔先生：不，我不愿意。我们感谢 22 有这个机会。23 法院：好的。24 因此，如果您有任何事要告诉我，您将在\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，02/07/2022 02:11 PM，案卷号：652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：1179，NYSCEF 收到日期：02/07/2022，案件 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期：04/06/22，登记日期：04/06/22 17:07:45，第 116 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审程序\n\n1 明天中午通过电话会议告诉我。如果您在 2 中午的电话会议时没有任何事要告诉我，我将 3 着手将庭审记录完整誊写并 4 上传至法院的电子提交系统。我将 5 最迟于下周三作出裁决。6 西格尔先生：法官阁下，我们将在明天中午 7 由双方律师共同电话致电。8 法院：好的。谢谢。祝您愉快。9 ＊ ＊ ＊\n\n10 特此证明，上述内容为该庭审程序的真实且 11 准确的记录。\n\n14 _________________________\n15 Rachel C. Simone-Ivanac（蕾切尔·C·西蒙娜-伊瓦纳茨）\n16 高级法庭书记员\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲公司）诉\n郭文贵（Kwok） 2022 年 2 月 2 日\n\n39:9 92:4；95:3 90:5 Aronsson（2）\n\n$ 活动 (1) 针对 (3) 公寓 (4) 33:22,24\n59:20 14:10;57:9,22 8:18;12:8,8;68:14 大约 (7)\n$2 (1) 活动 (1) 机构 (3) 道歉 (3) 8:15;20:16;43:16;\n56:22 55:6 38:19,21,22 18:2;21:11;29:18 57:24;63:7;64:12,12\n实际 (3) 以前 (8) 道歉 (1) 安排 (1)\n$28 (1) 31:20;86:5,7 7:19;45:22;51:24; 21:5 55:2\n46:2 实际上 (10) 52:25;59:5;62:25; 明显的 (1) 安排 (1)\n$3 (1) 4:7;6:1,22;9:13,22; 87:11;91:8 17:18 65:24\n56:23 20:12;30:8;36:3; 同意 (5) 显然 (2) 安排 (1)\n$30 (3) 54:14;69:10 21:10,24;23:9; 73:14;74:7 12:3\n8:4,9,13 添加 (3) 24:11;53:10 上诉 (2) 到达 (1)\n42:11;63:12;65:23 已同意 (2) 13:4,6 82:3\n@ 地址 (5) 45:22;55:10 出庭 (6) 文章 (2)\n31:3;36:13,22;40:7, 协议 (3) 16:23;22:2;23:10, 7:16,18\n@KwokMiles (4)\n19:9;26:11,17; 10 6:4;56:12;77:8 12;25:1,2 亚洲 (1)\n29:24 延期 (1) 协议 (2) 已出庭 (6) 75:16\n18:15 76:17;77:21 26:10,17;33:15; 集合 (1)\nA 延期 (1) 前方 (6) 34:15;35:1;36:19 71:9\n18:20 10:9;15:20;18:24; 出庭 (2) 主张 (2)\nAaron（亚伦） (2) 主持 (1) 47:8;53:5;74:24 37:17;94:8 11:5;13:17\n96:16,20 39:20 援助 (1) 显示 (14) 资产 (6)\n能力 (1) 可采性 (1) 61:12 8:22;9:16;24:17; 4:16;8:9,14;12:1;\n13:18 36:24 旨在 (1) 25:10,10;41:18; 13:15,21\n能够 (7) 可采的 (1) 8:16 68:17;70:10,20; 资产 (2)\n4:21;30:17;41:7; 14:13 已提醒 (1) 72:11,22;73:7,19; 8:16;12:6\n62:10;71:24;73:4; 承认 (1) 65:1 85:23 关联 (3)\n7:18 提醒 (1) 上诉审 (4) 4:3;8:6,10\n80:5 承认 (1) 31:10 4:20;11:2;12:20,22 关联的 (6)\n在船上 (9) 79:20 指称的 (2) 适用的 (1) 23:7;29:12,25;56:5;\n6:12;7:6;50:10,15, 预先 (1) 12:14;14:13 12:7 76:7;92:13\n25;71:1;93:1,2;94:18 60:24 联盟 (3) 适用 (1) 协会 (2)\n国外 (1) 不利的 (6) 14:12,15;75:16 11:19 76:6;81:9\n9:23 13:23;14:5,6,14,25; 允许 (2) 申请 (1) 假定 (2)\n绝对地 (3)\n5:19;12:25;96:2 36:23 61:10;66:2 11:16 9:5;20:6\n充分地 (1) 宣誓陈述人 (1) 获准 (1) 感谢 (3) 假定 (2)\n10:1 3:18 52:6 15:1;63:10;97:22 6:5;28:20\n查阅 (1) 宣誓书 (36) 单独 (2) 适当的 (1) 假定 (1)\n19:18 7:4;9:10,16;15:23; 10:3;52:4 12:13 78:2\n随附 (1) 16:9;21:6;24:4;41:1, 沿着 (1) 大约 (7) 庇护 (1)\n36:7 14,20;42:1;43:18; 25:17 68:18;81:8;82:3; 65:21\n根据 (4) 48:9;49:21;51:16; 变更 (4) 91:14,18,18;93:13 大西洋 (1)\n14:7;42:21,22;47:5 54:21;55:11,12;60:7; 17:17;20:25;24:17; 约数 (1) 85:24\n账户 (14) 62:18;75:15,18;76:2, 25:22 66:12 附上 (2)\n19:6,9,12,15,18; 15,19;78:18;80:8; 始终 (5) 四月 (2) 76:15,18\n23:3;29:11,12,16; 81:5,20;83:4,7;86:13, 4:1;5:22;8:2;10:17; 63:8;76:5 附上的 (3)\n30:3,6,8,12;56:10 19;87:3;89:10;95:5 52:7 就此而言 (1) 7:16;23:2;26:25\n账户 (1) 宣誓书 (12) 伏击 (2) 37:17 尝试 (2)\n5:18;6:9,21;17:2; 49:4,13 任意地 (1) 69:5;85:14\n19:21 25:16;32:22;33:5,8,9; 修正案 (3) 12:5 尝试 (1)\n准确性 (5) 34:9;35:25;36:6 4:16;5:13;14:8 档案 (2) 4:2\n23:15;30:21,22; 确认书 (4) 在……之中 (1) 28:23;29:1 注意 (2)\n33:15;35:3 17:20;27:5;38:2; 11:13 地区 (3) 84:6;86:7\n准确的 (4) 84:7 金额 (1) 53:11;95:17,18 律师 (1)\n26:2,13,16;98:11 确认书 (1) 15:15 辩称 (2) 7:15\n准确地 (1)\n38:24 17:25 类比 (1) 10:18;12:19 归因于 (1)\n取得 (1) 肯定的 (1) 12:13 已辩称 (2) 19:25\n47:5 14:15 Analyser（分析器） (1) 4:7;36:23 听众 (1)\n行为 (1) 再次 (16) 84:25 论证 (8) 71:9\n71:10 5:12;8:21;25:8; 锚 (3) 3:25;4:18;7:22; 音频 (7)\n已采取行动 (1) 34:21;35:23;58:18, 51:3,22;52:6 12:7,7,13,14,24 16:10,19;18:11;\n5:4 23;62:9;63:12;70:5; 已答复 (4) 论证 (2) 24:14;70:1,1;73:14\n积极的 (1) 71:8;74:15;83:5;85:4; 13:6;63:21;64:6; 4:6;36:24 八月 (6)\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼） (1) $2 - 八月\nPacific Alliance Asia（泛亚太平洋联盟）诉 FILED：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 118 页，共\n\n2022年2月2日\n\n19:5;20:10;26:9; 7:14;13:17;16:3; 82:16;83:14;89:19; 17;37:22;39:4,11,14; 4:4\n88:2,15;95:13 34:4;38:1;40:1;74:21; 97:13 40:10;41:5,10;42:2,4; 聊天 (1)\n认证 (1) 75:4;78:7,9;80:17; 已提交书面陈述 (2) 43:1;48:2;51:8,22; 30:24\n94:7 83:20 36:18;52:15 52:1;56:11;59:11; 首席 (1)\n已认证 (1) 之后 (1) 简要地 (1) 60:8;61:10,11,13,14; 34:10\n4:12 91:11 6:9 62:8,13;63:11;64:9; 中国 (3)\n认证 (1) 冗长讨论 (1) 书面陈述 (1) 65:16;66:11,12;67:5; 12:4;43:19,21\n4:13 58:19 27:1 70:1,1,17;71:14,15; 中国人 (1)\n真实性 (2) 属于 (1) 经纪人 (5) 72:17,21,23,24,24; 40:9\n14:19;35:4 56:7 90:23;91:9,12; 73:23;74:25;75:9; 选择 (2)\n授权 (1) 受益所有权 (6) 92:12,20 76:3;78:10;79:10; 50:19,23\n9:18 10:5;12:18;13:1,1, Brother（兄弟） (19) 80:3;83:16,17,25; CIBC (1)\n\n授权 (5) 2,9 10:22;44:12,16,17; 84:7,22;85:13;86:10; 13:5\n50:12,24;51:2; 最佳 (1) 45:2,8,18,19;46:11, 93:16,21;95:3;97:5,8, 巡回区 (1)\n52:19;53:2 11:23 15,21,24;47:4;56:7, 20 13:7\n可获得的 (3) 更好 (2) 11,14;72:5,7,8 能力 (1) 情形 (2)\n36:5;37:5;38:6 12:7;87:8 兄弟的 (5) 28:3 20:16;22:20\n陈述 (2) 超出 (1) 42:10;46:12,18; 船长 (20) 引用 (1)\n17:2;26:8 69:2 56:8,16 6:10;7:2;51:14; 14:11\n知悉 (9) 账单 (1) 浏览器 (1) 53:24;55:10,15; 市 (1)\n9:19;19:20,24;20:2; 44:19 21:17 59:24;67:15,16,17,20, 85:22\n57:8,21;58:16;59:6; 装订夹 (6) 建筑物 (1) 22;72:18,18;81:7; 主张 (1)\n62:19 5:21,21;8:24;17:22, 12:10 82:9,11;92:25;93:7; 5:9\n25;18:3 负担 (1) 94:1 声称 (1)\nB 少许 (4) 13:20 船长们 (1) 15:10\n44:13;65:12;71:22; 负担 (1) 67:18 澄清 (1)\n返回 (12) 72:10 97:12 标题 (2) 47:16\n3:8;4:18;7:20; 黑色 (1) 业务 (13) 7:17;41:13 澄清 (6)\n29:10,18,23;48:9; 32:4 4:3;8:6,10;11:11; 捕获 (1) 24:21;51:6;57:14;\n61:13;62:8;86:13; 蓝色 (2) 33:10;35:25;36:2,6; 35:7 58:12;64:17;67:11\n91:3;96:14 71:5,17 42:9,18,23;49:3;76:6 案件 (9) 澄清 (2)\n背景 (1) 董事会 (6) 业务性的 (1) 5:23;14:11;15:4; 清晰度 (2)\n25:21 50:11,18,21;51:7,7; 93:22 36:25;37:2,21;75:19; 29:15;40:15\nBaker（贝克） (2) 52:7 按钮 (1) 84:7;94:14 清楚的 (14)\n10:12;27:12 登船 (4) 70:15 谨慎 (1) 10:1,3;12:20,25;\n\n56:9 吹嘘 (1) C 警告 (1) 13:20;34:21;35:16;\n酒吧 (3) 4:10 60:23 36:7;40:12;44:19;\n26:20;96:3,4 船 (17) 呼叫 (19) CCP (3) 49:5;61:19;72:17;\nBarrow（巴罗） (16) 46:20,25;47:1,5; 3:7,9;15:19;16:16; 65:19,20;74:7 84:10\n10:15;21:14;27:3,9, 53:20;54:22,24;82:3, 18:5,7;33:3;52:10; 停止 (1) 明确地 (4)\n11,11,14,18,21;28:2, 4,10,11;87:9,10;90:8; 58:2;66:5,22;67:2; 90:8 6:11;43:14;72:24;\n15;30:24;31:17; 92:5,20;95:18 74:20;79:16;83:1; 单元格 (2) 73:4\n79:18,18,25 正文 (1) 98:1,2,6,7 16:17,19 剪辑 (1)\n基于 (4) 7:18 已称呼 (15) 中心 (2) 73:12\n9:15;15:13;60:1,2 两者 (9) 16:3;28:5;34:4; 71:5,16 接近 (3)\n基本的 (1) 7:17;15:7;26:21; 40:1;42:8;51:21;52:5, 某些 (5) 11:14,15;86:12\n13:24 51:8;72:5;75:12; 16;63:4;75:4;79:7,8; 10:16;25:4;34:19; 已关闭 (1)\nBaxter（巴克斯特） (1) 82:11;89:5;96:8 80:17;83:20;84:15 36:22;79:20 74:9\n14:10 底部 (2) 呼叫 (1) 当然 (4) 结案 (1)\nBeach（比奇） (1) 72:22;74:16 35:23 11:10;30:17;58:8; 97:3\n53:12 购买 (9) 来到 (11) 98:5 笨拙的 (1)\nBear（贝尔） (4) 8:4;10:25;44:1,12, 6:12;44:10,18;45:4; 认证 (1) 4:2\n61:1,18;68:2;69:21 16,17;45:2,3;72:5 46:2,10;55:17;56:12; 36:1 海岸 (1)\n变成 (3) 中断 (6) 58:2;87:23;95:24 经认证的 (10) 86:2\n59:6;81:7;94:1 56:25;57:2;65:7,11; 摄像机 (2) 13:6;17:3;23:18,22; Cole（科尔） (43)\n开始 (1) 66:4,23 32:5;80:4 25:14;38:14,16,18,19; 10:14;15:3;16:7,8,\n10:21 摘要 (20) 能够 (84) 98:10 12,13,16,20,23,25;\n\n开始 (10) 3:15,24;14:11; 5:20;16:2,11,16,18; 主席 (1) 17:1,22;18:2,9,11,18,\n58:1;60:10;63:1,7, 16:22;18:21;23:25; 17:17;18:22;26:3; 33:23 24,25;19:2;24:9,25;\n22;64:12,13;65:10;\n70:7;81:8 27:1;28:1;36:15;\n39:10;49:2;51:9;74:1; 27:3,7,12;31:20;32:3,\n5;33:3,5,14,17,19; 已变更 (1)\n5:18 25:13,18;27:24;28:4;\n29:18;30:20;31:1,3,7,\nPacific Alliance Asia（泛亚太平洋联盟）诉 FILED：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 119 页，共\n\n14,20;34:3,8;36:12, 13,22;37:3 Cole's（科尔的） (1) 16:10\n\nKwok（郭文贵） 2022年2月2日 表兄弟姐妹 (2) 11:10;42:10 涵盖 (1) 93:6 COVID（新型冠状病毒肺炎） (1) 88:1 CPLR (1) 12:19 Craig（克雷格） (9) 7:2;9:4;67:21;\n\n同事 (2) 11:25;15:2 同事 (7) 8:12;10:14;33:22; 35:20;37:14;73:24; 82:17 收集 (5) 34:12,15,16,19,23 收集 (2) 21:11,24 栏 (1) 35:17 舒适的 (1) 40:8 来到 (5) 4:22;44:11;45:1,6; 71:24 提起 (1) 16:2 开始 (1) 15:18 评论 (1) 37:13 佣金 (1) 91:24 实施 (1) 6:8 共同的 (1) 59:18 Commonwealth（联邦） (1) 13:4 沟通 (5) 6:15,20;9:1;67:20; 81:21 通信 (1) 55:15 公司 (3) 8:19;11:17;94:25 公司 (14) 6:18;8:5;9:3;11:6; 12:11;35:21;55:16, 16;56:8,12;77:18,24; 81:16;92:1 公司的 (1) 34:25 比较 (1) 88:14 有能力的 (1) 24:7 汇编 (2) 22:22,24 诉状 (3) 7:13,16;96:16 完整的 (3) 25:2,10,11 已完成 (1) 39:16\n\n承认 (1) 11:1 关切的 (1) 74:8 关切 (2) 42:1;81:11 结论 (3) 77:16,19;79:22 有条件的 (3) 13:19;14:21;15:15 条件 (1) 54:16 行为 (4) 9:23;18:13,16; 37:20 会议 (2) 98:1,2 有信心的 (2) 48:7,8 确认 (2) 62:10;72:17 已确认 (1) 89:12 确认 (1) 6:14 混同 (1) 63:22 使困惑 (1) 63:13 令人困惑的 (1) 63:25 Conley（康利） (3) 21:20;23:3,4 连接 (2) 21:12;72:4 关联 (3) 41:2;81:1,2 同意 (1) 35:18 已同意 (2) 65:24;74:9 相当大的 (1) 8:16 已考虑 (1) 15:14 一致的 (1) 33:12 一贯地 (1) 33:8 包括 (1) 4:10 咨询 (1) 73:24 联系 (3) 59:23;67:15,17 已联系 (5) 67:16,19,21,23; 76:10 包含 (1) 33:9 包含 (1) 17:23 同时发生的 (1) 21:1 印证性的 (1)\n\n藐视法庭 (14) 6:8;12:17;13:3,12, 22;14:14,17,20,21; 15:8,10,12,15,16 蔑视的 (1) 9:23 内容 (11) 19:22;20:20;21:2; 29:8;30:2,13;31:20; 33:11;34:19;35:4; 62:16 有争议的 (1) 11:3 继续 (5) 54:13;56:11;61:14, 15;67:5 继续 (1) 47:10 继续 (1) 12:19 合同 (3) 5:24;76:13,15 反驳 (1) 10:22 控制 (18) 7:10;8:17,22;12:21; 13:8,8,19,21,24;14:2, 3,5,13,16,23;15:11; 19:15;29:5 受控制的 (10) 4:24;6:1,23,25; 9:14;12:17;13:12; 14:1;43:9;60:4 控制性的 (1) 5:4 控制 (1) 9:6 有争议的 (1) 36:21 对话 (11) 15:18;37:18;86:15, 16,24;87:2,9,12;89:1, 11;90:7 对话 (1) 60:19 有说服力的 (2) 10:4;13:21 副本 (10) 26:13,16;27:14,15, 17;32:4;41:1;75:18; 76:22,23 公司 (3) 5:3,22;11:20 更正 (1) 10:21 正确地 (1) 92:10 往来函件 (1) 30:22 相应的 (1) 6:25 9:10\n\n费用 (2) 56:17,20 律师 (17) 3:2,6,15;9:12;24:8, 21;31:5;35:22;58:12; 60:11,20;62:21; 63:19;64:5,15;66:5; 98:7 律师的 (1) 69:1 会签 (1) 76:18 几个 (3) 46:8;66:15;81:3 过程 (3) 8:8;9:21;48:23 法院 (196) 3:1,6,12,14,23; 4:19;7:14;9:5,18,18, 19;10:8,18;11:16; 13:4,6;14:4,7;15:6,9, 14,23,25;16:2,10,15, 18,23;17:22;18:1,3,7, 11,13,15,19,22;24:4; 25:13;27:4,8,10,13, 17,22;31:6;32:2,6,15, 19,22,24;33:9,13,22; 34:1,3;35:10,16,17; 36:6,8,10,17;37:1,4, 10,15,20,22;38:4,7,9, 12,14,14,17,18,20,22; 39:1,7,13,21,25; 41:10,11;45:13,16; 46:14,19,19,25;47:4, 8;48:17;49:7,13,16; 51:25;55:21;56:1,4, 13,16,20,24,25;57:5, 20;58:13;59:5,10; 60:21;61:3;62:3,13; 63:6,14,23;64:2,5,8, 10,20,21;65:1,8,16; 66:4,9,16,21,25;67:3, 7;69:11;73:25;74:3, 18,24;75:3,10,15; 79:14,22;80:1,10,14; 81:1;82:24;83:4,7,13, 15,17;84:3;85:13,20; 87:17,20,24;88:2,5,8, 13,19,21;89:18,23; 90:2,5,12,15,20,24; 91:1;92:23;94:11; 95:12,25;96:3,6,11, 17,19,21,25;97:3,11, 11,14,19,24;98:8,16 审判庭 (1) 31:4 法院的 (16) 13:18;14:20,21; 32:18;45:21;49:5,14; 57:18;58:14;60:11, 22;61:25;62:19,24; 72:18,19;83:2,19,20; 84:5 C-R-A-I-G (1) 84:5 创建 (10) 20:24;22:22,25; 23:13;24:14;68:18; 69:1,4,5,10 可信 (2) 7:23,23 债权人 (1) 13:16 Crew（克鲁） (3) 6:5;8:21;70:22 交叉 (4) 33:19;36:5;37:20; 48:24 交叉询问 (30) 3:17;7:3;10:14; 15:20,22;16:2,6;19:1; 33:2;34:3,7;37:5,9, 23;38:3;39:14;40:4; 47:10;48:19;66:11; 68:23;74:19;75:7; 80:9,15,20;83:6,23; 96:18,24 交叉询问 (2) 10:1;15:3 进行交叉询问 (1) 49:11 接受交叉询问 (1) 83:9 至关重要 (1) 62:12 水晶 (1) 12:25 提示 (1) 68:2 繁琐 (1) 65:14 累积性 (2) 94:10,11 好奇 (2) 31:13;82:17\n\n74:14;98:4\n\n当前 (3) 4:7;6:10;67:21 目前 (1) 82:1 保管人 (2) 33:10;36:4 D\n\n遵守 (1) 13:18\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok（郭文贵） February 2, 2022 爸爸 (1) 50:10 该死 (1) 86:12 数据 (1) 17:10 日期 (22) 10:3;34:15,19,23; 35:1,7;57:25;58:8,10; 61:16;64:11,14;69:7, 13;82:5;84:19;85:8; 86:5,7,9;90:22,25 注明日期 (5) 19:4;20:9;26:9; 62:1;85:25 日期 (3) 63:22;87:22;93:14 女儿 (5) 4:7;7:25;8:10;11:9; 12:15 David（大卫） (1) 7:3 日 (8) 33:6,16;74:18; 84:13;86:9;95:20; 97:6;98:8 日 (1) 89:3 日常 (1) 5:11 死亡 (1) 94:24 December（十二月） (1) 7:22 决定 (1) 9:21 决定 (3) 9:22;54:18;92:21 决定 (1) 51:11 有瑕疵的 (1) 16:10 被告 (10) 3:17;9:9;10:13; 11:8;40:1;74:21;75:5; 80:18;83:1,21 被告 (1) 37:22 被告的 (5) 5:21;6:4;8:24; 76:21;77:7 辩护 (4) 3:25;5:1 离格 (3) 86:5,14;88:25 描绘 (1) 48:4 描述 (1) 73:4 已描述 (1) 5:15 应得 (1) 32:24 尽管 (1) 4:2 详细的 (5) 52:9,21,24;53:4,13 被拘留 (2) 65:19;74:6 确定 (1) 12:21 已确定 (2) 12:22;13:11 开发 (1) 93:24 设备 (1) 72:12 设备 (1) 30:9 拨号 (2) 3:5;18:7 不同的 (13) 13:9,10,11;21:11, 25;22:2,5,5;29:21; 48:5;51:17;63:23; 69:21 困难的 (1) 72:21 困难 (2) 39:8;83:11 直接 (6) 3:17;15:24;38:3; 80:8;83:5;84:6 指示 (4) 8:21;15:23;57:7; 93:3 指示 (2) 50:8;51:16 指示 (12) 6:15;7:9;50:22; 59:19;78:25;79:2; 81:22;94:24;95:5,9, 18,22 指示 (1) 不同意 (2) 36:25,25 披露 (3) 48:12;49:5,6 披露 (1) 65:21 证据开示 (1) 4:16 讨论 (4) 33:3;43:15;64:16, 21 已讨论 (2) 35:19;64:23 讨论 (1) 3:13 展示 (2) 43:19;61:7 决定性的 (2) 15:12;25:16 争议 (1) 14:25 有争议的 (1) 4:8 不予理会 (1) 9:21 Division（部门） (4) 4:21;11:2;12:20,23 码头 (1) 91:25 靠岸 (1) 87:2 案卷 (9) 17:20;21:6;24:5; 27:4;31:25;41:13; 58:15;61:25;75:23 文件 (18) 5:24;6:3;31:8,17; 58:9,14,24;59:3;61:6, 16,17,24;62:8,16,16; 75:22;77:9;81:6 书面证据 (3) 5:10;11:22;36:20 文件资料 (1) 52:18 文件 (5) 5:3,22;11:21;79:20, 23 DocuSign（电子签名平台） (1) 77:17 元 (2) 8:7;47:14 元 (2) 一打 (1) 17:23 钻头 (1) 73:12 降低 (3) 51:3,22;52:6 干燥 (1) 91:25 到期 (4) 54:5,22;80:25; 97:15 正式地 (13) 16:1,4;34:2,5; 39:18;40:2;75:2,5; 80:13,18;83:19,21; 96:20 期间 (1) 88:14 在……期间 (18) 4:16;6:2;7:1;12:17; 13:12,22;14:13,16,23; 48:23;52:10;88:2,5,8, 15,17;90:7;95:12 义务 (2) 34:25,25 E 较早 (7) 23:23;42:11;44:23; 59:14;67:20;69:24; 74:4 早期 (8) 43:20;44:15;53:19; 58:4;59:8;82:11; 91:22,23 更容易 (1) 76:1 容易 (1) 64:20 Echo（回声） (2) 38:13;85:12 回声 (2) 18:6,17 编辑 (1) 14:17 编辑 (1) 17:16 教育 (1) 51:9 效力 (2) 6:7;92:18 电子地 (1) 77:10 其他 (7) 8:25;16:11;18:5; 19:11;20:22;23:7; 33:17 电子邮件 (1) 5:24 雇用 (1) 25:15 雇员 (1) 9:4 雇员 (1) 12:10 雇主 (3) 9:4;78:8,15 包含 (1) 13:8 结束 (11) 6:7;12:13;57:25; 63:1,3,19;66:23; 76:21;92:11;94:16; 97:6 已结束 (1) 92:1 无尽的 (1) 8:15 工程师 (1) 17:11 英语 (6) 23:9;40:9,13,17; 41:23;42:2 足够 (4) 9:17;11:14;24:19; 45:7 录入 (5) 57:9,18,22;58:6,17 受理 (1) 32:19 实体 (1) 17:14 有权 (2) 21:7;49:11 实体 (1) 43:9 设备 (2) 22:14;91:17 Erica（埃丽卡） (4) 10:15;27:1,11; 79:18 实质上 (1) 91:23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 120 of 269\n\n13:17;14:1;77:2; 96:16 辩方的 (1) 37:4 延迟 (1) 61:6 延迟 (1) 91:16 证明 (1) 8:22 已证明 (2) 12:12 指令 (8) 49:15;53:23;54:3, 23;55:8,12,14,20\n\n直接地 (15) 4:15;9:11;11:24; 31:3;59:23;67:15,16, 19,23;79:3;81:15,19, 22,23;95:9 指示 (1) 50:15\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼） (4) 爸爸 - 甚至\n\n84:10,11;86:2 下载 (4) 21:20;33:6,16;35:4\n\n43:12;56:23\n\n努力 (1) 8:22 八 (1) 93:19 任一 (4)\n\n32:3;74:22;76:19; 78:21 阐述 (1) 43:2 电子的 (3) 30:9;74:14;98:4\n\n完成 (2) 42:6,7 门卫 (1) 12:9 怀疑 (1) 9:22 向下 (3)\n\n44:6,20;45:24;46:9\n\n确立 (2) 11:23;13:20 确立 (1) 14:24 Europe（欧洲） (2) 6:14;92:3 欧洲的 (1) 6:17 Euros（欧元） (4)\n\n甚至 (10)\n\nKwok（郭文贵） 269 February 2, 2022\n\n5:24;6:5,15;7:16; 19,25;41:17;48:1,11, 家庭 (9) 8:4;10:25;14:1;15:19; Foundation（基金会） (5)\n9:8;11:3;40:16;50:11; 13;68:1,2;70:5,8; 4:3;8:6;9:24;11:7, 16:4;28:21;34:5;37:4, 72:25;73:3,5,6;94:6\n\n72:17;92:5 73:11,20;76:22;77:2, 8;77:20;79:4,6;93:25 7;38:11;40:2,6;42:1; 成立 (1)\n事件 (2) 7;84:24 家庭的 (1) 48:18;58:22;64:4; 43:6\n20:21;22:8 证物 (11) 95:1 66:7;68:8;70:9;75:5; 四 (1)\n所有人 (2) 25:20;35:15,18; 远 (3) 76:5,6;78:12;80:18, 5:22\n3:2;18:7 36:9,11;48:13,22; 43:11,12;60:2 22,24;81:3;83:21; Francis（弗朗西斯） (19)\n每个人 (4) 49:1,4,6;65:13 更远 (1) 84:4,10,12;86:11,16; 15:22,25;16:1,3,8,\n10:11;16:11,14; 存在 (1) 86:2 87:4;90:20;92:24; 12;17:2,24;24:6;\n\n27:15 34:23 快速 (2) 93:6,17;94:24 25:13;27:19,23,25;\n到处 (1) 存在 (1) 71:20;72:10 亲身 (1) 30:23;31:11,17;32:8,\n52:21 65:1 父亲 (37) 25:13 15,22\n证据 (26) 预期 (2) 8:4;9:17;12:14; 五 (5) Francis 的 (1)\n4:9,22;5:10,23,24; 33:7,11 42:16,17,21;43:4,6, 3:7;5:18;6:9;18:13; 25:15\n6:10,25;8:25;10:2,3, 费用 (2) 15,19,21;44:8,9,23; 91:17 欺诈 (2)\n\n18;11:6,7,21,22,23; 55:24;56:5 50:11,14,18,21;51:20; 五份证物 (2) 17:3;25:14\n13:21;14:9,13,15,22, 经验 (3) 52:4,7,19,22;53:1,8, 5:20;8:24 自由 (3)\n24;32:24;36:20; 19:20;59:16;60:1 14;57:9,22;64:16,22; 五分钟 (1) 50:18,23;53:10\n79:21,24 专家 (1) 68:8;69:25;71:6,18; 18:20 Freeport（自由港） (3)\n证据性的 (3) 17:6 72:11;73:7,21 五秒 (2) 91:13,20;92:7\n4:20;5:16;36:14 专业知识 (1) 父亲的 (5) 70:11,20 频繁的 (1)\n\n准确的 (6) 17:16 9:3,23;11:6;42:19; 修复 (1) 95:13\n57:25;82:5;84:13, 解释 (4) 52:13 41:5 Friday（星期五） (1)\n19;90:22,25 8:8;28:22;39:7; 有利 (1) 平坦的 (1) 97:6\n恰好 (9) 73:4 12:6 10:22 朋友 (1)\n9:6;20:4;24:3; 解释 (1) February（二月） (2) 逃离 (1) 67:14\n26:22;50:13;54:3; 42:12 43:25;45:24 43:19 前面 (6)\n\n55:14;63:5;88:12 探究 (1) 喂养 (1) 楼层 (1) 7:5;16:9;26:6;\n询问 (4) 7:3 26:10 71:2 28:14,16;84:8\n65:22,23;74:5; 探究 (1) 费用 (1) Florida（佛罗里达） (9) 沮丧的 (1)\n89:15 5:14 55:25 54:6,24;55:9,19; 12:23\n接受询问 (6) 表述 (1) 少数 (11) 57:8;58:4;59:15; 逃犯 (1)\n16:4;34:5;40:3; 11:13 5:15;7:25;51:24; 84:12;91:3 6:18\n\n75:5;80:18;83:21 延长 (1) 52:25;55:1;62:25; 各位 (1) 完整的 (1)\n审查员 (2) 11:8 70:6,6;71:3;89:3,16 20:2 24:25\n17:3;25:14 范围 (2) 十五 (1) 遵循 (1) 完全地 (3)\n示例 (3) 4:12;28:24 49:17 57:1 4:11;25:16;98:3\n50:15;53:7;67:14 极其 (1) 第五 (3) 以下 (1) 资金 (1)\n超过 (1) 74:10 4:15;5:13;14:8 52:9 11:12\n\n15:16 Figure（图） (4) 如下 (6) 进一步 (5)\n除外 (1) F 31:24,24;87:5; 16:5;34:6;40:3; 35:3,9;74:2;79:12;\n16:12 93:20 75:6;80:19;83:22 82:21\n排除 (2) Facebook（脸书） (1) 提交 (4) 脚 (1)\n65:17;74:5 17:14 7:21;27:4,6;96:17 50:2 G\n专门地 (2) 事实 (6) 提交 (3) 放弃 (1)\n94:25;95:6 6:3;8:3;23:18;36:2; 5:18;74:14;98:4 94:14 游戏 (1)\n\n借口 (3) 42:22;97:16 影片 (1) 前述 (1) 8:15\n36:1;53:5,18 事实 (2) 17:16 98:10 游戏 (1)\n获准免除 (7) 6:20;10:21 最终 (1) 忘记 (1) 78:11\n32:15;35:10;74:3; 事实性的 (2) 93:10 70:14 缺口 (1)\n79:14;82:24;96:11; 15:13;66:15 最后 (2) 形式 (1) 93:17\n97:1 未能 (1) 9:15;94:23 56:9 给予 (4)\n\n执行 (1) 10:2 找到 (3) 正式的 (8) 52:21;53:4;59:14;\n59:22 公平的 (4) 31:20;56:9;81:17 5:3,22;35:15;36:8, 66:6\n执行 (1) 26:13,16;45:7;60:2 认定 (1) 10;80:2;93:22;94:1 通常 (1)\n77:20 相当 (3) 97:16 手续 (1) 28:22\n行使 (1) 59:16,18;89:4 罚款 (5) 11:18 Genoa（热那亚） (2)\n\n59:19 落下 (1) 16:23;31:14;32:12; 正式地 (2) 82:1,12\n证物 (34) 12:6 83:13;86:10 79:20,23 真实的 (2)\n5:21,21;6:4;8:24; 熟悉的 (1) 律师事务所 (2) 前任的 (1) 6:6;26:1\n17:22;21:10,12;24:7, 84:15 10:12;31:9 7:2 地理上 (1)\n22;26:13,16;27:1,5, 熟悉程度 (1) 第一 (44) 向前 (3) 22:19\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼） (5) 事件 - 获得\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 122 of\n\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉\n\nKwok（郭文贵） February 2, 2022\n\n7:10 家伙们 (2) 13;25:17;37:18;39:8; 36:13;37:6,13,16,24, 52:23\n礼物 (8) 30:21;31:9 41:2;48:24;49:3,8; 25;38:1,4,10;39:11, 不准确的 (1)\n45:5,6,8,18,19; 65:10;79:22;85:11 H 传闻证据 (1) 15;41:10;46:16,22; 11:4\n46:11;56:9,16\n\n有天赋的（1） 9:11 49:12,19;55:23; 86:22\n56:8 半（3） 心（1） 56:15,22;57:17;58:7, 包括（1）\n给予（5） 11:2;17:23;53:10 74:17 18,22;59:12;60:18; 11:8\n6:20;14:14;39:21; 手（7） Heaslop（14） 61:5;62:14;63:10,20; 包括（1）\n45:8;95:20 