{"id":"court_ctb_2168_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2168,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-09-05","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2168（2023-09-05立案）。此为 2023 年 8 月 22 日破产法官 Julie A. Manning 主持的听证会官方记录，内容涉及针对 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 藐视法庭案由命令及传唤郭美（Mei Guo）出庭作证的审理程序。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073, ECF #2168 (filed 2023-09-05). Official transcript of the August 22, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding the order to show cause why Hudson Diamond Holding LLC should not be held in contempt of court and the testimony of witness Mei Guo.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \\* August 22, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ. LUYI SONG, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\nAPPEARANCES: For U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Plaintiff, LEE VARTAN, ESQ. HK International Funds and MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ. Mei Guo: Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 AARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th FL Bridgeport, CT 06604 For Ms. Guo, individually: STANLEY A. TWARDY, JR., ESQ. (Criminal defense atty) Day Pitney One Stamford Plaza 263 Tresser Blvd. Stamford, CT 06901\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 3 of 138\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 2:01 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holding, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings in behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. MS. SONG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luyi Song from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Lee Vartan on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MS. WERNICK: And good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa Wernick of CSG Law on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC as well.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 4 of 138\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
4 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
Are there any other |\n| 2 | appearances we need to take for the record? |\n| 3 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, if I might?
My name is |\n| 4 | Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. with the law firm of Day Pitney.
I'm |\n| 5 | here representing Ms. Guo in her individual capacity.
I'm |\n| 6 | her criminal defense lawyer. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 8 | MR. TWARDY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear |\n| 10 | your last name. |\n| 11 | MR. TWARDY:
If I might approach, I'll give you my |\n| 12 | card.
Would that be helpful? |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That'd be helpful, Attorney Twardy. |\n| 14 | Thank you. |\n| 15 | All right.
The matter on the calendar today is an |\n| 16 | order to show -- to appear and show cause why Hudson Diamond |\n| 17 | Holdings, LLC should not be held in contempt and requiring |\n| 18 | Ms. Guo to appear and testify.
The order to show cause did |\n| 19 | provide the opportunity for Ms. Guo to file a -- an |\n| 20 | affidavit, which she did.
Or she filed a declaration, |\n| 21 | actually, in response to the order to appear and show cause. |\n| 22 | And I appreciate that that affidavit was filed, that |\n| 23 | declaration was filed, because that -- that's complying with |\n| 24 | the Court's order. |\n| 25 | But now we need to move on to the actual |\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
5 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | testimony, which I assume is going forward.
Is that |\n| 2 | correct, Trustee Despins and -- I don't know, Attorney |\n| 3 | Vartan or Attorney -- who is going to be appearing on behalf |\n| 4 | of Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC?
Because Ms. Guo is only |\n| 5 | testifying in her capacity as the member of Hudson Diamond |\n| 6 | Holding, LLC. |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
Your Honor, Mr. Vartan and myself, |\n| 8 | we filed motion earlier today for pro hac vice admission on |\n| 9 | behalf of the Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC.
But with Your |\n| 10 | Honor's permission, you know, happy to proceed in presenting |\n| 11 | for the entity. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
And I know you're |\n| 13 | admitted pro hac in the adversary proceeding, so I'm sure if |\n| 14 | the paperwork is all in order, it will be fine. |\n| 15 | MS. WERNICK:
Okay.
Correct.
Thank you, Your |\n| 16 | Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
So then, |\n| 18 | Ms. Wernick, you're -- you may proceed.
I think it's your |\n| 19 | burden at this point to put your -- the -- Ms. Guo on as the |\n| 20 | representative of Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC.
Or did you |\n| 21 | all have a discussion where you're just going to start |\n| 22 | cross-examination?
I don't know how you're going to |\n| 23 | proceed. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
So it was our intent to submit her |\n| 25 | declaration as her affirmative testimony. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 6 of 138\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 6 THE COURT: Okay. So then it's the Chapter 11 Trustee. Are you calling witness to cross-examine the witness? MR. LUFT: Yes. If they're done with their presentation, then I'll move to cross-examine the witness. THE COURT: Ms. Wernick, are you done? MS. WERNICK: Yeah. We would so move. Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: Yes. Okay. MR. LUFT: And to be clear, Your Honor, I assume they're done with their presentation, that we're not changing the order, that there's no evidence they're putting on. MS. WERNICK: Yeah. Subject to our right to rebut. This is our affirmative presentation. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead, Mr. Luft. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, well, can we call the witness up to the stand to be sworn in? THE COURT: Yes. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, if I might? Yeah. I think you might go over there. THE COURT: We just need to be by the microphone, Attorney Twardy. MR. TWARDY: Yeah.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 7 of 138\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 7 THE COURT: I'm sorry. We -- MR. TWARDY: No. I just wanted to know where you wanted me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Because we -- the -- our record is kept by audio only. So if we don't pick up your voice on a microphone, we won't be able to record anything you say. Okay? MR. TWARDY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (Counsel confer) THE COURT: All right. The courtroom deputy is going to swear in the interpreter first and then the witness. Okay? THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please raise your right hand. (The interpreter is sworn) THE COURT: Do you need a chair, or are you okay standing? THE INTERPRETER: I'm good, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: If the witness may raise her right hand?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 8 of 138\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 8 MEI GUO, WITNESS, SWORN THE COURT: She can be seated. Thank you. THE WITNESS: (Via the interpreter throughout). Okay, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, can we ask the interpreter to use the interpreter, because our colleague may not -- cannot hear her. THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. And that's not your -- it -- unfortunately, our court only has audio. So we have to talk into the microphones as best as possible. Otherwise, if there's a transcript of this hearing that is requested, it won't pick up what people say. And the transcriber isn't even a person that's in the courtroom. So we have to be very particular. So if I stop you at any point, it's only because I'm trying to make the record as clear as possible. And other people too. I mean, you may say I didn't hear, right? So don't hesitate to say that. Okay? THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because we want to make sure the record is accurate. THE INTERPRETER: Thanks. Thanks for clarification. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay, Attorney Luft. You may proceed with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 9 of 138\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 | 9 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| 1 | cross-examination. | |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 3 | CROSS-EXAMINATION | |\n| 4 | BY MR. LUFT: | |\n| 5 | Q
Good afternoon, Ms. Guo.
How are you? | |\n| 6 | A
(Via interpreter throughout)
I'm very good.
Thank | |\n| 7 | you. | |\n| 8 | Q
Ms. Guo, you're the sole member of Hudson Diamond | |\n| 9 | Holdings, LLC, right? | |\n| 10 | A
Yes. | |\n| 11 | Q
And you've received the subpoena that the trustee | |\n| 12 | issued in its Rule 2004 investigation to Hudson Diamond | |\n| 13 | Holdings, LLC? | |\n| 14 | THE INTERPRETER:
Can I have the date again? | |\n| 15 | 2004? | |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
It's Rule 2004.
It's not a date. | |\n| 17 | THE INTERPRETER:
Oh, Rule 2004.
Okay. | |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
My attorney receive it. | |\n| 19 | BY MR. LUFT: | |\n| 20 | Q
And he's provided it to you? | |\n| 21 | A
Yes. | |\n| 22 | Q
And you've reviewed it? | |\n| 23 | A
I did. | |\n| 24 | Q
And you understood it? | |\n| 25 | A
I understood. | |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 10 of
138 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
10 |\n| 1 | Q | When did he provide it to you? |\n| 2 | A | I couldn't recall. |\n| 3 | Q | Try your best.
What's your best recollection of when |\n| 4 | | you received it? |\n| 5 | A | A couple of months back. |\n| 6 | Q | So does May of 2023 sound right? |\n| 7 | A | I really cannot specifically remember. |\n| 8 | Q | And did you read all the requests in the subpoena? |\n| 9 | A | I did. |\n| 10 | Q | And if there was anything that was unclear in the |\n| 11 | | subpoena, did you ask your counsel for clarification? |\n| 12 | A | I did. |\n| 13 | Q | And are you the sole person at Hudson Diamond Holdings |\n| 14 | | who responded to the subpoena other than your counsel? |\n| 15 | A | Correct. |\n| 16 | Q | Okay.
What is the business of Hudson Diamond Holdings? |\n| 17 | | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I would object and |\n| 18 | | instruct my client not to answer.
It goes beyond the scope |\n| 19 | | of the declaration. |\n| 20 | | THE COURT:
Hold on.
Oh, I'm sorry. |\n| 21 | | MR. TWARDY:
I'm sorry. |\n| 22 | | THE COURT:
No, no.
That's all right. |\n| 23 | | Madam Interpreter, just give me one second.
Okay? |\n| 24 | | THE INTERPRETER:
Sure. |\n| 25 | | THE COURT:
But you're right.
You do need to say |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 11 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | so Ms. Guo understands what her counsel just said. |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
Yes, ma'am. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay?
So go right ahead. |\n| 4 | THE INTERPRETER:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So the objection is that it |\n| 6 | goes beyond the scope of the -- |\n| 7 | MR. TWARDY:
Declaration. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
-- of the declaration? |\n| 9 | MR. TWARDY:
Declaration. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
But the declaration -- she's making |\n| 11 | the declaration as a -- not in her individual capacity but |\n| 12 | in her capacity as the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, |\n| 13 | LLC.
