{"id":"court_ctb_206_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":206,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nCHAPTER 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073(JAM)\n\n# DECLARATION OF CAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF RUI MA FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY TO ALLOW PENDING STATE COURT LITIGATION TO PROCEED\n\nI, Carollynn Callari, hereby declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, under penalty of perjury:\n\nDebtor.\n\nI am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York and New Jersey and am a partner in the law firm of Callari Partners LLC which maintains an office at One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10020, counsel for creditor Rui Ma in the abovecaptioned case. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of the Motion of Rui Ma for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Allow Pending State Court Litigation to Proceed.\n\n3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Amended Verified Complaint filed on December 4, 2017 in Rui Ma's civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 158140/2017, against the above-captioned debtor, Guo Wengui a//k/a/ Miles Kwok and Golden Spring New York Ltd.\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nDated this 11th day of April, 2022.\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari\n\n# INDEX NO. 158140/2 ILLED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLEBE 1241222222221415622222242502222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222\n\n# SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nRUI MA,\n\nIndex. No. 158140/2017\n\nPlaintiff,\n\n-against-\n\n# AMENDED VERIETED COMPLAINT\n\nGUO WENGUI a/k/a MILES KWOK and GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.,\n\nDefendants.\n\nPlaintiff Rui Ma (\"Plaintiff\"), by her undersigned attorneys, as and for her verified complaint against defendant Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Defendant Guo\"), and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (a/k/a Shiny Times Holding Limited, Spirit Charter Investment Limited and Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.) (\"Golden Spring\") respectfully alleges as follows:\n\n#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n1. Defendant Guo carefully cultivated an image of himself as a cultured political dissident who stands up to -- and exposes the rampant corruption within -- the tyrannical government of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\").\n\n2. This public persona, however, is a smokescreen, largely facilitated by Defendant Guo's considerable personal wealth and prominent connections in the West.\n\n3. -In fact, this crafted fiction serves not only to satisfy the ego of Defendant Guo and those who affiliate with him; it further provides Defendant Guo with a means to mask the campaign of intimidation and terror he unleashes regularly upon those few of his employees, like Plaintiff, who dare not submit themselves entirely to his domination.\n\n4. By this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recompense from Defendant Guo for his repeated acts of mental cruelty and sexual violence, so that Defendant Guo -- who has fled the\n\n#### of 27\n\nFITEED :\n\njurisdictions in which he could be held criminally responsible - might be held accountable in a civil forum for his wrongs.\n\n#### THE PARTIES\n\nINDEX NO. 158140/2\n\n5. Plaintiff is a 28-year old woman who is a Chinese national and who was, at all relevant times relevant here, employed as an assistant to Defendant Guo. Plaintiff swears to the accuracy of the claims set forth herein by the verification attached to this pleading.\n\n6. Defendant Guo is a 50-year old man, who is also a Chinese national.\n\nAt all relevant times, Defendant Guo was, and remains, a New York resident 7. living in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel in an apartment that has been valued at approximately \\$68 million, located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.\n\n8. Defendant Golden Spring is a Delaware Corporation affiliated with Defendant Guo, which is authorized to, and in fact does, business in the State of New York, with, upon information and belief, offices located at 767 Fifth Avenue.\n\n9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo has used, and continues to use, an alias, which he perpetuates via forged and false official travel documents in connection with his international travel, to avoid the detection of relevant authorities.\n\n10. For example, on information and belief, Defendant Guo has traveled under the name Ho Wan Kwok and had official travel documents issued in that name, which is fictitious.\n\n11. It has been reported that Defendant has now sought asylum in the United States, claiming that he has become \"a political opponent of the Chinese regime.\"\n\nhttp r=0\n\n12. Upon information and belief, Defendant's asylum application, which allows him to remain in the United States perhaps for years, is nothing more than a ruse to enable him to continue to avoid answering for his crimes against Plaintiff in the PRC.\n\n#### JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n13. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter given that Defendant Guo is a resident of the State of New York.\n\n. 14. Venue in this County is proper pursuant to CPLR 503 since Defendant Guo is a resident of this County.\n\n#### FACTS SUPPORT CLAIMS\n\nDefendant Guo is a well-known Chinese national with an estimated net worth in 15. excess of \\$2 billion.\n\n16. Defendant Guo has fashioned a particular persona via the media, such that he is lauded by some as a courageous dissident who has, at personal risk, detailed myriad allegations of corruption at the government of the PRC.\n\n17. Not surprisingly, Defendant Guo's claims have resulted in a fair amount of press coverage, both locally and abroad, wherein Defendant Guo is depicted as a whistleblower albeit one with an indisputably checkered past rife with allegations of economic fraud. See, e.g., http\n\njinping.html?mcubz=1.\n\n18. By his narrative, Defendant Guo hopes to obtain political support for a petition for asylum in the United States, where he has yet to answer any of these the grave charges of misconduct pending in his homeland.