15:25;34:1;38:9; 7:2,8;9:4;53:24; 64:18;65:6;66:1,3,7, 55:24\n给予（2） 39:2;80:11;83:17; 72:19;83:2,3,15,19, 20,22;67:5;68:22; 不一致的（1）\n12:12;45:5 96:19 20;84:1,5;85:22;94:5 73:23;74:15,20;75:1; 23:19\nGolden（28） 处理（6） H-E-A-S-L-O-P（1） 79:12,16,18,25;80:7, 产生（1）\n9:3,6,8,10,12,13; 10:14,16;15:3;19:7, 84:5 16;83:1;85:10,18; 56:17\n11:5,7;53:20,23;54:7, 8;26:10 持有（3） 88:23;89:16;92:22; 确实（1）\n12,18,24;55:21,23; 双手（1） 3:13;13:7;30:9 94:4;95:16;96:9,13, 82:19\n56:2,4,7,14;59:14,19; 46:10 帮助（6） 15,22;97:2,7,17 独立的（2）\n60:1,3;65:5;67:17; 发生（2） 56:4;61:22;76:25; 法官阁下的（2） 11:11,12\n79:8;95:7 78:10;84:19,20 9:2;94:9 表明（2）\n12:2;43:16\n\n好的（5） 发生（1） 有帮助的（1） 希望（2） 19:3,8\n10:10;11:15;15:21; 85:21 18:1 36:7;61:18 表明的（2）\n33:25;37:25 高兴的（3） 帮助（1） 希望地（2） 74:4,10\n政府（1） 15:22;58:10;66:14 29:19 10:16;31:3 表明（3）\n12:5 Harbach（94） 帮助（2） 马（1） 5:4;6:1;74:11\n准许（1） 3:4,11,19,22;7:3; 55:23;86:10 94:23 个人（1）\n58:20 10:6;15:20,21;18:4; 特此（1） Hostetler（2） 22:5\n伟大的（1） 24:3,21;29:15;31:2,7, 98:10 10:12;27:12 推论（6）\n67:3 15;32:3,4,16,17,21; 她本人（1） 热的（1） 13:23;14:5,6,14,25;\n问候（1） 33:1,7,18,21;35:13; 95:2 8:13 36:23\n12:9 37:11,13,16,24;39:15, 更高的（1） 小时（1） 告知（1）\n成长（1） 19,24;40:5;41:10; 48:13 49:3 59:22\n93:24 47:8,9,11,19;48:16, 突出显示（2） 事务性事项（1） 信息（8）\n猜测（4） 6:24;7:25 79:19 20:19,19;21:2;23:4,\n18;49:19,20;51:8;\n25:9;66:17;87:8; 52:3;57:6,11,13;58:3, 高度地（2） I 获悉（3）\n93:25 8,12,24;59:10,12,13; 8:13;65:25 本人（1） 55:4;60:15;63:4\n宾客（10） 61:5,11;62:14;63:10, 94:8 想法（5） 告知（3）\n52:22;59:23;86:19; 24;64:17;65:6,11; 击中（1） 3:1;22:12;51:12,13, 54:16,18,19\n87:5,7,10;89:2,21; 66:14,19;67:5,8;69:3; 70:15 13 询问（1）\n90:8;95:14 70:12,14;71:8,10; HK（6） 身份识别（2） 54:14\n宾客（4） 73:23;74:2,25;75:8, 22;77:6;79:10,12; 76:10;78:13;90:12; 26:25;48:1 插入（1）\n52:23;53:3;95:18; 80:15,16,21;82:15,21; 92:13,17;95:6 识别（1） 77:25\n96:7 83:24;88:22,23,24; Ho（3） 94:8 检查（1）\nGuo（郭文贵）（74） 89:15;91:5;94:4,14; 75:16;78:19;81:12 忽略（1） 91:14\n4:22;5:4;6:1,16,20; 96:9,22 持有（2） 11:18 Instagram（照片墙）（7）\n7:6,9,12,25;8:2,7,20; Harbach 的（1） 4:19;15:2 忽略（1） 17:9,14;19:4,5,6,\n9:17,19;11:9;14:1,2, 66:11 持有（3） 8:3 12;20:9\n\n4;37:17,20;38:1,1,5,9; Harbor（2） 71:6,17;72:11 ignore's（1） 安装（1）\n39:2,4,7,18;40:1,6,7, 96:3,4 诚实地（1） 51:23 22:14\n7,9,10,10;41:12,14; 困难的（4） 91:11 非法地（1） 指示（2）\n47:12;57:7;60:19; 5:10;27:14,17;64:3 Hong（20） 6:14 9:1;55:18\n64:4,21;65:17;67:9; 憎恨（1） 8:5,5;37:7;43:6,22; 图像（2） 意图的（4）\n68:8,25;71:14,24; 32:17 44:1,4,19;45:23;46:5, 20:24;21:1 6:12;8:3;61:19,23\n73:11,19;74:3,4; 听到（11） 15,17,20,22;47:1,13, 图像（3） 意图（1）\n76:11,18;77:12,25; 5:9;27:10,12;39:11; 17;76:14;89:11;95:7 17:17;25:22;32:1 97:12\n78:3,7,20;79:1,3; 61:20;66:23,25; Honor（104） 立即（1） 互动（1）\n81:14,18,21,23;88:8, 69:25;70:2;83:16; 3:10,11,20;4:14; 15:9 7:5\n10,13,18;89:13;94:6, 96:17 5:17,20;7:19,22,24; 默示地（1） 互动（8）\n17;95:2,10 听闻（7） 8:11,12,23;9:9,15,25; 12:20 60:3;92:25;93:11,\nGuojiao（3） 10:19;54:23;66:7; 10:6,10;14:22;15:1, 进口（1） 21;94:1,17,18,21\n42:9,12;46:18 21;18:2,4,18,25; 利息（8）\nGuo 的（3） 29:3\n68:23;84:16;92:12,20 听证会（19） 25:18;27:7,11,24; 施加（1） 10:5;12:18;13:1,2,\nGuoWenGui（郭文贵）（1） 3:9,15;4:20;5:17; 31:2;32:13,17,21; 97:12 9;56:1;65:20;74:8\n19:7 10:16;15:2,18;18:6, 33:1,21,25;35:13,14; 不可能的（1） 内部（1）\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（6） 赠礼－内部\n\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok（郭文贵） 269 已收到 NYSCEF：02/07/2022\n\nKwok（郭文贵） February 2, 2022\n\n68:14 44:2;52:13;63:5;66:8 94:12 12:25;31:9;36:25; 12:3,4\n中间人（1） 签发（5） Kong（20） 72:25;73:3,6;94:5,12 生活（1）\n12:12 15:8,15;58:13; 8:5,5;37:8;43:6,22; 律师（5） 11:11\n国际的（17） 63:14;89:22 44:1,4,19;45:23;46:6, 7:11;60:15;63:4; 居住（2）\n8:5;37:8;43:7;44:1, 事项（7） 15,17,20,22;47:1,13, 64:25;65:1 69:16,17\n5,19;45:23;46:6,15, 10:16;18:12,14,15; 17;76:14;89:11;95:7 律师（2） 本地的（1）\n17,20,23;47:1,13,17; 25:16;36:14;37:2 Kwok（郭文贵）（51） 11:20;64:24 95:17\n85:1;95:6 Italy（意大利）（1） 4:14,21;5:12,18,23; 律师的（1） 定位（1）\n\n互联网（4） 82:1 6:8,10,22;7:17,19; 58:2 83:8\n19:24;33:6,16; 行程安排（1） 8:14;9:7;10:2,4,13, 主导（1） 地点（1）\n84:15 52:12 24;11:1,9;13:17,21; 3:1 68:12\n提出（1） 行程（7） 14:2;15:10;19:22,25; 领先的（1） 日志（2）\n57:17 52:9,10,14,15,21; 20:5,6;21:7,12;29:12, 5:16 26:19;74:22\n解释（1） 53:4,13 25;30:9;75:16;78:19; 得知（13） 已记录（1）\n38:23 Ivanov（伊万诺夫）（12） 81:12;86:15,23;87:1, 44:12;57:24;60:11; 74:22\n\n解释（1） 6:11,24;79:17;80:3, 18;88:13,17;89:1,7, 62:21,24,25;63:6,18; 记录（2）\n40:17 7,12,17,22;81:2; 20;90:7,8,9;92:25; 64:4,15;90:20;91:1,8 79:17;83:11\n口译员（22） 82:17,23,24 93:21;94:8;95:13,25 至少（4） 标识（2）\n38:5,8,10,11,13,15, KwokMiles（2） 8:12;24:17;52:5; 72:22;73:7\n16,19,21,25;39:6,23; J 26:20;29:11 92:7 长的（7）\n40:2;45:14;47:15,15; Kwok 的（9） 离开（2） 14:20;53:9,11;82:2;\n52:1;53:5;57:10,13, January（1月）（10） 4:2,5,10;5:10;7:11, 3:5;86:8 88:25;89:2;91:14\n15;61:20 4:1,5,18;5:1,19; 14,15,24;8:18 离开（1） 更长（9）\n中断（1） 19:4;33:6;85:9;91:20, 7:24 53:19;54:15,21;\n88:22 23 L Lee（李）（2） 62:11;89:1,12,20;\n交织（1） 爵士乐（1） 37:8,25 91:16;93:24\n11:17 11:14 缺乏（1） 留下（8） 看（7）\n访谈（3） Jersey（泽西）（1） 6:24 43:21;71:25;84:12, 31:16;50:7;53:17;\n\n68:21;69:12,13 86:3 Lady（48） 13,19;89:2,5;91:21 58:10;59:3;84:21,22\n进入（11） John（约翰）（3） 4:1,11;5:5;7:15;8:2, 左手（1） 正在看（5）\n5:16,23;6:7,10; 10:12;37:6;48:10 21;9:20;10:5;21:7,12; 72:15 18:10;31:8;63:23;\n14:6;18:7;39:9;60:19; 加入（2） 50:3,8,12,15,15,21, 法律的（5） 84:18;92:24\n71:24;79:21;85:24 82:4,11 22;58:20,22;59:7,19; 4:3;5:6;10:16;13:3, 看起来（4）\n调查（1） 共同的（1） 60:12;62:20;63:5; 10 21:24;28:2;47:23;\n\n18:19 98:7 64:22;65:2;70:23,24; 较少（2） 85:21\n调查员（1） Judge（法官）（8） 71:1;72:3,4,4,6;76:7; 50:20;94:1 丢失（3）\n17:3 11:18;12:7;15:5; 78:25;79:2;81:7,12, 让（1） 52:2;81:1,2\n邀请（1） 48:16;61:25;79:10; 25;82:1,8,18;84:11, 12:9 许多（3）\n58:23 82:15;98:6 18;85:1;86:5;92:13; 终身的（1） 48:25;88:19,20\n援引（1） 判决书（1） 94:7 8:11 大量（1）\n4:15 可能的（1） 13:24\n13:16 着陆（1）\n援引（1） 司法的（1） 46:9 5:17 更响亮的（1）\n5:13 7:18 大的（1） 同样地（1） 7:8\n援引（1） July（7月）（3） 24:23 83:3 爱（3）\n14:8 87:25;88:15;95:13 更大的（1） Lim（林）（3） 8:11;11:20,25\n涉及（3） Justice（司法部）（1） 61:11 38:13,14;39:4 午餐（6）\n6:18;47:4;73:5 最后（17） 有限的（2） 57:2;65:7,15;66:4,\n62:25\n参与（1） 9:16;41:16;42:12, 93:11;95:8 行（2）\n66:3 K 13;54:10;61:20; 3:5;68:23 M\n涉及（1） 保留（2） 65:12;73:10;76:14; 行（1）\n65:13 9:22;16:18 77:4;80:22;82:8; 31:23 女士（4）\n无关的（3） 保留（1） 83:25;84:4;87:18; 40:11;41:8;42:3;\n6:21;14:22;69:13 83:11 93:18;96:15 列表（2） 59:5\n\nIsland（岛）（1） 迟的（7） 48:13;96:16 夫人（2）\n53:9 种类（2） 5:7;6:2,23;59:7; 列出的（3） 39:19;53:5\nIslands（群岛）（1） 17:6;52:2 82:4,6;88:10 78:12,15;95:1 主要的（1）\n13:5 知道（2） 以后（6） 字面上（1） 7:25\n签发（1） 9:13;60:4 8:6;10:16;12:2; 12:14 Maine（缅因州）（2）\n知识（5） 44:14;71:20;98:5 小的（9） 96:4,4\n\n15:10\n事项（20） 11:24;19:25;25:14; Laura（劳拉）（1） 12:24;44:13;62:11; 主要地（1）\n4:13;12:16,16,18, 50:2;53:15 33:22 65:14;71:22;72:14; 94:6\n21;13:8,11,13,13,14, 知道（4） 法律（11） 85:24;86:2;88:19 居住（2）\n16,23;14:3,5,19,23; 9:5;38:1;42:16; 10:12;11:16,22; 维持（2）\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（7） 中间人－维持\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok（郭文贵） 已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 已收到 NYSCEF：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交 04/06/22 录入 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 124 页，共 269 页\n\n22:14;56:21 维持（2） 56:6,17 使得（1） 44:19 制作（3） 12:24;72:12;90:4 男子（4） 71:5,16;72:15; 73:19 管理（2） 56:10,11 管理（5） 6:17;12:11;55:25; 76:13;81:16 经理（1） 74:23 Manhattan（曼哈顿）（1） 85:23 操纵（2） 20:25;25:24 操纵（1） 17:17 方式（1） 65:9 许多（3） 11:10;51:21;52:5 March（3月）（4） 62:1;63:7,24;64:19 Mariana（玛丽安娜）（1） 13:5 Maritime（海事）（1） 85:1 标记（10） 68:11;70:11,21; 71:6,14,18,21,25; 72:11,16 标记的（7） 26:25;47:25;48:24; 68:1;70:5;73:11; 79:21 材料（1） 35:7 事项（7） 14:24;41:13;57:24; 65:20;75:15;79:19; 80:8 May（5月）（69） 4:1,11,18;5:9;6:19; 7:15;8:2,21;9:17,20, 20;10:5;12:8,9;21:7, 12;23:23;26:9;28:17; 31:2;45:16;50:3,12, 15,21,22;58:20,22; 59:7,19;60:12,12; 62:20,20;63:5;64:22; 65:2,11,13;66:22; 70:23,24;71:1;72:3,4, 4,6;76:7,14;80:14; 81:7,13,25;82:1,8,18; 84:11,18;85:1;86:5; 91:21,23;92:7,11,13; 93:12,12,20;94:7\n\n也许（8） 11:15;12:11;13:24; 38:10;76:24;86:22; 87:3;93:19 May-ish（约5月）（1） 91:22 May 的（5） 5:5;50:8,16;78:25; 79:2 意思是（8） 6:12;7:21;19:23; 32:6;45:3;59:18;93:3, 19 含义（1） 95:1 有意义的（1） 49:18 意味着（4） 50:17;79:1;81:22; 95:8 意指（1） 95:21 机制（1） 29:3 媒体（8） 4:10,13;5:12;14:18; 17:7,13;19:21;32:23 媒体的（1） 66:2 会面协商（1） 35:23 Mei（28） 4:22;7:25;11:9; 14:1,2,4;37:17;38:1; 39:18;40:1,7,7,9,9,10; 41:14;76:11;77:12, 25;78:3,20;81:14,15, 18;89:13;94:17;95:2, 10 成员（1） 46:5 成员（2） 8:21;70:22 备忘录（1） 97:15 记忆（8） 35:17;52:2;69:6; 86:5;89:3,3;90:19; 91:10 提及（3） 58:22;60:10;90:4 提及的（8） 33:9;42:8,9;50:24; 51:11;59:14;64:18; 67:10 提及（1） 51:16 消息（4） 5:25;7:7;93:11; 94:19 会见（6） 47:21;48:6;78:19, 20;81:12,18 元数据（1） 21:21 麦克风（3） 16:12;39:9,9 Microsoft（微软）（2） 3:8;80:1 中期（1） 6:23 2017年中（1） 5:6 可能（3） 23:7;89:16;91:10 Miles（3） 10:13;21:7,12 百万（11） 8:4,9,13;44:6,20, 24;45:24;46:2,9; 56:22,23 介意（1） 42:24 分钟（1） 79:10 分钟（8） 3:8;5:15;18:14; 49:18;52:25;59:5; 62:25;66:18 计算错误（1） 6:22 歪曲（1） 10:20 缺失的（1） 14:3 错误陈述（2） 45:9;89:25 错误的（1） 39:15 误解的（1） 87:3 Mitchell（米切尔）（10） 7:11,13,16,20; 96:16,18,19,20,23; 97:1 M-O-M（1） 80:24 Momchil（4） 67:21;79:17;80:12, 17 时刻（14） 9:5;23:24;31:3; 41:5;42:6;45:22; 61:18;69:22;73:15, 23;79:17;82:18; 87:11;91:8 时刻（1） 51:24 Monday（星期一）（1） 97:15 钱（8） 44:8,10,11,18,21; 45:1,4,6 月（7） 63:7;87:25;88:2,5, 11,12;92:2\n\n月（3） 88:17;91:17;93:19 更多（24） 3:7;12:12,24;17:23; 33:10,11;37:19; 45:21;50:20;54:19; 55:6;63:12;66:12; 71:3;72:10;86:8; 88:18,19,19,20;93:22, 24,25;96:12 上午（10） 10:11;14:20;15:21; 32:7;33:25;36:19; 37:25;40:12;57:1; 68:24 最多（1） 40:7 大部分（1） 67:20 动议（2） 13:3,14 嘴（1） 4:11 移动（13） 9:2;25:17;49:17; 51:18;54:17;55:17, 19;59:11;61:15; 62:12;79:20;90:1; 92:4 移动的（5） 8:15;54:8;55:2,4,5 移动（4） 12:17;90:16;94:25; 95:6 移动（10） 50:8,16;51:16,16; 78:25;79:2;81:13; 93:3;94:21;95:17 正在移动（1） 63:11 很多（9） 3:12;7:8;16:25; 56:20;66:12;73:8; 86:7;91:17;93:1 多个（2） 19:21;64:7 音乐的（1） 24:11 音乐家（1） 11:13 必须（1） 15:13 静音（2） 3:2;16:11 已静音（4） 16:14;18:8;37:11; 39:5 我自己（1） 59:23 N 姓名（16） 49:3\n\nKwok（郭文贵） February 2, 2022 23:2,3;38:12;40:9, 9;42:8,12,13;46:18, 18;72:3;75:9;80:23, 24;83:25;84:3 命名的（1） 6:5 即（2） 43:25;76:10 姓名（2） 67:18;79:7 Nantucket（楠塔基特）（1） 96:1 Nassau（拿骚）（1） 91:13 Nat（纳特）（1） 15:22 Nathaniel（内森尼尔）（2） 16:1,3 自然地（1） 7:20 性质（1） 5:25 导航（2） 21:17;26:22 保密协议（2） 8:21,23 接近（1） 32:7 几乎（1） 92:2 需要（9） 3:2;16:11;36:10; 38:5;45:5;51:9;53:12; 54:7;97:3 需要的（6） 50:11,12;54:24; 59:23;67:14;89:12 需要（1） 59:15 需要（7） 38:11;47:15;54:5,8, 17;55:5,19 Netherland（荷兰）（1） 8:17 Netherlands（荷兰）（3） 68:15;69:16,17 尽管如此（1） 86:24 新的（21） 4:22;9:2,6,20;13:1, 16;53:8,9,11;54:16; 60:12;62:4,20;75:15; 84:19;85:22;86:3; 89:12;92:2,4;95:8 下一项（14） 8:20;32:16;33:1; 35:12;41:4;62:13; 70:3,4;74:19;79:15, 16;81:11;82:25;98:5 好的（2） 74:18;98:8 夜晚（1）\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C.·西蒙娜） (8) 维持 - 夜晚\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\n案件 22-50073\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok（郭文贵） 文件 183-4\n提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第125页，共269页\nNYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022\n郭文贵 2022年2月2日\n\n无人 (1) 52:18 22:14;56:21 51:3 3:2,15;15:8;59:21;92:13 发生 (1) 经营 (2) 驳回异议 (6) 79:20;83:4 不披露 (1) 12:3 56:5,18 45:13,17;51:25; 合伙人 (4) 76:17 发生了 (1) 经营活动 (4) 64:8;90:2;92:23 7:3;42:10,18,23 无 (5) 93:17 5:5,11;6:2,23 驳回异议行为 (1) 部分 (1) 14:23;76:10;79:2; 十月 (22) 运营性 (1) 49:7 76:2 94:20;95:9 6:13;21:22;43:10; 8:22 自己 (4) 当事人 (2) 尽管如此 (1) 53:19;54:4;55:1; 运营 (1) 4:11,13;11:11,12 14:8;78:2 20:1 57:19;58:5,11,23; 81:13 拥有 (6) 过去 (3) 正午 (3) 98:1,2,6 63:15,25;64:19;81:8;82:11;84:12;85:25; 有效的 (1) 85:8 4:23;9:14;11:1;43:9;46:5;60:4 5:15;6:13;55:1 耐心 (4) 亦不 (2) 86:3,6,11;87:17,19 机会 (3) 所有人 (7) 16:21,25;32:18; 78:19;81:12 赔率 (1) 10:20;15:2;97:23 19:5,5,12;37:8; 45:21 正常 (1) 9:11 反对 (1) 44:4;51:12;56:14 耐心的 (1) 59:20 关闭 (2) 9:23 所有权 (7) 63:11 通常 (1) 86:2;87:21 反对意见 (1) 7:17;11:3;13:1,2; 暂停 (13) 52:15 提出 (6) 4:6 15:11;51:10;56:1 16:22;18:21;23:25; 东北部 (1) 33:5;35:15;38:3; 命令 (52) 拥有 (4) 28:1;39:10;74:1; 95:23 80:9;83:4,5 5:7;9:3;13:19; 12:8,10;72:6,8 75:25;79:11;80:25; 北部 (2) 提出了 (3) 14:21,21;15:8,10,15; 82:16;83:14;89:19; 13:5;95:17 14:10;73:11;84:24 37:23;49:5,10;57:8, P 97:13 注释 (6) 办公室 (6) 18,21;58:6,13,16,19; 已暂停 (1) 7:5;9:15;24:4; 11:7;79:4,6;92:17; 59:6;60:11,14,22; Pacific（太平洋） (3) 71:13 37:16;38:4;83:10 95:1,24 61:7,8;62:3,7,19,24; 14:12,15;75:15 暂停中 (1) 已注意到 (2) 官员 (1) 63:1,6,6,14,18,24,24; 打包的 (1) 68:11 7:19;49:16 34:10 64:5,15,18,19,19,19; 89:4 PAX (6) 十一月 (5) 68:18;69:4,5,10,18 离线 (1) 3:7 65:2;74:5;89:22;90:4,6,10,13,16,21;92:12, 页 (12) 14:11;26:17;31:19; 3:25;4:8;9:12,21;12:19;24:24 无处 (1) 不记入记录 (1) 19 34:10;41:16,17; PAX 的 (2) 8:25 3:13 已命令 (1) 61:25;62:13;77:4,6,7; 10:3;11:1 编号 (12) 旧的 (1) 9:20 78:12 支付 (4) 10:24;17:21,25; 28:23 命令（复数） (3) Palm（帕尔姆） (1) 44:7;55:24;56:4; 21:6;24:5;27:4;31:25; O'Melveny（欧麦尔文尼） (1) 9:18;64:21;81:22 53:12 86:7 48:25;53:2,3;63:21; 67:2 普通的 (2) Palmigiano（帕尔米贾诺） (1) 付款 (1) 66:5 一次 (2) 54:6;59:20 14:10 65:4 NY3d (1) 45:21;69:19 组织 (4) 文件 (5) 笔 (1) 13:5 一个 (29) 78:8,9,12;85:1 5:2;8:15;32:4; 77:12 NYSCEF (1) 5:24;10:24;23:24; 定位 (1) 77:13;80:2 待决 (2) 27:16 28:13;33:22;36:3; 69:5 文件材料 (1) 45:11;61:3 人们 (4) O 44:24;47:14;49:25; 原始的 (1) 11:1 3:5;12:6;18:19; 宣誓 (2) 53:2;63:12;66:8; Ostrager（奥斯特拉格） (1) 9:16;42:2,5,8; 60:3 67:10,13;68:2,3;70:3,4,22;75:24;77:24; 62:25 奥斯特拉格的 (1) 43:18;49:21;50:7; 人民的 (1) 12:4 39:16,21 反对 (6) 82:15,17;86:3;92:4; 61:25 53:17,23;60:8,10;62:19;63:23;76:5,9, 或许 (3) 48:11;49:2,15; 96:12 否则 (1) 13,17,21;78:18,23; 17:10;37:19;59:7 63:20;68:22;85:10 那些 (3) 10:20 81:7,11,20;84:11; 期间 (8) 反对意见 (17) 92:2,3,4 外出 (23) 86:14;87:4;89:10; 6:2;7:1;12:18; 24:3;45:9,11,13,14,17;49:8,16;51:23,25; 在线 (1) 4:24;9:2;12:6; 92:24;94:16,16,23 13:12,22;14:13,17,23 57:18;58:7;64:6; 38:8 16:11;18:11,14,15; 公园 (1) 期间（复数） (1) 85:12;89:25;92:22,23 仅 (20) 29:19;49:11;51:20; 4:3 22:6 观察 (1) 12:16,18;13:11;15:7; 52:4,20;53:2,4,14; 停放 (3) 许可 (5) 15:7 26:3,5;33:5;34:22; 67:1;72:21;81:17; 6:13;8:4;54:5 51:21;52:6,8,8; 已观察到 (2) 35:19,24;48:22; 85:7,23;87:5;91:24; 部分 (8) 53:15 15:12;21:21 58:15;64:23;69:24 93:20 8:9;25:6;54:10; 获准 (1) 妨碍 (1) 开放 (4) 装束 (1) 56:16;58:21;68:3; 31:2 49:9 3:5;15:2;18:13,15 6:5 71:20;87:25 坚持不懈 (1) 获得 (3) 开放式 (1) 结束 (14) 3:22;5:4,15;8:17; 30:25 12:23 参与者 (1) 人 (11) 23:19,22;24:6 33:19 10:6;19:15;31:5,9; 特别的 (6) 5:4;23:6;34:18; 显然 (1) 开庭 (4) 52:15;59:19;66:2; 17:16,24;24:7; 36:2;42:24;45:6;48:4,5,5;86:17;89:13 97:9 3:16,21;10:17,19 74:16;86:24;96:14 34:23,24;55:3 当事人（复数） (6) 经营 (2) 过夜 (1) 部分 (8) 个人的 (4)\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C.·西蒙娜） (9) 无人 - 个人的\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok（郭文贵） 2022年2月2日 已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第126页，共269页\n\n7:11;11:24;19:20; 20:19 亲自 (6) 20:6;34:13,22; 77:23,24;86:21 人员 (1) 9:13 某人的 (1) 42:12 说服 (1) 15:14 关于 (1) 21:19 Phoenix（菲尼克斯） (2) 6:5;78:15 电话 (9) 7:7;16:17,19;52:15; 71:6,17;89:7;93:11; 94:19 照片 (2) 48:1,18 措辞 (1) 87:8 身体上 (1) 87:9 挑选 (1) 86:8 图片 (1) 48:14 图片（复数） (2) 19:21;20:5 件 (3) 5:2;6:3;63:12 驾驶 (1) 93:4 地点 (9) 54:6,9,17;55:3,4,6,18;69:13;89:22 占位符 (1) 31:9 地点（复数） (1) 22:2 明确地 (1) 7:21 原告 (10) 13:15,20;15:19;16:4;25:15;34:4;37:5;49:11;65:24;74:9 原告的 (10) 3:17;10:15;15:4;48:1,4;68:2;70:5,8;73:11,19 计划 (2) 52:24;66:13 平台 (1) 29:16 平台（复数） (1) 32:23 貌似合理的 (1) 92:8 播放 (12) 8:13;11:14;14:6;68:3,4;70:6,6;71:3,8,21;73:12;78:10 播放了 (5) 68:7;70:18;71:12,23;73:18 播放中 (2) 70:7;73:15 诉状 (1) 7:21 诉讼文书 (1) 15:9 请 (27) 27:20;38:9,12;39:2,4,7,25;40:17,24;43:2;57:14;61:1;62:8;70:1;73:24;75:9,24;79:10,15;80:4,10,22;82:15,25;83:18,25;84:3 情节 (1) 84:18 复数 (1) 25:16 要点 (14) 7:17;9:10;11:23;15:16;30:13;43:23;58:19,21;59:22;62:9;79:21;85:7,17;94:4 要点（复数） (1) 36:14 运送 (1) 82:12 部分 (2) 23:22;24:14 部分（复数） (2) 23:18;66:17 描绘 (2) 26:2,2 可能性 (1) 92:19 可能的 (3) 35:20;52:14;63:4 可能地 (1) 58:1 发布 (6) 19:4,5,21;20:9,20;21:2 已发布 (7) 20:1,6,12,14,16;30:2;83:12 听证后 (1) 37:2 发布中 (1) 20:2 发布内容 (2) 14:18;19:24 判决后 (1) 4:16 帖子 (4) 4:10;5:12;19:24;20:5 审判后 (4) 97:5,9,14,20 土豆 (1) 8:13 潜在地 (1) 65:20 惯例 (1) 12:5 早于日期 (1) 14:20 预测 (1) 4:19 偏好 (1) 97:21 听证前 (1) 49:15 损害 (2) 12:22;13:13 准备 (2) 48:23;97:9 出席 (7) 37:22;68:20;69:6,8,12,15;74:12 已提交 (1) 89:4 提交中 (1) 37:9 目前 (1) 94:13 保全 (1) 34:25 新闻界 (2) 65:17;74:5 据推定 (1) 95:14 推定 (2) 69:9,11 审判前 (3) 27:1;48:14,21 相当 (5) 5:8;86:11;91:3,17;93:1 被阻止 (1) 5:13 先前 (5) 27:4;74:6;80:7;83:3;96:17 Price（普赖斯） (8) 33:2,4;34:1,2,4,9;35:11,25 普赖斯的 (1) 33:4 打印件 (1) 52:14 先前的 (8) 15:9,18;85:11;86:14;87:17,19;88:25;91:7 特权 (1) 14:8 可能 (4) 51:9;63:6;87:8;91:22 证明力 (6) 6:11;10:2;14:9,24;32:6;36:18 问题 (2)\n\n18:5;39:17 有问题的 (1) 7:19 问题（复数） (3) 6:6;7:4;8:1 继续进行 (10) 3:16;16:24;32:25;39:14,25;57:5;75:3;80:14;96:21;98:3 程序 (4) 18:16,16;66:3;74:9 程序（复数） (4) 58:21;74:13;80:25;98:11 过程 (2) 48:15,21 声明 (1) 17:23 提交 (1) 92:2 提议 (4) 4:22;10:2;25:6;33:4 已提议 (9) 9:9;14:15;20:9;24:24;33:8;48:14,20;66:16;69:4 提议中 (1) 17:6 提议（复数） (1) 14:12 禁止 (1) 57:22 适当地 (1) 15:15 财产 (1) 8:14 拟议的 (1) 97:15 保护 (1) 74:5 保护 (2) 66:2;74:16 提供 (2) 27:15;44:23 已提供 (3) 44:8;77:19;85:11 公共的 (2) 65:23;74:14 出版 (1) 65:13 拉取 (2) 27:1;61:5 已拉取 (1) 84:23 拉取中 (1) 17:10 双关语 (1) 6:12 购买 (1) 46:12 已购买 (2) 44:20;46:17 购买中 (2) 45:6,23 声称 (1) 26:2 声称的 (1) 6:4 目的 (3) 18:3;22:24;28:16 目的（复数） (2) 69:14;84:24 放置 (9) 5:23;24:8;32:22;40:17;43:3;48:9;61:24;76:24;77:12 放置（第三人称） (1) 6:3 谜题 (1) 63:12 PX (3) 17:21;21:10,13 Q Qu（曲） (25) 8:6,7,8;42:9,9,13,16,17,18;43:4,10,15;44:4;46:2,5,18,18,20,21,23,25;47:12,21;48:4;50:2 Q-U (1)\n\n42:13 质量 (1) 29:5 迅速地 (2) 63:11;97:8 相当 (3)\n\n引述 (4)\n\n43:1;48:19;91:11\n\n7:5,7;8:2;14:9\n\nR Rachel（雷切尔） (1) 98:15 提出 (7) 15:25;34:1;38:9;39:2;80:10;83:17;96:19 范围 (1) 85:8 而非 (2) 13:2;55:5 到达 (1) 67:1 可联系的 (1) 13:15 阅读 (14) 41:20,22,24;42:2,6;60:14,16,21,25;61:9,10,17;87:4,4 阅读中 (1) 42:7 准备就绪 (2)\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C.