And that's what the order to show cause required. |\n| 14 | She's not testifying in her individual capacity at all. |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, if I might? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:
Your order dated July 28th states at |\n| 18 | the last two sentences: \"During the continued hearing, |\n| 19 | Hudson Diamond Holding may seek to submit Ms. Guo's |\n| 20 | declaration as her direct testimony.
Nevertheless, she must |\n| 21 | appear at the continued hearing and be available for |\n| 22 | cross-examination.\" |\n| 23 | My point is that the question that's being asked |\n| 24 | is beyond the scope of the declaration, which is what it |\n| 25 | was -- put in direct testimony. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 12 MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I respond? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. LUFT: This is ludicrous. I asked her what the business of the company is. Now, that is not any fair reading. They are here for contempt. They were ordered to produce Ms. Guo for testimony today. Under the attorney's logic, he could have written one sentence that said my name is Ms. Guo and then turned around and said, well, that's -- anything else is beyond the scope of the testimony. Your Honor, the scope of this hearing is about their compliance with the subpoenas and whether they are in contempt. That's the scope of this hearing. And any argument to say that I can't ask anything other than what they hand selected to put on a piece of paper is silly. And even then, I would think the fact that she says she's the sole member of Hudson Diamond is well within the scope to just ask what the business is. But I do intend to ask her about the company. I intend to ask her about what it purports -- what documents it has. I mean, that's what we're here for. So I don't think it's -- I don't want to have any false pretense that I'm going to literally only ask about the exact words she put on the piece of paper. That's not the scope of cross-examination. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, with all due respect, I\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 13 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
13 |\n| 1 | disagree.
If Ms. Guo had just simply said I'm Ms. Guo and |\n| 2 | that was all that the defendant had put in, then they would |\n| 3 | not have met the burden of your order, you know, to show |\n| 4 | cause why contempt should not have been ordered. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I am overruling your objection. |\n| 6 | This hearing is with regard to the Rule 2004 subpoena that |\n| 7 | was issued months ago which was issued to Hudson Diamond |\n| 8 | Holdings, LLC and for which Ms. Guo says she is -- and the |\n| 9 | documents attached to the declarations establish, and |\n| 10 | there's been no controversy raised in any pleadings, that |\n| 11 | she is the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. |\n| 12 | The entire subpoena is directed to the production |\n| 13 | of documents and other communications of Hudson Diamond |\n| 14 | Holdings, LLC, which is a broad scope subpoena as Rule 2004 |\n| 15 | of the bankruptcy rules allow.
This is part of an |\n| 16 | investigation into the trustee's efforts to determine what |\n| 17 | assets might be available in the bankruptcy estates to |\n| 18 | satisfy the creditors of the three bankruptcy estates that |\n| 19 | have been jointly consolidated -- administered, not |\n| 20 | consolidated, excuse me -- administered under the Chapter 11 |\n| 21 | case of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok.
And Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC |\n| 22 | is a recipient of that subpoena.
There's been, again, no |\n| 23 | controversy over that.
It's been admitted, quite frankly, |\n| 24 | in pleadings. |\n| 25 | And so your objection is overruled but noted for |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 14 the record. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, thank you. I respect your ruling. As you know, I'm not counsel for Hudson Holding. I'm here as her criminal counsel. Her father has been indicated. She has been told that her -- through the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, we learned that she's a subject of that same investigation. And as such, I'm going to instruct her not -- to invoke the fifth amendment and not answer the question. THE COURT: Okay. I understand, counsel. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Okay. I'll ask the same question. If she wants to invoke her fifth, she can. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Twardy, how do you want -- I mean, he's going to have to create his record, regardless. So I think she's going to -- if she's going to assert her right against self-incrimination, I think she's going to have to do it for every question he asks. Because he's going to -- he has the right to establish that record. MR. TWARDY: Understood, Your Honor. And that's fine. But I -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. TWARDY: -- am going to instruct her -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. TWARDY: Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 14 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 15 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 15 THE COURT: I understand. So I don't know if your client understands that yet, though. So the interpreter -- you'll -- if you could explain -- if you could please state for the record what Mr. Twardy just stated. THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, I already did a simultaneous interpretation to her -- THE COURT: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: -- just now during the conversation. Probably we can ask a question whether she understood what has transpired. THE COURT: Okay. So what Attorney Twardy is saying is that -- well, I think you're going to say -- and I'm going to ask you, unfortunately, again, because our record is audio, that if a question is asked and you're asking -- and you're instructing your client to assert her right against fifth amendment -- her fifth amendment privilege, then just if you would note that, and then the interpreter can tell her that, and then she can respond. Okay? THE WITNESS: So yes, Your Honor, but do I need answer anything? MR. TWARDY: Yes. If I might? Yes, she should answer. She should say I invoke my fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Thank you. I invoke my fifth amendment right.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 16 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Attorney Luft. MR. LUFT: Okay. Should I ask that question again or has she invoked it -- THE COURT: I think that question's been asked and answered, so I think you can move -- MR. LUFT: Okay. THE COURT: -- on to the next question. MR. LUFT: And move on to the next one. Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q What are the assets of Hudson Diamond Holdings? THE COURT: Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. We'll have the interpreter interpret the question, and then we'll take the answer. MR. TWARDY: I would instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I will invoke my fifth amendment right. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, if I may? I'd like to mark and introduce into evidence a copy of the subpoena we served to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. It has previously been marked in this case as Docket Number 1116-2 Exhibit C-37. And I'd -- if I could hand a copy to the witness. THE COURT: Well, make sure client -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 17 MR. LUFT: I will. THE COURT: -- counsel has no opposition to the introduction of the subpoena. I'm not sure why you would have any opposition, quite frankly, but in any event -- MR. LUFT: We have copies. They're welcome to look at -- MS. WERNICK: Yeah. No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Then I think we'll mark that exhibit as -- because it's part of the record for today's hearing. So how do you want to mark that. Trustee's 1? MR. LUFT: Trustee 1 is fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Trustee's 1. We'll mark that exhibit as a full exhibit. (Trustee's Exhibit 1 admitted) MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, if I may hand this to the witness? THE COURT: You may. And I don't have it in front of me, but it looks like it has an exhibit cover from -- that doesn't say Trustee's 1 on it right now. But that is Exhibit Trustee's 1. Okay? All right. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, feel free to take a minute to familiarize yourself with the document. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 17 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 18 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | A
Yes, I'm done. |\n| 2 | Q
Ms. Guo, is this a copy of the subpoena that you told |\n| 3 | me you reviewed earlier to Hudson Diamond Holdings? |\n| 4 | A
I cannot clearly remember, but I believe it is. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
Have you ever seen any other subpoena to Hudson |\n| 6 | Diamond Holdings? |\n| 7 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 8 | Q
Okay.
I'll represent to you that this is a true and |\n| 9 | accurate copy of the subpoena that was served on Hudson |\n| 10 | Diamond Holdings.
Okay? |\n| 11 | A
Thank you. |\n| 12 | Q
Ms. Guo, if you could turn to page 7 under the category |\n| 13 | Definitions.
Do you see the first definitions of the word |\n| 14 | \"you, your, and yourself\"?
And it says, \"Means and refers |\n| 15 | to Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. together with all its |\n| 16 | affiliates, divisions,\" and then goes on? |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, if I might?
I believe |\n| 18 | that counsel referred to Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc. as |\n| 19 | opposed to LLC, but I heard the translator refer to LLC.
I |\n| 20 | just want to make sure we had the right entity that was |\n| 21 | being referred to. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
If I said Inc., I misspoke, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So you were referring to LLC? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
LLC. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 19 MR. LUFT: I will not refer to Inc. today on purpose. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q So my question was, do you see that definition? A Yes, I see it. Q And you read that when you reviewed the subpoena, correct? A Yes. Q Okay. If I could ask you to turn to page 15. Do you see request 14 required Hudson Diamond Holdings to produce documents sufficient to show all its assets and sources of income or funding? A I see it. Q And you understood that was your obligation to produce documents responsive to that request, correct? A Correct. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, just if I might, when you said your counsel, you meant Hudson Diamond Holdings, not her personal -- MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'm lost at this point. MR. TWARDY: Just the question that was asked referred to her as opposed to -- MR. LUFT: Your Honor -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 19 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2168 | Filed 09/05/23 | Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 | Page 20 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | MR. TWARDY:
-- as opposed to the company. |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
She's here in her corporate capacity. |\n| 3 | She's the sole member of the entity.
I don't understand |\n| 4 | this -- and she was ordered personally to appear on behalf |\n| 5 | of Hudson Diamond Holdings.
I don't understand the -- does |\n| 6 | he want me to refer to her as Hudson Diamond Holdings? |\n| 7 | MR. TWARDY:
Yes, please. |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
I mean, this is insane, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, I think we'll -- let's just -- |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:
A person is the sole member. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Let's just proceed, and we'll -- we |\n| 12 | will clarify for the record.
You should try -- and I'm sure |\n| 13 | that you may not do it every time, but try to refer to |\n| 14 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. |\n| 15 | I understand, Attorney Twardy, your concern.