\n\n# Plaintiff Is Lured Away from her Family and Friends\n\nPerhaps emboldened by the respite from his foibles in the PRC afforded him by 19. the status of his New York address and the prominence of his connections in the United States, Defendant Guo commenced building an infrastructure that would allow for him to continue conducting business.\n\n20. To this end, Defendant Guo established a staff for himself.\n\n21. In April 2015, Plaintiff, who was then employed by one of Defendant Guo's China-based affiliated entities, was told that she was to travel to New York for one week.\n\n22. This was a ruse. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, she would not return to her home until almost three years later.\n\n#### Plaintiff's \"Employment\" Commences\n\n23. After meeting Defendant Guo for the first time in New York, Plaintiff realized that she had taken no ordinary business trip.\n\nShe was advised that she had arrived to act as Defendant Guo's assistant. 24.\n\n25. In this capacity, she would be required to remain with Defendant Guo in New York City, and to travel with him to many different countries, including the United Kingdom (\"U.K.\") and the Bahamas.\n\n26. Defendant Guo further advised Plaintiff that, given that she was now in his employ, she could not at any point return to the PRC. If she did, Defendant Guo warned, Plaintiff would be arrested and thrown in prison, where she would be tortured.\n\n27. To ensure that Plaintiff did not leave on her own, Defendant Guo forcibly took away Plaintiff's passport, and precluded Plaintiff from accessing it.\n\n# INDEX NO. 158140/20 FILED : NEW XQRK COUNTY CLERK 12/12/2017 Pinered of 12/2/2/2014 156 September 2012 2017 11/2\n\n28. Defendant Guo further closely monitored her telephonic and electronic communication access, choosing when she could use her phone and laptop, and obtaining from her the passwords she used for Facebook and other applications. He further had her internet browser monitored, so that he would be aware of any \"inappropriate\" website activity.\n\nDefendant Guo additionally forbad Plaintiff from independently fraternizing in 29. any way with others outside his presence. She was to have permission to call her parents; no other contact with family or friends was permitted.\n\n30. Plaintiff's isolation was exacerbated by the fact that she was not, at this time, a proficient English speaker. Accordingly, her limited opportunity to communicate with anyone while confined within Defendant Guo's entourage in non-Chinese speaking countries was virtually non-existent.\n\n31. As a result of Defendant Guo's actions, almost immediately upon her arrival to the United States and at all relevant times thereafter, Plaintiff effectively became Defendant Guo's captive.\n\n#### Defendant Guo's Abuse Turns Physical\n\n32. Once he had obtained physical control over her person, Defendant Guo began to terrorize her.\n\n33. Among other things, for example, Defendant Guo would require that Plaintiff work until 2 a.m. or 4 a.m., seven days a week -- depriving her of any real opportunity to sleep.\n\n34. When she made a mistake of any sort (whether it be defying one of Defendant Guo's \"rules\" or simply failing to attend to a business matter to his liking), Plaintiff would be subject to obscene ridicule, where she would be called a \"pig\" and a \"whore,\" about whom her parents would be ashamed.\n\n35. This unrelenting verbal abuse was soon punctuated by acts of physical assault.\n\n36. For example, on September 1, 2015, while assisting in preparations for guests who were to arrive at Defendant Guo's New York apartment, Defendant Guo directed Plaintiff to go into the \"cinema room.\"\n\n37. Once there, Defendant Guo pulled down his pants and underwear, and began to tear at Plaintiff's skirt and tights, physically battering her in the process.\n\n38. Plaintiff pled with Defendant Guo and thereby narrowly avoided rape on this one occasion. Yet without her passport and in constant fear for her own safety and that of her parents (whom Defendant Guo had threatened to harm physically if she crossed Defendant Guo in any way), Plaintiff remained in Defendant Guo's captivity.\n\n#### Defendant Guo Rapes Plaintiff\n\n39. Not long after the incident in the cinema room, on April 6, 2016, Defendant Guo directed Plaintiff to have drinks with him.\n\n40. Plaintiff initially objected to this, indicating to him that she did not want to drink.\n\n41. Defendant Guo, however, insisted - after which Plaintiff relented with the hopes of avoiding the humiliating and rage-filled outburst that she knew would occur if she did not.\n\nAfter some time, Plaintiff excused herself to go to sleep, only to be awoken by 42. Defendant Guo, who was lying on top of her and attempting to separate her legs.\n\nPlaintiff yelled at Defendant Guo to stop, but he refused to do so. Eventually, 43. Defendant Guo overpowered her, and engaged in non-consensual forced sexual intercourse with Plaintiff.\n\n44. After this violence concluded, Defendant Guo left Plaintiff alone, bleeding in her bed.\n\n45. Plaintiff continued to live in constant fear of Defendant Guo thereafter, remaining awake for as long as she could muster for fear that Defendant Guo would again attack.\n\n#### Defendant Guo Rapes Plaintiff Again\n\n46. Subsequent to this rape, Defendant Guo's confinement and isolation of Plaintiff continued, and while at Defendant Guo's London home, Plaintiff was raped for a second time.\n\nOn August 19, 2016, while Plaintiff was working, Defendant Guo entered the 47. room where she was situated and locked the door behind him.\n\n48. He violently pulled Plaintiff from her chair, and threw Plaintiff to the floor and began to tear at her clothing.\n\nPlaintiff attempted to fight off Defendant Guo's attack, engaging in a sustained 49. physical struggle.\n\n50. Again, however, Plaintiff, however, was ultimately overpowered by Defendant Guo, who tore at Plaintiff's pants and underwear.\n\n51. Throughout this entire struggle, Plaintiff begged Defendant Guo to stop.\n\n52. But Defendant Guo did not stop, and instead coldly responded that Plaintiff must stop shouting.