·西蒙娜） (10) 亲自 - 准备就绪\n\n案件 22-50073\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1179\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 Kwok（郭文贵） 文件 183-4\n提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第127页，共\nNYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022\n\n郭文贵（Kwok） 269 February 2, 2022\n30:23;81:4 19:8;55:12;76:17 92:1 方面 (1) 路线 (1)\n意识到 (1) 刷新 (6) 修复 (1) 23:20 85:24\n41:23 31:14;85:14,15,16, 91:14 回应 (2) 例行 (2)\n确实 (9) 19;86:4 修理 (1) 48:16;50:14 55:6;59:20\n43:14;44:24;62:15; 刷新 (1) 91:15 回应中 (1) 例行地 (1)\n63:10;64:11,13;73:8; 28:17 重复 (3) 60:24 8:15\n74:16;93:14 茶点 (1) 23:21;52:1;81:3 答复 (2) 规则 (7)\n理由 (5) 84:24 改述 (1) 14:9;55:9 11:21;72:25;73:3,6;\n46:4;48:20,22;54:5, 加油 (1) 64:2 负责 (1) 94:5,12;98:5\n23 51:3 报告 (2) 50:8 运行 (1)\n理由（复数） (2) 拒绝 (1) 55:5;59:15 限制 (18) 9:24\n13:24,25 4:17 已报告 (1) 57:8,21;58:6,13,16; Russell（拉塞尔） (7)\n反驳 (1) 拒绝（动词） (1) 20:21 59:6;63:1,14;64:5; 6:17;74:20;75:2,4,\n10:3 14:9 记录员 (6) 89:22;90:3,6,10,13, 13,14;77:24\n回忆 (15) 关于 (4) 56:25;75:10;81:2; 84:4;97:11;98:16 R-U-S-S-E-L-L (1)\n3:25;4:19;26:22; 11:3;14:16;43:14; 记录员的 (1) 恢复 (3) 75:13\n32:8;52:20;62:15; 96:16 3:14;57:1;66:21\n67:18;68:20;87:18; 政权 (1) 保留 (1) S\n88:12,25;89:7;90:22, 13:11 报告行为 (1) 8:16\n25;93:14 常规的 (1) 54:19 取回 (1) 安全 (5)\n收到 (5) 59:16 重新定位 (1) 28:18 52:13;66:2;74:6,8,\n46:25;47:1;83:7; 加强 (1) 95:22 已取回 (3) 16\n95:5,9 10:1 代表 (2) 28:9,13,19 航行 (1)\n接收 (1) 重申 (1) 63:15;68:17 追溯地 (1) 59:15\n94:24 54:25 代理/陈述 (3) 87:23 已航行 (3)\n休庭 (1)\n57:4 关联 (2)\n20:1;26:5 9:12;24:5;69:1\n代表人 (7) 返回 (4)\n9:20;60:7,12;62:20 58:4;82:8,10\n出售 (1)\n承认 (3) 相关的 (1) 6:17;35:21;55:16, 已返回 (1) 44:19\n61:8;68:11;72:24 8:18 16,18;77:20;89:11 62:4 相同 (11)\n记忆 (6) 与……有关 (8) 代表人（复数） (5) 返回（动名词） (3) 6:16;58:7;64:6;\n28:17;31:14;85:14, 17:21;19:22;21:7; 76:9,10;79:1;95:7,7 62:18;78:18;81:20 65:1,9;66:5;73:12;\n15,16,19 26:10;53:20;59:7; 已代理 (2) 修订 (1) 75:14;78:19;81:13;\n重新确认 (1) 64:21;65:2 35:22;92:6 89:15 96:7\n62:9 关系 (3) 代理中 (2) Richard（理查德） (3) 制裁 (2)\n记录 (19) 55:21;76:6;93:25 10:13;64:25 21:20;23:3,4 15:13,16\n5:2,16;10:23;15:13; 转述 (2) 共和国 (1) 权利 (65) SARL (2)\n22:11;29:15;33:10; 53:23;54:23 12:4 3:1,9;4:25;11:14; 6:16;74:23\n36:6;39:19;40:15; 相关性 (2) 请求 (6) 15:6,25;16:20;17:12; Sarnoff（萨诺夫） (8)\n41:12,17;65:17;70:7; 92:22;94:13 40:15;52:23;54:7, 18:22;20:18;22:4; 3:20,20,24;10:22,\n75:22;77:6;81:6; 相关的 (5) 14;55:10;77:20 24:16;26:4;33:21; 24;11:5,25;12:2\n84:25;89:25 4:8;6:2;7:1;10:4; 已请求 (2) 34:1;35:10;38:7,9,22; 看见 (1)\n已记录 (4) 14:23 4:21;56:10 39:1,2,22;40:19,22, 21:19\n22:15,19,19,20 可靠性 (1) 要求 (1) 25;41:3;42:5;43:7,10; 称述 (7)\n录音 (1) 14:19 51:2 45:6;46:6,10;47:14; 4:23;7:15,20;45:7;\n72:12 依赖 (3) 被要求 (1) 49:16;51:4;55:19; 78:17;83:10;87:7\n记录（复数） (3) 15:23;23:23;24:24 11:22 56:24;57:5,10;60:6; 现场 (1)\n35:25;36:2,4\n已追回 (1) 剩余部分 (2)\n53:22;66:10 要求（动词） (2)\n50:24;62:4 65:14,16;66:4;67:1,\n24;70:25;71:13,25; 70:25\n32:9 发回重审 (1) 要求（现在分词） (2) 74:18,24;78:3,20; 科学 (1)\n97:19\n重新询问 (1) 11:2 60:11;62:19 80:10,10;81:6,25; 屏幕 (31)\n32:20 已发回重审 (1) 研究 (1) 83:17;88:21,23; 27:3,7,9;28:2;\n提及 (3) 12:21 12:24 91:21;93:3;95:16; 37:17;41:7,12;42:5;\n17:24;76:9,13 记住 (16) 辞职 (1) 96:19,25;97:3 43:19;48:9;49:23;\n引用 (2) 7:13;43:14;54:1,2; 92:21 右侧 (3) 60:8;61:7,24;68:4;\n76:2;97:9 57:25;63:3,5;64:11, 辞职（名词） (2) 70:10,20;72:22 70:10,20,25;71:5,17,\n引用（复数） (1) 13;84:13,19,20; 91:6;92:11 风险 (1) 25;72:15,23;73:7;\n32:23 86:11;87:14;88:11; 解决 (1) 45:20 76:1,24;81:5;84:6,7,\n被提及 (2) 89:6 18:12 火箭 (1) 23;85:1\n10:24;77:2 已移除 (2) 尊重 (4) 97:19 屏幕截图 (2)\n所指 (4) 25:3;91:25 9:18;58:8;66:10; 流氓的 (1) 19:4;26:19\n20:3;25:7;81:5; 移除中 (1) 81:14 5:7 屏幕截图（复数） (2)\n92:24 57:22 分别地 (1) 粗略的 (2) 26:8,14\n所指（第三人称） (3) 续期 (1) 26:9 66:11;97:8 海 (1)\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼） (11) 意识到 - 海\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官） 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官） 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 128 页，共\n\n郭文贵 February 2, 2022\n\n50:17 93:7,7,20;95:13 签名 (1) 抱歉 (17) 站立 (2)\n搜索 (2) 严重的 (1) 77:13 21:6;27:8;37:13; 80:13;83:2\n26:20,20 6:22 签名（名词） (5) 39:11;47:15;49:25; 标准 (6)\n季节 (2) 服务（动词） (1) 41:18,19;62:1;77:7, 53:5;55:11;59:17; 4:9;11:15,19;12:20;\n54:4,22 35:17 25 61:3,6,20;69:17; 13:3;39:20\n季节性地 (1) 服务（名词） (2) 已签署 (10) 70:14;71:11;90:24; 标准（复数） (1)\n95:23 6:4;28:5 7:13;8:20;41:1,21; 95:3 13:10\n第二 (8) 服务（复数） (1) 76:14;77:9,17;78:2,3, 类别 (1) 地位 (1)\n13:7;48:19;61:1; 65:4 7 5:3 71:16\n68:2;71:2;75:24;77:5; 设定 (1) 重要性 (3) 类别（复数） (1) 开始 (2)\n82:15 50:2 51:12,13,13 67:9 17:20;24:25\n其次 (2) 若干 (3) 重大的 (1) 寻求 (1) 已开始 (3)\n11:5,20 17:2;37:7;45:20 87:24 52:19 18:23;73:7;93:9\n秒 (5) Shafts（沙夫茨） (2) 类似的 (2) 声音 (1) 开始于 (1)\n68:5;70:6,6;71:3; 91:25;92:1 35:24;68:23 92:7 48:25\n89:16 分享 (5) 类似地 (1) 听起来 (1) 开始（第三人称） (1)\n\n章节 (3) 27:3,7,9;60:8;76:1 6:19 11:15 州 (5)\n25:5,6,9 已分享 (2) Simone-Ivanac（西蒙尼-伊瓦纳茨） (1) 来源 (2) 5:16;7:14;38:12;\n章节（复数） (1) 30:24;70:12 98:15 31:24,24 43:18;75:15\n25:1 分享中 (3) 简单的 (1) 来源（复数） (1) 陈述 (4)\n安全的 (1) 28:3;41:7;68:4 48:19 11:12 3:16,21;9:11;11:4\n29:8 外壳 (2) 仅仅 (1) 南部 (3) 陈述（复数） (3)\n安全（名词） (1) 8:15;9:3 8:9 58:4;59:15;85:23 10:17,19;97:4\n29:5 Sherry（谢丽） (4) 单一的 (2) 东南部 (1) States（州） (5)\n寻求 (1) 8:17;68:15;69:16, 5:2;8:7 95:23 南方的 (1) 14:7;43:20,22;\n65:20 17 罪孽 (1) 95:17 57:23;65:21\n似乎 (1) 屏蔽 (1) 12:14 说话 (4) 法令 (2)\n11:17 8:16 坐 (2) 20:21;33:17;40:12; 13:7,10\n似乎（第三人称） (4) 船舶的 (1) 11:16;25:10 65:8 停留 (2)\n6:19;9:24;24:9; 93:7 六 (1) 发言 (3) 12:9;51:3\n40:12 衬衫 (1) 32:22 27:10;39:8;68:9 已停留 (2)\n片段 (6) Short（肖特） (2) 尺寸 (1) 说（第三人称） (1) 69:19,19\n22:11,15,18;24:17, 57:4;96:25 92:2 7:8 茎 (1)\n22,23 较短的 (1) 略微地 (1) 具体的 (7) 4:15\n扣押 (1) 25:19 48:5 20:9;28:12,13; 仍然 (3)\n12:5 展示 (18) 缓慢地 (1) 64:11,13;68:3;87:22 16:15;53:17;54:7\n选定的 (1) 22:5;26:24;27:24; 80:23 具体地 (2) 约定 (2)\n85:8 30:23;31:7;41:16; 小的 (2) 62:3;93:14 30:21,22\n不言自明的 (1) 47:25;58:9,24;60:8; 66:15;73:12 拼写 (3) Stockil（斯托基尔） (14)\n78:23 62:9,13;66:17;68:1; 零星知识 (1) 75:9;80:22;84:3 6:17,24;74:21,21;\n自利的 (1) 69:21;70:1,4;73:10 14:17 花费 (2) 75:2,4,9,13,14;76:3;\n4:23 展示了 (1) 社会的 (8) 88:15,17 77:24;79:6,13,14\n卖方 (1) 69:24 4:10,13;5:11;14:18; 拼接 (2) s-T-O-C-K-I-L (1)\n46:10 发送 (1) 17:7,13;19:21;32:23 21:25;24:18 75:13\n92:1 展示中 (5) 软件 (3) 说过 (2) 停止 (2)\n高级的 (2) 5:10;10:4;28:16; 34:13,22;77:17 78:19;89:7 53:10;91:20\n17:3;98:16 32:2,5 唯一的 (2) 已说的 (4) 故事 (1)\n意义 (2) 展示（第三人称） (1) 46:5;56:14 6:19;78:20;81:12, 9:8\n24:18;37:19 61:16 仅 (1) 18 精简 (1)\n敏感的 (1) 一侧 (7) 50:8 某人 (5) 31:4\n52:13 35:20;36:15;70:10, 零星地 (2) 9:17;20:5;42:23; 打击 (1)\n已发送 (4) 20;72:15,22;79:23 7:7;94:19 45:5,18 90:1\n31:9;55:10;83:10; 侧栏 (1) 地点 (1) Stuart（斯图尔特） (1)\n92:3 15:17 某时 (2) 78:6 3:20\n句子 (4) Siegal（西格尔） (27) 58:1;59:7 Spring（斯普林） (27) 物品 (1)\n53:22;61:21;87:4; 3:4,10;5:9;10:9,10, 有时 (3) 9:3,6,8,10,13;11:5, 33:10\n94:24 12;27:5;37:6,6;48:10, 67:16,16;69:19 7;53:20,23;54:7,12, 主题 (1)\nSeptember（九月） (22) 10;49:2,7,12,14;65:9; 某处 (3) 18,24;55:22,23;56:2, 90:6\n7:14;57:9,10,19; 66:22;67:1;89:25; 51:22;64:12,12 4,7,14;59:14,19;60:1, 提交材料 (1)\n58:6,11,14,19,23; 90:3;96:14,15;97:7, 儿子 (3) 4;65:5;67:17;79:8; 36:11\n61:16;64:19;82:4,6; 17,20,22;98:6 11:9,11;12:8 95:8 提交材料（复数） (4)\n85:9;88:6,9,15;89:23; Siegel's（西格尔的） (2) 不久 (1) Spring's（斯普林的） (1) 97:6,10,14,20\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼） (12) 搜索 - 提交材料\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 郭文贵 February 2, 2022 已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官） 02/07/2022 02:11 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1179 NYSCEF 收到：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 129 页，共\n\n提交 (1) 宣誓 (9)\n\n80:8 16:4;34:5;38:11;\n已提交 (11) 40:2;74:25;75:5;\n5:19;33:12;35:16, 80:18;83:18,21\n17;36:20;38:2;41:2; 宣誓/确认 (7)\n75:14,18;80:7;83:3 16:1;34:2;39:18;\n次优的 (1) 75:2;80:13;83:19;\n16:15 96:20\n后续的 (1) 系统 (2)\n89:11 74:14;98:4\n实质内容 (2)\n34:16;35:6 T\n实质性的 (1)\n21:1 标签页 (7)\n加字幕的 (1) 19:3;21:5,6,6,12;\n23:9 24:4;26:6\n字幕 (3) 表格 (1)\n23:12,15,19 31:5\n充分的 (2) 谈话 (3)\n10:3;14:25 53:19;91:12;93:10\n建议 (3) 谈过 (1)\n6:22;65:11,14 67:9\n被建议 (1) 谈论 (11)\n4:9 24:22;28:15;29:16;\n表明 (4) 31:23;61:8;63:24;\n8:20;19:11;21:21; 64:18;76:2;77:23;\n92:6 94:17;95:21\n诉讼 (1) 谈话（第三人称） (2)\n73:20 63:23;76:21\n合适的 (1) 录制 (1)\n54:15 68:21\n摘要 (2) Teams（团队） (2)\n9:25;50:20 3:8;80:1\n夏季 (2) 技术 (1)\n87:22;88:11 18:19\n太阳镜 (1) 技术性的 (2)\n72:15 34:18;39:17\nSuper（超级） (2) 技术性的 (1)\n21:7,13 30:16\n假定 (2) 技术 (4)\n42:2;53:3 17:7;18:14;24:19;\nSupreme（最高） (1) 34:10\n14:7 电话 (3)\n确定 (21) 3:7;58:2;86:24\n8:11;9:8;19:23; 告知 (3)\n27:21;31:25;32:3; 5:8;46:19;78:3\n40:20;50:20,23;52:3; 临时的 (12)\n54:10;58:9;59:12; 57:8,21;58:13,16;\n61:14,17;62:23; 59:6;89:22;90:3,6,10,\n78:24;82:4;91:4; 13,16,21\n94:23;95:4 十 (2)\n姓氏 (1) 3:8;68:4\n75:11 提出 (8)\n暂停的 (1) 15:22;33:2,23;36:5,\n30:12 8,10;38:2;79:23\n维持 (1) 已提出 (1)\n15:13 92:11\n宣誓 (3) 十分钟的 (1)\n38:23;39:3;83:8 56:25\n宣誓（第三人称） (1) 条款 (1)\n39:21 29:11\n甜的 (1) 糟糕的 (1)\n96:25 95:4\n\n宣誓 (9) 属地的 (1)\n\n16:4;34:5;38:11; 57:23\n40:2;74:25;75:5; 已检验 (1)\n80:18;83:18,21 16:13\n宣誓/确认 (7) 已作证 (10)\n16:1;34:2;39:18; 16:5;25:20;34:5,9;\n75:2;80:13;83:19; 35:24;40:3;59:5;75:6;\n96:20 80:19;83:22\n系统 (2) 作证（第三人称） (1)\n74:14;98:4 11:24\n作证 (9)\nT 4:17;14:9;26:1,3;\n33:7,12;34:14,22;\n标签页 (7) 95:12\n19:3;21:5,6,6,12; 证言 (24)\n24:4;26:6 3:18;15:24;33:4;\n表格 (1) 34:16;36:19;37:1;\n31:5 38:3,23;44:15;45:9;\n谈话 (3) 47:6;49:18;51:24;\n53:19;91:12;93:10 52:20;56:13;57:1;\n谈过 (1) 58:5;59:8,11;65:18;\n67:9 74:11;80:9;83:5;\n谈论 (11) 92:10\n24:22;28:15;29:16; 致谢 (1)\n31:23;61:8;63:24; 74:17\n64:18;76:2;77:23; 因此 (2)\n94:17;95:21 11:18;95:2\n谈话（第三人称） (2) 尽管 (2)\n63:23;76:21 25:2;72:17\n录制 (1) 认为 (2)\n68:21 62:25;91:16\nTeams（团队） (2) 三 (5)\n3:8;80:1 3:6;59:5;66:15;\n技术 (1) 93:18;94:25\n18:19 三年半 (1)\n技术性的 (2) 5:5\n34:18;39:17 贯穿始终 (2)\n技术性的 (1) 23:12;87:22\n30:16 领带 (1)\n技术 (4) 73:20\n17:7;18:14;24:19; 时间范围 (2)\n34:10 43:23;59:21\n电话 (3) 次数 (8)\n10:5;22:2;45:20;\n3:7;58:2;86:24\n告知 (3) 46:9;51:21;52:5;\n5:8;46:19;78:3 63:22;64:7\n临时的 (12) 微小的 (1)\n57:8,21;58:13,16; 66:17\n59:6;89:22;90:3,6,10, 标题 (4)\n13,16,21 4:3;5:3,6;12:1\n十 (2) 名义持有人 (1)\n3:8;68:4 4:7\n提出 (8) 今天 (4)\n15:22;33:2,23;36:5, 4:17;8:25;64:25;\n8,10;38:2;79:23 96:23\n已提出 (1) 今天的 (2)\n92:11 5:16;41:2\n十分钟的 (1) Todd（托德） (3)\n56:25 33:2;34:2,4\n条款 (1) 一起 (4)\n29:11 21:25;24:18;50:4;\n糟糕的 (1) 71:10\n95:4 告知 (8)\n\n45:22;47:13;53:9;55:4,17;89:20;93:4;95:14 明天 (2) 98:1,6 拿取 (11) 5:6;7:9;19:3;26:8;53:1;69:13;84:11;91:15,16,17;92:2 顶部 (2) 61:13;62:8 遭受酷刑 (2) 65:19;74:7 总计 (1) 6:24 艰难的 (1) 72:14 朝向 (2) 63:19;94:16 朝向 (1) 66:22 追踪 (1) 30:8 跟踪 (2) 24:11;86:2 Tracy（特蕾西） (3) 10:14;15:3;16:8 轨迹 (1) 85:23 已转录 (2) 74:13;98:3 笔录 (6) 65:22;74:13;97:8,18;98:3,11 转录 (1) 69:25 转移 (3) 12:1;43:12,15 已转移 (6) 8:7;43:10;46:14,23,24;47:12 转移中 (1) 47:18 转移（第三人称） (1) 47:5 已翻译 (2) 41:20;45:15 翻译 (5) 23:18;24:6;36:1,4,7 译文 (2) 23:22;35:22 Translator（译员） (1) 39:19 TransPerfect（泛微翻译） (2) 35:21;36:2 审判 (3) 49:4,5,13 三角形 (1) 85:24 技巧 (2) 61:19,23 尝试 (1) 30:17\n\n尝试（1）7:20 触发（1）14:25 行程（2）52:10,24 行程（1）52:9 麻烦的（1）56:9 真实（15）6:16;9:5,9;42:15;43:6,25;47:12;50:10,11;55:8;73:6;77:9;78:19;81:13;98:10 真正地（1）62:15 信托（1）93:25 受信任的（4）42:9,18,23;43:4 信任（1）42:24 真相（9）39:3,3,21;44:24;49:9,10,10;78:3;91:11 如实地（1）38:24 尝试（9）3:24;25:17;28:4;32:5,17;45:21;56:10;61:22;70:3 正在尝试（12）31:20;45:20;55:13;56:25;61:5;63:13;71:10;78:10;86:22;87:5;88:11;93:20 T恤衫（2）71:6,17 隧道（12）28:5,7,9,13,18,19,20,21;29:17,20;30:20;32:9 转向（4）3:21;21:5;80:3;96:13 转向（1）19:3 营业额（2）13:7,9 转弯（1）4:24 推文（15）28:5,7,9,13,18,18,19,20,21;29:10,17,20;30:20;32:9,9 推文（9）5:11;26:9,17;28:9,13,23;29:1,3,6 十二（1）68:4\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼）（13）提交－Twitter（推特）\n\nTwitter（推特）（12）\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 130 of 269\n\nKwok（郭） 2022年2月2日\n\n17:9,14;19:8;26:10, 上传（2） 9,11,17,25;69:4,21, 74:11;77:24;87:8 证人（89）\n17,19;29:17,19,20,23, 21:21;98:4 24;70:1,18;71:12,21, 天气（5） 11:23;14:2,3,4;\n25;32:9 美国（7） 23;72:22;73:9,10,16, 54:5,16,22;86:8,9 15:19;22:8;27:20;\n\nTwittercom（1） 76:10,14;78:13; 18;94:6,8,9 网络（2） 31:19;32:3,16;33:1,\n26:20 89:11;90:12;92:13; 视频（2） 8:18;29:16 23;35:12,19,20,23,24;\n两个（15） 95:7 21:11,25 网站（6） 36:5;37:5;39:11,20;\n4:9;6:21;7:19; 使用（8） 录像带（1） 29:21;30:3;34:15, 46:16,22;47:3,7;49:9;\n10:21;13:10,11,24; 30:5;48:24;53:20; 66:16 19,24;84:15 55:23;56:3,7,15,19,\n26:8;31:23;32:1;53:3; 54:7,13,22;67:14; 查看（1） 网站（1） 22;57:3,20,24;58:9,\n92:24;93:6,9,17 85:13 94:9 34:12 15,24;59:1,9;61:12;\n双重（1） 已使用（6） 已查看（1） 星期三（2） 63:25;64:1,9,23;\n4:6 28:7,8,8,18;54:15; 21:16 27:6;98:5 65:13;66:1,17;74:15,\n\n类型（3） 67:20 违反（2） 星期（4） 19,25;77:12,14;\n24:19;33:10;59:20 用户（2） 5:7;9:2 82:3;84:12;86:11; 79:15;80:5,13;82:22,\n21:20;34:22 违法的（1） 98:5 周（1） 25;83:8,16,18;85:18;\nU 使用（1） 49:14 虚拟的（1） 7:19 17,20;90:5,7,9,11,14,\n77:18 正在使用（3） 27:15 重量（1） 18,22,25;91:3;94:12;\n最终的（1） 17:10;56:11;95:18 访问（1） 32:24 95:16;96:2,5,7,11,12,\n8:17 通常的（1） 12:8 欢迎（1） 15,24;97:2\n\n未经改动的（1） 87:22 已访问（1） 31:7 证人（8）\n25:11 未经授权的（1） 12:15 不是（1） 10:15;35:14;37:7,7,\n30:5 V 视觉的（1） 20:20 什么是（1） 9,21,23;66:13\n不清楚的（1） 16:19 证人们的（1）\n94:13 价值（3） 生动地（1） 5:17 36:19\n叔叔（2） 15:17;32:6;36:18 6:24 任何（1） 证人的（5）\n11:10;42:10 各种（2） 自愿地（1） 14:16 39:16;59:10;85:14,\n无争议的（1） 32:23;34:12 8:9 无论何时（2） 15,16\n\n10:21 Vartan（瓦尔坦）（34） 担保（1） 53:1;93:1 女子（2）\n根据（10） 37:8,25,25;45:9,11; 23:15 下落（4） 70:9,19\n12:19,25;13:2,9; 51:6,23;57:17;58:7, Voyage（航行）（1） 65:19,22;74:7,12 词语（2）\n22:20;23:3;46:17,17, 18;60:18,23;61:11; 84:25 无论在哪里（1） 9:19;92:13\n18;54:16 63:20;64:6,17,25; 50:18 措辞（1）\n理解（9） 66:7,10,19;68:22; W 低语（1） 73:1\n7:9;10:17;24:9; 69:9;70:12;71:8; 31:5 词语（4）\n25:18;53:1;59:21; 74:20;79:16;80:3,6; 等待（3） 白色（4） 20:25;77:12;78:7,\n\n60:23;62:24;95:1 83:1,10;85:10,17; 23:23;40:17;92:4 32:5;73:20,20,20 20\n无争议的（2） 92:22;96:13 正在等待（1） 整体（2） 工作（5）\n10:25,25 Vault（保险库）（1） 79:19 39:3;48:25 8:12;16:11;18:14,\nUnited（联合）（5） 34:10 步行（1） 其所有人（2） 15;70:13\n14:7;43:20,22; 核实（1） 7:20 6:17;73:6 工作过（4）\n57:23;65:21 29:5 Wan（文）（3） 愿意（2） 17:13;60:3;93:18,\n除非（4） 核实（1） 75:16;78:19;81:12 30:21;84:21 24\n14:7,12;94:12;96:9 30:13 想要（4） 随意地（1） 正在工作（2）\n\n不必要的（2） 版本（1） 12:3;50:18;53:10; 12:5 16:14,14\n94:10,11 31:11 58:9 窗户（2） 运作（1）\n取消引号（1） 对（3） 较暖的（7） 24:23;89:4 70:14\n7:6 13:5;14:10;75:16 54:6,9,17;55:3,4,6, 冬季（2） 世界（2）\n不合理的（1） 船舶（5） 18 54:4;58:1 12:3;22:19\n97:12 15:11,17;37:8; 浪费（1） 希望（4） 值得的（1）\n不可靠的（1） 57:23;71:24 32:7 8:11;54:22;79:23; 89:17\n14:18 VesselFinder（船舶查找器）（4） 观看（1） 96:17 包装（1）\n\n不寻常的（4） 84:16,17,18;92:6 25:8 希望（1） 7:24\n8:13,14;65:25; 船舶（1） 观看过（1） 85:13 书写（2）\n74:10 72:5 21:19 希望（1） 20:21;73:1\n向上（19） 通过（5） 水（1） 53:20 错误的（4）\n5:9;7:5,24;27:2; 7:7;59:19;81:16; 8:11 撤回（1） 12:24;78:6;92:1,3\n37:18;41:12;42:5; 93:11;94:19 方式（21） 59:17 写过（1）\n44:5;46:2;48:9,22; 视频（40） 4:23;6:14;17:17; 之内（3） 20:25\n61:6;68:2;81:5;84:23, 14:18;21:7,16,19, 24:9;25:24;28:4,20; 24:23;25:5;53:11\nY\n25;89:5;90:6;92:1 20,21,24;22:9,11,15; 30:12,16;35:25;40:6, 没有（5）\n即将到来的（1） 23:2,10,12,19,23; 20;43:3,3;44:24; 50:15;51:20;52:5;\n9:25 24:12,25;25:2;68:3,7, 51:17;53:10;68:24; 53:14;97:11 游艇（111）\n\nMin-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone（雷切尔·C·西蒙尼）（14）Twittercom－游艇\nPacific Alliance Asia（太平洋联盟亚洲）诉 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 131 of 269\n\nKwok（郭） 2022年2月2日\n\n4:2,24;5:6;6:13,18, 18:22 4:24;6:2;21:22;\n23,25;7:6,10,15;8:4,7, 1012359（1） 26:9;68:18;69:4,5,10, 5\n17;9:2,14,22;10:25; 85:2 18\n11:2;12:17;13:12,19; 11:45（1） 2018（2） 5（6）\n14:2,16;21:8,13;44:1, 49:17 19:5;20:10 6:4;41:17;76:13,22;\n6,12,16,20;45:2,7,18, 1121（1） 2019（1） 77:2,7\n23;46:10,11,14,16; 17:21 93:8\n51:10,12,14,20;52:4, 1126（1） 2020（27） 50（1）\n7,11,16,22,23;53:1,8, 31:25 5:7;6:2;7:14;53:19; 48:25\n12,14;54:4,7,8,13,15, 1133（2） 57:11,20,25;58:5,14; 50-whatever（1）\n48:12\n17;55:2,4,5,9,17,19, 21:6;24:5 59:7;61:16;63:1,3,15, 5223（2）\n24;56:6,8,10,11,18, 1156（1） 19;85:9,25;86:3,6; 12:19;13:2\n21;57:7;58:4;59:15, 75:22 87:17,19;88:3,6,9,16; 5225b（1）\n23;60:4;67:14,22; 1157（1） 93:12;95:13 13:7\n70:24;74:22;81:9; 81:6 2021（15） 53（2）\n86:19,21,23,23;87:1, 11619（1） 6:7,13,19,23;9:20; 48:1,4\n6,12,13,18,21,24; 27:16 58:1;59:8;62:1;63:2, 55（1）\n88:8,15,18;89:2,6,12, 1162（1） 7,7;64:12,13;82:6;\n21;90:10,13,17,21; 41:13 93:12 13:5\n591（1）\n91:13;92:7;93:1,3; 1169（1） 2022（1） 58:14\n94:25;95:6,14,22 27:5 85:9\n游艇（1） 12:15（1） 21（5） 6\n8:23 57:1 19:5;20:10;62:20;\n游艇的（3） 14（7） 76:5;81:8 6（7）\n6:1;91:23;94:21 4:1,5,18;21:22; 24（3） 21:6,6,12;24:5;\nYachtzoo（游艇动物园）（3） 49:21;50:7;53:17 19:4;92:24;94:16 76:17,21;81:20\n6:16;74:23;76:14 第14日（1） 25（3） 6:59（1）\n年（9） 5:1 13:5;17:21;94:23 68:11\n6:8;43:25;55:1,3,3; 15（2） 27（1）\n56:21;76:14;93:10,18 58:11;63:15 26:9 7\n年（8） 16（2） 28（6）\n5:5;8:6;55:1;92:25; 62:1;84:11 5:19;44:6,20,24; 7（2）\n93:6,9,17,18 17（5） 45:24;46:9 77:6;78:18\n昨天（1） 7:1;86:14;87:4; 728（1）\n16:13 89:10;93:7 3 61:24\nYork（约克）（17） 18（1）\n9:2,6,20;13:1,16; 7:22 3（3） 8\n53:8,9,11;54:16; 19（2） 43:18;76:5,9\n60:12;62:4,20;75:15; 68:2;93:20 30（10） 8（5）\n84:19;85:22;89:12; 57:9,10;58:6,11,14, 14:11;42:2,5;77:6;\n95:8 2 23;61:16;66:18; 81:11\n年轻的（1） 89:23;92:7\n8:10 2（11） 31（1） 9\nYoutube（优兔）（4） 21:5,10,13;26:6; 85:9\n17:14;21:7,17;23:3 31:24;72:3,4,6;73:11, 38（2） 9（4）\n20;81:7 48:13,23 78:23;85:25;86:3,6\nZ 2:00（1） 第9日（1）\n66:21 4 86:12\n零（2） 2:50（2）\n32:7;43:12 24:23;25:5 4:15（2）\n缩放（2） 20（7） 24:23;25:5\n85:7,22 7:1;60:8;62:19; 40（1）\n63:23;70:5,8;93:20 66:18\n1 2006（1） 40:31（1）\n43:7 71:25\n1（4） 2013（1） 40分钟（1）\n19:3;31:24;76:14; 13:5 71:21\n85:9 2014（1） 43:56（1）\n1:00（2） 43:10 72:11\n57:2;65:7 2015（5） 44分钟（1）\n10（2） 43:20,21;44:1,15; 72:16\n26:9;97:15 45:24 44秒（3）\n10:37（1） 2017（9） 71:6,13,18\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 132 of 269\n证据附件27\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho（梅利莎·M·卡瓦略）直线电话：212.589.4289 mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n2021年2月1日\n通过电子邮件（EMOSS@OMM.COM）\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯） O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所） Times Square Tower（时代广场大厦） 7 Times Square（时代广场7号） New York, NY 10036（纽约州纽约市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，案号：652077/2017\n\n尊敬的Eddie：\n\n为推进我们就原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.于2020年11月6日提出的第四套文件提交请求（“文件请求”）以及Kwok先生对此作出的答复和异议所进行的讨论，谨请以下内容记录我们迄今讨论的状况，并在必要时补充和／或修改Kwok先生的答复。\n\n第1项．Kwok先生继续坚持其对原告文件请求中通篇使用的“家庭成员”定义所提出的异议。具体而言，Kwok先生反对“家庭成员”的定义，因为该定义范围过宽、造成不当负担、超出CPLR §5229披露的范围，并且超出本法院2020年10月15日的裁决及命令（Dkt. No. 630）（“命令”）的范围；该命令授权就Sherry-Netherland（谢里－内瑟兰）住宅、Lady May（五月夫人）游艇及“Kwok先生可能直接或间接拥有的其他资产”进行证据开示。Kwok先生还反对“家庭成员”的定义，范围限于该定义试图将其无法控制的个人第三方纳入其中的程度。\n\n第2项．Kwok先生继续坚持其对原告文件请求中通篇使用的既定期间所提出的异议。具体而言，原告将相关期间界定如下：“除非另有说明，各项书面质询的适用期间为2008年1月1日起至提交之日止（包括该日）（以下简称‘期间’）。”Kwok先生反对该“期间”，因为其范围过宽、造成不当负担、超出CPLR §5229披露的范围，并且超出本法院的范围。\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯） 2021年2月1日 第2页\n\n法院命令的范围；该命令授权就Sherry-Netherland（谢里－内瑟兰）住宅、Lady May（五月夫人）游艇及“Kwok先生可能直接或间接拥有的其他资产”进行证据开示。为本次披露之目的，相关期间为2020年10月15日（CPLR §5229程序记载于案卷之日）至今，以识别Kwok先生“可能直接或间接拥有”且可用于满足判决书的任何资产。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 134 of 269\n\n- 3. 文件请求第8项：如我们已向您报告，Kwok先生答复称，其并未持有、保管或控制与Stephenson Wong（斯蒂芬森·黄）、Kingdom Rich（金德姆里奇）或英属维尔京群岛注册代理人有关的文件或通信。我们了解到，PAX已根据此项披露修订文件请求第8项，以寻求与William Je（杰威廉）就Kwok先生的任何资产、投资、银行账户、股票、权益或持股有关的文件及通信。