But |\n| 16 | Attorney Luft did ask the question about the definition |\n| 17 | before he asked the -- the more specific question about |\n| 18 | documents that were to be produced.
And the -- I don't have |\n| 19 | the definition right in front of me, but I heard the |\n| 20 | question and I heard what Attorney Luft said the definition |\n| 21 | of you, yours, and yourself is, and it referred to Hudson |\n| 22 | Diamond Holdings, LLC, and its affiliates or related |\n| 23 | affiliates.
I don't know if the word \"related\" was in |\n| 24 | there. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
Nope.
It just says its affiliates, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 21 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
21 |\n| 1 | divisions, agencies, instrumentalities, departments, |\n| 2 | officers, partners, officers again -- that's a typo -- |\n| 3 | directors, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, or |\n| 4 | anyone acting on its behalf is the definition. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So I -- while I understand and |\n| 6 | appreciate your concern, I do think that he has established |\n| 7 | through testimony that any question he's asking is in the -- |\n| 8 | is Ms. Guo in her corporate capacity as the managing member. |\n| 9 | And that's certainly the way the Court is viewing it.
I |\n| 10 | don't know if that's helpful to you. |\n| 11 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, it is.
I was just about |\n| 12 | to say I'm not trying to be difficult.
I just need to |\n| 13 | protect Ms. Guo's -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:
-- individual rights.
So as long as |\n| 16 | we all understand that if Mr. Luft uses the word \"your,\" |\n| 17 | it's referring to the definition of your that's contained in |\n| 18 | the subpoena, with that -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's correct. |\n| 20 | MR. TWARDY:
-- then I will not have to -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
That's correct. |\n| 22 | MR. TWARDY:
-- be jumping up and down. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
And I believe that's why he asked the |\n| 24 | question about the definition on page 7.
I don't know |\n| 25 | that -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 22 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
22 |\n| 1 | MR. TWARDY:
Yeah. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- but I -- I'm making a presumption |\n| 3 | based upon the fact that when this matter came before the |\n| 4 | Court with regard to the production, it was always addressed |\n| 5 | to the LLC.
And, obviously, the LLC can only operate |\n| 6 | through its managing member or people that are authorized |\n| 7 | to. |\n| 8 | So in any event, I understand your point, and I |\n| 9 | think we've clarified that for the record.
And we can |\n| 10 | continue. |\n| 11 | MR. TWARDY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 15 | Q
Ms. Guo, if you look at number -- request 15, you |\n| 16 | understood you had to produce all documents showing all |\n| 17 | assets that would -- identified in number 14 having a value |\n| 18 | of more than \\$50,000 and documents related to your |\n| 19 | acquisition of such assets and communications with the |\n| 20 | debtor and the debtor's family regarding such assets, |\n| 21 | correct? |\n| 22 | A
I see it. |\n| 23 | Q
And you understood from number 16 that you were |\n| 24 | required to produce copies of your tax returns, correct? |\n| 25 | A
Yes, I see it. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 23 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
23 |\n| 1 | Q
And you understood you were supposed to produce copies |\n| 2 | of the tax returns that would be applicable to Hudson |\n| 3 | Diamond Holdings, LLC, correct? |\n| 4 | A
I do. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
And from 17, you understood you're supposed to |\n| 6 | produce documents sufficient to show all bank accounts and |\n| 7 | investment accounts within Hudson Diamond Holdings' |\n| 8 | possession or control, including the balance and transfers |\n| 9 | to and from each such account, correct? |\n| 10 | A
I see it. |\n| 11 | Q
And you understood you were supposed to produce those |\n| 12 | documents, correct? |\n| 13 | A
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q
And you understood already that for all these requests, |\n| 15 | any request to Hudson Diamond Holdings included any |\n| 16 | affiliates of Hudson Diamond Holdings, correct? |\n| 17 | A
I understand. |\n| 18 | Q
Okay.
Ms. Guo, you did not produce a single document |\n| 19 | responsive to any of the requests I just mentioned, correct? |\n| 20 | A
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q
And with regard to the 21 requests total, you only |\n| 22 | produced two documents, correct? |\n| 23 | A
Correct. |\n| 24 | Q
Okay.
Ms. Guo, why was Hudson Diamond Holdings |\n| 25 | created? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 24 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
24 |\n| 1 | MR. TWARDY:
I'm going to instruct my client to |\n| 2 | invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
I invoke my fifth amendment right. |\n| 4 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 5 | Q
Ms. Guo, how did you become the sole member of Hudson |\n| 6 | Diamond Holdings? |\n| 7 | MR. TWARDY:
I am going to instruct my client to |\n| 8 | invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 9 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 10 | Q
Your father, the debtor -- |\n| 11 | A
I will invoke my fifth amendment right. |\n| 12 | Q
Okay.
Sorry. |\n| 13 | THE INTERPRETER:
Thank you, sir. |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 15 | Q
Your father, the debtor, installed you as the nominal |\n| 16 | named sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, correct? |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 18 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
I will invoke my fifth amendment |\n| 20 | right. |\n| 21 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 22 | Q
In fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings was created at your |\n| 23 | father's direction, wasn't it? |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 25 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 25 THE WITNESS: I'll invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q And at all times, your father has controlled Hudson Diamond Holdings, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I will invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q And your father at all times has also controlled Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I will invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q And all assets that were in Hudson Diamond New York were also the assets of your father, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to invoke -- I'm going to request that my client invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q And all bank all accounts in the name of Hudson Diamond Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 26 Holdings are actually accounts that are controlled by your father, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I will invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q And all bank accounts of Hudson Diamond New York are, in fact, bank accounts controlled by your father, the debtor, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. MS. WERNICK: We'd also like to just interpose an objection to the extent that questions regarding Hudson Diamond New York are beyond the scope of the direct presentation and understanding of what the show cause order is here for today. THE COURT: I overrule our objection. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: Avi? Your Honor, can I have two seconds with my colleague? THE COURT: Yes. (Counsel confer) MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'm prepared to resume. THE COURT: Go right ahead. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 26 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 27 BY MR. LUFT: Q In fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings solely owns Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: I'm going to instruct -- Your Honor, with all due respect, I'm going to instruct my client invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I will invoke my fifth amendment right. (Counsel confer) BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay, Ms. Guo. You are the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, correct? A Correct. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Quick question. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, if I might? Yep. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no. You. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Excuse me, sir. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm the Czech interpreter. Sorry. I think the -- THE COURT: Wait a minute. You're the what? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm the Czech interpreter. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Czech interpreter. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 28 THE COURT: We haven't sworn you in or anything. I didn't know there was a Czech interpreter, number one. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. THE COURT: Number two, you can't just stand up in the middle of a proceeding and start talking. Okay? That's not how it works. I'm not saying we can't work this out, but as you saw, we had to swear in the interpreter. If you're going to be a Czech interpreter, you need to be sworn in. You cannot just be here to do that. So I don't know who you are. I don't know what your name is. I don't know anything about you. And this -- we have to create a record. So has -- I have no idea. Has this been disclosed to the Chapter 11 Trustee that there'd be a Czech interpreter? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was, Your Honor. We let the Chapter 11 Trustee know yesterday. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You told me you were going to bring an interpreter. I told you we already had one. That is not the same. Look, Your Honor -- THE COURT: We've done this before. Okay? This isn't the first time. So I don't know why this is a problem. We've done this before. We've had two interpreters at hearings in this case. And I'm not going to disrupt the proceedings when -- if you're not going to -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 28 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 29 MR. LUFT: Your Honor? THE COURT: So -- no. Hold on a second, Attorney Luft. So, Mr. Romney -- MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and possibly Ms. Wernick and Mr. Vartan -- I don't remember, but I think you have been here before when we've had two interpreters, haven't you? MR. ROMNEY: I have not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, someone from your office has. MR. ROMNEY: I -- THE COURT: Okay? And we're -- this doesn't make any sense to me that we're now in the middle of a proceeding where there's a question being asked and someone is standing up who's not a lawyer, hasn't filed an appearance, and hasn't been sworn in, is now disrupting this proceeding. MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. I don't disagree with anything Your Honor just said. In my understanding was that if the Czech interpreter has an issue that he would advise counsel and have -- counsel would interpose, do investigation. THE COURT: Well, how about somebody advising the Court. Wouldn't that be appropriate? MR. ROMNEY: Well -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 29 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 30 THE COURT: That would be appropriate, wouldn't it, that the Court would understand what is going on? Because the Court is the person who has to make the decisions, not the lawyers, right? MR. ROMNEY: I understood. And what I'm explaining, Your Honor, is that I -- my understanding of how this procedure would transpire, and it's obviously on me for not conversing with our Czech interpreter, was that if he has an issue, he would advise counsel. Counsel would interpose an objection, and it would proceed from there. And that error is on me. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that -- I -- all right. MR. ROMNEY: And I apologize. THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. That didn't happen, though. MR. ROMNEY: That did not happen, and I take responsibility for it. THE COURT: Okay. So how are we proceeding then? In the manner that you just laid out that some -- that one of the three of you is going to jump up and object? MR. ROMNEY: No. I think -- Your Honor, if I may? Certainly we defer to the Court. But it would seem to me that the best way to proceed would be to have the Czech interpreter speak to Mr. Twardy, who is the one interposing objections, and Mr. Twardy would relay any issue to the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 31 Court. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Twardy is only imposing objections as it relates to the witness's individual -- MR. ROMNEY: Understood. THE COURT: -- status. MR. ROMNEY: Understood. THE COURT: Not with regard to the corporate entity. Okay? So I -- Mr. Twardy is here to represent his client in the manner in which he described, which is that he has been informed -- I believe, Mr. Twardy, you said, but please correct me if I'm wrong -- that your client is a possible target of an -- of the investigation going on in the Southern District of New York. Is that what you said? MR. TWARDY: I said she's a subject, Your Honor, which is a little bit different -- THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. MR. TWARDY: -- in the nuance, but still, Your Honor, yes -- THE COURT: So she's -- so you -- MR. TWARDY: -- she's at -- she is at risk. THE COURT: She's at risk. And so he's here to protect her individual exposure. You're all here to protect the exposure of Hudson Diamond, LLC. That's who you represent. So that's how this is going to work. So Mr. Twardy is not going to get to interpose objections that Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 31 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 32 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
32 |\n| 1 | relate to Hudson Diamond, LLC. |\n| 2 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
He's going to get to interpose |\n| 4 | objections that he believes impacts his -- the client's |\n| 5 | individual rights in connection with the proceeding in the |\n| 6 | Southern District of New York. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
Understood, Your Honor.