\n\n53. Defendant Guo proceeded to pin Plaintiff's hands together with one hand, so that she could no longer resist him, and put the full weight of his body on her.\n\n54. Defendant Guo then proceeded to use his legs to separate Plaintiff's legs and again forcibly raped her.\n\n# Plaintiff Escapes Defendant Guo's Captivity and Reports Defendant Guo to the PRC Criminal Authorities\n\nTheD :\n\nThe rapes identified above are only examples of the sexual assaults to which 55. Plaintiff was subjected. As a result of Defendant Guo's unrelenting emotional and physical abuse, Plaintiff fell into a deep depression.\n\npockage 22-50073 - Doc 2007 - Doc 2007 22 2 2 - 2 - 2 - 5 6 - 5 - 1 - 5 6 - 5 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1\n\n29\n\nTNDEX NO\n\n56. She began to take as a given that her abuse would continue (and worsen) no matter how much she adhered to the rules that Defendant Guo laid out for her.\n\n57. Plaintiff determined that she would attempt to reach out to people in ways that Defendant Guo did not yet anticipate or could not yet control given his confiscation of her identification and passwords for social media like Facebook and Twitter, if for no other reason than her desperate need for kindness from another human.\n\n58. Plaintiff then created a profile on a dating web application, and, upon receiving responses, would tentatively broach the subject of her mistreatment at the hands of her employer.\n\nરતું. Plaintiff utilized the dating application because she knew that Defendant Guo was monitoring all other social media outlets, e.g. Facebook and Twitter, and she had virtually no other means of privately communicating with the outside world.\n\n60. This narrow band of potential access was soon thwarted, however.\n\n61. On information and belief, one of Defendant Guo's favored employees (there were a number of females in the office who willingly engaged in intercourse with him) discovered the account Plaintiff created and revealed Plaintiff's activities.\n\n62. Defendant Guo's anger was extreme. After demeaning her in front of her colleagues he advised her that she would be subject to extreme punishment for her actions.\n\n63. Plaintiff, fearing for her life and the safety of her parents, Chinese nationals whom Defendant Guo threatened were accessible to him through his vast resources and could be harmed, picked an appropriate time for escape.\n\n64. In November 2016, Plaintiff chose her best opportunity and fled from Defendant Guo's London home.\n\n65. Upon arrival at the Chinese Embassy, she was able to communicate with an attorney in the United Kingdom, and was assured she would be protected from any retaliation Defendant Guo might pursue if she pressed charges.\n\n#### Plaintiff Files Criminal Complaints in the PRC\n\n66. Following her return home, Plaintiff issued various written statements in connection with filing a criminal action against Defendant Guo in the PRC.\n\n67. In those statements, Plaintiff identified physical evidence of her allegations.\n\n68. Upon information and belief, that physical evidence is now in the custody of the PRC criminal authorities and is, in part, the basis for an arrest warrant issued by the PRC.\n\n69. Unfortunately, notwithstanding Plaintiff's escape from Defendant Guo, his campaign of intimidation has continued.\n\n70. For example, Plaintiff's parents have been contacted repeatedly by individuals who, upon information and belief, are agents of Defendant Guo.\n\nDefendant Guo has also taken to his twitter account, to post photos of Plaintiff 71. (and her parents), as well as identifying information like her address.\n\n72. Upon information and belief, these efforts are directed at silencing Plaintiff so that Defendant Guo might avoid answering for his wrongs.\n\n73. Defendant Guo's shocking and outrageous conduct has caused serious and lasting physical and emotional damage to Plaintiff.\n\n74. Defendant Guo's actions, including his two year confinement of Plaintiff and his misrepresentations to Plaintiff about the repercussions for speaking publicly about her treatment at his hands, prevented Plaintiff from filing any legal proceedings prior to Plaintiff's escape from Defendant Guo.\n\n75. Thereafter, Defendant Guo's continued harassment of Plaintiff after fleeing (which lead to Plaintiff's continued fear for her and her family's life) were prohibitive to Plaintiff instituting legal proceedings.\n\n76. Defendant Guo should be held responsible for his continuing acts of confinement, assault, sexual harassment, and battery.\n\n# AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Battery)\n\n77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n78. As set forth above, Defendant Guo engaged in a series of continuous and related acts of confinement, physical violence and sexual attacks against Plaintiff.\n\n79. Defendant Guo has physically detained Plaintiff, hit her, grabbed her and forcibly raped her.\n\n80. Defendant Guo's acts constitute a battery upon Plaintiff in that Defendant Guo intentionally attempted to and did in fact physically attack and injure Plaintiff.\n\n81. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact constituted a grievous affront to Plaintiff.\n\n82. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact was intentional, unauthorized, and grossly offensive in nature.\n\n83. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact was unwarranted, without any just cause or provocation and Defendant Guo knew at all times that his actions were without the consent of the Plaintiff.\n\n84. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were caused wholly and solely by reason of the conduct described and Plaintiff did not contribute thereto.\n\n85. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in 86. an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n87. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\nThe limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by 88. reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Assault)\n\n89. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n90. As set forth above, Defendant Guo engaged in a series of continuous and related acts of confinement, physical violence and sexual attacks against Plaintiff.