Kwok先生正在核查其是否持有回应您修订后请求的文件或通信。\n\n- 4. 文件请求第10项：我们认为无需再讨论或处理其他问题，因为PAX未能为其认为Kwok先生对(c)至(i)所列账户享有所有权权益提供依据。\n\n- 5. 文件请求第12项：在不放弃Kwok先生对原告在其文件请求中界定的时间期间提出异议的前提下，Kwok先生将向原告提供其2019年纳税申报表。\n\n- 6. 文件请求第13项：在不放弃Kwok先生对原告在其文件请求中界定的时间期间提出异议的前提下，Kwok先生将向原告提供Genever实体的2019年纳税申报表。\n\n- 7. 文件请求第15项：我们了解到，PAX正在寻求任何本应与Kwok先生庇护申请有关而作出的资产／财务披露。我们此前已向您提及I-589表格，即《庇护及暂缓递解出境申请表》，该表格并不要求提供与申请人资产有关的任何信息。另请参见www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-gchapter-3；据移民律师向我们说明，该规定明确将庇护申请人排除在“公共负担”不准入境理由之外。Kwok先生答复称，其未就庇护申请提供任何资产／财务信息。\n\n- 8. 文件请求第16项：我们了解到，PAX愿意接受Kwok先生作出的“所有付款来源”说明，以代替提供文件。Kwok先生答复称，其在相关期间的开支由Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）支付。\n\n- 9. 文件请求第17项：我们将等待PAX提供拟议的电子检索关键词清单。\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯） 2021年2月1日 第3页\n\n10. 文件请求第18项：我们确认，Kwok先生并未持有、保管或控制回应请求所需的Bravo Luck（好运）和／或Genever文件。如其持有、保管或控制回应请求所需的文件，则将在该等文件并非与本案已提供文件重复的范围内予以提供。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：765 NYSCEF收到日期：04/28/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第135页，共269页\n\n- 11. 文件请求第19至22项：我们确认，Kwok先生并未持有、保管或控制回应请求所需的Bravo Luck和／或Genever文件。如其持有、保管或控制回应请求所需的文件，则将在该等文件并非与本案已提供文件重复的范围内予以提供。\n\n- 12. 关于文件请求第21项，您能否提供该请求中提及的信托协议副本？据我们获悉，Kwok先生仅持有该信托协议的一份副本，而且我们了解到该副本已提供给PAX。\n\n- 13. 文件请求第31项：我们现依照Kwok先生对PAX第29号书面质询所作、寻求同一披露内容的答复，修正对本请求的答复。1 如前所述，对本请求作出回应的文件此前已由The Sherry-Netherland, Inc.（谢里-尼德兰公司）在本诉讼中提供；任何进一步信息均需直接向Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.和／或Bravo Luck寻求。Kwok先生已找到与Itakura Nan Nan（板仓楠楠）签订的贷款协议，并将予以提供。\n\n- 14. 文件请求第35项：Kwok先生答复称，该信息不在其持有、保管或控制之下，需直接从Genever各实体取得。我们注意到，至少一家Genever实体已在其破产申请中披露其债务。The Sherry-Netherland此前在本案中提供的文件亦包含相关且回应请求的文件。\n\n- 15. 文件请求第36项：Kwok先生答复称，其并未保管、持有或控制回应请求所需的文件，并维持我们此前讨论过的立场，即本请求所列实体中其享有权益的仅有：Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）；Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）；以及Shiny Times Holdings, Ltd.（灿时控股有限公司）。2\n\n我将在获得进一步信息后与您联系。\n\n谨上，\n\n/s/ Melissa M. Carvalho（梅丽莎·M·卡瓦略）\n\n1 Kwok先生欠Itakura Nan Nan $27,000.00。Genever Holdings, LLC的下列债权人为：The Sherry-Netherland - $891,262.06；Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）- $67,500,000.00；Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. - $1,800,000.00；以及Qiang Guo（郭强）- $5,000,000.00。\n\n2 Shiny Times于2017年被中国政府查封。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 04/28/2021 10:54 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：765 NYSCEF收到日期：04/28/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第136页，共269页\n\nEdward Moss 2021年2月1日 第4页\n\nMelissa M. Carvalho\n\n案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第137页，共269页\n证据28\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：833 NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第138页，共269页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县\n民事庭\n第61部\n------------------------------------------X\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，\n案号：\n诉\n652077/2017\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 WENGUI（郭文贵），又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，及GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n被告。\n------------------------------------------X\nMICROSOFT TEAMS\n2021年5月27日\n出庭法官：\n尊敬的BARRY OSTRAGER（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官\n出庭人员：\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\nTimes Square Tower\nNew York, New York 10036\n代理律师：\nEDWARD MOSS，ESQ.\nSTUART SARNOFF，ESQ.\nBAKER HOSTETLER, LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n被告代理律师\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n代理律师：\nMELISSA CARVALHO，ESQ.\nJOHN SIEGAL，ESQ.\nLAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC\n被告GENEVER的代理律师\n162 E. 64th Street\nNew York, New York 10065\n代理律师：\nAARON A. MITCHELL，ESQ.\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：833 NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第139页，共269页\n\n1 YANKWITT\nLLP\n\n2 被告\n代理律师\n\nGrand\nStreet，Suite\n\n3 New\nYork，New\nYork\nNY\n代理律师：\nDANIEL\nALTER\nESQ.\n\n21 Karen\nMangano，CSR\n22 高级法庭记录员\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017\nNYSCEF文件编号：833 NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第140页，共269页\n\n庭审记录\n\n1 法院：好的。Moss先生，这是你方的\n2 动议。\n3 MOSS先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n4 我们的动议中有两项请求。一项是\n5 强制就传票作出证据开示，另一项是\n6 修改法院的限制令。因此，我想\n7 先从传票谈起。\n8 法官阁下，这可能是我在本案中\n9 于本法院面前辩论过的最直接明了的问题。\n10 CPLR允许针对任何第三方进行广泛的\n11 证据开示，以请求与\n12 判决执行相关的信息。\n13 如法院所知，我们一直被迫——我的当事人\n14 一直被迫向若干第三方送达传票，\n15 试图查找Kwok先生的资产，因为他并未以\n16 自己名义持有这些资产。\n17 也许Pacific Alliance送达的最重要传票\n18 是向一家名为Golden\n19 Springs的实体送达的传票。\n20 Golden Springs是所谓Kwok先生家族的\n21 家族办公室，但实际上，它不过是Kwok先生的\n22 主要幌子。该实体完全由他以\n23 自己的资金出资。该实体支付其奢侈生活方式的\n24 全部费用。每一笔费用，\n25 都是如此，据其自身承认。它支付众多\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017\nNYSCEF文件编号：833 NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第141页，共269页\n\n庭审记录\n\n1 诉讼中的律师费，用于由律师代表Kwok先生以其\n2 个人身份参与案件，而Golden\n3 Springs甚至不是该等案件的当事人。\n4 它支付代表拥有该游艇的实体之律师的\n5 律师费；该实体与其他实体一样，在证据开示中\n6 对我方百般阻挠。\n7 它支付Sherry-Netherland\n8 公寓的维护费用。我们知道这一切，是因为Kwok先生及其\n9 律师在法庭提交文件和证据开示\n10 答复中承认了这些事实。\n11 我只是想把这一点说得更明确些，法官阁下。\n12 按Kwok先生自己的说法，他没有钱或资产，但他\n13 称自己为这个实体提供了全部资金，并利用它支付\n14 自己的每一笔费用、生活开支。\n15 法官，我们在谈什么？根据CPLR，这种证据开示\n16 怎么可能不被允许？它如何会与执行\n17 判决无关而不被允许？\n18 他们提交的反对意见，法官阁下，是一份\n19 毫无根据的文件，我想先从其中没有\n20 包含的内容说起。其中没有的是，对我刚才\n21 讲述的任何关于Golden Springs事实的争议。他们\n22 对所有这些事实置之不理。他们无法争议，因为Kwok先生及其\n23 律师在证据开示答复和法庭\n24 提交文件中承认了这些事实。因此，Golden Springs——\n25 他们的一项论点是，好吧，我们有公司文件。我们尊重\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第142页，共269页\n\nNYSCEF文件编号：833 NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021\n\n庭审记录\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 公司形式。我们有雇员。但其并不否认，它只有一项业务，即服务于Kwok阁下。除作为其业务的家族办公室外，它甚至没有说明该业务是什么。他们说我们有雇员，其中包括安保人员。那就是Kwok先生的保镖，他在我对Kwok先生进行证言录取时，随他来到我的办公室，并递给他瓶装水，因为他担心我们是共产党的特工，担心我律所里的水会杀死他。我的意思是，法官，这不是一家真正的公司。他们为Kwok先生的人支付费用。如果Tim Cook（蒂姆·库克）因与其在Apple（苹果公司）任职无关的事情被起诉，Apple不会支付那些费用。Apple不会支付他的维护费用。这是Kwok先生用自己的钱设立的存钱罐。Golden Spring提交文件中的主要论点是，Golden Springs是第三方，因此我们\n\n应当仅有权获得其为Miles Kwok持有的资产或其与Miles Kwok进行的交易的信息。\n20 21 22 23 24 25 这基本上就像是在说它是一家银行；对吧。你们明白，我们传唤银行——我们已经这样做了。我们获得Kwok先生的信息，但不会获得该银行本身的信息。我们不会获得该银行其他客户的信息。对于一家银行而言，这是个不错的论点，但它完全忽视了Golden Springs并非一家\n\nKM\n已提交：纽约县书记员 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017\nNYSCEF文件编号：833 NYSCEF收到日期：06/01/2021 案件22-50073 文件183-4 提交日期04/06/22 登记日期04/06/22 17:07:45 第143页，共269页\n法官。\n\n财务信息。\n\n审理记录\n\n第三方。它是持有郭先生资金的实体，也是支付其法律费用的实体。因此，它的资产就是他的资产。它的交易就是他的交易。它的财务信息就是他的财务信息。书面材料中提出的建议，即郭先生、Wang 女士（王女士）以及他的所有人员应能够挑选并决定 Golden Springs（金泉）中的哪些信息与郭先生有关、哪些无关，在本案中将导致灾难。郭先生甚至否认与金泉有关联。他否认与拥有该游艇的实体有关联，而我们都知道他拥有该游艇，因为他在 YouTube 上说过他拥有该游艇。\n\n顺便说一句，该游艇仍在本司法管辖区之外已达 15 天，且每天产生 \\$500,000 的费用。\n\n郭先生也是同一个否认拥有其公寓的人，而 Wang 女士曾在宣誓后向法院称他拥有该公寓。\n\n因此，他们试图在此施加的限制，即仅限于与郭先生有关的事项，在本案中毫无道理，只会导致我们一无所获。\n\n22 23 24 25 金泉还就传票主张，我们必须证明其为另一个自我，才能对其资产进行证据开示。嗯，这完全是凭空捏造。没有任何判例支持这一点。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 144 of 269\n\n审理记录\n\n这是一个宽泛的标准。这是一个宽松的标准。法院命令银行提供 Wang 女士的信息。它们并非另一个自我。她并非另一个自我。当然，我们无需证明其为另一个自我，才能获得其信息。法院认定 Wang 女士可能在隐匿郭先生的资产，并允许我们获取她的财务信息。这要容易得多。他已经说过那是他的钱，而且他正用其支付自己的全部费用。我的意思是，对这项动议不存在可信的反对理由。\n\n最后，还有一些关于范围的论点。你知道，我读了几遍。我的传票令人震惊。它是大而化之的。它是一次钓鱼式取证。它是公然的。大量形容词，但没有实质内容。他们根本没有提出任何负担方面的论点。通常你会说，法官，我们用了若干搜索词，命中结果太多；或者因为这些信息在另一台服务器上，获取起来负担过重。什么也没有。这基本上只是一个关联性论点，即我们要求得太多。如果他们想讨论搜索词、保管人以及应收集哪些笔记本电脑，我们欢迎这种讨论。我们欢迎就负担和范围进行真正的讨论。但不能只是说，我们认为这太多了，而完全没有任何说明——没有任何说明表明\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 145 of 269\n\n审理记录\n\n存在实际负担。\n\n我想就传票问题中的一个特定论点作结，因为我预计 Alter 先生（奥尔特）会着重讨论它。我们请求——确实请求。他说得对。我们要求提供有关 60 名人员和实体的信息，这些人员和实体无人知晓与郭先生有关联。\n\nAlter 先生在其书面陈述中讥讽道，嗯，由谁知晓？由谁知晓？法官，由我们知晓。我们通过花费大量金钱和时间查阅公共记录、法院提交文件和社交媒体账户而知晓，因为这是郭先生迫使我们参与的游戏。\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 我们必须要求提供这些信息的原因是，金泉是枢纽。我们不能在余生中追查 100 个实体。我的意思是，我的孙辈都得继续做这件事。金泉是掌握这些信息的实体。它已出示与 Shiny Times（闪亮时报）有关的文件，该实体涉入了基础案件。它拥有这些文件。它是这个帝国的枢纽。如果它没有关于其中几个实体的信息，如果我们对其中一两个判断错误，好，没问题。那么，他们应当运行搜索并告诉我们他们没有这些信息，而不予出示。但应运行搜索词，收集 ESI，并提供文件。\n\n24 25 法院：好的，Moss 先生（莫斯）。我理解你的论点。我也理解郭先生正在产生\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 146 of 269\n\n审理记录\n\n1 每天 \\$500,000 的藐视法庭罚金。我理解郭先生认为这些法院程序是一场规避责任的游戏，他——他想要玩这场游戏。\n\n4 现在让我听取金泉代理律师的意见。\n\n5 ALTER 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Daniel Alter（丹尼尔·奥尔特），我们刚刚听到许多说法，但其中相对很少是真实情况。我想退一步，澄清一些被严重混淆的问题。\n\n9 首先，为纠正两项具体不准确的陈述，据我所知，郭先生从未说过他与金泉完全无关或毫无联系。恰恰相反。他说这是他的家族办公室。因此，让我们在这一点上保持准确。\n\n15 第二件事是，显然\n\n16 他们的立场是郭先生完全出资资助了金泉。嗯，我没有看到这方面的证据。我所看到的是记录中的一项陈述，即他最初向金泉提供了资本，但我没有看到任何证据表明他一直在继续这样做，或目前其中的资本是他的。让我退一步谈谈这个问题。\n\n22 法院：在你这样做之前，Alter 先生，因为无论对错，郭先生的种种行径已经耗尽了法院的耐心。\n\n25 毫无争议的是，金泉已经\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 147 of 269\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021\n\n为便利郭先生的生活方式支付了七位数款项，而郭先生过着相当奢华的生活方式，却声称自己完全没有资产。\n\n因此，原告是判决债权人。原告知道金泉正在为郭先生支付费用。并非无关紧要的小额费用，而是重大费用。判决债权人有权对为郭先生支付费用的实体进行证据开示。\n\n审理记录\n\n判决债权人还有权获得一项命令，指示金泉不得转移、处分或以其他方式耗散金泉拥有的任何资产，因为提交给法院的最佳证据有力地表明，金泉拥有的任何资产均由郭先生提供给金泉。\n\n现在，如果判决债权人向金泉寻求的证据开示推翻了这一点，那么，我们面临的情况就会与目前的情况不同。\n\n18 19 20 21 22 根据 CPLR，判决债权人有权对第三方进行证据开示，而在本案中，这些第三方很可能是郭先生的另一个自我；但判决债权人无须证明金泉是郭先生的另一个自我。\n\n23 24 25 ALTER 先生：法官阁下，我们并没有——那不是我们的立场。那是被提出的稻草人论证。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 148 of 269\n\n审理记录\n\n法院：嗯，不管怎样，除非你能说服我作出不同判断，我将全数准许判决债权人的动议。如 Moss 先生所概述，如果你能够向他说明正当理由，他完全准备好进行协商会议，并讨论对其所提出的具体请求施加限制。但我们已经不能再玩游戏了。\n\nALTER 先生：嗯，法官阁下，我不是来玩游戏的；如果法院已经作出决定，能否允许我作出记录。\n\n法院：可以。作出你的记录。\n\nALTER 先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。首先，我们的论点并不是，为使判决债权人根据 CPLR 获得第三方证据开示，就必须揭开公司面纱。这是一个关联性论点，而且我们已经说过，例如金泉与实际判决债务人之间的证据开示，是相关且适当的。因此，我们\n\n并未采取任何与法律规定完全不符的立场。\n\n21 22 23 24 25 我们所说的，以及 Moss 先生在其论证中所证明的，是他们的立场是郭先生就是金泉，金泉就是郭先生；因此，他们有权翻查金泉的全部文件。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 149 of 269\n\n审理记录\n\n嗯，法官阁下，这就叫作揭开公司面纱；我们的立场是，如果他们想要取得与判决债务人无关的文件，而他们完全没有建立关联或尝试建立关联，那么，是的，他们确实必须揭开公司面纱，但这并非我们论点的全部。\n\n我们的论点是，这些请求极其宽泛，而且不具关联性。事实上，让我们暂且看看 Moss 先生所称本案中压倒性的事实。\n\n如果你看本动议中实际提交的材料，关于他们寻求对 64 名非当事人进行证据开示，绝对没有提出任何事实表明这些非当事人与判决债务人有任何关系。甚至——甚至与金泉也没有任何关系。他们只是想对 64 名非当事人进行证据开示。\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 现在，法官阁下，我们听到 Moss 先生说他知道存在关联。嗯，在作出金泉必须提供原本明显无关文件的裁定之前，让法院知道这种关联是什么，难道不会有所启发吗？这就是为什么我们主张，除非且直到 Moss 先生和 PAX（PAX）提出存在关联的实际证据，否则不应对这些文件进行证据开示。我们没有这类证据。\n\n而且，关于所谓压倒性的证据——\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833 NYSCEF 接收日期：06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 150 of 269\n\n审理记录\n\n1 证明金泉就是郭先生、郭先生就是金泉的压倒性证据，至少根据我所见的记录，法官阁下，我并不质疑法官阁下的既往——历史记忆，但在本记录中所提交的是，金泉最初曾帮助为一家公司提供资本。很多人都会这样做。\n\n7 第二，金泉支付律师费用，并曾出资支付公寓费用。嗯，好吧。\n\n9 第三，金泉的员工曾处理与郭氏家族有关的家族事务。嗯，这是一家家族公司。这是一个家族办公室。\n\n12 而且，金泉的母公司显然已就证据开示请求出示文件。因此，正如郭先生所说，确实存在关联，但郭先生与金泉之间并不存在实体同一性；这就是为什么我们在书面材料中提到，如果情况确实如此，法律非常明确，他们确实需要揭开公司面纱；而且，为获得禁令，他们绝对需要揭开公司面纱。因为如我们所述，尽管法院已经失去耐心，而我理解法官阁下的立场，法律明确规定，作为正当程序问题，未经实际成为当事人，不得对一个实体发布禁令。\n\n24 即使一个实体作为当事人被纳入诉讼，法院也受到限制。它们可以\n\nKM\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：833 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 151 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n不授予判决前资产冻结，而这正是 PAX 正试图做的事情。他们正试图禁止 Golden Spring（金泉）为任何目的支出其自身的任何资产，这与法律相悖。现在，他们主张，法官阁下有权执行限制令。当然，您有此权力。Golden Spring 已被送达一项限制令，且如果其转让郭文贵先生对其享有权益的任何财产，Golden Spring 将自行承担风险；但法院对限制通知的执行并不等同于禁令。这是在事后基于有人被指控违反该通知而进行的诉讼。两者是完全不同的事项。因此，法官阁下，恭敬地说，既不存在作出该禁令的管辖权依据，也不存在令人信服的事实依据，因为他们已经获得了《CPLR》所规定的救济。\n\n现在，如果法院将如法官阁下所述继续作出某些命令，我请求几项事项，即几项澄清。\n\n首先，我们请求法院要求 PAX 提供保证金。命令 PAX 提供保证金。他们请求禁止 Golden Spring 使用其任何资产。根据 CPLR 6312(b)，保证金是初步救济的必要要件。因此，我们请求法院指令提供保证金。我们还请求澄清，在本辖区内，Golden Spring 是否可以支付律师费用？其是否可以支付员工薪酬？Moss 先生轻视该公司实际上雇用了员工和七名独立承包商这一事实。他们是否无权继续这样做？他们是否需要——该禁令是否将关闭 Golden Spring？我们需要这一澄清，因为 Golden Spring 不希望违反法官阁下的命令。最后，法官阁下，我谨请求暂缓执行法院命令一周，以便我们可以寻求上诉救济并申请在上诉期间暂缓执行。但鉴于这是一个节假日周末，我们请求法院暂缓执行，因为如我所说，Golden Spring 不希望违反本法院的命令；但基于我已陈述的所有理由，坦率地说，法官阁下，请求的救济是基于 Moss 先生以法官、陪审团和行刑者的身份所主张的事实。他们尚未被提交。他们尚未经裁判。他们尚未被正式认定，而所有这些对于将救济延及 Golden Spring、排除其独立身份、取得其所欲取得的任何文件并禁止其全部资产的此类救济而言，均属必要。这是法律所要求的。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我已听取你方意见。你方所说的任何内容均未表明 Golden Springs（金泉公司）在最近一段时期没有支付郭文贵先生价值七位数的费用。你方所说的任何内容均未改变郭文贵先生随意藐视法院命令这一事实。你方说得对，PAX 需要提供 $500,000 的保证金。你方说得对，我应当将这些命令暂缓执行至 June 1st 下午五时，以便你方寻求上诉救济；你方也说得对，Golden Spring 可以依照一份列明员工身份及其报酬数额、并由你方向 Moss 先生提供的清单支付员工薪酬。我认为这解决了你方的关切。\n\nALTER 先生：法官阁下，有一项例外，我感谢法院对这些关切的回应。律师。Golden Springs 今日获准支付费用的律师。\n\n法院：不存在问题。只需确认律师身份以及你方支付给他们的费用。\n\nALTER 先生：好的。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：833 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 154 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法院：而且，你知道，我注意到，郭文贵先生显然并不在意因公然违反法院此前有关 Golden Springs 支付维护及运输费用的船只的命令而被处以每天 $500,000 的制裁。如果我的计算正确，截至目前藐视法庭制裁的总额为 $7.5 million。郭文贵先生无权居住在纽约的一套超豪华公寓中，该公寓费用由 Golden Springs 支付，同时无视纽约法院的程序。现在还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：法官阁下，我是 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。我代表 Genever（吉尼弗）被告。仅作一点澄清。\n\n如法官阁下十分清楚，拥有该合作公寓的 Genever New York（吉尼弗纽约）正在破产程序中，因此 Golden Spring 并未支付该公寓的维护费。我相信 Moss 先生也知道，已支付了一笔保证金，保证人正从中支取；我只是希望为记录明确这一点。\n\n法院：这是公平且适当的澄清。\n\n这并不改变以下事实：在 Genever——即郭文贵先生众多公司中的另一家——破产之前，该公司一直在支付郭文贵先生豪华公寓的费用。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：833 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 155 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\nMoss 先生多年来一直在寻求执行一项判决书，而不幸的是，我不得不主持这许多、许多、许多动议和听证会；这些动议和听证会均未产生法院所命令的结果，因为郭文贵先生直接或间接通过其公司无视法院命令。\n\n但 Golden Springs 推定将遵守法院命令，而且 Golden Springs 可以在明天、今天或 June 1 向上诉分庭申请暂缓执行。如果上诉分庭暂缓执行法院命令，则该法院命令将被暂缓执行。\n\n否则，法院期望 Golden Springs 遵守法院命令，但以 PAX 提供 $500,000 保证金为前提，以防认定此处存在任何越权；并以 Golden Springs 能够依照该清单向已确认的律师和已确认的员工付款为前提。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：法官阁下，我是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我可否请求一项澄清？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：PAX 提供保证金的义务，是否具体涉及您今日裁决中限制令的部分？\n\n法院：是。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：并且是单独的——所以并不存在——\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号：652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：833 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 156 页，共\n\n庭审记录\n\n法院：就限制令而言。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：那么，对于 Golden Spring 遵守传票的义务，并无暂缓执行。对吗？\n\n法院：正确。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：谢谢，阁下。\n\n法院：还有其他人有其他事项吗？好的。法院将作出一份与今日庭审记录一致的备忘录命令。我强烈敦促律师订购今日庭审记录的加急副本，以便在 Golden Springs 向上诉分庭申请暂缓执行时，有一份明确的记录反映法院所作出的命令。祝各位今日愉快、周末愉快。各位注意安全，谢谢。\n\n兹证明本记录系本程序所作原始记录的真实准确副本。\n\n______________________________\nKAREN MANGANO（凯伦·曼加诺），CSR\n高级法庭记录员\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 157 页，共 269 页\n\n证物 29\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：846 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/21/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 158 页，共 269 页\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）\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，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n\n第 61 审判庭—\n\n动议序号：__\n\n被告。\n\n支持原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 申请针对被告 MILES KWOK 作出交付命令并指定接管人的法律备忘录\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：846 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/21/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 159 页，共 269 页\n\n目录\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述\n\n背景\n\n论证 3\n\n一、法院应命令郭文贵交付其在 Genever BVI 的股份。 3\n\n二、法院应指令郭文贵签署转让文书。 5\n\nA. 法院还应指令郭文贵将已签署的转让文书发送给 Intertrust（信托国际），以确保成员名册得到更新。 5\n\nB. 法院应命令郭文贵签署并交付一项公司决议，指示 Intertrust 更新成员名册。\n\nC. 法院应就郭文贵在 Genever BVI 的股份指定接管人。\n\n三、郭文贵预期提出的“抗辩”毫无根据 8\n\nA. Genever NY 可疑的破产与 PAX 所请求的救济无关。\n\nB. 郭文贵可预见地假称其儿子通过 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）系 Genever 实体及该住宅的受益所有人，实属轻率。 9\n\n结论 10\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号：652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：846 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/21/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期：04/06/22 录入日期：04/06/22 17:07:45 第 160 页，共\n\n引证目录 269\n\n页码\n\n判例\n\n856 Eighth, LLC（第八大道856号有限责任公司）诉 Pizza Pasta Etc., Corp（披萨意面等公司），\nIndex No. 2020 161413/2019, WL 3451892 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 24, 2020) 7\n\nAdelaide Prods., Inc.（阿德莱德产品公司）诉 BKN Int'l AG（BKN国际股份公司），\n39 A.D.3d 254 (1st Dep't 2007) 6\n\nAP MA Funding, LLC（AP MA融资有限责任公司）诉 Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC（富国清算服务有限责任公司），\nNo. 150755/2020, 2020 WL 2219962 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 7, 2020) 5\n\nBlue Citi LLC（蓝城有限责任公司）诉 5Barz Int'l Inc.（5Barz国际公司），\nNo. 16-CV-9027, 2019 WL 6976972 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2019) 9, 10\n\nColfin Bulls Funding B, LLC（科尔芬公牛融资B有限责任公司）诉 Ampton Invs., Inc.（安普顿投资公司），\nNo. 151885/2015, 2018 WL 7051063 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018) 5, 6\n\nDaum Glob. Holdings Corp.（多姆全球控股公司）诉 Ybrant Digital Ltd.（伊布兰特数字有限公司），\nNo. 13-CV-3135, 2018 WL 2122816 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2018) 10\n\nFresh Meadow Food Servs., LLC（新草甸食品服务有限责任公司）\n诉\nR.B. 175 Corp.（R.B. 175公司），\nNo. 12528/2011, 2011 WL 6989896 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 18, 2011) 9\n\nGowen（高文）诉 Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc.（赫利·纳赫马德画廊公司），\n60 Misc. 3d 963 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), aff'd, 169 A.D.3d 580 (1st Dep't 2019) 6\n\nGryphon Dom. VI, LLC（格里芬国内VI有限责任公司）诉 APP Int'l Fin. Co.（APP国际金融公司），\n41 A.D.3d 25 (1st Dep't 2007) 6, 7\n\nHotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC（71酒店夹层贷款人有限责任公司）诉 Falor（法洛尔），\n926 N.E.2d 1202 (N.Y. 2010) 9\n\nIn re Bray Enterprises, Inc.（关于布雷企业公司案），\n38 B.R. 75 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984) 11\n\nKoehler（克勒）诉 Bank of Bermuda Ltd.（百慕大银行有限公司），\n12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009) 5, 6\n\nLeo（莱奥）诉 LD Holdings, Inc.（LD控股公司），\n150 A.D.3d 620 (1st Dep't 2017) 6\n\nLSQ Funding Grp., L.C.（LSQ融资集团有限责任公司）诉 Werther（韦特），\nNo. 650390/2017, 2018 WL 3385045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 11, 2018) 7, 8\n\nMotorola Credit Corp.（摩托罗拉信贷公司）诉 Uzan（乌赞），\n739 F. Supp. 2d 636 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 7\n\nMuhl（穆尔）诉 Ardra Ins. Co.（阿德拉保险公司），\n246 A.D.2d 413 (1st Dep't 1998) 7\n\nNinth Ave. Realty, LLC（第九大道房地产有限责任公司）诉 Guenancia（盖南西亚），\nNo. 102725/10, 2013 WL 9528299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 6, 2013) 6\n\nSpotnana, Inc.（斯波特纳纳公司）诉 Am. Talent Agency, Inc.