However, to |\n| 8 | the extent that the objection is based upon the fact that |\n| 9 | the question was translated incorrectly to the witness who |\n| 10 | is the person from whom the LLC is acting, I don't believe |\n| 11 | it's possible to make -- to draw that distinction.
Because |\n| 12 | the objection is to the translation of the question that is |\n| 13 | being presented to both the individual as well as the |\n| 14 | entity. |\n| 15 | From a practical perspective -- and my view and |\n| 16 | understanding was that the least intrusive thing to do would |\n| 17 | have only counsel assert objections, have the -- have |\n| 18 | interpreter advise us, and for one of us to stand up and |\n| 19 | assert that objection.
And I apologize for not being clear |\n| 20 | with our interpreter on that. |\n| 21 | I actually, as we walked in, said if there are any |\n| 22 | issues -- I used the words \"please don't be shy.\"
And I -- |\n| 23 | that was inartful of me.
What I meant was -- what I meant |\n| 24 | by those words -- and those are my exact words -- were to |\n| 25 | tell me, and I will do something about it.
And what |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 33 happened in court is on me for that reason. However, you know, however the Court would like -- to echo Attorney Vartan's statements, whether it's Attorney Wernick, Attorney Twardy, or myself -- THE COURT: Well, there's not going to be three different people -- MR. ROMNEY: No, no. And I -- THE COURT: -- interposing objections -- MR. ROMNEY: I understand that. THE COURT: -- on behalf of the entity. That's not going to happen. So you all three have to choose. MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: And Attorney Wernick started by saying she was going to make the presentation today. So she should be interposing the objections -- MR. ROMNEY: And -- THE COURT: -- on behalf of the LLC. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: And I echo Attorney -- THE COURT: And then Attorney Twardy -- MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: -- if he interposes objections, he will interpose it on behalf of his client's individual rights, to which Attorney Luft can say -- he can object as well. And then I'll have to rule. Okay? But that's how it's -- that's how we're going forward. All right? We're Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 33 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 34 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
34 |\n| 1 | not having someone talk on the record who's not a lawyer, |\n| 2 | who hasn't been sworn in, and who doesn't have an appearance |\n| 3 | and isn't bound by Rule 11.
Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Understood.
And I reiterate my |\n| 5 | apology for that, because that is on me. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then that's how we're going to |\n| 7 | proceed.
Attorney Wernick's going to interpose objections |\n| 8 | on behalf of the LLC.
Attorney Twardy is going to interpose |\n| 9 | objections on behalf of his client in her individual |\n| 10 | capacity.
If there's a overlap, then I'm sure Attorney Luft |\n| 11 | will raise an objection, and then I'll have to make some |\n| 12 | form of a ruling.
Okay? |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, might we just consult for |\n| 16 | one brief moment? |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 18 | MR. TWARDY:
I think it will help expedite things. |\n| 19 | (Counsel confer) |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Do either of you need water?
There's |\n| 21 | water at the table. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
I'm fine. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Do you need one?
You might |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 35 need one, right? THE INTERPRETER: I have mine. THE COURT: Okay. You have some? Okay. THE INTERPRETER: This is my dictionary -- THE COURT: Yeah. That's fine. If there -- yeah. I understand you're using that for your dictionary. That's fine. Thank you. MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, the objection on behalf of the entity, it's just a matter of translation, is that it's my understanding where Mr. Luft is using the word \"holder,\" it's being translated as the word \"owner,\" and we would just like the translation to reflect the question being posed. THE COURT: Okay. I have to say, I don't even recall the question at this point, so what was the question? I mean, you're saying -- MR. LUFT: (Indiscernible), Your Honor. THE COURT: You're using the word \"owner.\" Is that what you said? MR. LUFT: I don't -- honestly don't know (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: Oh. THE INTERPRETER: Sole owner. MR. LUFT: Yeah. THE COURT: Well, why don't we just ask the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 36 question again and see where we end up. How's that? MR. LUFT: Fine. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, you are the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, correct? A Yes. Q And Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York, right? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to -- oh, I'm sorry. THE COURT: Just hold on one second. MR. TWARDY: I -- THE COURT: Is there any objection with regard to the use of the word again or the translation? MS. WERNICK: So correct, Your Honor. And so, you know, this is beyond me certainly. But I understand that the word \"member\" that Mr. Luft used has been translated as holder, and that's the distinction that the translator would like to make. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on just one second then. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sole member is a holder -- THE COURT: Let's see if we can accomplish something. THE INTERPRETER: It's a holding. Yeah. (Counsel confer) Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 36 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 37 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
37 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
All right.
The interpreter is saying |\n| 2 | the word is the same in Mandarin Chinese, a holder and |\n| 3 | member are the same. |\n| 4 | (Counsel confer) |\n| 5 | MS. WERNICK:
Okay.
Again, you know, this is far |\n| 6 | beyond my knowledge, but I understand that there's a word |\n| 7 | for member in Mandarin Chinese that could be used. |\n| 8 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Which is what? |\n| 9 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
(Indiscernible). |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, I will just say if we're going |\n| 11 | to go further with regard to interpretation issues, then |\n| 12 | we're going to have to swear in your interpreter.
I need |\n| 13 | all of the interpreter's name, address, qualifications, |\n| 14 | everything.
It's that -- I mean, we're going to do that if |\n| 15 | that's going to continue. |\n| 16 | But what's your suggestion, Attorney Luft? |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
My suggestion, Your Honor, is I -- she |\n| 18 | signed a sworn declaration in which she multiple times |\n| 19 | refers to herself as the sole member.
I didn't -- whatever |\n| 20 | is -- I think she probably did it in English, because I know |\n| 21 | she speaks English.
But if it was in Chinese, then whatever |\n| 22 | was the word in Chinese I'm happy to use.
But she -- this |\n| 23 | is her word, so I'm not making it up. |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:
Your Honor, the -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
No one suggested you were making it |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 38 of
138 | |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
38 | |\n| 1 | up. | | |\n| 2 | | MR. LUFT:
Right.
I'm just saying we should know | |\n| 3 | | what the word is.
So maybe we start with whether she read | |\n| 4 | | this in English and understood it.
And if she did, I don't | |\n| 5 | | understand why we're -- | |\n| 6 | | THE COURT:
Well, why don't you ask that question. | |\n| 7 | | THE INTERPRETER:
Your Honor, can the interpreter | |\n| 8 | | re-render her interpretation? | |\n| 9 | | THE COURT:
Sure. | |\n| 10 | | THE WITNESS:
Yes. | |\n| 11 | | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
Why don't we just do this | |\n| 12 | | anyway, so we resolve this.
Can I have tab 11? | |\n| 13 | | Your Honor, I'd like to show the witness a copy of | |\n| 14 | | her declaration. | |\n| 15 | | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. | |\n| 16 | | MR. LUFT:
And may I approach? | |\n| 17 | | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. | |\n| 18 | | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. | |\n| 19 | | BY MR. LUFT: | |\n| 20 | Q | Ms. Guo, do you recognize this document? | |\n| 21 | A | Yes, I can. | |\n| 22 | Q | What is it? | |\n| 23 | A | It's my declaration. | |\n| 24 | Q | Who wrote it? | |\n| 25 | A | It's a declaration. | |\n| | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 39 Q Who wrote it? A My attorney drafted it with my speech. Q So you dictated to your attorney what you wanted in here? MS. WERNICK: And, Your Honor, I just object to the extent it implicates any attorney/client communication. THE COURT: Overruled. BY MR. LUFT: Q I need an answer. A Do I have to answer? Q Yes, unless your counsel is going to instruct you to take the fifth. MR. TWARDY: Go ahead. THE COURT: Attorney Twardy said go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question, sir? BY MR. LUFT: Q Sure. I'm just trying to understand. So you dictated what you wanted in here to your attorney, and they wrote it down? A Yes. Q And which attorney did you do this with? MS. WERNICK: Again, Your Honor, I would object to the extent it implicates attorney/client communications. THE COURT: Overruled. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 39 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 40 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
40 |\n| 1 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 2 | Q
You can answer. |\n| 3 | A
Two of my attorneys, Louisa and Lee.