\n\n91. Defendant Guo has physically detained Plaintiff, hit her, grabbed her and forcibly raped her.\n\n92. Defendant Guo's acts constitute an assault upon Plaintiff in that Defendant Guo intentionally threatened to and did in fact physically attack and injure Plaintiff.\n\n93. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact constituted a grievous affront to Plaintiff.\n\n94. Defendant Guo's threatened and actual wrongful bodily contact was intentional, unauthorized, and grossly offensive in nature.\n\n95. Defendant Guo's threatened and wrongful bodily contact was unwarranted, without any just cause or provocation and Defendant Guo knew at all times that his actions were without the consent of the Plaintiff.\n\n96. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were caused wholly and solely by reason of the conduct described and Plaintiff did not contribute thereto.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great 97. physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in 98. an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n99. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n100. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)\n\n101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n102. Defendant Guo's conduct, by confining, forcibly raping and physically battering Plaintiff, without provocation or justification, was extreme, outrageous, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community and was otherwise conduct that exceeded all reasonable bounds of decency.\n\n103. Defendant Guo's conduct, described above, was intended to and did cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.\n\n104. Defendant Guo's conduct was the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff.\n\n105. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty, was subjected to serious physical and emotional pain and suffering and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n106. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n107. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n108. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)\n\n109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n110. Defendant Guo's conduct, in assaulting and battering Plaintiff, was careless and negligent as to the emotional health of Plaintiff, and did, in fact, cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.\n\n111. The acts and conduct of Defendant Guo was the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff.\n\n112. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty, was subjected to serious physical and emotional pain and suffering, and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n113. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n114. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n115. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence)\n\n116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n117. As set forth above, Defendant Guo engaged in a series of continuous and related acts of confinement, physical violence and sexual attacks against Plaintiff.\n\n118. Defendant Guo has physically detained Plaintiff, hit her, grabbed her and forcibly raped her.\n\n119. At all relevant times, Defendant Guo was Plaintiff's employer and thus had a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury while Plaintiff was performing the duties and responsibilities of her employment.\n\n120. Defendant Guo breached this duty by engaging in the conduct set forth in detail hereinabove.\n\n121. As set forth above, Plaintiff was caused to be injured solely and wholly due to the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Guo.\n\n122. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n123. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n124. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n125. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Imprisonment/Wrongful Confinement)\n\n126. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n127. As a result of Defendant Guo's actions as set forth above, at all relevant times, Plaintiff was under Defendant Guo's control and captivity.\n\n128. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was aware that she was being confined against her will.\n\n129. Plaintiff did not consent to confinement by Defendant Guo and, instead,\n\nconfinement was imposed upon her as set forth above.\n\n130. Defendant Guo's wrongful confinement of Plaintiff was not authorized by law, regulation or otherwise.\n\n131. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n132. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\nThe limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action. 133.\n\n134. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence As Against Defendant Golden Spring)\n\n135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n136. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Golden Spring, which is a business entity owned and/or controlled by Defendant Guo.\n\n137. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Golden Spring owned, operated, managed, maintained, controlled, secured and supervised the Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo.\n\n138. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Golden Spring, as the owner, operator, supervisor and manager of Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo, had a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury while Plaintiff was lawfully within such workspace.\n\n139. Upon information and belief, that, as set forth above, on numerous occasions, including while lawfully within such workspace, Plaintiff was caused to be injured solely and wholly due to the negligence and carelessness of Golden Spring in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, control security and supervision of such workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.\n\n140. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n141. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n142. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n143. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code)\n\n144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n145. The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[1] (New York City Human Rights Law) provides, in pertinent part, that \"[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived ... gender ... of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n146. Defendant Guo engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107.