（美国人才经纪公司），\nNo. 09-CV-3698, 2013 WL 227546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) 10\n\n判例目录（续）NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 161 of 269\n页码\n\nUdel（尤德尔）\n诉\nUdel（尤德尔），\n370 N.Y.S.2d 426 (Civ. Ct. 1975) 9\n\nUnited States（美国）诉 Zitron（齐特龙），\nNo. 80-CV-6535, 1990 WL 13278 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 1990) 9\n\n规则\n\nCPLR 5201 6\n\nCPLR 5225 多处引用\n\nCPLR 5233 9\n\nCPLR 6202 6\n\n初步陈述\n\n被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵，下称“Kwok”）对于本院数月前对其作出的逾 \\$116 million 判决，至今未向原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，下称“PAX”）支付一分钱。恰恰相反，正如PAX此前向本院提交的文件所述，Kwok竭尽全力阻挠PAX执行该判决，包括为其持有 Sherry-Netherland Residence（雪利-尼德兰住所）的纽约空壳公司提出存疑的破产申请（Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），即“Genever NY”）；公然藐视本院命令，将其游艇“Lady May”置于本辖区之外；以及对PAX合法的、与追偿有关的证据开示工作加以阻挠，并使其关联人士及空壳公司同样加以阻挠。\n\n如PAX已极为详尽地表明，Kwok规避判决的主要策略之一，是将其资产隐匿于由家庭成员和下属持有的空壳公司中，同时声称自己实际上身无分文，却又可随时动用数百万美元，以资助其奢靡生活方式及巨额法律费用。事实上，针对PAX的判决后证据开示请求，Kwok曾表示——在就针对其的据报联邦刑事调查援引《美国宪法第五修正案》之前1——其持有的唯一有价值资产，是其对被告 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司，下称“Genever BVI”）的100%权益；该公司注册于 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）。2\n\n根据明确的纽约州法律，PAX有权要求交付Kwok的资产，包括其在如Genever BVI等外国商业实体中持有的股份，以执行其针对Kwok的判决（至少其中的一部分）。因此，如下文详述，PAX依据 [CPLR 5225] 和 [5228] 提出本动议，请求本院作出命令：(i) 指示Kwok交付与其对Genever BVI的100%所有权有关的全部股票证书；(ii) 指示Kwok签署一份股份转让文书，据此将其持有的Genever BVI股份转让给PAX或其指定人；(iii) 指示Kwok将已签署的股份转让文书发送给Genever BVI的注册代理人；(iv) 指示Kwok签署并向Genever BVI的注册代理人交付一项公司决议，指示更新Genever BVI的成员名册，以反映新的100%所有权（以确保在注册代理人须接到指令方可更新Genever BVI成员名册的情况下完成更新）；以及 (v) 为Kwok持有的Genever BVI股份指定接管人，包括授予其下列权限：(a) 指示Genever BVI的注册代理人更新Genever BVI的成员名册，以反映PAX或其指定人为唯一合法所有人；以及 (b) 行使与Genever BVI全部股份有关的表决权。\n\n1 [Dkt. No. 760.] 2 Genever BVI是据称已“破产”的Genever NY的100%母公司，而后者拥有该住所。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 163 of 269\n\n背景\n\n2021年2月3日，法院书记官对Kwok登记金额为 \\$116,402,019.57 的判决（下称“该判决”）。在试图执行该判决时——该判决迄今仍完全未获支付，且正按9%的判决后利率计息——PAX向Kwok送达了证据开示请求，其中包括一项询问，要求其识别“其拥有或自 January 1, 2015 起曾拥有权益的、价值超过 \\$10,000 的任何资产”。3 尽管Kwok自称为亿万富翁，并设法为其豪华住所提供资金，且在多起诉讼中为代理其本人及其关联空壳企业的众多高收费律师提供资金，他仅确认了一项资产，答复称：“我系 Genever Holdings Corporation 已发行股份的合法所有人。Genever Holdings Corporation 是 Genever Holdings, LLC 的唯一股东；后者是其唯一资产。”4 Kwok在判决后承认其拥有Genever BVI，这与本院审理PAX判决前扣押动议时已有的证据记录一致；该证据记录包括：(i) Yvette Wang（王悦）代表Kwok提交的宣誓书，其中她宣誓称“Kwok先生是Genever BVI的唯一股东”，并附上Genever BVI的成员名册，“确认Kwok先生是其唯一股东”；5 以及 (ii) Sherry-Netherland向PAX出具的文件，该等文件将Kwok列为Genever BVI的唯一股东，Sherry-Netherland是在Kwok申请购买该住所时从Kwok处收到该等文件的。6\n\n3 [Dkt. No. 756] at 9.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 164 of 269\n\nGenever Holdings, LLC，即其唯一资产。4 Kwok在判决后承认其拥有Genever BVI，这与本院审理PAX判决前扣押动议时已有的证据记录一致；该证据记录包括：(i) Yvette Wang代表Kwok提交的宣誓书，其中她宣誓称“Kwok先生是Genever BVI的唯一股东”，并附上Genever BVI的成员名册，“确认Kwok先生是其唯一股东”；5 以及 (ii) Sherry-Netherland向PAX出具的文件，该等文件将Kwok列为Genever BVI的唯一股东，Sherry-Netherland是在Kwok申请购买该住所时从Kwok处收到该等文件的。6\n\n论证\n\n一、本院应命令Kwok交付其持有的Genever BVI股份。\n\nCPLR第52条授权判决债权人提出动议，强制交付判决债务人的资产。参见 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 12 N.Y.3d 533, 537 (2009)。\n\n[CPLR 5225(a)] 规定：\n\n经判决债权人提出动议……如证明判决债务人占有或保管其享有权益的金钱或其他动产，法院应命令判决债务人向判决债权人支付该笔金钱，或其中足以清偿判决的部分；如拟支付的金额不足以清偿判决，则应向指定的治安官交付任何其他动产，或其中价值足以清偿判决的部分。（着重号为原文所加。）\n\n正如本院近期认定，[CPLR 5225]“适用于股票以及金钱。”AP MA Funding, LLC v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, No. 150755/2020, 2020 WL 2219962, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 7, 2020) (Ostrager, J.). 因此，Kwok持有的Genever BVI“公司股份构成受第52条所规定执行程序约束的动产。”Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., No. 151885/2015, 2018 WL 7051063, at *6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018); 另见 Ninth Ave. Realty, LLC v. Guenancia, No. 102725/10, 2013 WL 9528299, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 6, 2013). 根据 [CPLR 5225(a)]，Genever BVI股票“证书即使目前未位于纽约，也必须交付”，Kwok“必须采取一切必要行动……将该等股票带至纽约，以便予以交付。”Colfin, 2018 WL 7051063, at *7（援引 Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co., 41 A.D.3d 25, 31 (1st Dep't 2007)）；另见 Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc., 60 Misc. 3d 963, 980 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), aff'd, 169 A.D.3d 580 (1st Dep't 2019)（“纽约州法律的一项总体原则是，如对当事人具有对人管辖权，则任何一方不得将其资产藏匿于纽约州外，从而使在纽约取得的任何判决无法执行。”）；Koehler, 12 N.Y.3d at 541（“对被告具有对人管辖权的纽约法院，可以命令其交付州外财产……”）。诸如公司股份等无形资产，可依据 [CPLR 5225] 予以交付，因为其既是“可以让与或转让的财产”，[CPLR 5201]，也是“可以据以执行金钱判决的财产”，[CPLR 6202]。7\n\n即使Genever BVI是州外公司，交付亦属适当。参见，例如，Leo v. LD Holdings, Inc., 150 A.D.3d 620, 620 (1st Dep't 2017)（维持命令交付州外公司股份的裁定）；Adelaide Prods., Inc. v. BKN Int'l AG, 39 A.D.3d 254, 255 (1st Dep't 2007)（“[德国公司的]未发行股票证书受CPLR 5225项下交付程序约束”）；Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 739 F. Supp. 2d 636, 641 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)（“针对判决债务人作出的交付命令，对资产有效，不论其所在地为何。”）。\n\n7 未遵守依据 [CPLR 5225] 作出的法院交付命令，可能导致施加藐视法庭制裁。参见 Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co., 58 A.D.3d 498, 499 (1st Dep't 2009)（判决债务人因未遵守一项要求其清偿判决、交付股票证书、将其子公司的所有权转让给判决债权人并向债权人交付银行账户的命令，而被认定构成民事藐视法庭）。\n\n二、本院应给予实现交付所必需的额外附随救济。\n\nA. 本院应指示Kwok签署股份转让文书。\n\n根据英属维尔京群岛法律，转让股份所有权的第一步是由股份所有人签署一份“股份转让文书”。（Willins Aff. ¶ 4。）\n\n根据 CPLR 第 52 条，法院有权命令 Kwok（郭文贵）签署一份股份转让文书，因为其“可以命令任何人签署并交付为实现付款或交付所必需的任何文件。”CPLR 5225(c); see also Gryphon, 41 A.D.3d at 35（裁定“IAS 法院……本应命令[判决债务人]签署转让所有权权益的文件”，且“应要求判决债务人签署适当文书”）；LSQ Funding Grp., L.C. v. Werther, No. 650390/2017, 2018 WL 3385045, at *2 n.2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 11, 2018)（说明法院“显然有权根据 CPLR § 5225(c) 命令[判决债务人]签署一份简单的[文件]”——这将导致将财产移交给判决债权人 PAX）；Muhl v. Ardra Ins. Co., 246 A.D.2d 413, 413 (1st Dep't 1998)（“可对债务责任已经确定的一方作出根据 CPLR 5225(c) 签署……文件的命令。”）；856 Eighth, LLC v. Pizza Pasta Etc., Corp., Index No. 161413/2019, 2020 WL 3451892, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 24, 2020)（同上）。法院在本案中应当如此做。\n\nB. 法院还应指示 Kwok 将已签署的股份转让文书发送给 Intertrust，以确保成员名册得到更新。\n\n根据英属维尔京群岛法律，转让公司所有权的下一步是更新公司的成员名册；这可由公司的注册代理人完成——在 Genever BVI（吉尼弗 BVI）的情形中，即 Intertrust Corporate Services (BVI) Limited（Intertrust Corporate Services（BVI）有限公司，以下简称“Intertrust”）完成。（Willins Aff. ¶¶ 5–6。）为实现此目的，法院应指示 Kwok“将[已签署的股份转让文书]发送给”Intertrust，以便其更新 Genever BVI 的成员名册，使其反映该转让的条款。LSQ Funding, 2018 WL 3385045 at *2 n.2（指示判决债务人将辞职信发送给乡村俱乐部，从而导致可扣押的会员保证金被释放）。法院根据 CPLR 享有此项权力。See id.; see also Gryphon, 41 A.D.3d at 35（“法院……可运用 CPLR 5225(c) 命令债务人签署并交付”文件给第三方，以实现资产移交。）(citing Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. ¶ 5225.21)（着重号为后加）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 846 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 167 of 269\n\nC. 法院应命令 Kwok 签署并交付一份指示 Intertrust 更新成员名册的公司决议。\n\n在 Kwok 签署并交付股份转让文书后，Intertrust 可能会寻求指示，授权更新成员名册以反映新的所有权。（Willins Aff. ¶ 7。）在该情形下，Intertrust 将接受由 Kwok 以 Genever BVI 唯一董事身份签署的公司决议，8 指示 Intertrust 根据股份转让文书更新成员名册。（Id.）根据 CPLR 5225(c)，并基于上文第 II.A–B 节所述的全部理由，法院可指示 Kwok 签署公司决议并将该文件发送给 Intertrust。PAX（PAX 公司）谨请求法院命令 Kwok 如此做，以顾及 Intertrust 可能要求此类指示的可能性。\n\n8 See Dkt. No. 289 at SN 0163（显示“Mr Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）”为 Genever BVI 的唯一董事）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 846 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 168 of 269\n\nD. 法院应为 Kwok 所持 Genever BVI 股份指定一名接管人。\n\n根据 CPLR 5225(a)，向治安官移交财产（例如公司股份）“必须仅为出售以清偿判决之目的而进行”。Udel v. Udel, 370 N.Y.S.2d 426, 428 (Civ. Ct. 1975) (citing CPLR 5233; N.Y. Civ. Prac., Weinstein-Korn-Miller, Sec. 5225.06)。但是，由于 Genever BVI 股份“缺乏可交易性”，以及“难以确定[其]真实价值，不大可能通过向治安官移交 [原文如此] 而实现判决的清偿”。Udel, 370 N.Y.S.2d at 428。在本案此类情形中，CPLR 5228 规定可指定一名接管人收取财产——即 Genever BVI 股份——并采取“旨在清偿判决”的行动。See also Fresh Meadow Food Servs., LLC v. R.B. 175 Corp., No. 12528/2011, 2011 WL 6989896, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 18, 2011)（法院可“指定一名接管人管理、收取、改善、出租、修理或出售判决债务人的任何不动产或动产，或实施任何其他旨在清偿判决的行为。”）。\n\n纽约法院在确定是否为判决债务人的资产指定接管人时，会考虑若干因素，包括：“(1) 债权人可获得的替代救济；(2) 接管将提高[判决]获得清偿可能性的程度；以及 (3) 如不指定接管人，存在欺诈或无力偿债的风险。”Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor, 926 N.E.2d 1202, 1212 (N.Y. 2010) (quoting United States v. Zitron, No. 80-CV-6535, 1990 WL 13278, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 1990))。\n\n三项因素均有利于 PAX。PAX 几乎没有任何替代救济，因为 Kwok 表示，除 Genever BVI 股份外，他没有其他资产——而该等股份并无可轻易确定的市场价值。See supra at 4。接管人也将提高回收的可能性，因为如上所述，Kwok 已表现出“……逃避适当付款并规避遵守法院命令的模式”。Blue Citi LLC v. 5Barz Int'l Inc., No. 16-CV-9027, 2019 WL 6976972, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2019)\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 846 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 169 of 269\n\n（其中指定了接管人接管包括公司股份在内的财产）。此外，无力偿债的风险显而易见，因为 Kwok 声称没有其他资产，并且有将其空壳公司置于（存疑的）破产程序中的历史。See supra at 4。在如本案般财产“无形、缺乏现成市场，且不存在治安官可在拍卖中处置的任何物品”时，指定接管人尤为适当。Blue Citi, 2019 WL 6976972, at *2; see also Spotnana, Inc. v. Am. Talent Agency, Inc., No. 09-CV-3698, 2013 WL 227546, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013)（说明被告“对在国际上经营业务的非上市实体的所有权”正是“缺乏现成市场、尤其适合由接管人接管的无形权益”）。\n\n接管人可以是第三方、PAX 或其指定人。根据 CPLR 5228，“判决债权人本身可以被指定为接管人。”Daum Glob. Holdings Corp. v. Ybrant Digital Ltd., No. 13-CV-3135, 2018 WL 2122816, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2018)。在 Daum 案中，法院发布命令，“强制[判决债务人]向被指定为接管人的判决债权人移交[其]股票凭证”。Id. at *4。法院在本案中应指定 PAX，因为 PAX 最适合采取旨在清偿判决的行动。\n\nIII. Kwok 预期提出的“抗辩”似是而非。\n\n尽管这本应是一项显而易见的动议，PAX 预计 Kwok 及其空壳公司（通过不同律师，但均按照 Kwok 的指示行事）将以两项主要理由充斥案卷，主张移交并不适当。两项理由均似是而非。\n\nA. Genever NY（吉尼弗纽约）存疑的破产程序与 PAX 所请求的救济无关。\n\nPAX 预计，Kwok 可能以 Genever NY 正在破产且自动中止令已生效为由，反对本动议。但是，即使假定 Genever BVI 子公司的存疑破产程序被适当提交并维持，第 11 章并不排除（且与之无关）PAX 针对非债务人母公司 BVI 公司请求移交救济的权利。9 《破产法》规定的自动中止仅限于债务人的破产财产：“作为中止令，禁止采取任何行为以取得破产财产，或从破产财产中取得财产。”In re Bray Enterprises, Inc., 38 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984)。Genever BVI 的股份——债务人的境外母公司——并非债务人破产财产的一部分，因此不受 Genever NY（存疑的）破产申请或其相关有限自动中止令的影响。\n\nB. Kwok 可预见地假称其儿子通过 Bravo Luck（博瑞好运）是 Genever 各实体及该住宅的实益所有人，此种说法毫无根据。\n\nKwok 新近编造的说法（最初在最近的破产程序和英属维尔京群岛程序中提出）是，他声称现由其儿子 100% 持有的另一家空壳公司——Bravo Luck——才是 Kwok 的两家 Genever 空壳实体的真正实益所有人。但这不过是 Kwok 一贯的做法，再次声称其子女之一拥有（当然，是通过一家没有办公室、雇员或其他业务或持有资产的空壳公司）实际上属于他的资产。Kwok 的这一最新伎俩与其此前所有伎俩一样毫无根据。\n\n如有必要，PAX 将在适当时候证明：(i) Kwok 的新立场完全与其在过去四年中在本案所作的明确、反复的司法承认和法律论点不一致；以及 (ii) PAX 预计 Kwok 将试图援引、迟至最近才出示的所谓“信托协议”，以主张 Bravo Luck 实益拥有\n\n9 PAX 已在破产案件中订立和解协议（有待法院批准），以处理解除中止令及就出售该住宅达成的合意程序（所得款项将保留在托管账户中），同时非破产诉讼尚待解决。该和解协议中的任何内容均不影响（或限制）PAX 在本案中针对非债务人第三方执行判决的权利。如该和解协议（按提交供批准的形式）未获批准，及/或债务人（Genever NY）或 Kwok 的状态发生重大变化，PAX 保留其全部权利。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 846 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 171 of 269\n\nGenever BVI 和 Genever NY——是一份欺诈性、倒签日期的文件，连印制它的纸张都不值。事实上，Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）显然并不认为 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）是拥有 Residence10 的实体的合法所有人；尤其关键的是，在四年的诉讼中，Kwok（郭文贵）从未敢在本院提出这一不诚实的论点。\n\nBravo Luck 也可能寻求介入本程序，试图反对本动议（如果其甚至具有诉讼资格）。如果其这样做，我们预计 Kwok 将会（通过 Bravo Luck）一本正经地试图提出这一站不住脚的信托契据论点。但为避免不得不在本院提出该论点，Bravo Luck 可能首先试图主张，该事项应由英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands，“BVI”）裁决，因为 PAX 已在该地提起诉讼，而 Bravo Luck 问题已在 BVI 法院待决。那将是错误的结果。PAX 在获得对 Kwok 的判决书之前即提起了 BVI 诉讼，因此当时并不存在交付执行这一选项。鉴于判决后这一新的程序态势，PAX 现正在本院行使其法定的交付执行权利；鉴于本院长期以来熟悉本案及其独特问题，PAX 谨此主张，如该问题被提出，Bravo Luck 问题宜由本院审理。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 谨请本院作出命令：(i) 指令 Kwok 交付与其对 Genever BVI 的 100% 所有权有关的全部股票证书；(ii) 指令 Kwok 签署一份转让文书，据此将其在 Genever BVI 中的股份转让给 PAX 或其指定受让人；(iii) 指令 Kwok 将已签署的转让文书发送给\n\n10 在 Bravo Luck 于破产程序中出现后，Sherry-Netherland 提交了一份文件，通知破产法院：“Kwok 及其私人律师曾陈述，其中包括，Kwok 是债务人 [Genever NY] 及债务人母公司 Genever [BVI] 的受益所有人”，且 Sherry-Netherland “[i]依赖于这些陈述”批准了该项出售。Joinder and Reservation of Rights（参加及保留权利声明）第 ¶ 2 段，In re Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC 破产案），No. 20-12411-jlg (S.D.N.Y. Jan 27, 2021) [\\(ECF No. 45\\)]。Sherry-Netherland 还指出了 Kwok 和 Genever NY 相关的“虚假陈述和欺诈行为”。同上，第 ¶ 4 段。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/21/2021 12:05 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 846 NYSCEF 收讫：06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 172 页，共 269 页\n\nGenever BVI 的注册代理人；(iv) 指令 Kwok 签署并向注册代理人交付一项公司决议，指示更新 Genever BVI 的成员名册，以反映新的 100% 所有权）；以及 (v) 为 Kwok 持有的 Genever BVI 股份指定一名接管人，包括赋予其指示 Genever BVI 注册代理人更新 Genever BVI 成员名册、以反映 PAX 或其指定受让人为唯一法定所有人，并就 Genever BVI 的全部股份行使表决权的权力。\n\n日期：June 21, 2021 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合\n\nCommercial Division Rule 17（商事庭规则第 17 条）的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，\n\n本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括抬头、标题和\n\n签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：June 21, 2021 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 174 页，共 269 页\n\n证物 30\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 庭别 IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告， 案号 652077/2017\n\n诉 动议日期\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 动议序号 018\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）以及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）， 关于动议的决定及命令\n\n被告。--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n本院审理的是 PAX 提出的第 018 号动议，要求根据 CPLR 5255 对 Kwok 在 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）中的股份进行判决后交付执行，并请求其他救济。根据 September 22, 2021 的庭审记录，本动议获准的范围为，指令 Kwok 采取必要步骤，将其在 Genever BVI 中的股份交付给 PAX。本命令明确以 Adrian Jack 法官在相关 BVI 诉讼中作出的中止令获得其批准为条件。本院目前拒绝指定接管人。\n\n据此，特此命令：\n\n命令 Kwok Ho Wan 在英属维尔京群岛采取一切必要步骤，交付与其在 Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）中 100% 所有权权益有关的全部股票证书；并进一步\n\n命令，本决定及命令明确以 Jack 法官在英属维尔京群岛相关程序中的批准为条件。任何影响 Genever\n\nHoldings LLC 的行为——该公司为 Genever BVI 的全资子公司——均受 Garrity 法官在纽约南区（Southern District of New York）涉及 Genever Holdings LLC 的破产程序中的管辖，PAX 正在参与该程序。\n\n定于 November 16, 2021 上午 10:00 举行状态会议。\n\n日期：September 22, 2021\n\n勾选一项： 案件终结 X 非终局处置\n\n准许 驳回 X 部分准许 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 受托人指定 转介\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 177 页，共 269 页\n\n证物 31\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1078 NYSCEF 收讫：01/07/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 178 页，共 269 页\n\n通知：本程序旨在因你藐视法庭而对你予以处罚。该等处罚可依法包括罚款、监禁，或两者并处。\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），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，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n第 61 庭\n\n动议序号 \\_\\_\n\n关于就被告 MILES KWOK 未遵守本院 September 22, 2021 交付执行命令而对其作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议通知\n\n请注意，基于随附的 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）于 January 7, 2022 提交的法律备忘录，该备忘录支持其就被告 Miles Kwok 未遵守本院 September 22, 2021 交付执行命令而申请作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议；以及 Stuart Sarnoff 律师日期为 January 7, 2022 的声明及其所附证据；以及 Andrew Willins（安德鲁·威林斯）日期为 January 7, 2022 的宣誓书及其所附证据，PAX 将于 January 25, 2022 上午 9:30，或在此后律师能够获得陈述机会时，在位于 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007 的纽约县法院，向本院申请一项命令，根据 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753 和 N.Y. CPLR § 5104，(i) 认定被告 Miles Kwok 因违抗本院 September 22, 2021 交付执行命令而构成藐视法庭；以及 (ii) 给予本院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n请进一步注意，根据 CPLR 2214(b)，答辩文件，如有，\n\n必须至少于本动议返还日期前七天送达下列签署人。\n\n日期：January 7, 2022 纽约州纽约市 谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，ssarnoff@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\nCAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP（卡希尔·戈登与林德尔律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯，emoss@cahill.com）\nLauren Riddell（劳伦·里德尔，lriddell@cahill.com）\n32 Old Slip\nNew York, NY 10005\n(212) 701-3838\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 180 页，共 269 页\n\n证物 32\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1116 NYSCEF 收讫：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 181 页，共 269 页\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），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，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings 公司）以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司），\n\n第 61 庭\n\n动议序号 26\n\n被告。\n\n原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 进一步支持其就被告 MILES KWOK 未遵守本院 SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 交付执行命令而申请作出民事藐视法庭命令的答复法律备忘录\n\n目录 已提交：纽约县书记官 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1116 NYSCEF 收讫：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 182 页，共 269 页\n\n初步陈述\n论证 2\n一、交付执行命令是一项明确无误的指令，无须破产法院批准——且 Kwok 知晓这一点 2\n二、Kwok 开始遵守交付执行命令不存在任何障碍。\n\n三、Kwok 未予遵守使 PAX 受到损害。5\n结论 6\n法规及判例目录 已提交：纽约县书记官 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1116 NYSCEF 收讫：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 183 页，共 269 页\n\n页码\n\nCap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.,\n\n907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at *4 (Sup. Ct. 2010) 4\n\nIn re Bray Enterprises, Inc.,\n\n38 B.R. 75, 78 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1984) 3\n\nMcCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 (1983) 6\n\n法规\n\nNew York Judiciary Law § 753 6\n\n初步陈述\n\n为避免第二次民事藐视法庭制裁，Kwok 又向本院提交了一份误导性诉状。\n\n首先，Kwok 的异议书1 错误地主张，本院以 PAX 获得破产法院事先批准为交付执行命令的条件——尽管 Kwok 知道，本院从未作出过此种规定。事实上，本院在 September 22, 2021 听证会的庭审记录中以及在书面交付执行命令本身中，均明确驳回了该论点。\n\n郭文贵（Kwok）随后将该虚假陈述进一步升级。他声称，尽管《交付命令》的唯一先决条件已于 December 6, 2021 得到满足——即英属维尔京群岛法官 Jack（Jack 法官）修改其先前命令，使 Genever BVI 的股份转让得以进行——但在 PAX 同样获得破产法院的预先批准之前，他仍无法通过向 Bravo Luck 发出停止通知（Stop Notice）来启动交付程序。这同样是错误的。破产法院的批准并非郭文贵发出停止通知的先决条件。事实上，郭文贵遵守《交付命令》根本不涉及破产法院。正如本院所确认，2 Genever BVI 并非纽约破产程序的一方，且不受适用于债务人 Genever NY 的自动中止所约束。相反，郭文贵完全控制 Genever BVI，并且在任何时候均完全可以向 Bravo Luck（即郭文贵之子）发出通知；他只是拒绝这样做。因此，随着每一天的流逝，郭文贵因未能“在[英属维尔京群岛]采取一切必要步骤，以交付与其对 Genever BVI 的 100% 所有权有关的全部股票证书”，而故意违反《交付命令》。\n\n1 本答辩状将 PAX 的 January 7, 2022 开篇答辩状 [\\(Dkt. No. 1079\\)] 称为“动议”或“Mot.”，并将郭文贵的 January 18, 2022 异议答辩状 [\\(Dkt. No. 1104\\)] 称为“异议”或“Opp.”。除非另有说明，(i) 已定义术语具有其在动议中被赋予的含义，(ii) 所有强调均为后加，以及 (iii) 所有内部引注和引文均被省略。2 参见 [Dkt. No. 1086] (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:12–18\\)])。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1116 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 185 of 269\n\n最后，郭文贵主张，其无视本院合法《交付命令》的行为并未损害 PAX，因为已有其他法院命令生效——英属维尔京群岛冻结令以及破产法院对 Genever NY 资产的自动中止——足以保护 PAX 的利益。这颇具讽刺意味；正如本院深知，法院命令无法为 PAX 提供任何针对郭文贵的保护。只需看看郭文贵“受限制”的游艇 Lady May 当前所在位置——尽管每日被处以 \\$500,000 罚款，该游艇仍漂浮在意大利海岸外、本院管辖权之外——即可作为该命题的证据 A。\n\n郭文贵一再表明其对本院权威甚少尊重。自 Jack 法官为郭文贵开始遵守《交付命令》扫清道路以来，已逾六周，但其未能且拒绝采取哪怕第一步。本院应再次裁定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭。\n论证\n一、《交付命令》是一项明确无误的指令，无需破产法院批准——且郭文贵知悉此事。\n\n郭文贵主张，由于《交付命令》规定，“任何影响 Genever [NY] 的行动——其为 Genever BVI 的全资子公司——均受 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）涉及 Genever [NY] 的破产程序中 [Judge] Garrity 的管辖”，3 因此，在郭文贵有义务采取措施实现其 Genever BVI 股份交付之前，PAX 必须获得破产法院的预先批准。