Melissa and Lee. |\n| 4 | Q
Melissa and Lee.
Do you know if Ms. Wernick and |\n| 5 | Mr. Vartan speak Mandarin? |\n| 6 | A
They don't. |\n| 7 | Q
What language do you speak to them in? |\n| 8 | A
English. |\n| 9 | Q
And when you signed your declaration, you reviewed |\n| 10 | it -- this document in English? |\n| 11 | A
Correct. |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
Your Honor, I'd like to mark |\n| 13 | this as Trustee Exhibit 2.
And I forgot to move Exhibit 1 |\n| 14 | into evidence.
I'll ask that 1 and 2 -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I actually -- you did move Exhibit 1 |\n| 16 | into evidence, and I admitted it in full, because Attorney |\n| 17 | Wernick said she had no objection to its admission. |\n| 18 | Do you have any objection, Attorney Wernick, with |\n| 19 | regard to the admission of the declaration as Trustee's |\n| 20 | Exhibit 2? |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
No, Your Honor.
And I think, you |\n| 22 | know, we've admitted that as our direct, so.
Right. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
You didn't actually admit |\n| 24 | it, but it's fine.
Now it's -- it's now Trustee's 2.
Okay? |\n| 25 | Thank you. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 41 (Trustee's Exhibit 2 admitted) BY MR. LUFT: Q So I will try to ask my question again. I'm going to use the word \"sole member\" the way it was -- in it's English term and how it's used in the declaration. Okay? Ms. Guo, Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: I am going to instruct, Your Honor, my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay. Ms. Guo, you have signed corporate documents on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: I am going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. MS. WERNICK: And, Your Honor, on behalf of the entity, I would just repeat the objection along the line of questioning relating to Hudson Diamond New York. THE COURT: Meaning you think it's beyond the scope? MS. WERNICK: Yeah. Beyond the scope of this motion. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I invoke my fifth amendment right. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'd like to show the Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 41 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 42 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
42 |\n| 1 | witness a document which I'll -- which is at Docket 1805-46. |\n| 2 | It was Exhibit T to my declaration, and it's a copy of a |\n| 3 | Hudson Diamond New York, LLC consent of sole member without |\n| 4 | a meeting.
May I show it to the witness? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 6 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 7 | Q
Ms. Guo, do you recognize this document? |\n| 8 | MR. TWARDY:
I'm going to -- Your Honor, I'm going |\n| 9 | to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment right. |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
I invoke my fifth amendment right. |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'm going to have to raise |\n| 12 | an objection to this.
Mr. Romney filed a declaration in |\n| 13 | this case where he spoke about talking to the witness about |\n| 14 | this exact document and then offered testimony based on what |\n| 15 | she represented to him.
I don't think you can talk about |\n| 16 | issues when you want to and invoke your fifth when you want |\n| 17 | to.
I'm happy to pull up his -- Attorney Romney's |\n| 18 | declaration if we want to look at it, but I know this is |\n| 19 | there.
I know is what they discussed. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
What declaration?
Attorney Twardy may |\n| 21 | not have seen it.
But that -- I'm -- |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
It's the July -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I just want to know what you're |\n| 24 | referring to. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor.
It's at Docket |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 43 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
43 |\n| 1 | 1988 filed on July 7, 2023.
It was declaration of Aaron |\n| 2 | Romney regarding motion for withdrawal of counsel for Hudson |\n| 3 | Diamond New York, LLC. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Attorney Twardy, would you like us to |\n| 5 | pull up that declaration for you to look?
We can pull it |\n| 6 | right up so you can see it. |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
And specifically paragraph 13 is the |\n| 8 | one I was referencing. |\n| 9 | MR. TWARDY:
I will look over counsel's shoulder. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
What is it again, Attorney Luft? |\n| 11 | What's the ECF number? |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
It is 1988, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
1988?
And you're looking at what |\n| 14 | paragraph? |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
13, Your Honor, is the one I believe |\n| 16 | discusses this exhibit. |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, here -- I am here, as |\n| 18 | Your Honor has indicated, as counsel for Ms. Guo.
What |\n| 19 | Mr. Romney did in some document is up to Mr. Luft to deal |\n| 20 | with Mr. Romney.
I'm instructing my client not to -- to |\n| 21 | invoke the fifth amendment rights. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, Mr. Romney, I believe, was |\n| 23 | not acting in his -- was acting because he was seeking to |\n| 24 | withdraw as counsel for Hudson Diamond New York in a matter |\n| 25 | where he was retained by Hudson Diamond New York and Hudson |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 44 of
138 | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
44 |\n| 1 | Diamond, LLC.
I believe -- I'm assuming he's acting as an |\n| 2 | attorney and as his agent. |\n| 3 | To say that that's Mr. Romney's problem for me to |\n| 4 | take up with him I don't think is appropriate.
Mr. Romney |\n| 5 | put information to the Court about what Ms. Guo would say in |\n| 6 | his declaration.
That's how they chose to submit it.
I |\n| 7 | don't think they can hide behind Mr. Romney now. |\n| 8 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, we're not hiding behind |\n| 9 | anybody.
I'm just instructing her to invoke her fifth |\n| 10 | amendment right. |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
I don't think it can be selectively |\n| 12 | invoked that way, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, that -- whether you can or |\n| 14 | cannot is not something the Court is going to rule on today. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Fair enough, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay?
He's instructing his client to |\n| 17 | invoke the fifth amendment privilege against |\n| 18 | self-incrimination.
You'll just create your record. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Fair enough. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I think that's what you have to do. |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:
Okay, Your Honor.
Then I will note my |\n| 22 | objection to the extent they are trying -- attempting to |\n| 23 | invoke their fifth amendment rights on areas in which |\n| 24 | they've already waived and disclosed the information. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I understand your objection. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 45 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
45 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
And I'm not ruling on that objection |\n| 3 | today.
Mr. Twardy has instructed his client not to answer |\n| 4 | the question. |\n| 5 | MR. LUFT:
I understand. |\n| 6 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, just for completeness, |\n| 7 | what they -- and Mr. Luft referred to they.
That's counsel |\n| 8 | for Hudson Valley Holdings.
I'm counsel for her, and I'm |\n| 9 | instructing her as herself to invoke the fifth amendment. |\n| 10 | What they did I don't care about, with all due respect. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
But, |\n| 12 | unfortunately, it does impact what goes on in this case as a |\n| 13 | whole, Attorney Twardy. |\n| 14 | MR. TWARDY:
Understood. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So I understand your -- I understand |\n| 16 | your statement, but there -- it may have different |\n| 17 | ramifications for the case as a whole. |\n| 18 | MR. TWARDY:
Understood, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I move what I'd like to |\n| 20 | mark as Trustee Exhibit 3 into evidence? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Which is the -- |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Which is the document before -- the |\n| 23 | Hudson Diamond New York, LLC -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Which was attached to Attorney |\n| 25 | Romney's declaration. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 46 MR. LUFT: No. It was attached to my declaration, Your Honor, originally as Exhibit T at Docket 1805-46. THE COURT: Was it also attached to Attorney Romney's declaration? Is it the same document? MR. LUFT: No. He just referenced -- he references -- THE COURT: He references. MR. LUFT: -- the document. THE COURT: Okay. But he did attach one document to his declaration. MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. An email chain. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: And, Your Honor, we would just interpose the same objection to that to the extent that that document relates to Hudson Diamond New York and not Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, for which we're here for today. THE COURT: And I am going to overrule your objection again. The scope of the subpoena, as I've stated to Attorney Twardy, is extremely broad, and the definitions that your client, well, as Hudson Holdings representative has testified include Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC and its affiliates. So your objection is overruled. MS. WERNICK: Respectfully, Your Honor -- and I understand your ruling. But I don't know that there's been any showing that they are affiliated entities. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 46 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 47 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
47 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Mr. Romney's affidavit for -- in |\n| 2 | support of his motion to withdraw supports that they're |\n| 3 | related. |\n| 4 | MS. WERNICK:
Oh, I think, actually, the |\n| 5 | submission by Mr. Romney supports the fact that they are not |\n| 6 | affiliated entities. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
No.
His declaration says he didn't -- |\n| 8 | he thought he was retained, but he wasn't.
It doesn't say |\n| 9 | that they're not affiliated.
It says that -- |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
Well, I think -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
It says that he believed he was |\n| 12 | retained by someone of authority who had the authority to |\n| 13 | retain him who didn't.
That's what your affidavit says. |\n| 14 | Isn't your motion to withdraw completely based on that, |\n| 15 | Mr. Romney, that you believed that you were retained to act |\n| 16 | on behalf of the New York entity, and then you found out |\n| 17 | later that you didn't have -- that the person who retained |\n| 18 | you didn't have authority to retain you on behalf of New |\n| 19 | York -- the New York entity?