\n\n147. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo employs four or more individuals.\n\n148. Defendant Guo discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's ability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the\n\ndiscriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, non-consensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of sexual harassment and rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n149. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment against Plaintiff.\n\n150. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Defendant Guo's unwelcome conduct.\n\n151. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n152. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n153. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo maintained a hostile work place through his discriminatory working conditions.\n\n154. Defendant Guo's actions were extreme and outrageous, wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n155. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\n# AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code)\n\n156. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n157. The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[1] (New York City Human Rights Law) provides, in pertinent part, that \"[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory\n\n#### INDEX NO 158140/2 0 : NEW X2588 COUNTY CLEBRE 124/22/2017 02 : 577 222 14:56:00 PM ISS M72017 ETTED : 29\n\npractice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived ... gender ... of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n158. Golden Spring engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107.\n\n159. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring employs four or more individuals.\n\n160. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo is the principal and top-ranking executive of Golden Spring, who, in turn, is the owner, operator, supervisor and manager of Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo.\n\n161. Golden Spring, through at least Defendant Guo, discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's ability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the discriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, nonconsensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n162. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Golden Spring's (acting through Defendant Guo) unwelcome conduct.\n\n163. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n164. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment against Plaintiff.\n\n165. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n166. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring acquiesced, encouraged, or otherwise condoned or approved of Defendant Guo's discriminatory behavior.\n\n167. For the reasons stated herein, Golden Spring maintained a hostile work place through its discriminatory working conditions.\n\n168. Golden Spring's actions were wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n169. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\n# AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of New York State Law)\n\n170. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n171. New York's Executive Law § 296 provides, in pertinent part, that \"1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or licensing agency, because of an individual's ... sex ... to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n172. Defendant Guo engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York Executive Law § 296.\n\n173. Defendant Guo discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's\n\nability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the discriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, non-consensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n174. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Defendant Guo's unwelcome conduct.\n\n175. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n176. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment.\n\n177. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n178. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo maintained a hostile work place through his discriminatory working conditions.\n\n179. Defendant Guo's actions were extreme and outrageous, wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n180. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\n#### AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of New York State Law)\n\n181. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n182. New York's Executive Law § 296 provides, in pertinent part, that \"1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or licensing agency, because of an\n\n#### INDEX NO 158140 000 - 38 - 500 72 - 500 - 200 - 200 - 200 - 200 - 2012 - 11 - 6 - 200 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 - 15 ETTED : 29\n\nindividual's ... sex ... to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n183. Golden Spring engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York Executive Law § 296.\n\n184. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo is the principal and top-ranking executive of Golden Spring, who, in turn, is the owner, operator, supervisor and manager of Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo.\n\n185. Golden Spring, through at least Defendant Guo, discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's ability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the discriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, nonconsensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n186. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Golden Spring's (acting through Defendant Guo) unwelcome conduct.\n\n187. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n188. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment against Plaintiff.\n\n189. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n190. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring acquiesced, encouraged, or otherwise condoned or approved of Defendant Guo's discriminatory behavior.