4 此说不实，且郭文贵明知如此；他与 Genever 被告曾在与 PAX 的交付动议有关的程序中陈述并主张同一立场，而本院已驳回该立场。\n\n3 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.] 4 [Opp. at 6–8.]\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1116 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 186 of 269\n\n《交付命令》——郭文贵并未上诉——仅以 Jack 法官修改其在相关英属维尔京群岛诉讼中的先前命令为条件，而 Jack 法官已于 December 6, 2021 作出该修改。5 郭文贵完全知悉，《交付命令》对破产法院的提及，实际上源于本院审议并驳回郭文贵所提出的论点，即 PAX 试图规避破产程序和自动中止。6 这是因为 PAX 仅寻求交付郭文贵所持 Genever BVI 的股份——该公司为非债务人的第三方，不适用《破产法典》的自动中止。7 如本院所解释，郭文贵向 PAX 交付其 Genever BVI 股份影响的是 Genever BVI，而非 Genever NY：8\n\n无争议的是，Sherry Netherland 公寓由 Genever [NY] 所有，而 Genever [NY] 是 Genever BVI 的子公司。Genever [NY] 正在 Southern District of New York 进行破产程序……因此，PAX 希望就 Genever [NY] 采取的任何行动，均须经纽约涉及 Genever [NY] 的破产程序中 Garrity 法官批准，因为 Genever [NY] 正处于破产中。本院今日所做的一切，仅是指示……Genever BVI 的注册代理人更新 Genever BVI 的登记成员，以反映 PAX 或其指定人系郭文贵在 Genever [] BVI 所持股份的合法所有人。9\n\n尽管从郭文贵的《异议》中无从得知，其律师实际上已在 October 8, 2021 致 PAX 的信函中明确承认，郭文贵启动交付程序的唯一障碍是 Jack 法官现已修改的冻结令：“为遵守本院《交付命令》”，“郭文贵先生将遵照 Jack 法官就中止令的任何修改或与 Genever BVI 股份有关事项所作出的任何后续法院命令行事。”10 值得注意的是，郭文贵的律师在 October 并未主张也需要破产法院预先批准——因为其知道并不需要。如今提出该论点，只是郭文贵为在继续藐视《交付命令》的同时试图避免被裁定藐视法庭而采取的最新伎俩。\n\n5 参见 [Dkt. No. 1089.] 具体而言，于 December 6, 2021，Jack 法官修改其先前命令，以“[允]许[郭文贵]为遵守《交付命令》，将以其名义登记于[Genever BVI]的股份转让给[PAX]”，并“[允]许[Genever BVI]（及其注册代理人）更新[Genever BVI]的成员名册，以反映[郭文贵]将以其名义登记的股份转让给[PAX]。”\n\n6 参见 [Dkt. No. 874 at 4–6;] [Dkt. No. 896 at 4–5.] 7 [Dkt. No. 899 at 10]（引用 In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.[, 38 B.R. 75, 78 \\(Bankr. D. Vt. 1984\\)]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_164_78）。\n\n8 参见 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.] 9 [Dkt. No. 1086] (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:2–17\\)])。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1116 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 187 of 269\n\n无论郭文贵多少次试图作出相反暗示，11 本院已在郭文贵未曾上诉的《交付命令》中裁定，将郭文贵所持 Genever BVI 股份交付给 PAX 无需破产法院预先批准。12\n二、郭文贵启动遵守《交付命令》不存在任何障碍。\n\n接着，郭文贵以其错误的“破产预先批准要求”为前提，就 Bravo Luck 发出 December 10, 2021 停止通知提出一项新的、同样有缺陷的论点。具体而言，郭文贵如今暗示，在 PAX 首先获得破产法院批准之前，他甚至不能让 Genever BVI（即其本人）向 Bravo Luck（即其儿子）发出通知。13 这是循环谬论。如上所述，《交付命令》仅包含一个先决条件，该条件已于 December 初 Jack 法官修改其先前的英属维尔京群岛命令以实现交付时得到完全满足。14\n\n10 参见 [Dkt. No. 1081.] 11 郭文贵在该问题被驳回且未被上诉后试图重新争讼，不仅不当，而且徒劳。本院的裁决在 September 2021 是正确的，今日仍然如此。\n\n12 就本动议而言，郭文贵所称法院“通常尊重”破产法院关于自动中止适用性的意见，毫不相干。郭文贵援引的唯一案件，[Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)，审理的是已申请破产保护的个人保证人是否应使自动中止延及其全资财产。 [26 Misc.3d 1215\\(A\\), 907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at \\\\*4 \\(Sup.]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) [Ct. 2010\\).]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) 该情形与本案不相适，因为 Genever BVI 是 Genever NY 的非债务人母公司，而非其全资财产。\n\n13 参见 Opp. [at 8–9.] 14 参见上文第 3 页。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1116 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 188 of 269\n\n作为 Genever BVI 的唯一所有人和董事，15 郭文贵无疑拥有不受限制地发出停止通知的能力——根据《交付命令》明确指令其“在英属维尔京群岛采取一切必要步骤”以实现交付，他在法律上有义务这样做。16 郭文贵新提出的说法，即发出通知会以某种方式“规避”目前“正在进行”的英属维尔京群岛“程序”，17 毫无根据，因为并无任何正在进行的英属维尔京群岛程序以任何方式处理交付事项，或阻止郭文贵通过向 Bravo Luck 发出通知而开始遵守《交付命令》。此外，郭文贵为实现交付而必须采取的任何必要步骤，均不以 PAX 或破产法院采取任何行动为条件。尽管如此，自 Bravo Luck（即郭文贵之子）发出停止通知以来，已逾六周，期间郭文贵公然未采取任何遵守该命令的措施。\n\n适可而止。本院应制裁郭文贵公然不服从及玩弄程序的行为。18\n三、郭文贵未遵守命令损害 PAX。\n\n最后，郭文贵主张，其未遵守《交付命令》并未损害 PAX，因为相关诉讼中已经存在司法命令以“维持现状”。19\n\n19 [Opp. at 9–10.]\n\n15 [Dkt. No. 756 at 9.] 16 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1.] 17 [Opp. at 9.] 18 就郭文贵暗示其并未不服从《交付命令》，因为“应由 Genever BVI 提供停止通知所要求的书面通知，而非由郭文贵先生本人提供”[\\(Nader Aff. ¶ 4\\(b\\),] [Dkt. No. 1105\\)] 而言，该论点荒谬至极。根据其自身承认 [\\(Dkt. No. 756 at 9\\)]，郭文贵是唯一获授权指示 Genever BVI 发出所需通知的人。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：1116 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 189 of 269\n\n本院想必不会忽略其中的讽刺意味。正如 PAX 已解释，20 郭文贵的不服从“剥夺”了 PAX 对财产（Genever BVI 的股份）的占有权，该财产“可以被交付以清偿金钱判决”，且 PAX 有权获得该财产。21 [McCormick v.] Axelrod[, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 \\(1983\\).] 鉴于郭文贵已表明其惯常将资产秘密转移至 PAX 追索范围之外，并公然藐视法院命令，PAX 占有 Genever BVI 股份在本案中尤为关键。本院只需看看郭文贵在逃的数百万美元豪华游艇 Lady May——其一年多来一直违反本院 October 15, 2021 命令，停留在本院管辖范围之外——即可确证有效法院命令无法对郭文贵产生任何威慑，也无法为 PAX 提供任何保护。22 PAX 最初提出交付动议，正是为了通过实际占有 Genever BVI 股份防范此种风险；而郭文贵拒绝采取实现该股份转让所必需的步骤，损害了 PAX 的权利。\n结论\n\n郭文贵将遵守本院的合法命令视为可选择事项。这种情况必须停止。PAX 已证明《New York Judiciary Law § 753》所规定的民事藐视法庭的全部要件。因此，PAX 谨请求本院认定郭文贵藐视本院于 September 22, 2021 作出的交付命令，并施加本院认为足以促使郭文贵立即遵守命令的任何制裁。\n\n20 [动议第 7–8 页。] 21 [案卷编号 1086]（Sept. 22, 2021 听证会记录，第 [16:13–15] 页）。\n\n22 截至 January 24, 2022，Marine Traffic Yacht Tracker 将 Lady May 定位于意大利北部海岸外。参见 Stuart Sarnoff 为进一步支持 PAX 关于民事藐视法庭命令之动议所作的 Jan. 24, 2022 宣誓书，附件 1。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1116 NYSCEF 收到日期：01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 190 页，共 269 页\n\n日期：January 24, 2022 谨此提交，New York, New York\nO'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP（欧麦文律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff Stuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n字数证明\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合\n\n《Commercial Division Rule 17》的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，\n\n本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括抬头、标题和\n\n签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：January 24, 2022 New York, New York 谨此提交，O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP（欧麦文律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff Stuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 192 页，共 269 页\n证物 33\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1191 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/18/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 193 页，共 269 页\n\n纽约县 法官 OSTRAGER, BARRY R. 动议 法官 OSTRAGER, BARRY R. 纽约州最高法院\n\n动议 026\n\n案号\n\n652077/2017\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— 诉 —\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）等\n法院通知\n\n代表以下人员提交——Rose Ann Magaldi，Ostrager 法官的首席法务助理\n\n鉴于 Kwok 先生已提交破产申请，本院建议原告撤回尚待审理的藐视法庭动议（026），但不妨碍其向破产法院提出适当申请，及/或在破产程序结束后，如属适当，不妨碍其在本院重新提出该动议。本院不愿将已完整提交的动议无限期搁置。如律师有其他建议，本院当然将予以考虑。\n\n本院要求原告及任何其他利害关系方于 March 3, 2022 前通过电子提交方式提交一封函件，就本法院通知中提出的问题作出说明。谢谢。日期 02/18/2022 已提交 提交人：RoseAnn Magaldi\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 194 页，共 269 页\n证物 34\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1190 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 195 页，共 269 页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\n尊敬的 Barry R. Ostrager 法官\n\n被告。\n破产提示通知\n\n兹通知，February 15, 2022，上述案件中的被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）已向 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院）（“破产法院”）提交了根据 United States Code 第 11 编第 11 章、11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532（“破产法”）申请救济的自愿申请书。债务人的自愿申请书副本作为附件 A 随附于此。债务人的第 11 章案件目前由破产法院以案号 22-50073 管理。\n\n兹进一步通知，根据《破产法》第 362(a) 条，债务人提交其自愿申请书，将自动中止以下事项，其中包括：(a) 对债务人提起或继续进行的所有司法、行政或其他诉讼或程序：(i) 在债务人第 11 章案件开始之前已经或本可提起的诉讼或程序；或 (ii) 为追偿债务人第 11 章案件开始之前产生的针对债务人的任何债权而提起的诉讼或程序；(b) 对债务人或破产财产的财产执行在债务人第 11 章案件开始之前取得的判决；或 (c) 获取债务人破产财产的财产或从中取得财产占有，或对债务人破产财产的财产行使控制权的任何行为。\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1190 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 196 页，共 269 页\n\n本破产提示通知仅为提供信息之目的，并不构成下列签署人就本程序出庭或拟出庭。\n\n日期：February 15, 2022 New York, New York\n\n/s/ William R. Baldiga William R. Baldiga 律师 Uriel Pinelo 律师 Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com upinelo@brownrudnick.com 电话：(212) 209-4800 传真：(212) 209-4801\n\n债务人的拟任代理律师\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1190 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 197 页，共 269 页\n附件 A\n\n债务人的自愿申请书\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM\n案件 22-50073\n案件 22-50073\n文件 183-4\n文件 1\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1190 提交日期 02/15/22\n提交日期 04/06/22 登记日期 02/15/22 20:26:52\n登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 案号 652077/2017\n\n第 198 页，共\nNYSCEF 收到日期：02/15/2022\n\n填写以下信息以识别您的案件： 269\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court for the（美国破产法院）：\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格地区）\n________________ 地区法院 ________________\n案件编号（如已知）：_________________________ 申请的章节： ‰ Chapter 7\n☑\n‰ Chapter 11\n‰ Chapter 12\n‰ Chapter 13 ‰\n如属修正提交，\n请勾选\n\n官方表格 101\n个人申请破产的自愿申请书 /\n\n破产表格使用“您”和“债务人 1”指单独申请破产的债务人。已婚夫妇可以共同申请破产案件——称为共同案件——在共同案件中，这些表格使用“您”来要求提供两名债务人的信息。例如，如表格询问“您是否拥有一辆汽车”，若任一债务人拥有汽车，答案即为“是”。需要分别提供配偶信息时，表格使用“债务人 1”和“债务人 2”加以区分。在共同案件中，其中一名配偶必须作为债务人 1 报告信息，另一名配偶必须作为债务人 2 报告信息。同一人必须在所有表格中均为债务人 1。\n\n请尽可能完整、准确地填写。如两名已婚人士共同申请，二人均同等负责提供正确的信息。如需要更多空间，请将单独纸张附于本表格。请在任何附加页顶部写明您的姓名及案件编号（如已知）。请回答每一个问题。\n\n第一部分：确认您的身份\n\n关于债务人 1： 关于债务人 2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n\n您的全名\n1.\n填写政府签发的带照片\n身份证件上所载的姓名\n（例如，\n您的驾驶执照或 Ho Wan\n\n名字 __________________________________________________\n名字\n护照）。\n请携带您的带照片 __________________________________________________\n中间名\nKwok\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n身份证件参加您与\n受托人的会议。 姓氏\n___________________________ 姓氏\n\n后缀（Sr., Jr., II, III） 后缀（Sr., Jr., II, III）\n您在过去 8 年内\n2. Miles\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n曾使用的所有其他姓名 名字\n__________________________________________________ 名字\n\n包括您的婚后姓名或\n娘家姓。 中间名\nKwok; Guo\n__________________________________________________ 中间名\n\n姓氏 姓氏\nWengui\n\n名字 __________________________________________________\n名字\n\n中间名\nGuo\n__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________\n中间名\n\n姓氏 姓氏\n\n您的社会保障号码 9\n\nxxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____ xxx\n– xx – ____ ____ ____ ____\n个人纳税人\n识别号码 9\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____ 9\nxx\n– xx\n– ____ ____ ____ ____\n仅显示最后 4 位\n3.\n号码或联邦\n（ITIN） 或 或\n官方表格 101 个人申请破产的自愿申请书 第 1 页\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nHo\nWan\n债务人 1\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n关于债务人 1： 关于债务人 2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n您曾使用的任何企业名称\n及雇主\n识别号码\n（EIN） ☑\n‰\n我未使用过任何企业名称或 EIN。 ‰\n我未使用过任何企业名称或 EIN。\n在过去 8 年内 _________________________________________________\n企业名称 _________________________________________________\n企业名称\n包括商号和\n营业名称 _________________________________________________\n企业名称 _________________________________________________\n企业名称\n\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___\nEIN\n您的居住地\n5. 如债务人 2 居住于不同地址：\nc/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\n\n门牌号\n街道 _________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n162 East 64th Street\n_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________\nNew York\nNY\n\n城市\n州\n邮政编码 _________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\nNew York\n_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________\n县 县\n如您的邮寄地址与上述地址不同，\n请在此填写。请注意，法院将向\n该邮寄地址向您发送任何通知。 如债务人 2 的邮寄地址与\n您的不同，请在此填写。请注意，法院将向\n该邮寄地址发送任何通知。\n\n门牌号\n街道 _________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n\n邮政信箱 _________________________________________________\n邮政信箱\n\n城市\n州\n邮政编码 _________________________________________________\n城市\n州\n邮政编码\n您选择在本地区\n申请破产的原因 请选择一项： 请选择一项：\n6.\n☑\n‰\n在提交本申请前的过去 180 天内，\n我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何\n其他地区居住的时间。 ‰\n在提交本申请前的过去 180 天内，\n我在本地区居住的时间长于在任何\n其他地区居住的时间。\n‰\n我有其他理由。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。） ‰\n我有其他理由。请说明。\n（见 28 U.S.C. § 1408。）\n________________________________________ ________________________________________\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nHo\nWan\n债务人 1\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n姓氏 _______________________________________________________ 案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n第2部分：\n向法院说明您的破产案件情况\n\n7. 您选择依据《破产法典》提出申请的章节\n选择一项。（对每一项的简要说明，请参阅《依据 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 向提出破产申请的个人发出的必需通知》（表格 2010）。）另请前往第1页顶部并勾选相应方框。\n您选择依据下列章节提出申请：\n‰ 第7章\n✔\n‰ 第11章\n‰ 第12章\n‰ 第13章\n\n您将如何支付费用\n\n8. ✔\n‰\n我将在提交破产申请书时支付全部费用。请向您所在地法院的书记官办公室查询有关支付方式的更多详情。通常，如由您自行支付费用，您可使用现金、银行本票或汇票支付。如由您的律师代表您提交付款，您的律师可使用信用卡或印有预先印制地址的支票支付。\n\n‰\n我需要分期支付费用。如选择此项，请签署并附上《个人分期支付申请费申请书》（官方表格 103A）。\n\n‰ 第7章申请费豁免（官方表格 103B），并将其与您的申请书一并提交。我请求豁免我的费用（仅在您依据第7章提出申请时方可请求此项。依法，法官可以但无须豁免您的费用，且仅在您的收入低于适用于您家庭人数的官方贫困线的150%，并且您无力分期支付该费用时，方可如此处理）。如选择此项，您必须填写《申请豁免第7章申请费表》。\n\n9. ✔\n‰\n否\n\n您在过去8年内是否曾申请破产？ ‰ 是。地区 __________________________ 时间 _______________ 案件编号 ___________________________\n月 / 日 / 年\n地区 __________________________ 时间 月 / 日 / 年\n地区 __________________________ 时间 月 / 日 / 年\n\n10. 是否有由未与您共同提交本案的配偶、商业合伙人或关联方提出、正在审理中或正在提交的任何破产案件？ ✔\n‰ 否\n‰ 是。债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系 _______________ 案件编号 ___________________________\n_______________ 案件编号 ___________________________\n\n地区 __________________________ 时间\n月 / 日 / 年 _______________ 案件编号（如知悉）____________________\n债务人 _________________________________________________ 与您的关系\n地区 __________________________ 时间 _____________________\n_______________ 案件编号（如知悉）____________________\n月 / 日 / 年\n\n11. 您是否租住您的住所？ ✔\n‰\n否。前往第12项。\n‰ ‰ 是。您的房东是否已取得针对您的驱逐判决？\n否。前往第12项。\n\n债务人1 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n_______________________________________________________ 案件编号（如知悉）_____________________________________\n\n第3部分： 名字\n中间名 姓氏\n报告您作为独资经营者所拥有的任何企业\n\n12. 您是否为任何全职或兼职企业的独资经营者？ ✔\n‰\n否。前往第4部分。\n‰\n是。企业名称及所在地\n\n独资企业是指您以个人身份经营的企业，并非公司、合伙企业或有限责任公司等独立法人实体。 企业名称（如有）\n门牌号\n街道 _______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n有限责任公司。\n\n如您拥有一家以上独资企业，请另附一页并将其附于本申请书。 _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________\n\n城市 州\n邮政编码\n\n勾选适当方框以说明您的企业：\n‰ 医疗保健企业（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)）\n‰ 单一资产不动产（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B)）\n‰\n证券经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)）\n‰ 商品经纪商（定义见 11 U.S.C. § 101(6)）\n‰\n以上皆非\n\n13. 您是否依据《破产法典》第11章提出申请，并且是小型企业债务人？ 如您依据第11章提出申请，法院必须知悉您是否为 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D) 所定义的小型企业债务人，或选择依据第11章第V分章进行程序的债务人，以便设定适当期限。如您表明自己是小型企业债务人或选择依据第V分章进行程序，您必须附上最新资产负债表、经营情况表、现金流量表和联邦所得税申报表；如上述任何文件不存在，则应遵循 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B) 规定的程序。\n\n‰\n否。我并非依据第11章提出申请。\n\n? 有关小型企业债务人的定义，请参阅 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D)。 ✔\n‰\n否。我依据第11章提出申请，但根据《破产法典》中的定义，我并非小型企业债务人。\n\n‰ 是。我依据第11章提出申请；根据《破产法典》中的定义，我是小型企业债务人，并且我不选择依据第11章第V分章进行程序。\n\n‰ 是。我依据第11章提出申请；根据《破产法典》中的定义，我是债务人，并且我选择依据第11章第V分章进行程序。\n\n债务人1\nHo\nWan\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案件编号（如知悉）_____________________________________\n\n第4部分： 报告您是否拥有或持有任何危险财产或任何需要立即处理的财产\n\n14. 您是否拥有或持有任何构成或被指称构成对公共卫生或安全迫在眉睫且可识别危险的财产？或者，您是否拥有任何需要立即处理的财产？ ✔\n‰\n否\n\n‰\n是。危险是什么？ ________________________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________________________\n\n如需立即处理，为何需要处理？ _______________________________________________\n\n例如，您是否拥有易腐货物、必须喂养的牲畜，或需要紧急维修的建筑物？\n________________________________________________________________________\n\n该财产位于何处？ ________________________________________________________________________\n门牌号\n街道\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）02/15/2022 09:12 PM 索引号 652077/2017\n\n案件 22-50073\n案件 22-50073 文件 183-4\n文件 1 提交于 02/15/22\n提交于 04/06/22 录入于 02/15/22 20:26:52 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45 第6页，共14页\n第203页，共\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1190 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4\n提交于 04/06/22 录入于 04/06/22 17:07:45\n第203页，共\nNYSCEF 已收到：02/15/2022\n\n债务人1 _________________________________________________ 案件编号（如知悉）_____________________________________ 名字 中间名 姓氏\n\n第5部分：说明您获得信贷咨询简报所作的努力\n\n15. 告知法院您是否已获得有关信贷咨询的简报。\n\n法律要求您在申请破产前获得有关信贷咨询的简报。您必须如实勾选以下选项之一。如无法如此，您不具备提出申请的资格。\n\n如您仍然提出申请，法院可以驳回您的案件，您将失去已支付的任何申请费，且您的债权人可以重新开始催收活动。\n\nHo Wan Kwok\n\n您必须勾选一项：\n\n我在提交本破产申请书前180日内已从获批准的信贷咨询机构获得简报，并已获得完成证明。 ✔\n\n附上该证明副本及您与该机构制定的付款计划（如有）。\n\n我在提交本破产申请书前180日内已从获批准的信贷咨询机构获得简报，但我没有完成证明。\n\n在您提交本破产申请书后14日内，您必须提交该证明副本及付款计划（如有）。\n\n我证明，我已向获批准机构请求提供信贷咨询服务，但在我提出请求后的7日内无法获得该等服务，且紧急情形足以使该要求获得30日临时豁免。\n\n如请求该要求获得30日临时豁免，请附上单独一页，说明您为获得简报作出了何种努力、为何无法在申请破产前获得简报，以及何种紧急情形使您必须提交本案。\n\n如法院不满意您在申请破产前未获得简报的理由，您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n如法院满意您的理由，您仍必须在提交申请后30日内获得简报。您必须提交获批准机构出具的证明，以及您制定的付款计划副本（如有）。如未如此办理，您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n对30日期限的任何延长仅在有正当理由时准予，且最长限于15日。\n\n我无需获得有关信贷咨询的简报，原因如下：\n\n• 无行为能力。我患有精神疾病或精神缺陷，以致我无法认识或就财务事项作出理性决定。\n• 残疾。即使我已作出合理努力，我的身体残疾仍导致我无法亲自、通过电话或互联网参加简报。\n• 现役。我目前正在军事战区服现役。\n\n如您认为自己无需获得有关信贷咨询的简报，您必须向法院提交豁免信贷咨询的动议。\n\n关于债务人1：关于债务人2（仅限共同案件中的配偶）：\n\n您必须勾选一项：\n\n我在提交本破产申请书前180日内已从获批准的信贷咨询机构获得简报，并已获得完成证明。\n\n附上该证明副本及您与该机构制定的付款计划（如有）。\n\n我在提交本破产申请书前180日内已从获批准的信贷咨询机构获得简报，但我没有完成证明。\n\n在您提交本破产申请书后14日内，您必须提交该证明副本及付款计划（如有）。\n\n我证明，我已向获批准机构请求提供信贷咨询服务，但在我提出请求后的7日内无法获得该等服务，且紧急情形足以使该要求获得30日临时豁免。\n\n如请求该要求获得30日临时豁免，请附上单独一页，说明您为获得简报作出了何种努力、为何无法在申请破产前获得简报，以及何种紧急情形使您必须提交本案。\n\n如法院不满意您在申请破产前未获得简报的理由，您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n如法院满意您的理由，您仍必须在提交申请后30日内获得简报。您必须提交获批准机构出具的证明，以及您制定的付款计划副本（如有）。如未如此办理，您的案件可能被驳回。\n\n对30日期限的任何延长仅在有正当理由时准予，且最长限于15日。\n\n我无需获得有关信贷咨询的简报，原因如下：\n\n‰\n无行为能力。 我患有精神疾病或精神缺陷，以致我无法认识或就财务事项作出理性决定。\n\n‰\n残疾。 即使我已作出合理努力，我的身体残疾仍导致我无法亲自、通过电话或互联网参加简报。\n\n现役。我目前正在军事战区服现役。\n\n如您认为自己无需获得有关信贷咨询的简报，您必须向法院提交豁免信贷咨询的动议。\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n债务人1 Ho\nWan\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案件编号（如知悉）_____________________________________\n\n第6部分：为报告目的回答以下问题\n\n16. 您有哪些种类的债务？ 16a. 您的债务是否主要为消费者债务？消费者债务在 11 U.S.C. § 101(8) 中定义为“个人主要为个人、家庭或住户目的而产生的债务”。\n\n✔\n‰\n否。请转至第16b项。\n\n‰\n是。请转至第17项。\n\n16b. 您的债务是否主要为商业债务？商业债务是指您为取得用于企业或投资的资金，或通过经营企业或投资而产生的债务。\n\n✔\n‰\n否。请转至第16c项。\n\n‰\n是。请转至第17项。\n\n16c. 请说明您所欠的不属于消费者债务或商业债务的债务类型。\n\n诉讼费用、债权请求和判决\n\n17. 您是否依据第7章提出申请？ ✔\n‰\n否。我并非依据第7章提出申请。请转至第18项。\n\n‰\n您是否估计，在扣除任何豁免财产并支付行政费用后，\n\n‰\n否\n\n行政费用\n\n‰\n是\n\n是否将有资金可供分配给无担保债权人？ 是。我依据第7章提出申请。您是否估计，在扣除任何豁免财产并支付行政费用后，将有资金可供分配给无担保债权人？\n\n18. 您估计欠付多少名债权人？ ‰\n1-49\n\n✔\n‰\n50-99\n\n‰\n100-199\n\n‰\n200-999 ‰\n1,000-5,000\n\n‰\n5,001-10,000\n\n‰\n10,001-25,000 ‰\n25,001-50,000\n\n‰\n50,001-100,000\n\n‰\n超过100,000\n\n19. 您估计您的资产价值为多少？ ‰\n$0-$50,000\n\n✔\n‰\n$50,001-$100,000\n\n‰\n$100,001-$500,000\n\n‰\n$500,001-$1 million ‰\n$1,000,001-$10 million\n\n‰\n$10,000,001-$50 million\n\n‰\n$50,000,001-$100 million\n\n‰\n$100,000,001-$500 million ‰\n$500,000,001-$1 billion\n\n‰\n$1,000,000,001-$10 billion\n\n‰\n$10,000,000,001-$50 billion\n\n‰\n超过$50 billion\n\n20. 