Isn't that what it says? |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:
That I was informed by the general |\n| 21 | counsel of Hodgson Russ that based on their records, the |\n| 22 | individual who had retained me on behalf of Hudson Diamond |\n| 23 | New York, who I previously testified was Ms. Guo, did not |\n| 24 | have the authority to retain me.
And on that basis, I was |\n| 25 | going -- I was moving to withdraw. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 48 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
48 |\n| 1 | I would just like to state for the record, so that |\n| 2 | my silence is not perceived as acquiescence, since I'm |\n| 3 | sitting in the room, is that this declaration was signed |\n| 4 | under penalty by -- under penalty of perjury by me in |\n| 5 | response to an order to show cause based on my motion to |\n| 6 | withdraw.
And it was based upon further -- following the |\n| 7 | issuance of the order to show cause on my motion to |\n| 8 | withdraw, there were a series of questions interposed to me |\n| 9 | by Ms. Claiborn on behalf of the U.S. Trust (sic) Attorney's |\n| 10 | Office, and this was my -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
U.S. Trustee's Office. |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
I apologize. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
U.S. Trustee's Office.
Thank you, |\n| 15 | Your Honor.
And this declaration was Aaron Romney's |\n| 16 | statement under penalty of perjury designed to -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
No, I understand.
I -- |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:
-- address -- so that I -- just to |\n| 19 | make -- so there's no -- I was filing this declaration on |\n| 20 | behalf of Aaron Romney. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Go ahead, Attorney Luft. |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I sought to |\n| 25 | move Trustee Exhibit 3 into evidence. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 49 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Any opposition to the admission of |\n| 2 | Exhibit 3 into evidence? |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
The objection that was previously |\n| 4 | made on the record, again, that the exhibit relates to the |\n| 5 | entity that's not the subject of this proceeding, and |\n| 6 | there's been no demonstration it's related to the Hudson |\n| 7 | Diamond Holdings entity. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
There's been no demonstration in the |\n| 9 | record of this case that those entities are related even |\n| 10 | though there's documents that say that Hudson Diamond New |\n| 11 | York, LLC owns Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC?
Or maybe it's |\n| 12 | the other way around.
But there's documents in the record |\n| 13 | of this case, counsel. |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
There's -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
You're saying to me that there's no |\n| 16 | documents, there's no evidence that's been in this case that |\n| 17 | establishes that there's a relationship between those two |\n| 18 | parties, including documents filed with -- official |\n| 19 | documents filed with secretary of states offices?
That's |\n| 20 | your argument? |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
Respectfully, Your Honor, I'm |\n| 22 | referring to the communications reference in Mr. Romney's |\n| 23 | declaration from Hodgson Russ indicating that there's not a |\n| 24 | relationship between -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
The declaration isn't before the Court |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 50 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
50 |\n| 1 | today.
What's before the Court today is whether or not |\n| 2 | there should be a contempt finding based upon the failure of |\n| 3 | the party who was served with the subpoena to produce |\n| 4 | documents.
That's what's before the Court today.
And the |\n| 5 | documents that have been produced in this case establish |\n| 6 | that there's a relationship between the two entities.
It's |\n| 7 | on the secretary of state's records. |\n| 8 | So you -- you're going to make that argument that |\n| 9 | it's beyond the scope of this subpoena?
Okay.
Overruled. |\n| 10 | (Trustee's Exhibit 3 admitted) |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:
Okay. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Go ahead, Mr. Luft. |\n| 13 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 14 | Q
Ms. Guo, if you could look at Trustee Exhibit 3.
Do |\n| 15 | you see on the top it says, \"Hudson Diamond New York, LLC |\n| 16 | consent of sole member without a meeting\"?
And then on the |\n| 17 | second page it says, \"In witness whereof, this consent of |\n| 18 | sole member without a meeting was executed on December 4, |\n| 19 | 2020.\"
And it says, \"Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC by Mei Guo |\n| 20 | as sole member.\"
Do you see that? |\n| 21 | A
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q
And that's your signature there, correct? |\n| 23 | A
Correct. |\n| 24 | Q
Okay.
And Ms. Guo, you retained Mr. Romney and |\n| 25 | Mr. Vartan to act as counsel for Hudson Diamond New York, |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 51 correct? THE INTERPRETER: Can I have the name of the counsel again? Sorry. MR. LUFT: Mr. Romney and Mr. Vartan. MR. TWARDY: And, Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'm going to renew my objection. We've had extensive discovery in this case and testimony regarding whether or not Ms. Guo retained Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney. They made motions based on it. I understand he's -- but I'm just -- for my record. THE COURT: You're making your record. Go ahead. MR. TWARDY: I'm instructing to invoke your fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: I invoke my fifth amendment right. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, did you ever tell Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney that you were not the person -- that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York? MS. WERNICK: Objection, Your Honor. He's directly asking for attorney/client communications. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, they made motions to withdraw -- THE COURT: It's not a privileged communication. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 52 I am overrule -- overrule your objection. THE INTERPRETER: Can I have the question again, sir? MR. LUFT: Sure. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, did you ever tell Mr. Romney and Mr. Vartan that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay. Ms. Guo, you authorized bank accounts to be opened for Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q In fact, you opened those bank accounts at Capital One, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, I'd like to, at this point, show the witness a bank statement from Capital One Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 52 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 53 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
53 |\n| 1 | bank dated for the period of July 1, 2019, through July 31, |\n| 2 | 2019.
There is a Bates stamp of Cap1Kwok0000049.
It has |\n| 3 | been marked confidential.
So I don't know -- so for the |\n| 4 | record, we should mark it that -- note that.
But |\n| 5 | otherwise -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I haven't seen whatever you're |\n| 7 | looking at, so that's fine. |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
I understand, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
It's a confidential |\n| 10 | document that's been produced during the discovery process |\n| 11 | in these Chapter 11 cases to which the protective order |\n| 12 | applies? |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then the protective order |\n| 15 | allows certain attorneys and parties to look at confidential |\n| 16 | documents, correct? |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Has Attorney -- have Attorney Wernick |\n| 19 | and Romney and Vartan seen this document before? |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
I'm about to show it to them now. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
They've never seen this document? |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
I don't know if they've seen it |\n| 23 | otherwise. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well -- |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
It's from their client's records. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 54 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
54 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- not through the production process? |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
No, I have not shown it to them |\n| 3 | beforehand. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Has Attorney Twardy seen this |\n| 5 | document through the production process? |\n| 6 | MR. LUFT:
I've never met Mr. Twardy before today. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then he -- then you probably |\n| 8 | haven't given it to him. |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Correct. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Let me think for a second now.
It's |\n| 11 | confidential.
So we have to determine how -- but you have |\n| 12 | to be able to show the lawyers the document and maintain its |\n| 13 | confidentiality. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
Right. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So how are we going to do that? |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
So, Your Honor, I don't know if |\n| 17 | Mr. Twardy has ever signed a protective order.
I know |\n| 18 | Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney and Ms. Wernick have.
So they can |\n| 19 | see it. |\n| 20 | Again, Mr. Twardy, have you ever signed the |\n| 21 | protective order? |\n| 22 | MR. TWARDY:
I have not. |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
We could give him a copy.
He can |\n| 24 | review it. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
One of the ways we could proceed with |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 55 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
55 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | regard to this document is that -- and this and any other |\n| 2 | document that might be confidential that you are planning on |\n| 3 | examining the witness about, it may be that I have to have |\n| 4 | an in-camera review of the document and the protective |\n| 5 | order.
Because there are strict provisions, Attorney |\n| 6 | Twardy -- and I know you haven't been part of this -- about |\n| 7 | the protective -- in the protective order with regard to |\n| 8 | confidential documents. |\n| | |\n\n And at this point, any party who has become a party to the protective order is entitled to see confidential documents. You obviously haven't become that, because you haven't been involved yet until today, essentially. So I have to figure -- I want to figure out the best way to proceed so that this does not become an issue in the future. That's the whole reason of having a protective order.\n\n How many other documents do you have that might fall -- fit into this category that you are planning on questioning the witness about?\n\n MR. LUFT: Let me check, Your Honor. I don't think it's -- it's the bank statements. They've kind of uniformly handed them to us with a confidential mark. THE COURT: Who's they? MR. LUFT: Capital One bank, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 56 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Let me check if there are -- that may |\n| 2 | be the bulk of them, Your Honor.
I can do a double check, |\n| 3 | but I think so.
There are some emails that they don't |\n| 4 | appear to have. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Is there any -- are there questions |\n| 6 | that
you can ask and we can address that -- these documents |\n| 7 | at the end?
Or if not, that's fine.
Then I would like to |\n| 8 | take a short recess and consider how to -- I haven't looked |\n| 9 | at the protective order recently.
I'd have to go back and |\n| 10 | read the protective order, right? |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
That's totally fine, Your Honor.