\n\n191. For the reasons stated herein, Golden Spring maintained a hostile work place through its discriminatory working conditions.\n\n192. Golden Spring's actions were wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n193. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\nWHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as follows:\n\n- (a) On the first cause of action against Defendant Guo, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than \\$20,000,000, along with interest thereon as provided by law, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances;\n- (b) On the second cause of action against Defendant Guo, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than \\$20,000,000, along with interest thereon as provided by law, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances;\n- On the third cause of action against Defendant Guo, in an amount to be (c) determined at trial, but in no event less than \\$20,000,000, along with interest thereon as provided by law, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n#### VERIFICATION\n\nNYSCE DOCSASE 22-50073 - BBC 2007 - BBC 2002 - September 24 - 5600 - 2014 - 150 - 100 - 201 29\n\n> Poople's Republic of Municipality of Beijin Embassy of the Unite States of America\n\n| China |        |\n|-------|--------|\n| g     | SS: SS |\n| 3     |        |\n|       | 1)     |\n\nRUI MA, being duly sworn, deposes and says:\n\nI am the individual Plaintiff in this matter. I have read the foregoing Amended Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same are true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters that are therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters I believe them to be true.\n\nPeople's Republic of China) Municipality of Beijing\nEmbassy of the United ടട: States of America\n\nRui Ma\n\nINDEX NO. 158140/2017\n\nSworn to before me this 3 0 NOV 2017 day of November, 2017 by Rul MA.\n\n> Sonja Andersen Vice Consul\n\n> > Notary Public","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073(JAM)\nCAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI（卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里）为支持RUI MA（马蕊）提出的请求解除自动中止以允许待决州法院诉讼继续进行之动议所作的声明\n\n本人，Carollynn Callari，特此根据28 U.S.C. §1746，在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明：\n\n债务人。\n\n本人是一名获准在纽约州和新泽西州执业的律师，系Callari Partners LLC（卡拉里合伙人有限责任公司）律师事务所的合伙人，该所办公地址为纽约州纽约市洛克菲勒广场一号10层，邮编10020，担任本案上述债务人案件中债权人Rui Ma的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持Rui Ma提出的请求解除自动中止以允许待决州法院诉讼继续进行之动议。\n\n3. 随附的证物A为Rui Ma在New York State Supreme Court, New York County（纽约州最高法院，纽约县）对上述债务人Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok（郭文贵，又名Miles Kwok）及Golden Spring New York Ltd.（金泉纽约有限公司）提起的民事诉讼中，于December 4, 2017提交的经修订核实起诉状的真实、准确副本，案卷号为158140/2017。\n\n根据28 U.S.C. § 1746，本人依照美利坚合众国法律，在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明，上述内容真实、准确。\n\n日期：April 11, 2022。\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari\n案号 158140/2017 已提交：纽约县书记官\n\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\nRUI MA（马蕊），\n\n案号：158140/2017\n\n原告，\n\n—诉—\n\n经修订核实起诉状\n\nGUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名MILES KWOK（郭文贵），以及GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（金泉（纽约）有限公司），\n\n被告。\n\n原告Rui Ma（以下简称“原告”）通过其下列签名律师，就被告Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok（以下简称“被告Guo”）以及Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（又名Shiny Times Holding Limited、Spirit Charter Investment Limited及Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.）（以下简称“Golden Spring”）的经核实起诉状，谨陈述如下：\n初步陈述\n\n1. 被告Guo精心塑造了自己作为一名有教养的政治异见人士的形象，宣称其敢于对抗并揭露中华人民共和国（以下简称“中国”）专制政府内部猖獗的腐败。\n\n2. 然而，这一公众形象是一层烟幕，主要得益于被告Guo可观的个人财富及其在西方的显赫关系。\n\n3. 事实上，这一精心编造的虚构形象不仅满足了被告Guo及与其关联之人的自我；它还为被告Guo提供了手段，使其能够掩盖自己经常对少数几名如原告般胆敢不完全屈从于其支配的雇员所施加的恐吓和恐怖行动。\n\n4. 原告通过本起诉状，就被告Guo反复实施的精神虐待和性暴力行为向其请求赔偿，以使逃离了其可能被追究刑事责任的司法管辖区的被告Guo，得以在民事审判机构中就其不法行为承担责任。\n当事人\n\n案号 158140/2017\n\n5. 原告为一名28岁中国籍女性，在与本案相关的所有期间，受雇担任被告Guo的助理。原告通过附于本诉状的核实声明，对本诉状所载主张的准确性宣誓。\n\n6. 被告Guo为一名50岁中国籍男性。\n\n在与本案相关的所有期间，被告Guo一直是且仍然是纽约州居民，居住于位于纽约州纽约市第五大道781号的Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）内一套估值约为\\$68 million的公寓。\n\n8. 被告Golden Spring是一家与被告Guo有关联的特拉华州公司，获准并且实际上在纽约州开展业务；根据所知及相信，其办公室位于第五大道767号。\n\n9. 根据所知及相信，被告Guo曾使用且持续使用一个化名，并通过与其国际旅行有关的伪造和虚假的官方旅行证件维持该化名，以逃避有关当局的侦查。\n\n10. 例如，根据所知及相信，被告Guo曾以Ho Wan Kwok之名旅行，并以该虚构姓名取得官方旅行证件。\n\n11. 据报道，被告现已在美国申请庇护，声称其已成为“中华人民共和国政权的政治反对者”。\n\nhttp r=0\n\n12. 根据所知及相信，被告的庇护申请使其或许能够在美国停留数年，不过是使其继续逃避在中国就其针对原告所犯的罪行承担责任的诡计。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n13. 本院对本案具有管辖权，因为被告Guo是纽约州居民。\n\n14. 根据CPLR 503，本县为适当审判地，因为被告Guo是本县居民。\n支持请求的事实\n\n15. 被告Guo是一名知名中国籍人士，估计净资产超过\\$2 billion。\n\n16. 被告Guo通过媒体塑造了某种特定形象，以致一些人称赞其为一名勇敢的异见人士，称其冒着个人风险详述了多项有关中国政府腐败的指控。\n\n17. 不出所料，被告Guo的主张已在本地及海外获得大量媒体报道，其中被告Guo被描述为一名举报人，尽管其无可争议地有着充斥经济欺诈指控的复杂过往。参见，例如，http\n\njinping.html?mcubz=1.\n\n18. 依其叙述，被告Guo希望为其在美国的庇护申请获得政治支持；在美国，他尚未就其本国待决的任何这些严重不当行为指控作出答复。\n原告被诱离其家人和朋友\n\n19. 或许是因其纽约住所的地位及其在美国关系的显赫，使其得以暂时摆脱其在中国的不当行为而受到鼓舞，被告Guo开始建立一套基础架构，使其能够继续开展业务。\n\n20. 为此，被告Guo为自己组建了员工队伍。\n\n21. April 2015，当时受雇于被告Guo一家中国关联实体的原告被告知，她将前往纽约一周。\n\n22. 这是一个骗局。原告并不知道，她直到近三年后才会返回家中。\n原告的“受雇”开始\n\n23. 原告首次在纽约见到被告Guo后，意识到自己并非进行一次普通的商务旅行。\n\n24. 她被告知，她到此是为了担任被告Guo的助理。\n\n25. 在该职位上，她须与被告Guo一同留在纽约市，并与其一同前往许多不同国家，包括United Kingdom（英国）和Bahamas（巴哈马）。\n\n26. 被告Guo进一步告知原告，鉴于她现已受其雇用，她在任何时候都不得返回中国。被告Guo警告称，如她返回，原告将被逮捕并投入监狱，在那里将遭受酷刑。\n\n27. 为确保原告不会自行离开，被告Guo强行拿走原告的护照，并阻止原告取得该护照。\n\n案号 158140/2017 已提交：纽约县书记官 12/12/2017\n\n28. 被告Guo还严密监控其电话和电子通信的使用，决定其何时可以使用手机和笔记本电脑，并取得其用于Facebook及其他应用程序的密码。他还监控其互联网浏览器，以便知悉任何“不适当”的网站活动。\n\n29. 被告Guo还禁止原告在其不在场的情况下，以任何方式独立与他人交往。她必须获得许可方可致电父母；不允许与家人或朋友有任何其他联系。\n\n30. 原告的孤立处境因其当时不能熟练使用英语而进一步加剧。因此，在非中文国家被限制在被告Guo随行人员之中时，她与任何人交流的有限机会实际上几近不存在。\n\n31. 由于被告Guo的行为，原告几乎在抵达美国后立即，并在此后所有相关期间，实际上成为被告Guo的囚徒。\n被告Guo的虐待转为身体暴力\n\n32. 被告Guo一旦取得对原告人身的实际控制，便开始恐吓她。\n\n33. 例如，除其他事项外，被告Guo会要求原告每周七天工作至凌晨2时或凌晨4时，剥夺其任何真正的睡眠机会。\n\n34. 当原告犯下任何错误时（无论是违抗被告Guo的某项“规则”，还是仅仅未能以其满意的方式处理某项业务事项），原告都会受到猥亵的羞辱，被称为“猪”和“妓女”，其父母会以她为耻。\n\n35. 这种不间断的言语虐待很快伴随着身体攻击行为。\n\n36. 例如，September 1, 2015，在协助准备即将到达被告Guo纽约公寓的宾客期间，被告Guo指示原告进入“影院房”。\n\n37. 到达后，被告Guo脱下裤子和内裤，开始撕扯原告的裙子和连裤袜，并在此过程中对其实施殴打。\n\n38. 原告恳求被告Guo，从而在该次事件中勉强避免被强奸。然而，由于没有护照，并持续担心自身及父母的安全（若她以任何方式违抗被告Guo，被告Guo曾威胁要对其父母实施人身伤害），原告仍被被告Guo控制。