您估计您的负债为多少？ ‰\n$0-$50,000\n\n‰\n$50,001-$100,000\n\n‰\n$100,001-$500,000 ‰\n$1,000,001-$10 million\n\n‰\n$10,000,001-$50 million\n\n‰\n$50,000,001-$100 million\n\n✔ ‰\n$500,000,001-$1 billion\n\n‰\n$1,000,000,001-$10 billion\n\n‰\n$10,000,000,001-$50 billion\n\n第7部分：请在下方签署 ‰\n$500,001-$1 million ‰\n$100,000,001-$500 million ‰\n超过$50 billion\n\n致您 我已审阅本申请书，并在伪证处罚的约束下声明，所提供的信息真实且正确。\n\n如我已选择依据第7章提出申请，我知悉，如符合资格，我可依据《美国法典》第11编第7章、第11章、第12章或第13章办理。我理解各章可提供的救济，并选择依据第7章办理。\n\n如没有律师代理我，且我未曾向非律师人士支付或同意支付报酬以协助我填写本文件，我已取得并阅读 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 要求的通知。\n\n我请求依照本申请书所指定的《美国法典》第11编章节给予救济。\n\n我理解，就破产案件作出虚假陈述、隐匿财产，或通过欺诈取得金钱或财产，可能导致最高 $250,000 的罚款、最长20年的监禁，或两者并处。\n\n18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571。\n\n/s/ Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n______________________________________________ 8 _____________________________\n债务人1签名 债务人2签名\n\n02/15/2022\n\n签署日期：_________________ 签署日期：__________________\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n债务人1 Ho\nWan\n名字\n中间名 Kwok\n\n姓氏 案件编号（如已知）_____________________________________\n\n致您的律师，如您由律师代理\n\n如您未由律师代理，则无需提交本页。 我，即本申请书所列债务人之律师，声明我已告知债务人其依据《美国法典》第11编第7章、第11章、第12章或第13章办理的资格，并已说明该人士符合资格的各章所提供的救济。我还证明，我已向债务人送达 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) 要求的通知；并且，在适用 § 707(b)(4)(D) 的案件中，证明经查询后，我不知道随本申请书提交的财产清单中的信息不正确。 8\n\n/s/\nWilliam\nR.\nBaldiga 日期 _________________\n\n02/15/2022\n\n债务人律师签名 月\n/\n日\n/ 年\n\n律师事务所名称\n7 Times Square\n\n门牌号\n街道\n\nNew York\n______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ NY 10036\n\n城市 州 邮政编码\n\n(212) 209-4800\n\n联系电话 _____________________________________ 电子邮件地址 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n\n______________________________________________________ ____________ NY\n\n州\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 206 of 269\n\n附件36\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\n出席： HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 庭 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）， INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n原告，\n\n诉 - 动议日期\n\nMOTION SEQ. NO. 012\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，等， 关于动议的裁决及命令\n\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n本院现审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出的第012号动议，申请认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）藐视法庭。本院此前已发布三项命令，限制 Kwok 对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。2020年9月30日，本院作出临时限制令（“TRO”），禁止 Kwok 从事包括“干预其享有权益的任何财产”在内的行为。NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。作出临时限制令时，本院指出，“任何违反……的行为均应被视为刑事藐视法庭。”同上。2020年10月15日，本院发布命令，准许 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制对 Lady May 的处置：\n\nKwok 先生被禁止就其直接或间接享有权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预，并被禁止支付或以其他方式处分目前到期或此后到期应支付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 所列例外情形除外；该限制符合2020年10月15日记录在案的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生和／或下列财产的登记所有人：（1）Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的住宅；以及（2）游艇“Lady May”，均被禁止就该等资产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。Kwok 的律师特别询问本院，Kwok 是否可以为取得许可之目的将该游艇移出本院管辖范围。本院当时驳回该请求，并指示律师如有必要应提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，原因是尽管存在上述命令，Lady May 已被移至美国境外。\n\n本院已审阅各方就 PAX 申请认定 Kwok 藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论 Kwok 先生的任何律师是否违反《职业行为准则》的问题，显然，在本院审理的与“Lady May”游艇下落及所有权有关的程序中，存在数量令人无法容忍的弄虚作假、闪烁其词和欺骗行为。\n\n被告主张，尽管本院对游艇移动施加了限制，该游艇仍是为“日常经营”中的“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围。与其逐一列举被告 Kwok 在本应更知分寸的律师协助下所进行的众多“障眼法”，本院在以下范围内准许藐视法庭动议：自2021年5月15日后游艇位于本院管辖范围外的每一天，被告 Kwok 均应被处以 $500,000 的罚款。与游艇所有权和控制权有关的其他限制仍然有效。\n\n状态会议仍定于2021年5月4日上午10:00举行。\n\n日期：2021年3月16日\n\n请选择一项： 案件已处置 X 非终局性处置\n\nX 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他\n\n申请： 拟定命令 提交命令\n\n如适当，请勾选： 包括移送／重新分配 受托人任命 转介\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 210 of 269\n\n附件35\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2022 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 211 of 269\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\n出席： HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告， INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n诉 -\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN 动议日期\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 026\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 MOTION SEQ. NO.\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS（杰尼弗控股） 关于动议的裁决及命令\nCORPORATION，以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC，\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n鉴于被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）已提出破产申请（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1190），本院特此允许原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）撤回其申请作出民事藐视法庭命令的动议；该动议基于 Kwok 先生被指未遵守本院2021年9月22日的移交命令（见 NYSCEF Doc. No. 1192）。状态会议定于2022年12月6日上午10:00通过 Microsoft Teams 举行。本院要求 Kwok 先生的律师在会议日期至少一周前，以电子方式提交一封关于破产程序状态的信函，并附上更新后的 Teams 出席名单。\n\n日期：2022年3月4日\n\n请选择一项： 案件已处置 X 非终局性处置\n\n准许 驳回 部分准许 X 其他\n\n申请： 拟定命令 提交命令\n\n如适当，请勾选： 包括移送／重新分配 受托人任命 转介\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 212 of 269\n\n附件37\n\n纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court of the State of New York） FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 01/20/2022 09:38 AM 2021-01010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/20/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 213 of 269\n\n上诉分庭第一司法部（Appellate Division, First Judicial Department）\n\n出席：\n\nHon.\nRolando T. Acosta（罗兰多·T·阿科斯塔），\nDianne T. Renwick（黛安娜·T·伦威克）\nTanya R. Kennedy（坦尼娅·R·肯尼迪） 审判长法官，\n\nManuel J. Mendez（曼努埃尔·J·门德斯）， 法官。\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）， 动议编号 2021-04127\n\n原告—被上诉人， INDEX NO. 652077/17\n\n案件编号 2021-01010\n\n诉\n\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名 Kwok Ho，等，\n\n被告—上诉人，\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），等，\n\n被告。\n\n被告—上诉人已申请准许就本院于2021年11月04日作出的裁决及命令（上诉编号14555）向上诉法院提起上诉，\n\n现经阅览并归档与该动议有关的文件，并经审慎审议，\n\n特此命令：驳回该动议。\n\n录入日期：2022年1月20日\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 214 of 269\n\n附件38\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 08:26 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1098 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 215 of 269\n\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县（NEW YORK COUNTY）\n\n出席： HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）， INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\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 MOTION SEQ. NO. 019\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 第三份临时裁决及\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），以及 关于动议的命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司），\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n根据日期为 July 21, 2021 的临时决定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 873），法院就原告要求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）构成民事藐视法庭的动议，以及被告提出的在上诉期间中止执行的交叉动议，作出决定：在第一部门上诉分庭（Appellate Division, First Department）就已排期于九月开庭期审理的上诉作出决定之前，暂缓处理该动议。上诉分庭于 November 4, 2021 通过决定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 953）对该上诉作出裁决。法院于 January 14, 2022 就藐视法庭动议听取进一步辩论，并将该动议的听证会安排于 February 2, 2022 上午 9:30 开始举行。\n\n直接证言将以宣誓书方式提交。法院将不考虑任何无法接受交叉询问之人的宣誓书。各方应进行协商，并于 January 24, 2022 前编制一份联合证据册。原告应于 January 26, 2022 前以电子方式提交直接证言宣誓书。被告应于 January 28, 2022 前以电子方式提交直接证言宣誓书。所有文件的纸质副本应于 January 31, 2022 中午前送达第232号法庭。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 01/18/2022 08:26 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1098 NYSCEF 收件日期：01/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 216 of 269\n\n各方被命令于 January 24, 2022 当日或之前以电子方式提交一封载有 February 2, 2022 听证会联合出庭名单的信函。\n\n日期：January 14, 2022\n\n请选择一项：案件已处理完结 X 非终局处置\n\n批准 驳回 部分批准 X\n其他\n\n申请： 拟定命令 提交命令\n\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 217 of 269\n证物39\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York（纽约州最高法院纽约县）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\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，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER控股股份有限公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER控股有限责任公司），\n\n诉\n\n被告。\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nBarry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n民事藐视法庭最终命令\n\n动议序号 19\n\n鉴于，本院日期为 March 16, 2021 的附条件民事藐视法庭命令指示，如被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）未能于 May 15, 2021 前将 Lady May yacht（“Lady May”号游艇，以下简称“Lady May”）交还至本院管辖范围内，则其应就 Lady May 留在该管辖范围外的每一日被处以 \\$500,000 罚款；\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1182 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 218 of 269\n\n鉴于，Lady May 未于 May 15, 2021 前交还至本院管辖范围内；\n\n鉴于，第一部门上诉分庭于 November 4, 2021 确认本院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，并认定“每日 \\$500,000 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管其获准用两个月时间完成该事项，但其未表现出任何完成该事项的意愿”，并指示本院进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当处罚；\n\n鉴于，Kwok 至今未能将 Lady May 交还至本院管辖范围内；\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1182 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/09/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 219 of 269\n\n鉴于，Kwok 和 Lady May 的登记产权持有人 HK International（香港国际公司）（由 Converse Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 运营）均出席了听证会、提交了证据，并由律师代理；以及\n\n鉴于，根据听证会上提交的证据，法院认定太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业已以明确且有说服力的证据证明，Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益权益并拥有控制权；因此，现据此命令、裁定并判决如下：\n\n1．Kwok 违反了 New York Judiciary Law § 753，并构成对本院命令的民事藐视法庭。\n\n2．命令 Kwok 立即向 PAX 支付 \\$134,000,000，代表自 May 15, 2021 至 February 7, 2022 期间每一日 \\$500,000 的金额。\n\n3．应付给 PAX 的金额将继续以每日 \\$500,000 的标准累积，直至 Kwok 将 Lady May 交还至本院管辖范围内；该等额外累积应自本命令之日起十个营业日开始。\n\n4．上述第2段所列金额应于本命令日期起五个营业日内支付给 PAX。\n\n5．如罚款未及时支付给 PAX，法院将依 New York Judiciary Law § 753 行使其全部权限。\n\n本命令于2022年2月9日作出。Barry R. Ostrager，J.S.C.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 220 of 269\n证物40\n\n案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1187 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022 已提交：第一部门上诉分庭 02/14/2022 10:10 AM 2022-00609 NYSCEF 文件编号 1 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 221 of 269\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\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\nBarry Ostrager 法官\n\n— 诉 —\n\nKWOK HO WAN 等，\n\n被告。\n\n特此通知，被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok 先生”）现就纽约州最高法院纽约县（Ostrager 法官）日期为 February 9, 2022、并于 February 9, 2022 录入纽约县书记官办公室的决定及命令（NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181），以及其每一部分，向第一司法部门上诉分庭提起上诉。\n\n日期：New York, New York 谨此提交，\nFebruary 10, 2022\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ John Siegal\nJohn Siegal（约翰·西格尔）\nMelissa Carvalho（梅丽莎·卡瓦略）\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n212-589-1400\njsiegal@bakerlaw.com\nmcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\n\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan 的代理律师\n\n送达：纽约县书记官（通过 NYSCEF）\n全体登记在案的律师（通过 NYSCEF）\n\n纽约州最高法院\n上诉分庭：第一司法部门\n\n信息陈述书（依 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]）— 民事\n\n案件名称：按传票、申请通知或令当事人说明理由的命令中所载的案件名称，或按修订后的名称，列明本案名称。\n\n原审法院\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.\n— 诉 — 上诉通知书提交日期\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名\nGUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN\nGUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION\n\n上诉分庭\n\n案件类型 提交类型\n\n民事诉讼\n\n□ CPLR 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 或 220-b\n\n□ Public Officers Law § 36\n\n□ Real Property Tax Law § 1278 □ 移送程序\n\n0 CPLR 第78条\n\n□ Executive Law § 298\n\n• CPLR 5704 审查\n\n诉讼性质：请勾选最能反映本案性质的下列类别中的至多三项。\n\n□ 行政审查 商业关系 商业 合同\n\n□ 确认判决 □ 家事关系 □ 选举法 □ 遗产事项\n\n□ 家庭法院 □ 抵押物止赎 □ 杂项 • 囚犯纪律与假释\n\n□ 成文法\n\n□ 不动产\n\n□ 税收\n\n□ 侵权\n\n（止赎除外）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 第223页，共269页\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1187 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022\n\n所上诉的文书（仅选一项）：如通过提交本上诉通知书对多项命令或判决提起上诉，请就每一项被上诉的命令或判决，在单独的纸张上列明以下信息。\n\n• 修订判令 • 裁定 • 命令 • 重新结算命令\n\n修订判决 认定 ■ 命令及判决 • 裁决\n\n• 修订命令 中间判令 部分判令 • 其他（请注明）：\n\n决定 • 中间判决 • 重新结算判令\n\n• 判令 • 判决 • 重新结算判决\n\n法院：\n最高法院 纽约\n\n县：\n02/09/2022\n\n日期： 录入日期：02/09/2022\n\n法官（全名）：Barry Ostrager 法官 案号：652077/2017\n\n• 中间\n\n■ 终局 • 终局后\n\n阶段： 审判：\n\n否\n\n是 非陪审团审判\n\n如是：\n\n先前未完善的上诉及关联案件信息\n\n是否有源于同一诉讼或程序的任何上诉目前正在本院审理？ • 否\n\n是\n\n如是，请列明分配给每项该等上诉的上诉分庭案件编号。\n\n2021-00740\n\n如适用，请说明本州或任何其他管辖区的任何法院目前是否存在关联诉讼或程序；如有，请说明案件状态：\n\n原始程序\n\n启动方式： □ 令当事人说明理由的命令 • 申请通知 • 人身保护令 提交日期：\n\n授权在上诉分庭启动程序的法条：\n\n根据 CPLR 7804(g) 移送的程序\n\n选择法院\n\n法院： 县： 选择县\n\n法官（全名）： 移送命令日期：\n\n对单方命令的 CPLR 5704 审查：\n\n法院： 县：\n\n选择法院\n\n法官（全名）： 日期： 选择县\n\n上诉、程序或申请的说明及争点陈述\n\n说明：如为上诉，请简要说明被上诉的文书。如上诉针对命令，请具体说明所请求的救济及该动议是获准还是被驳回。如为在本院启动或根据 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，请简要说明须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 9, 2022 录入的决定及命令提起上诉，该等决定及命令根据 Judiciary Law § 753 作出了最终藐视法庭命令。\n\n信息陈述书—民事\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1187 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 224 of 269\n\n争点：请具体说明拟在上诉、程序或 CPLR 5704 审查申请中提出的争点、将主张的撤销或变更理由，以及上诉中所请求的具体救济。\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：该决定及命令存在错误，应全部撤销，且藐视法庭程序必须驳回。最高法院的决定及命令尤其作出了最终藐视法庭命令，而该命令在法律上或事实上均未获案卷支持。即使藐视法庭认定适当（其并不适当），所处罚款的性质及金额亦不成比例、过高、未经法律授权、构成滥用裁量权，并侵犯了被告—上诉人根据联邦及州宪法享有的宪法权利。\n\n当事人信息\n\n说明：请逐行填写本诉讼或程序各方当事人的姓名，每行填写一个姓名。如本表系为上诉而提交，请注明该当事人在原审法院中的身份，以及其在本院中的身份（如有）。如本表系为在本院提起的程序而提交，仅填写当事人的姓名及其在本院中的身份。\n\n编号 当事人名称 原审身份 上诉分庭身份\n\n1 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业） 原告 被上诉人\n2 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵） 被告 上诉人\n3 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司） 被告 无\n4 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司） 被告 无\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 225 of 269\n律师信息\n\n说明：请填写各方当事人的律师或律师事务所名称。如本表系随启动上诉分庭特别程序的申请通知或说明理由令一并提交，仅须提供申请人律师的姓名。如诉讼当事人自行代理，必须勾选标有“自行代理”的方框，并在所提供的空格中填写该当事人的适当信息。\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\n\n地址：7 Times Square\n城市：New York I 州：New York I 邮政编码：10036 I 电话号码：212-326-2000\n电子邮件地址：ssamoff@omm.com\n律师类型： • 指派\nlii!!i 委聘 • 政府 • 临时出庭许可\n• 自行代理\n所代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：John Siegal（约翰·西格尔），Baker & Hostetler LLP（贝克与霍斯特勒律师事务所） \n地址：45 Rockefeller Center\n城市：New York I 州：New York I邮政编码：10111 I 电话号码：212-589-1400\n电子邮件地址：jsiegal@baker1aw.com\n律师类型： • 指派\nlii!!i 委聘 • 政府 • 临时出庭许可\n• 自行代理\n所代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）： 2\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔），Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（Lawall & Mitchell 有限责任公司）\n地址：99 Church Street, 4th floor\n城市：White Plains I 州：New York I 邮政编码：10601 I 电话号码：973-285-3280\n电子邮件地址：aaron@lrnesq.com\n律师类型： • 指派\nlii!!i 委聘 D 政府 • 临时出庭许可\n• 自行代理\n\n所代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）：\n3, l-f\n\n地址：\n城市：\n电子邮件地址： I 州： I 邮政编码： I 电话号码：\n\n律师类型： • 指派\n• 委聘\n所代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）： • 政府 • 临时出庭许可\n• 自行代理\n\n地址：\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n城市： I 州： I 邮政编码： I 电话号码：\n电子邮件地址：\n律师类型： • 指派\n• 委聘\n所代理的当事人（填写上表中的当事人编号）： • 政府 • 临时出庭许可\n• 自行代理\n\n律师/律师事务所名称：\n地址：\n城市：\n电子邮件地址： I 州：\n• 指派 I 邮政编码：\n• 政府 I 电话号码：\n• 临时出庭许可\n\n民事案件信息说明\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 226 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 227 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 228 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 229 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 230 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 231 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 232 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 233 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 234 of 269\n\n［原文 OCR 文字严重损坏，无法依据上下文恢复。］ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 235 of 269\n\n&YQ .'\"#] 30209OFK^KKF 819:9'0 4( 1\"2'1 \\_20'1!\"(\"# `\"20 #\"0KHa19',b' 1\"( 1)9#( \"#cM^^F^^^4\"' 139'`\"20(1##04 139 . )) d\\$'\"(F 0 '2)(#( \\\"2)14\"2(\"cNLeF^^^F^^^,^^F\\!'4\"0 ( fghi\nj\nk \"#( 0)9cNK^4))\"((142)) \"# lb-mKa4))\"( 20!' 0! \"# 819:9,I \\$ 0 ) ''F#3))\"(0 )+('!('42)( \"2')9' 6\" 2' `\"200\"! ''(I \\J\"06(1 )' \\ 0 ( n( 1o '\\) 6(\"\\(+)9(1 ( (\"())9\\$\")(+`\"20\"01 0'F 0 '(\"02) \"#)\\,5\\\"642'0 4cNLeF^^^F^^^,^^ \"-./\\*(#\\$ 32'( ''19'\"# ' 0\\$! \"#'p i q\n\\*I\"! \"#r(09,s `\"20'0 0 1\" \\ 0!' '#2))2\"092(1 0t21!098\\*uOML( \\$ ( #( ' (\"4 )91, d 1v] 30209GFK^KK\n\nwxywz{ y} w~y€'{y€ ƒ { \"… ~†€'{‡{\n\nƒˆ‰~ ‡y€ €y y€ ˆ‰~ ‡y€ '~‰‡ {‡xy‰\n~''†w~‡{ } y‡‡†y{‰€y‰ Š‹Œ‡{‰€y‰\nwxywz…~''‰{'‰~‡y} w†Š€y‡‰~ …y‰‰y~ˆ …€Šw~‰Ž~''{ ‡Œy ‡ ‰y…y‰y wy\n\n－案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 236 页，共 269 页\n\n证据附件 41\n\n'\n已提交\nNYSCEF 已提交：上诉部－第一部门，02/15/2022 03:13 PM\n第一\n上诉\n部\nNYSCEF 文件编号 5\n－\n. 3\n摘要\n陈述\n文件\n编号 269\n2022-00609\n2022-0\n\n部门\n02/14/2022\n\n：37\nPM\n）\nNYSCEF 收件日期：02/15/2022\n1uit\nVED\n/14/2\n\nNYSCEF：\n申请\n加急\n送达和／或\n临时\n救济\n（由提出动议的一方提交）\n提交人\n日期：\nFebruary 14, 2022 案号\n2022-00609；2022-00610\n标题\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n案卷编号 652077/2017\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名，\n等人\n事项\n诉\n[Z]\n裁定\nD\n上诉\n判决书\nD\n被告\n就判决 [ZJ]\nCount~e_w_Y_o_rk\nSupreme\n____\n_\nSurrogate•sO\nD\nFeb. 9\n\n,20\n法院于下列日期作出裁定\nFamily\n法官姓名\nBarry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）\n上诉通知书\n\nFeb. 10\n于下列日期提交\n.20\n如系对行政决定提出上诉，请说明行政机构 ___________________\n_\n违约\n诉讼性质\n程序\n或 ---==------------------------------\n_A_I\n被上诉裁定的\n~-~:::~tent\nt:jdecree _I\n\n_\n\n上诉人\n申请暂缓执行\n本申请由\n被上诉人提出，要求在上诉期间暂缓执行藐视法庭命令。\n被告－上诉人请求在 February 16, 2022 之前获得暂缓执行；其被命令须于该日向原告支付 \\$134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n如申请暂缓执行，请说明请求理由 该 \\$134,000,000 藐视法庭罚款数额过高、不成比例且违宪；动议法院已表示，如未在五个营业日内，即于 February 16, 2022 前支付，将可能予以监禁。\n\n是否已提供任何担保\n否。\n\n_ 如“是”，请说明金额及类型\n_\n___\n_\n\n是否已向下级\n法院申请此项\n救济\n否。