I can |\n| 12 | move this to the end, but I would like to ask the witness |\n| 13 | about the documents. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Then let's move on, and |\n| 15 | we'll come back to this area. |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Any documents that are subject to the |\n| 18 | protective order. |\n| 19 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, if it helps the Court in |\n| 20 | her -- your deliberations, I will instruct -- I'm going to |\n| 21 | instruct Ms. Guo to invoke her fifth as with regard to these |\n| 22 | documents. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:
Okay. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Unfortunately, Attorney Twardy, he's |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 57 got to make that record. He's going to ask every question he wants to ask. And if she is -- invokes her fifth amendment, that's absolutely -- you know, she's entitled to do that. But he's also entitled to establish that record. MR. TWARDY: Yes, Your Honor. MR. LUFT: Okay, Attorney Luft. Please proceed. MR. LUFT: Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q Let me see what I can do without the documents then. One moment. In fact, Ms. Guo, you signed -- you were one of the signatories for the Hudson Diamond New York bank account at Capital One, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Give me one second. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, did you tell Mr. Romney that your name was not on that Hudson Diamond New York account at Capital One? MS. WERNICK: And, Your Honor, I'm going to object based on attorney/client privilege. THE COURT: And I'm going to overrule your objection again and note for the record that there were no formal objections filed by you with regard to any of the issues in the subpoena. So if you keep objecting, you can Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 58 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
58 |\n| 1 | go ahead and object, but there was no objection raised |\n| 2 | that -- with regard to the subpoena there's no protective |\n| 3 | order, no motion to quash, no nothing.
With regard to the |\n| 4 | issues and the evidence that was sought through that |\n| 5 | subpoena.
So I would like to note that for the record. |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, for the record, just -- |\n| 8 | and I know it's been a while, but the stipulation that was |\n| 9 | entered into verbally in court between Attorney Luft and I |\n| 10 | on behalf of our respective clients and then submitted in |\n| 11 | writing and so ordered by the Court did specifically |\n| 12 | preserve the right of the Hudson Diamond entities to assert |\n| 13 | privilege. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
To assert privilege.
But you |\n| 15 | didn't object to any specific document requests that said it |\n| 16 | went beyond the attorney/client privilege.
You didn't do |\n| 17 | that. |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
Correct. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
You didn't do that. |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:
The objection was to a question |\n| 21 | phrased, not a document request. |\n| 22 | MS. WERNICK:
Correct. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
That's -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
I'm still overruling it. |\n| 25 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 59 client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, I'm going to reference Mr. Romney's July 7th declaration at paragraph 9. He writes -- I'll represent to you this is what it says: \"Ms. Guo further advised me and Attorney Vartan that Capital One confirmed to her that New York previously had an account at Capital One but the account was closed and Capital One could not provide account statements to Ms. Guo, because her name was not on the account? THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, can I have the document? Oh, sorry. MR. LUFT: Sure. THE INTERPRETER: It's all right. (Counsel confer) THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. MR. LUFT: I haven't even asked my question yet, Your Honor. MR. TWARDY: It sounded like one to me. I'm sorry. MR. LUFT: Well, I read the predicate. I didn't then -- I was -- I didn't get a chance to ask my question. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 60 THE COURT: Go ahead and ask your question. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, is it true that you advised Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney that you could not get the Capital One account because your name was not on that account? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. MR. LUFT: Your Honor -- THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: And for the record, I'll make my objection that clearly they've opened the door on this by making assertions based on that communication. THE COURT: Understood. MR. LUFT: Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, sitting here today, is -- do you have any basis to assert that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is not the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct her -- my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, did Mr. Romney or Mr. Vartan ever tell you that Kevin Kearney of Hodgson Russ told him -- told them that the documents indicate that Holdings was the member, Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 60 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 61 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 61 not your brother? MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, continuing objection based on attorney/client communications. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. MR. LUFT: For the record, we'll make our objection. You have to translate her answer. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. TWARDY: Thank you. BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay. Ms. Guo, to respond to the subpoenas to Hudson Diamond New York and Hudson Diamond Holdings and the Court's order regarding you to appear for this, your brother never told you that he -- he's the member of Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, you never asked your brother which of you was the holder -- who was the member of Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 62 client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q You've never inquired of your father as to who is the member of Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to tell my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And you never sought to speak to Yvette Wang as to who was the member of Hudson Diamond New York, correct? THE INTERPRETER: Can I have the name again? Wang? MR. LUFT: Yvette Wang. THE INTERPRETER: Yvette Wang. Okay. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, you never directed your counsel at Zeisler & Zeisler, who's also your father's counsel, to inquire of your father as to how the member of Hudson Diamond New York is, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 62 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 63 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
63 |\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 2 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 3 | Q
Ms. Guo, you had conversations with Attorney Romney |\n| 4 | regarding a Rolls Royce held -- owned by Hudson Diamond New |\n| 5 | York, correct? |\n| 6 | MS. WERNICK:
Objection, Your Honor.
Again, this |\n| 7 | is attorney/client communications. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Oh, go ahead.
And then I'm going to |\n| 9 | respond to Attorney Wernick when you're done.
Okay. |\n| 10 | With regard to your objection, you have -- you |\n| 11 | continue to assert attorney/client privilege objections. |\n| 12 | And I'm looking at Ms. Guo's declaration that you put in as |\n| 13 | direct testimony.
And in that direct testimony she talks |\n| 14 | about specifically talking with you, Attorney Romney, and |\n| 15 | Attorney Vartan about several things, including Capital One, |\n| 16 | including you being with her when she made a phone call to |\n| 17 | try to get Mr. Krasner.
There's nothing in her declaration |\n| 18 | about trying to attempt to contact Ms. Wang. |\n| 19 | So your client's already waived the |\n| 20 | attorney/client privilege with regard to the issues that are |\n| 21 | in her declaration, because she's already stated that she's |\n| 22 | had these conversations with you and with Mr. Romney and |\n| 23 | with Mr. Vartan.
So I overrule your objection. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
All right.
And just respectfully, |\n| 25 | Your Honor, I would just note that the direct question posed |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 64 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
64 |\n| 1 | to Ms. Guo is not addressed in her declaration, and I would |\n| 2 | maintain -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, but it is.
You've already |\n| 4 | opened up the whole -- you've opened up the whole line of |\n| 5 | inquiry by having a declaration submitted where she |\n| 6 | testifies that she had conversations with you about all of |\n| 7 | these things.
And so -- and with response to the subpoena. |\n| 8 | So I overrule your objection. |\n| 9 | Go ahead, Attorney Luft. |\n| 10 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I think it's my turn to |\n| 11 | tell my client to invoke the fifth amendment. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 15 | Q
And at the July 11, 2023, hearing, Mr. Romney told the |\n| 16 | Court: \"I did inquire about the Rolls-Royce with Ms. Guo.\" |\n| 17 | Did that happen? |\n| 18 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 19 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:
And,
Your Honor, I'll renew my |\n| 22 | objection to the assertion of the fifth in this context |\n| 23 | given the fact that they've already addressed this. |\n| 24 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 25 | Q
Where is that Rolls-Royce now? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 65 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
65 |\n| 1 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 2 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 4 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 5 | Q
In fact, that Rolls-Royce is an asset of your father's |\n| 6 | correct? |\n| 7 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 8 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 10 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 11 | Q
Hudson Diamond has also been involved in attempting to |\n| 12 | purchase real estate, correct?
Sorry.
Hudson Diamond New |\n| 13 | York.
I apologize. |\n| 14 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 15 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 17 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 18 | Q
In fact, Hudson Diamond New York was created at the |\n| 19 | direction of your father to be a real property entity |\n| 20 | intended to acquire real property, correct? |\n| 21 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 22 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 24 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 25 | Q
Hudson Diamond has sought to purchase multiple |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 66 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
66 |\n| 1 | properties over the past few years, correct? |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
Hudson Diamond New York, right, |\n| 3 | sir? |\n| 4 | MR. LUFT:
Hudson Diamond New York.
We can -- |\n| 5 | we'll ask both of them. |\n| 6 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 7 | Q
Hudson Diamond New York? |\n| 8 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 9 | client to invoke the fifth amendment right. |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'd like to provisionally |\n| 12 | mark as Trustee Exhibit 4 a document with the Bates stamp |\n| 13 | GREE002323.
It is a Caldwell Banker exclusive right to |\n| 14 | represent the buyer form.
May I show it to the witness? |\n| 15 | And, Your Honor, may I approach and give one to the Court? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Attorney Wernick, do you have any |\n| 17 | objection to this document being admitted in full as |\n| 18 | Trustee's Exhibit 4? |\n| 19 | MS. WERNICK:
Your Honor, I don't believe we've |\n| 20 | had an opportunity to view this document before, so we'll |\n| 21 | take a look at it.
But I -- again, I don't know what this |\n| 22 | relates to.