\n被告Guo强奸原告\n\n39. 在影院房事件发生不久后，即April 6, 2016，被告Guo指示原告与其饮酒。\n\n40. 原告起初对此表示反对，告知其不想饮酒。\n\n41. 然而，被告Guo坚持要求，之后原告作出让步，希望避免其知道若不从将发生的充满羞辱和愤怒的爆发。\n\n42. 过了一段时间，原告借口去睡觉，却被被告Guo惊醒；当时被告Guo正压在她身上，试图分开她的双腿。\n\n43. 原告向被告Guo喊叫，要求其停止，但其拒绝停止。最终，被告Guo制服了原告，并与原告发生未经同意的强迫性性交。\n\n44. 该暴力行为结束后，被告Guo离开了原告，让她独自一人在床上流血。\n\n45. 此后，原告继续生活在对被告Guo的持续恐惧之中，竭力尽可能长时间保持清醒，担心被告Guo会再次袭击。\n被告Guo再次强奸原告\n\n46. 在该次强奸之后，被告Guo对原告的控制和孤立仍在继续；在被告Guo位于London（伦敦）的住所内，原告第二次遭到强奸。\n\n47. August 19, 2016，原告正在工作时，被告Guo进入原告所在房间，并在其身后锁上房门。\n\n48. 其暴力地将原告从椅子上拉起，把原告摔到地上，并开始撕扯原告的衣物。\n\n49. 原告试图抵抗被告Guo的攻击，进行了持续的肢体挣扎。\n\n50. 然而，原告最终再次被被告Guo制服；其撕扯原告的裤子和内裤。\n\n51. 在整个挣扎过程中，原告恳求被告Guo停止。\n\n52. 但被告Guo（郭文贵）并未停止，反而冷酷地回应称原告必须停止喊叫。\n\n53. 被告Guo随后用一只手将原告的双手按在一起，使其无法再反抗，并将其全身体重压在原告身上。\n\n54. 随后，被告Guo用双腿分开原告的双腿，并再次强奸原告。\n\n原告逃离被告Guo的控制并向中华人民共和国刑事机关举报被告Guo\n\n55. 上述强奸行为仅为原告所遭受性侵犯的例证。由于被告Guo持续不断的精神和身体虐待，原告陷入深度抑郁。\n\n56. 原告开始认定，无论她在多大程度上遵守被告Guo为其制定的规则，她所受的虐待都会持续下去，并且会加剧。\n\n57. 原告决定尝试以被告Guo尚未预料到或因其没收原告身份证件及Facebook（脸书）和Twitter（推特）等社交媒体密码而尚无法控制的方式与他人联系，哪怕只是出于她对另一名人类善意的迫切需要。\n\n58. 随后，原告在一款约会网络应用程序上创建了个人资料，并在收到回复后，试探性地提及其遭雇主虐待一事。\n\n59. 原告使用该约会应用程序，是因为她知道被告Guo正在监控所有其他社交媒体渠道，例如Facebook和Twitter，而她实际上几乎没有其他能够私下与外部世界沟通的方式。\n\n60. 然而，这一狭窄的潜在接触渠道很快便受到了阻挠。\n\n61. 据原告所知并相信，被告Guo的一名受其偏爱的雇员发现了原告创建的账户，并揭露了原告的活动；办公室内有若干女性自愿与其发生性关系。\n\n62. 被告Guo极为愤怒。在同事面前贬低原告后，他告知原告，她将因其行为受到严厉惩罚。\n\n63. 原告担心自身生命及其父母的安全；其父母为中国国民，被告Guo曾威胁称可凭借其庞大资源接触到他们并对其造成伤害。原告遂选择适当时机逃离。\n\n64. 2016年11月，原告选择了最佳时机，逃离被告Guo位于伦敦的住所。\n\n65. 到达中国大使馆后，原告得以与一名United Kingdom（英国）律师沟通，并获保证：如其提出刑事控告，她将受到保护，免遭被告Guo可能实施的任何报复。\n\n原告在中华人民共和国提出刑事控告\n\n66. 返回家中后，原告就其在中华人民共和国对被告Guo提起刑事诉讼一事作出了多份书面陈述。\n\n67. 在该等陈述中，原告指出了支持其指控的物证。\n\n68. 据原告所知并相信，该等物证现由中华人民共和国刑事机关保管，并且部分构成中华人民共和国签发逮捕令的依据。\n\n69. 遗憾的是，尽管原告已逃离被告Guo，其恐吓行动仍在继续。\n\n70. 例如，原告父母已多次被他人联系；据原告所知并相信，该等人员系被告Guo的代理人。\n\n71. 被告Guo还在其Twitter账户上发布原告及其父母的照片，以及诸如其住址等身份识别信息。\n\n72. 据原告所知并相信，这些行为旨在使原告噤声，以使被告Guo可能避免为其不法行为承担责任。\n\n73. 被告Guo令人震惊且骇人听闻的行为已对原告造成严重且持久的身体和精神损害。\n\n74. 被告Guo的行为，包括其对原告长达两年的禁闭以及其就公开谈论其遭受被告Guo对待所可能产生后果向原告作出的虚假陈述，使原告无法在逃离被告Guo之前提起任何法律程序。\n\n75. 此后，被告Guo在原告逃离后持续骚扰原告，导致原告持续担心其本人及家人的生命安全，从而阻碍原告提起法律程序。\n\n76. 被告Guo应就其持续实施的禁闭、攻击、性骚扰及殴打行为承担责任。\n\n作为第一项诉因（殴打）\n\n77. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段所载指控，犹如在本文中完整详尽地列明。\n\n78. 如上所述，被告Guo对原告实施了一系列持续且相互关联的禁闭、身体暴力和性攻击行为。\n\n79. 被告Guo曾实际拘禁原告、殴打原告、抓住原告并强奸原告。\n\n80. 被告Guo的行为构成对原告的殴打，因为被告Guo故意试图并且事实上实际对原告进行身体攻击并造成伤害。\n\n81. 被告Guo的不法身体接触构成对原告的严重侵犯。\n\n82. 被告Guo的不法身体接触系故意、未经授权，且性质上严重冒犯。\n\n83. 被告Guo的不法身体接触毫无正当理由或挑衅，且被告Guo始终知悉其行为未经原告同意。\n\n84. 原告所受伤害完全且仅仅因上述行为所致，原告对此未有任何过错。\n\n85. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受巨大身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺人身自由，并遭受其他损害和伤害。\n\n86. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不少于\\$20 million。\n\n87. CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n88. 由于CPLR 1602规定的一项或多项例外情形，CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n作为第二项诉因（攻击）\n\n89. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段所载指控，犹如在本文中完整详尽地列明。\n\n90. 如上所述，被告Guo对原告实施了一系列持续且相互关联的禁闭、身体暴力和性攻击行为。\n\n91. 被告Guo曾实际拘禁原告、殴打原告、抓住原告并强奸原告。\n\n92. 被告Guo的行为构成对原告的攻击，因为被告Guo故意威胁并且事实上实际对原告进行身体攻击并造成伤害。\n\n93. 被告Guo的不法身体接触构成对原告的严重侵犯。\n\n94. 被告Guo所威胁及实际实施的不法身体接触系故意、未经授权，且性质上严重冒犯。\n\n95. 被告Guo所威胁及实施的不法身体接触毫无正当理由或挑衅，且被告Guo始终知悉其行为未经原告同意。\n\n96. 原告所受伤害完全且仅仅因上述行为所致，原告对此未有任何过错。\n\n97. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受巨大身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺人身自由，并遭受其他损害和伤害。\n\n98. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不少于\\$20 million。\n\n99. CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n100. 由于CPLR 1602规定的一项或多项例外情形，CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n作为第三项诉因（故意造成精神痛苦）\n\n101. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段所载指控，犹如在本文中完整详尽地列明。\n\n102. 被告Guo在无挑衅或正当理由的情况下禁闭、强奸及实际殴打原告的行为，极端、骇人听闻，并为文明社会完全不能容忍，且属于超越一切合理行为规范的行为。\n\n103. 上述被告Guo的行为意图造成且确实造成原告严重精神痛苦。\n\n104. 被告Guo的行为是造成原告伤害和损失的直接和近因。\n\n105. 由于前述行为，原告被剥夺人身自由，遭受严重身体和精神痛苦，并遭受其他损害和伤害。\n\n106. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不少于\\$20 million。\n\n107. CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n108. 由于CPLR 1602规定的一项或多项例外情形，CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n作为第四项诉因（过失造成精神痛苦）\n\n109. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段所载指控，犹如在本文中完整详尽地列明。\n\n110. 被告Guo攻击及殴打原告的行为，对原告精神健康而言系疏忽和过失，并且事实上造成原告严重精神痛苦。\n\n111. 被告Guo的行为和举止是造成原告伤害和损失的直接和近因。\n\n112. 由于前述行为，原告被剥夺人身自由，遭受严重身体和精神痛苦，并遭受其他损害和伤害。\n\n113. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不少于\\$20 million。\n\n114. CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n115. 由于CPLR 1602规定的一项或多项例外情形，CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n作为第五项诉因（过失）\n\n116. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段所载指控，犹如在本文中完整详尽地列明。\n\n117. 如上所述，被告Guo对原告实施了一系列持续且相互关联的禁闭、身体暴力和性攻击行为。\n\n118. 被告Guo曾实际拘禁原告、殴打原告、抓住原告并强奸原告。\n\n119. 在所有相关期间，被告Guo系原告的雇主，因此负有在原告履行其工作职责和责任期间保护原告免受伤害的义务。\n\n120. 被告Guo通过实施上文详细列明的行为违反了该义务。\n\n121. 如上所述，原告所受伤害完全且仅仅由于被告Guo的疏忽和不谨慎所致。\n\n122. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受巨大身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺人身自由，并遭受其他损害和伤害。\n\n123. 作为前述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不少于\\$20 million。\n\n124. CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n125. 由于 CPLR 1602 所规定的一项或多项豁免，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本诉讼。\n\n作为第六项诉因（非法拘禁／不当限制人身自由）\n\n126. 原告重申并再次主张前述各段所载的指控，如同在此逐一完整列明。\n\n127. 由于上述被告 Guo（郭）的行为，在所有相关期间，原告均受被告 Guo 控制并遭其囚禁。\n\n128. 在所有相关期间，原告知悉其遭违背本人意愿的限制人身自由。\n\n129. 原告未同意被告 Guo 对其实施限制人身自由；相反，如上所述，该等限制人身自由系强加于原告。\n\n130. 被告 Guo 对原告实施的不当限制人身自由并无法律、法规或其他授权。\n\n131. 作为上述行为的直接且近因结果，原告遭受重大身体及精神痛苦和羞辱，被剥夺人身自由，并受到其他损害和伤害。\n\n132. 作为上述行为的直接且近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n133. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本诉讼。\n\n134. 由于 CPLR 1602 所规定的一项或多项豁免，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本诉讼。\n\n作为第七项诉因（针对被告 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）的过失）\n\n135. 原告重申并再次主张前述各段所载的指控，如同在此逐一完整列明。\n\n136. 依原告所知并确信，在所有相关期间，原告受 Golden Spring 雇用，该实体由被告 Guo 拥有和／或控制。\n\n137. 依原告所知并确信，在所有相关期间，Golden Spring 拥有、经营、管理、维护、控制、保障和监督原告的工作场所，以及原告工作场所内的雇员、高级职员和／或代理人，包括被告 Guo。\n\n138. 依原告所知并确信，在所有相关期间，Golden Spring 作为原告工作场所及该工作场所内雇员、高级职员和／或代理人（包括被告 Guo）的所有人、经营者、监督者和管理者，负有在原告合法处于该工作场所期间保护原告免受伤害的义务。\n\n139. 