\n~~-------- 如“是”，请说明\n处理结果---------------,--\n此前是否曾向\n本院提出任何申请\n\n_ 如“是”，请说明日期\n及性质\n\n_\n\n姓名 Ira Brad Matetsky（艾拉·布拉德·马特茨基）和 Jason T. Cohen（杰森·T·科恩） O'Melvany & Myers LLP（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）\n\n地址 360 Lexington Avenue 7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10017 New York, New York 10036\n212-326-2000\n电话号码 212-365-3391（手机）；2120922-9149（办公室） New York\n电子邮件\nimatetsky@ganfershore.com\n出庭代理人 Ira B. Matetsky（艾拉·B·马特茨基） Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，ssarnoff@omm.com）；212-326-2293\nJason T. Cohen（杰森·T·科恩，Qcohen@ganfershore.com）；646-250-4141 Anton Metlitsky（安东·梅特利茨基，ametlitsky@omm.com）；212-316-2291\nMark C. Zauderer（马克·C·佐德勒，mzauderer@ganfershore.com）；917-331-7762\n\n（请勿在此线以下填写）\n\n处理结果\n驳回上诉人关于暂缓执行的申请。\n\nFili' Dnte *1,/* 2:A 答复 \\_\\_ J'-1/,\\_\\_J\\_f\\_\"\"-'/())~, a\\_&.....\\_.tl) \\_\\_ \\_ II 动议日期 \\_\\_\\_ &-\\_· +-/\\_J\\_t\\_,/\\_J\\_J-- \\_\\_\\_ 异议 I 加急 ---\"'-V\\_;\\_' \\_\\_ 电话联系律师 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ \\_ 由 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 作出决定 \\_ 所有文件均须由专人送达。法院律师\n\n“修订于 10/19”\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 239 页，共 269 页\n\n证据附件 42\n\n本网站使用 Cookie 和本地存储。使用我们的服务即表示您同意我们使用 Cookie 和本地存储。MfHM-M 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 240 页，共\n\n文件标题：LADY MAY 当前位置（游艇，IMO 1012359）－VesselFinder［抓取 URL：http］抓取时间戳（UTC）：Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:38:05 GMT 第 1 页，共 2 页 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 241 页，共 269 页\n\n证据附件 43\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 242 页，共 269 页\n\n1 纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县：审判庭第 61 部 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），原告，－诉－KWOK 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，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），被告。 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 案卷编号 652077/2017 October 15, 2020 Teams 程序 出庭法官：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）大法官 出庭人员：O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所） 律师 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 代理律师：STUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），ESQ. EDWARD MOSS（爱德华·莫斯），ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克与霍斯泰特勒律师事务所） 律师 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor New York, New York 10111 代理律师：JOHN SIEGAL（约翰·西格尔），ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO（梅利莎·卡瓦略），ESQ. ERICA BARROW（埃丽卡·巴罗），ESQ. （出庭人员续见下一页。） 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 243 页，共\n\n1 出庭人员：\n（续）\n\n2 LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n律师\n3 162 East 64th Street\nNew York, New York 10065\n4 代理律师：\nAARON A. MITCHELL（亚伦·A·米切尔），ESQ.\n\n8 Terry-Ann Volberg（特里－安·沃尔伯格），CSR，CRR\n正式法庭书记员\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 244 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n1 法庭：\n早上好。\n2 在讨论临时限制令申请之前，我有几项程序性事项要处理。\n3\n4\n5 如您未发言，请将麦克风静音，以免产生杂音。谢谢。\n6\n7 如同我刚开始所说，在处理临时限制令申请之前，我有几项程序性事项要解决。我们原定讨论原告的律师费申请，并且在动议庭中有被告提出的一项动议，要求增加未减轻损害的积极抗辩。关于后一问题，\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14 Moss 先生，我希望您同意在审判中使诉状符合审判中提出的证据；并且由于我已在 September 15 的判决和命令中处理了减轻损害问题，又由于该问题一直至少是本案的外围问题，\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19 我希望您同意，这将是完整审判中要处理的问题之一，以避免进行动议程序。因此，我希望经双方同意，将该动议标注为不损害权利地撤回。您可以接受吗？\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24 MOSS 先生：\n法官阁下，我只是——我只是想了解，我的理解是法庭将就损害赔偿作出裁定。您已命令我们提交计算结果。我认为减轻损害问题已由法庭在简易判决中作出裁决，而且不会就损害赔偿进行审判，这将以便您取得计算结果，从而使法院书记官能够签发判决书。这就是命令中所载的内容，因此我并不理解将会进行审判，而且我们认为不存在任何需要审判的事实争议。\n\n法庭：我的理解是，我已就责任问题作出有利于你方的简易判决，这就是你方有资格提出今日所提 5229 申请的原因；我们推迟了损害赔偿的计算，因为涉及损害赔偿数额的事实问题。我认定你方的证据不足以使我就损害赔偿问题作出简易判决。因此，该问题将在我认为我们已安排在 January 进行的听证中处理。10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nMOSS 先生：因此，法官阁下，我的理解是，January 的审判是关于揭开公司面纱问题——19 20\n\n法庭：是的，是的。\n\nMOSS 先生：——而且 Kwok 先生提出的唯一损害赔偿抗辩，法官阁下，是减轻损害。法庭已在简易判决中依据香港法律驳回了减轻损害这一抗辩。22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 246 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法庭：我在 September 15 的判决中明确提到了该问题。我提及它的方式表明，我认为这是一项可疑的主张；我现在仍认为这是一项可疑的主张，因为我不认为事后要求你方当事人以似乎高于市场价格的价格从中国共产党购买一套公寓是其应尽之责，而这正是我在 September 15, 2020 判决中所说的。\n\n因此，被告提出一项动议，要求修改其答辩状，以主张未减轻损害的抗辩。无论我们何时开始评估损害赔偿，我都会就减轻损害问题听取被告的意见。现在，如果你方希望他提出动议，并希望我对该动议作出裁定，那么除了允许他提出动议、由你方答复该动议，然后对该动议作出裁定外，我别无选择。由于我们举行的任何听证均属我将使诉状符合审判中提出证据的听证，我认为，作为一项程序性事项，我们应让被告不损害权利地撤回该动议，并让你方接受目前的程序状态。9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nMOSS 先生：好的，可以。如果法官阁下无论如何都会准许其修改答辩状的许可动议，我们可以就此达成约定。\n\n我们有一项关于损害赔偿的待决动议，而他们——\n\n法庭：是。24 25\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案卷编号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020 案号 22-50073，文件 183-4，提交日期 04/06/22，登记日期 04/06/22 17:07:45，第 247 页，共 269 页\n\n6 庭审记录 MOSS 先生：那么，法官阁下希望如何解决损害赔偿问题？法庭：我们将就损害赔偿问题举行听证，该听证不是今天举行。MOSS 先生：是。法庭：因此，在该听证中，对于被告希望就此减轻损害理论提出的任何内容——我已在 September 15, 2020 的判决和命令中强烈表明该理论颇为可疑——他们将被允许就该理论在损害赔偿听证中提出其所拥有的任何证据，如有。请允许我询问被告律师，鉴于今日庭审记录中现已记载的内容，我们是否可以将修改答辩状的动议标注为不损害权利地撤回？SIEGAL 先生：是的，我是代表被告 Kwok 的 Baker Hostetler 律师事务所的 John Siegal。我们当然同意该结果，并将在今日之后送达并提交我们的第二次修正答辩状，以使其成为正式记录；我们将据此进行听证。法庭：可以。这确实没有必要由你方提交第二次修正起诉书，但我认为庭审记录中非常清楚地载明了这一点。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 248 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n就今天而言，我们将举行损害赔偿听证会；在该损害赔偿听证会上，您可以就减损部分的主张提交您希望提出的任何证言或您希望提交的任何文件。而您提交第二次修正起诉状，并让原告对此作出答复，确实会给本院和原告造成负担。\n\n因此，记录本身已说明一切。我只是希望得到您和 Moss（莫斯）先生的一些配合。\n\nSIEGAL（西格尔）律师：是的，法官阁下。我们感谢本院允许我们有机会就该问题提出证据；我们将在听证会上做好准备。自我们出庭参与本案以来，我们一直与 Moss 先生保持良好配合，我相信我们将继续如此。我们期待有机会努力说服法官阁下——尽管我们理解这存在疑问——经全面审查后，本案存在一项减损抗辩，对损害赔偿具有非常重大的影响。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n我们不会有任何第二次修正起诉状，也不会有任何动议，对吗？\n\nSIEGAL 律师：是的，法官阁下，明白。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n现在，我们要处理的第二项事务性事项是律师费。由于还将有进一步的程序，\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 249 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n因此，今天处理律师费没有意义，因为就我们将举行的两次听证会而言，还会产生更多律师费：一次是关于损害赔偿，另一次是此前已排定于 January 15th 进行的听证会。因此，经您同意，Moss 先生，我希望将您的律师费申请延期至一个更适当的时间处理。\n\nMOSS 律师：可以。可以，法官阁下。我想，您知道，律师费与本金和利息一样，都是合同损害赔偿。我建议我们在听证会上或者与听证会同时提交我们的证据。我想，除 Lewis（刘易斯）先生外，我们实际上不会就律师费问题传唤任何证人。我认为我们应当在听证会上处理，法官阁下；在损害赔偿听证会上处理对我而言最为合理，因为它们确实是损害赔偿的一部分。\n\n法庭：在本案所有程序结束后，您将获得根据合同应当支付给您的任何律师费。这不是今天需要处理的问题，而是有待将来解决的问题。好的。\n\nMOSS 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n那么，对于您希望何时举行损害赔偿听证会，您是否已有想法？\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 250 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法庭：\n只要我能够安排。\n\n并非无缘无故；各位都知道，Scarpulla（斯卡普拉）法官已升任上诉分庭，Friedman（弗里德曼）法官和 Sherwood（舍伍德）法官将在近期退休，因此目前轮值的商事分庭法官仅有五位，而 Scarpulla 法官的案件已重新分配给仍在轮值的五位法官。\n\n因此，我们现在都有些繁忙。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n您在另一事项上有一个 January 15th 的日期。我们将尽力寻找一个便利的时间解决损害赔偿和律师费问题。\n\n现在，让我们处理今天上午我唯一想处理的事项，即您根据 CPLR 5229 提出的申请：一项范围延及 Kwok（郭文贵）先生资产的限制令；并且您认为该限制令应延及其控制的实体，无论该等实体是单一目的 LLC，还是其儿子等家庭成员。\n\n那么，Moss 先生，请陈述。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n谢谢。\n\n法官阁下，关于 5229 项下的救济，我认为 Kwok 先生并不否认我们有权获得某些救济。他不争议 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）符合该标准。他不否认我方的主张，即他意图耗散其资产，而这一过程已经\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 251 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n随着这项虚假的破产程序开始。\n\n本院曾表示，除仅仅在判决中胜诉这一事实外，还需要作出某种证明。我们提交的意见是，您所需要做的只是通过简易判决胜诉。本院表示可能还需要额外的证明，因此我们确实在所提交的材料中阐明了这一点。\n\n此处存在明确且重大的风险：若不加以制止，Kwok 先生将继续竭尽全力隐匿资产并使该判决无法执行，无论是作伪证、违反法院命令，还是提出这项虚假的破产申请。多年来，我们一直向本院这样说。这也是我们申请扣押的原因。我们也知道将会发生什么。我们会胜诉，因为 Kwok 先生没有任何正当抗辩；随后 Kwok 先生会规避该判决，并会竭尽所能确保我的委托人蒙受损失。\n\n因此，目前具体提交法官审理的 5229 问题有两个。Kwok 先生提出两项论点，试图限制我们所请求的救济。因此，我将先处理我认为较为容易的一项。\n\n第一，Kwok 先生不争议我们有权对其进行询问并就其进行证据开示，但他主张，证据开示应仅限于我们尚未就其寻求证据开示、尚未获得证据开示的资产。本案中唯一与资产有关的证据开示发生在扣押阶段，而 Kwok 先生及其先前的律师坚决且一贯地拒绝就除 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）住宅之外的任何资产提供任何证据开示。我认为，实际上我们都同意，所有其他资产都可以作为调查对象。至于该公寓，即该住宅，没有理由限制对其的证据开示。这是我们已识别出的 Kwok 先生在纽约拥有的唯一资产。它似乎是他在本国拥有的最大资产，也可能是他在任何地方拥有且未被中国政府冻结的最大资产。现在，Kwok 先生先前的律师贬损我们；他们说我们歇斯底里，说我们因不断寻求扣押该公寓而害怕案件实体问题。我们知道我们在与谁打交道，也知道我们最终会走到这里；该资产是我们收回款项的最佳机会。我们有权就该资产进行证据开示。该证据开示并无任何显著负担，而且我们已经两年未就该公寓进行任何证据开示。存在新的论点，也有新的事项需要调查。例如，Kwok 先生如今在其\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 252 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n破产申请中主张，除由 BVI 公司拥有的纽约公司、即两个 Genever（杰尼弗）实体外，还有另一家公司，一家名为 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）的新公司、新空壳公司，而该公司才是该公寓的实际受益所有人，且该公司一直在支付费用，并由其儿子全资拥有。因此，他在破产程序中的论点并非其有任何正当债权人，而是该公寓为其儿子以信托方式持有，且其儿子应优先于 Pacific Alliance。这全都是一场空壳把戏。我们有权调查该事项，以及过去几年间发生的任何其他事项。他们将该公寓挂牌出售，随后又在扣押程序当日将其撤下，以便能够在法庭上向您主张，嘿，它已不再挂牌出售，您不应扣押它。我们有权获得该等证据开示，而这正是 CPLR 5229 旨在给予我们的：向判决债权人准确提供资产由谁拥有、位于何处的信息。\n\n法官阁下，他们提出的第二个问题，也是您开始这场讨论时提出的问题，是此处范围应当为何：限制令是否应仅涉及 Kwok 先生的资产，涉及他间接及直接拥有的 Kwok 先生的资产？他们试图在此主张，限制令应仅涉及其“直接拥有”的资产。这一例外将吞没规则本身，\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 253 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n因为 Kwok 先生并不直接持有任何资产。这就是他的惯常做法。他正是为此目的，通过多层家庭成员、多层空壳公司持有资产，以便像我们这样的债权人无法触及这些资产。\n\nKwok 先生在另一起案件的证词中承认了这一点。他说，他在宣誓后作证称，我们引用如下：“事实上，依法我没有任何资产。我身无分文。”他作出这些主张，是因为他以类似该公寓的方式安排其持有的资产。我曾告诉您，例如，空壳公司、空壳公司；他如今称其儿子拥有该公司，而这是一家名为 Bravo Luck 的公司，他称其儿子拥有该公司，尽管他过去曾持有该公司 50 percent 的权益，并且现在显然称他依据本案中未提交的文件，以一美元将其出售给了儿子；这些文件是倒签日期的伪造文件。\n\n这一切都是虚假的：他当时二十多岁的儿子才是真正支付 \\$70 million 购买该公寓的人，他才是该公寓的合法所有人？这全都是一场游戏，以确保我们无法收回款项。\n\n还有一艘价值 30 million-dollar 的游艇。该游艇由一家 Hong Kong（香港）公司持有。\n\n法庭：我以为是 \\$27 million。\n\nMOSS 律师：抱歉，我是向上取整。我是向上取整。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号：647 NYSCEF 收到：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 255 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n有一艘价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇，由一家 Hong Kong 公司持有；一旦我们获准进行证据开示，我们将发现更多由更多空壳公司持有的资产，而 Kwok 先生或其子女之一是该等公司的唯一所有人。\n\n问题如下：如果他们要求您仅禁止他耗散其直接持有的资产，那将排除一切；即便 Kwok 先生已表示这些是他的资产，也将排除一切。\n\n他向本院提交了一份宣誓书，称他拥有该公寓。他上个月在纽约提交了一份起诉状，称该游艇是“他的游艇”。这些是他的资产，而根据法规 CPLR 5229，可以作出适用于直接和间接持有资产的限制令。\n\nCPLR 5229规定，原告可以以其获得判决后限制的同样方式获得判决前限制。判决后限制受CPLR 5222管辖，该条规定，限制措施适用于其，即判决债务人，“享有权益”的财产。该条并未规定直接权益，而是规定一项权益。Kwok先生（郭文贵）已经作证，他已在本案中提交证据表明其拥有该公寓，并且他已作出其拥有该游艇的司法自认。\n\n因此，他们为支持CPLR 5229和5222仅适用于直接资产这一主张所援引的案件完全不相关，因为这些案件均不涉及如下情形：如本案中被告实际主张其拥有这些资产。法庭：Moss先生（莫斯），我理解你的论点。让我听听Siegal先生（西格尔）的意见。Moss先生：谢谢，法官阁下。Carvalho女士（卡瓦略）：早上好。我是代表Kwok先生的Baker & Hostetler（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）律师Melissa Carvalho（梅利莎·卡瓦略）。我首先想说的是，今天上午我们反复听到Moss先生说“Kwok先生的破产”。已提交的破产申请并非Kwok先生的申请。我们已获悉该申请，法庭也已获悉。其表面上载明，该申请是由一个实体提交的，该实体之一的律师今日在场。因此，如有任何与该破产有关的问题或争议，我不能就此发言，但Mitchell先生（米切尔）当然可以。关于CPLR 5229，原告在临时限制令（TRO）及说明理由令中寻求的救济，远超CPLR 5229规定的范围。原告寻求禁止并限制被告Kwok就“其享有任何权益的任何财产”进行处分，但CPLR 5229的适用范围仅限于Kwok先生，即不利当事人。\n\nCPLR 5229明确规定，“审判法官可以命令对不利当事人进行询问，并命令限制其行为，其效力与判决后向其送达限制通知的效力相同。”法院对CPLR 5229的措辞作出了严格解释。不利当事人是Kwok先生，法庭就简易判决作出的裁定和命令仅限于其个人。\n\n原告在其答复中花费大量篇幅，试图继续对Kwok先生造成不利影响，但这只是因为原告无法提出权威依据，以支持其单方面扩大CPLR 5229适用范围的做法。\n\n原告向法庭提出了多类已获准CPLR 5229救济的案件，但这涉及法庭准许该救济的酌处权。该法条规定法庭“可以根据5229命令救济”，对此我们并无争议。是的，法院可在许多不同的事实情形下裁定CPLR 5229救济，但该救济仍限于CPLR 5229所规定的范围，除其只是原告所希望的结果外，原告并未表明任何支持其单方面扩大该法条适用范围的依据。\n\n事实上，原告援引的案件并未扩大CPLR 5229的范围。APF案、Gallegos案、Safeco案、Unex案和Leser案均将救济限于特定不利当事人，而非该当事人可能享有的任何“权益”。在纽约东区（Eastern District of New York（纽约东区））审理的Leser v. U.S. Bank（美国银行）案中，法庭明确指出：“不过，原告的观点正确，即该命令的范围应限于对原告Leser资产的限制。”美国银行最初曾寻求对“原告Leser及其控制的任何个人、公司或其他实体”实施限制，但美国银行随后在辩论中承认，其仅寻求对原告Leser实施限制，法庭认定该做法适当且恰当。原告所言不能改变这一点。法条仅提供其所规定的救济。因此，我们来看看该法条。该法条规定了询问和限制。询问：在本案中，Kwok先生的资产已在证据开示中得到处理。Kwok先生已在本案中三次接受证言录取，分别于October 3rd, 2018、November 25, 2019和December 11, 2019。他已提交超过14页文件。原告已有多次机会充分询问Kwok先生。\n\n事实上，如果你查看附于本人宣誓陈述的原告第二套文件请求，便会发现其确实以资产为目标。现原告主张先前的证据开示不足，但记录显示确实存在证据开示。基于范围提出了异议。当然，曾向Kwok先生提出诸如“你的任何资产是否被中国政府接收？”等问题，但不允许进行钓鱼式调查，并不意味着证据开示不足。我还指出，过去曾存在争议，那些证据开示争议已经解决，但通过作出这些泛泛而谈的陈述，并附上未包含其所回复原始信函的电子邮件来制造混乱，并不能改变这一点。现在转向法条允许限制的第二部分，但限制仅限于CPLR 5229，并且不同于CPLR 5222规定的限制。根据5229在此寻求的救济适用于判决作出之前，因此不同于可针对第三方使用的判决后措施，CPLR 5229下的限制权力只能针对“不利当事人”行使。然而，在任何程序阶段，限制始终仅限于Kwok先生享有直接且实际权益的财产。在另我地位已经裁定且责任已经确定之前，限制不适用于间接权益，包括公司持有的权益、财产收益，甚至另我实体的资产。\n\n原告也不能将CPLR 5229用作规避判决前扣押法条要求的手段。在此，原告的申请反复冗长地依赖于，并且我们今天上午已听到其律师反复陈述并承认，本案唯一关注的是Sherry的住所所有权。原告本人称Kwok先生不是Sherry的所有人。法庭已确认并说明Kwok先生不是Sherry的所有人。尽管Kwok先生对Sherry的住所并无直接权益，他仍同意一项经双方同意作出的法院命令，据此，如相应被告实体的任何资产与任何第三方订立出售、让与、质押或转移的合同，他将立即向原告提供书面通知。因此，原告通过同意已获得比其在本次根据CPLR 5229提出的申请中本有权获得的更广泛救济，故不存在关于Sherry资产耗散的担忧。\n\n现原告主张Kwok先生试图削弱其寻求的救济，但实际上我们是在遵守法条及法庭根据该法条授予的权限。原告依赖于据称由Kwok先生就其资产所有权作出的陈述。Kwok先生可以说任何他想说的话；所有权是一个事实和法律问题。如果他不拥有该资产，他就不拥有，仅此而已。这不足以使你根据CPLR 5229获得更广泛的救济。\n\n证据开示已经进行。如我们今天上午反复听到的，原告在此唯一关注的是Sherry。任何进一步询问均是浪费时间和金钱。该标的已经——Sherry已经受一项命令约束，并已被限制。原告的任何论点均不改变CPLR 5229在此的适用。这就是全部。现在，重要的是，根据5229提供救济完全属于法庭的合理酌处权，但Kwok先生已经接受询问，任何进一步询问都应限于先前证据开示中未处理的资产和事项。CPLR 5229不授权重复和累积的证据开示。如我们已多次提及，Sherry的转让已受到限制，任何进一步限制均应驳回。现有一项Kwok先生已同意的同意命令，且Kwok先生对Sherry的住所不享有直接权益。因此，Kwok先生请求本法庭撤销临时限制令，驳回原告要求CPLR 5229救济的动议，因为该动议远超CPLR 5229的范围。Kwok先生已经接受询问，其资产也已被发现并受本法庭限制，但如本法庭倾向于准许原告根据CPLR 5229提出的救济，Kwok先生将请求本法庭行使酌处权，将该救济修改为限于作为“不利当事人”的Kwok先生以个人身份持有的资产，以及此前未曾成为证据开示和有关转让的法院命令标的的Kwok先生资产。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。Genever（杰尼弗）方面有人想说什么吗？Mitchell先生：没有，法官阁下。我认为她说得很好。我加入Carvalho女士的论证。\n\n法庭：好的。请看，这是一个2017年的案件。我们已经处理过多项与Kwok先生资产有关的动议。法庭认为，如September 15, 2020命令所反映，Kwok先生曾试图误导法庭。法庭认为，如原告所主张，Kwok先生在利用其资产玩障眼法，并且即使未违反法院命令的文字规定，也违反了法院命令的精神。这将在January 15, 2021或此后不久结束，届时我们将就另我问题进行审判，但从现在起至January 15, 2021审判开始期间，Kwok先生及其直接或间接控制的任何实体，均不得让与或转移Kwok先生享有直接或间接权益的任何财产，尤其包括作为2018年证据开示及Kwok先生律师所提及同意命令标的的Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）公寓，以及Kwok先生曾在不同时期主张拥有所有权的游艇。\n\n因此，最终结果是，我根据 CPLR 5229 行使酌处权，限制对 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）曾拥有的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，以及 Kwok 先生曾声称拥有的价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇进行任何进一步转让。\n\n庭审记录\n\n因此，我们不会再搞任何空壳公司把戏。无论这些资产由何处持有，它们都将继续由其目前所在之处持有；如果认定目前列为该等资产所有人的实体是 Kwok 先生的另我，或者完全由 Kwok 先生支配和控制，则该等资产将可用于清偿原告获得的任何判决。\n\n在此期间，即从现在起至 2021 年 1 月 15 日就另我问题进行审理之时，原告可以对任何声称拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓或该游艇的实体进行证据开示，且 Genever（吉尼弗）的律师和 Kwok 先生的律师被命令立即向原告律师提供识别该两项资产登记所有人的信息。\n\n这就是本庭的命令。\n\nCARVALHO 女士（卡瓦略）：法官阁下，我可以请求一些澄清吗？\n\n我们理解本庭今日的命令，\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 264 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n但是，对于间接所有权，我感到困惑，因为我只是随口想到，这可能会限制某些实体从事正常和日常业务；对于某项事物属于间接权益，以及阻止正常转让，任何人可以在何种程度上作出决定？我的意思是，我不知道这会对其他独立自主的公司造成多大影响。\n\n法庭：影响限于此：在 Sherry-Netherland 对一套价值 70 million-dollar 的公寓进行转让，并非正常经营过程中的转让。对一艘价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇进行转让，并非正常经营过程中的转让。如果 Kwok 先生想理发，或者 Kwok 先生想买一份报纸，或者 Kwok 先生想在冠状病毒疫情期间度假，那将属于正常经营过程，但我认为本 Microsoft Teams（微软 Teams）平台上的每个人都明白，这两项合计价值至少 $75 million 的资产已经被多次转移，而原告有权查明目前对该等资产享有所有权的实体、该等实体如何取得该等资产的所有权，以及在 Kwok 先生作为该等资产登记所有人的期间与现登记所有人取得该等资产占有之时之间所作出的任何中间转让。\n\nCARVALHO 女士：明白。\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 265 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n因此，具体资产是 Sherry-Netherland 公寓和该游艇；但为确保我理解正确，对于其他自主公司，它们可以继续正常经营，其他法律上自主的实体无需停止或中止业务。\n\n法庭：我不清楚 Kwok 先生还成立了哪些其他企业和哪些其他实体。这里明确且具体的意图是，在这起 2017 年案件中，已存在大量策略性操弄、大量掩饰，以及一些对法庭命令的公然无视；我希望知道，任何由 Kwok 先生主导且并非正常经营过程中的交易是否将会发生。\n\nCARVALHO 女士：好的。我想我们明白了。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMOSS 先生（莫斯）：法官阁下，如果可以，我只提两点。第一，就资产而言，我们知道，\n\n还有一些在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的空壳公司拥有他刚以约 $7 million 购买的 Greenwich（格林威治）房地产。我认为最高效的方式——而且我们不知道我们所不知道的事情——我认为最高效的推进方式，是让我们一开始就能够送达某种书面质询，询问资产是什么以及持有这些资产的实体是什么，然后我们便可以继续\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 266 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n对 Kwok 先生和该等实体进行询问，如果它们是实体，则询问 Kwok 先生作为该等实体的 30(b)(6) 代表。我希望以高效且负担最小的方式进行此事；与其只是问他一些他会说自己不知道答案的问题，我认为最高效的方式是尝试通过书面证据开示取得实际资产的清单。\n\n法庭：听着，我不会告诉你们如何执业。你们有今日庭审记录的笔录。我认为我已非常清楚地说明你们可以做什么。\n\n你们可以对任何资产进行证据开示——你们可以对任何有善意基础相信由 Kwok 先生直接或间接控制的实体进行证据开示。可以是书面证据开示，也可以是口头证据开示。我不会在你们就可为事项的范围来回争执证据开示争议时充当学校操场监管员。我认为 Kwok 先生的律师和 Genever 的律师完全明白庭审记录中反映的内容。我们这里面对的是一个时间窗口压缩的期间。\n\n就两项具体资产，而且仅就两项具体资产，已经作出了限制令；另我审理定于 2021 年 1 月 15 日举行，并且损害赔偿听证将\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 267 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n在另我审理之前或与该审理同时举行。\n\n再次说明，这是一宗 2017 年案件，并且已经占用了法庭相当多的时间。该案已产生数份书面裁决。法庭命令要么遭到公然无视，要么被极其宽泛地解释；并且有人向法庭作出了故意或非故意的误述，误导了法庭。我们将在 2021 年 1 月结结此案。\n\n因此，法庭书记员会向你们提供她的电子邮件地址。你们将订购一份笔录副本。我在这份笔录中已经说明得不能再清楚了。\n\n如果任何一方或任何律师无视法庭命令，将会受到严厉制裁。\n\n大家都清楚了吗？\n\nMOSS 先生：清楚。\n\n法官阁下，我可以就赔偿动议问一个问题吗？\n\n我们已提交动议，对方已提出反对。我理解法庭将尽快就此问题举行听证。由于对方已提出反对而我们尚未答复，我们能否提交答复，因为有些事项我们希望提交法庭审理？\n\n法庭：如果你希望如此。正如我已向你说明，我被审判和动议积压所拖累。我已预留出 1 月 15 日这个日期。该日期已成定局。如果可以，我们将在 2021 年 1 月 15 日进行另我审理；如果我们能在此之前举行损害赔偿听证，我们就会举行，但从现在到 1 月 15 日之间没有很多时间，而且你，Moss 先生，可能会相当忙碌。\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 268 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\nMOSS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\nMITCHELL 先生（米切尔）：法官阁下，关于今日的命令，还有最后一个问题，因为如您所知，Genever New York（吉尼弗纽约）已申请破产。我怀疑从现在到 1 月 15 日期间，破产财产中的任何资产都不会被出售或发生任何情况，但我想确保，尤其是我本人或本案任何一方，不会因破产法院发生的任何事情而招致潜在制裁。\n\n法庭：不，我不能——我对任何处于破产中的实体均无管辖权。这并不意味着 Moss 先生不能向破产法院提出申请。这并不意味着 Moss 先生不能在破产法院进行的任何程序中提及今日这里的庭审笔录，但我完全理解对于已申请破产的实体，破产法院的自动中止。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nTerry（特里），你能否向各方提供你的电子邮件地址，以便他们可以通过该地址订购一份将据此订购并电子提交的笔录副本？\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 647 NYSCEF 收件：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文件 183-4 提交日期 04/06/22 录入日期 04/06/22 17:07:45 第 269 页，共 269 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n谢谢各位。\n\n祝大家愉快。\n\nMOSS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n***\n\n证 明\n\n本人，Terry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔贝格），C.S.R.，纽约州的正式法庭书记员，特此证明，上述内容是本人速记记录的真实、准确笔录。\n\n_______________________\nTerry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔贝格），CSR，CRR\n正式法庭书记员\n\ntav","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","William Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":11,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":45,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":289,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":756,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":760,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":874,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":899,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":904,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1079,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1081,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1086,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1089,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1104,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1105,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1156,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1157,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":79293,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-04-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-04-06","updated_at":"2026-08-24 00:26:20"}