依原告所知并确信，如上所述，在多次情况下，包括原告合法处于该工作场所期间，原告完全且仅因 Golden Spring 在对该工作场所及原告工作场所内的雇员、高级职员和／或代理人（包括被告 Guo）的所有、经营、管理、维护、控制、保障及监督方面存在过失和疏忽而受到伤害，且原告对此不存在任何促成性过失。\n\n140. 作为上述行为的直接且近因结果，原告遭受重大身体及精神痛苦和羞辱，被剥夺人身自由，并受到其他损害和伤害。\n\n141. 作为上述行为的直接且近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额将在审判中确定，但在任何情况下均不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n142. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本诉讼。\n\n143. 由于 CPLR 1602 所规定的一项或多项豁免，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本诉讼。\n\n作为第八项诉因（违反《纽约市行政法典》第 8 编的歧视）\n\n144. 原告重申并再次主张前述各段所载的指控，如同在此逐一完整列明。\n\n145. 《纽约市行政法典》§ 8-107[1]（《纽约市人权法》）相关部分规定：“[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived ... gender ... of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” 即：“构成非法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主或其雇员或代理人，因任何人的实际或被认为的……性别……，拒绝雇用或聘用该人，阻止该人就业或将其解雇，或在薪酬或者雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该人。”\n\n146. 被告 Guo 实施了违反《纽约市行政法典》第 8 编 § 8-107 的非法歧视行为。\n\n147. 依原告所知并确信，被告 Guo 雇用了四名或以上个人。\n\n148. 被告 Guo 基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语辱骂和基于性别偏见的辱骂性称呼；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境以外的个人接触；以及对原告实施非自愿、未经同意且具有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施性骚扰和强奸。\n\n149. 基于本文件所述理由，被告 Guo 对原告实施了交换条件式性骚扰。\n\n150. 原告一再反对被告 Guo 不受欢迎的行为，亦未以其他方式予以容忍。\n\n151. 忍受该等不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，是原告受雇及继续受雇的一项条款、条件和／或特权。\n\n152. 依原告所知并确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，且其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n153. 基于本文件所述理由，被告 Guo 通过其歧视性工作条件维持了敌意工作环境。\n\n154. 被告 Guo 的行为极端且骇人听闻，肆意且鲁莽，具有恶意，且无任何理由或依据。\n\n155. 由于上述行为，原告遭受收入及福利损失、居住权利损失，并因此遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，致使其受到损害。\n\n作为第九项诉因（违反《纽约市行政法典》第 8 编的歧视）\n\n156. 原告重申并再次主张前述各段所载的指控，如同在此逐一完整列明。\n\n157. 《纽约市行政法典》§ 8-107[1]（《纽约市人权法》）相关部分规定：“构成非法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主或其雇员或代理人，因任何人的实际或被认为的……性别……，拒绝雇用或聘用该人，阻止该人就业或将其解雇，或在薪酬或者雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该人。”\n\n158. Golden Spring 实施了违反《纽约市行政法典》第 8 编 § 8-107 的非法歧视行为。\n\n159. 依原告所知并确信，Golden Spring 雇用了四名或以上个人。\n\n160. 依原告所知并确信，被告 Guo 是 Golden Spring 的主要及最高级别管理人员；其又为原告工作场所及原告工作场所内的雇员、高级职员和／或代理人（包括被告 Guo）的所有人、经营者、监督者和管理者。\n\n161. Golden Spring 至少通过被告 Guo，基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语辱骂和基于性别偏见的辱骂性称呼；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境以外的个人接触；以及对原告实施非自愿、未经同意且具有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施强奸。\n\n162. 原告一再反对 Golden Spring（通过被告 Guo 行事）不受欢迎的行为，亦未以其他方式予以容忍。\n\n163. 忍受该等不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，是原告受雇及继续受雇的一项条款、条件和／或特权。\n\n164. 基于本文件所述理由，被告 Guo 对原告实施了交换条件式性骚扰。\n\n165. 依原告所知并确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，且其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n166. 依原告所知并确信，Golden Spring 默许、鼓励，或以其他方式容忍或批准被告 Guo 的歧视行为。\n\n167. 基于本文件所述理由，Golden Spring 通过其歧视性工作条件维持了敌意工作环境。\n\n168. Golden Spring 的行为肆意且鲁莽，具有恶意，且无任何理由或依据。\n\n169. 由于上述行为，原告遭受收入及福利损失、居住权利损失，并因此遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，致使其受到损害。\n\n作为第十项诉因（违反纽约州法的歧视）\n\n170. 原告重申并再次主张前述各段所载的指控，如同在此逐一完整列明。\n\n171. 《纽约州行政法》§ 296 相关部分规定：“1. 构成非法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主或许可机构，因某个人的……性别……，拒绝雇用或聘用该个人，阻止该个人就业或将其解雇，或在薪酬或者雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该个人。”\n\n172. 被告 Guo 实施了违反《纽约州行政法》§ 296 的非法歧视行为。\n\n173. 被告 Guo 基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语辱骂和基于性别偏见的辱骂性称呼；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境以外的个人接触；以及对原告实施非自愿、未经同意且具有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施强奸。\n\n174. 原告一再反对被告 Guo 不受欢迎的行为，亦未以其他方式予以容忍。\n\n175. 忍受该等不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，是原告受雇及继续受雇的一项条款、条件和／或特权。\n\n176. 基于本文件所述理由，被告 Guo 实施了交换条件式性骚扰。\n\n177. 依原告所知并确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，且其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n178. 基于本文件所述理由，被告 Guo 通过其歧视性工作条件维持了敌意工作环境。\n\n179. 被告 Guo 的行为极端且骇人听闻，肆意且鲁莽，具有恶意，且无任何理由或依据。\n\n180. 由于上述行为，原告遭受收入及福利损失、居住权利损失，并因此遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，致使其受到损害。\n\n作为第十一项诉因（违反纽约州法的歧视）\n\n181. 原告重申并再次主张前述各段所载的指控，如同在此逐一完整列明。\n\n182. 《纽约州行政法》§ 296 相关部分规定：“1. 构成非法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主或许可机构，因某个人的……性别……，拒绝雇用或聘用该个人，阻止该个人就业或将其解雇，或在薪酬或者雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该个人。”\n\n183. Golden Spring（金泉）实施了违反 New York Executive Law § 296 的非法歧视性行为。\n\n184. 根据所知信息及确信，被告 Guo（郭）是 Golden Spring 的负责人及最高级别管理人员，而 Golden Spring 又是原告工作场所及该工作场所内雇员、高管和/或代理人的所有者、经营者、主管和管理者，其中包括被告 Guo。\n\n185. Golden Spring 至少通过被告 Guo，基于原告的性别对其实施歧视，包括但不限于实施言语虐待和带有性别偏见的辱骂；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境以外的个人接触的能力；以及与原告发生不受欢迎、未经同意且具有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次强奸原告。\n\n186. 原告一再反对 Golden Spring（通过被告 Guo 行事）的不受欢迎行为，亦未以其他方式纵容该等行为。\n\n187. 忍受这些不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，是原告受雇及继续受雇的一项条款、条件和/或特权。\n\n188. 基于本文所述理由，被告 Guo 对原告实施了交换条件式性骚扰。\n\n189. 根据所知信息及确信，原告所遭受的该等待遇具有普遍性，且其他女性雇员亦遭受该等待遇。\n\n190. 根据所知信息及确信，Golden Spring 默许、鼓励或以其他方式纵容或认可被告 Guo 的歧视性行为。\n\n191. 基于本文所述理由，Golden Spring 通过其歧视性的工作条件维持了敌意工作场所。\n\n192. Golden Spring 的行为恣意且鲁莽，怀有恶意，且无任何理由或依据。\n\n193. 由于上述原因，原告遭受了收入和福利损失、居住权利损失，并因此遭受精神及身体痛苦、丧失生活乐趣及情绪困扰，均对其造成损害。\n\n因此，原告谨请求法院作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 就针对被告 Guo 的第一项诉因，判给金额由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 $20,000,000，并判给法律规定的利息、惩罚性赔偿、律师费及费用，以及本法院认为在此情形下公正和适当的其他及进一步救济；\n\n(b) 就针对被告 Guo 的第二项诉因，判给金额由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 $20,000,000，并判给法律规定的利息、惩罚性赔偿、律师费及费用，以及本法院认为在此情形下公正和适当的其他及进一步救济；\n\n(c) 就针对被告 Guo 的第三项诉因，判给金额由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 $20,000,000，并判给法律规定的利息、惩罚性赔偿、律师费及费用，以及该等\n\n核验\n\nNYSCE DOCSASE 22-50073 - BBC 2007 - BBC 2002 - September 24 - 5600 - 2014 - 150 - 100 - 201 29\n\n中华人民共和国 北京市 美利坚合众国大使馆\n\n中国\n\nSS:\n\n1)\n\nRUI MA（马蕊）经依法宣誓后陈述如下：\n\n我是本案的个人原告。我已阅读上述修订后起诉状，并知悉其内容。其内容均据我本人所知属实，但其中明确称系根据所知信息及确信提出主张的事项除外；对于该等事项，我相信其属实。\n\n中华人民共和国 北京市\n美利坚合众国大使馆\n\nRui Ma（马蕊）\n\nINDEX NO. 158140/2017\n\nRul MA 于 2017 年 11 月 3 0 日在本人面前宣誓。\n\nSonja Andersen（索尼娅·安德森） 副领事\n\n公证人","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Kwok","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2007,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6411,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:25:24"}