And as I said, we haven't seen it before. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, didn't you just say -- just |\n| 24 | tell -- what -- it's a listing agreement between Caldwell |\n| 25 | Banker and whom? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 67 MR. LUFT: It's a real estate agreement between Hudson Diamond saying that Caldwell Banker -- THE COURT: Hudson Diamond who? MR. LUFT: It just says Hudson Diamond, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And Caldwell Banker? MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: And so, again, Your Honor, looking at this document for the first time here, there's certain handwritten entries made in the document where we don't know where they're coming from. And, again, there's no specific entity name listed on the document. So we would object on this basis. THE COURT: I'll let you ask a few questions, and then I'll see whether or not it'll be admitted. Okay? MR. LUFT: Sure, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LUFT: May I approach the witness and the bench? THE COURT: Yes, you may. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, in your declaration you state that Ms. Wang handled the business and operations for Hudson Diamond\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 68 Holdings? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, if I might have a moment? Could you say which -- in which paragraph? MR. LUFT: Sure. MR. TWARDY: Thank you. MR. LUFT: I'm referring to paragraph 5 of her declaration where she says, \"Yvette Wang and Max Krasner handled the business and affairs of Holding.\" MR. TWARDY: Does she have a -- if I might inquire of the Court? Does she have a copy? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. MR. TWARDY: You may answer. THE INTERPRETER: Sorry? BY MR. LUFT: Q You can answer. A Can you please repeat your question, because I don't remember the question now. Q Sure. In your sworn declaration, you stated that Yvette Wang handled the business and affairs of Holding, correct? A Yvette Wang and Max Krasner. Q They both did? A Correct. Q Okay. If you could look at the document I provisionally marked as Trustee 4 that I handed you. Do you Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 68 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 69 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
69 |\n| 1 | see under buyer it says Hudson Diamond on the front page? |\n| 2 | A
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q
Do you see on the back page under the signature it says |\n| 4 | print name, Hudson Diamond? |\n| 5 | A
I see it. |\n| 6 | Q
And that's the -- above it, it's the signature of |\n| 7 | Ms. Yvette Wang, correct? |\n| 8 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 9 | client to not -- invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
We'll renew our objection, Your Honor, |\n| 12 | for the same grounds. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
You just need to -- I just barely |\n| 14 | heard you, Attorney Luft.
That's not your fault, but just |\n| 15 | say that again so it's clear that it's on the record, |\n| 16 | please. |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor.
We will object |\n| 18 | on the same -- to the assertion of the fifth amendment on |\n| 19 | the same grounds given that we believe they've opened the |\n| 20 | door by asserting Ms. Wang's role with regard to Hudson |\n| 21 | Diamond Holdings. |\n| 22 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, if I might just for the |\n| 23 | record?
They, Hudson Diamond, cannot waive Ms. Guo's |\n| 24 | personal fifth amendment right.
So I don't know -- care |\n| 25 | what they did, but she is not waiving her rights. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 70 THE COURT: Understood. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo -- MR. LUFT: Well, why don't -- Your Honor, I'd ask to move to -- for admission of Trustee Exhibit 4. MS. WERNICK: And we have an ongoing objection. THE COURT: And what's your ongoing objection? MS. WERNICK: That there is no authentication of this record. THE COURT: Well, that's not an ongoing objection. You haven't made an objection about authentication yet, so that's not an ongoing objection. So then state your objection, and I will listen to it. MS. WERNICK: All right. So the document contains handwriting. Ms. Guo -- there's been no -- nothing to establish that Ms. Guo had anything to do with this document, has ever seen this document before. There's handwriting who we can't attribute it to, who the document is coming from. And, otherwise, there's no one with knowledge admitting this document. MR. LUFT: Your Honor? THE COURT: Would you like to respond, Attorney Luft? MR. LUFT: Sure, Your Honor. There is testimony that Ms. Wang acted on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 70 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 71 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
71 |\n| 1 | We have testimony that Hudson Diamond Holdings is owned by |\n| 2 | Ms. Guo.
And I specifically asked if the signature was |\n| 3 | Ms. Wang's, if she knew the signature was Ms. Wang's, and |\n| 4 | they have asserted the fifth.
To the extent they want to |\n| 5 | assert the fifth, then they -- that's their right.
But then |\n| 6 | there -- they can't make an objection and say that I |\n| 7 | can't -- I don't have evidence that she knows where the |\n| 8 | signature comes from.
There should be an adverse inference |\n| 9 | at that point, Your Honor, that it is what it says it is. |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
Your Honor, the document relates |\n| 11 | to -- I can't even tell what entity it relates to.
I don't |\n| 12 | think there's anyone purporting or offering any -- there's |\n| 13 | nothing that's been offered by Ms. (sic) Luft as to what |\n| 14 | entity the document relates to or anything else regarding |\n| 15 | its nature, how it came to be created, or who may have |\n| 16 | signed the document. |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, it says in two places |\n| 18 | Hudson Diamond.
Of course it says who it relates to. |\n| 19 | MS. WERNICK:
I don't -- I'm -- |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
It says it on the front and the back. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Hold on a minute, Attorney Wernick. |\n| 22 | Go ahead, Mr. Luft. |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
It says under buyer, Hudson Diamond, |\n| 24 | and under the signature name it's written Hudson Diamond. |\n| 25 | So an argument that this -- we don't know what entity this |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 72 relates to, it relates to Hudson Diamond, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything -- MS. WERNICK: As -- THE COURT: Anything further, counsel? MS. WERNICK: Yes, Your Honor. As far as I know, there's no entity -- certainly no entity subject to this specific proceeding -- that's known just simply Hudson Diamond. THE COURT: I'm going to overrule your objection. I'm going to admit it as Trustee's Exhibit 4. And I'll give it whatever weight I think is appropriate. (Trustee's Exhibit 4 admitted) MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. BY MR. LUFT: Q If you could look at Trustee 2, which is your declaration. Actually, you could put that aside for now. Hudson Diamond New York sought to purchase multiple properties over the past few years, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment right. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, where are the documents in connection with all those real estate transactions? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 72 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 73 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 3 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 4 | Q
And, Ms. Guo, all funding for Hudson Diamond's real |\n| 5 | estate transactions came from your father, correct, the |\n| 6 | debtor? |\n| 7 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 8 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 10 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 11 | Q
Ms. Guo, in fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings and Hudson |\n| 12 | Diamond New York have no source of assets or funds other |\n| 13 | than those under the -- coming from or under the control of |\n| 14 | your father, the debtor, correct? |\n| 15 | MS. WERNICK:
I just object.
It's a compound |\n| 16 | question. |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm -- well -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 19 | MR. TWARDY:
I'm sorry.
I'm just going to |\n| 20 | instruct her to invoke her fifth amendment right, but I |\n| 21 | don't want to preempt Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I wasn't going to say anything, so you |\n| 23 | go right ahead. |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:
Okay.
Your Honor, then I will |\n| 25 | instruct her to invoke the fifth amendment. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 74 THE WITNESS: It's fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay. Ms. Guo, if you could now take Trustee Exhibit 2, which is a copy of your declaration. You state that you are the records custodian for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, correct? MR. TWARDY: If I might just help her. If you would locate it, please. MR. LUFT: This is her declaration. It's the first line. MR. TWARDY: Okay. MR. LUFT: I assume some familiarity with the document. THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, can I have the question again? MR. LUFT: Sure. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, I'm looking at your introduction and paragraph 1 where you state that you are the records custodian for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. Do you see that? A I see it. Q Is that true? A Yes. Q Okay. What does the position of records custodian for Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 74 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 75 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
75 |\n| 1 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC entail? |\n| 2 | A
I do not understand this question. |\n| 3 | Q
Okay.
You stated that you are the records custodian |\n| 4 | for Hudson Diamond Holdings (audio skip) as the record |\n| 5 | custodian? |\n| 6 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 7 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right. |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor -- |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, we will make the same |\n| 11 | objection that we've made previously that it is improper to |\n| 12 | invoke the fifth amendment right when clearly she has put |\n| 13 | the -- already put testimony on the record on this issue. |\n| 14 | Okay? |\n| 15 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 16 | Q
What actions have you taken as the record custodian for |\n| 17 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:
I would just object and ask if you |\n| 19 | could ask a more specific question. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Overruled.
The -- overruled.
The |\n| 21 | question was fine.
Either she can answer it or she can't. |\n| 22 | That's not a basis for an objection, you'd like the question |\n| 23 | to be asked a different way.
That's a new one. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
Respectfully, Your Honor, I was just |\n| 25 | objecting that it was vague and ambiguous. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 76 THE COURT: Your -- that's your interpretation of it, counsel. And you didn't say vague and -- you didn't say that. So I don't -- your objection is overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, might I ask the question be re-asked, as I've now lost what it was. MR. LUFT: If you'd like me to, Your Honor, I'll ask it again. THE COURT: Mr. Luft, yes. I wouldn't like you to, but I'm going to ask you to. MR. LUFT: Fair enough, Your Honor. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, what actions have you taken as the record custodian for Hudson Diamonds, LLC? MR. TWARDY: You can answer, because it's in your declaration. THE WITNESS: I do not quite understand this question. Are you asking specifically what do I do to these documents? BY MR. LUFT: Q No. I'm asking you what, if any, actions have you taken as the record custodian for Hudson Diamond, LLC. MS. WERNICK: Apologies, Your Honor. Could we just put time parameters on the question? THE COURT: No. Go ahead. She can answer that question. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 76 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 77 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
I just went to my computer and my |\n| 2 | mailbox -- my email box to search relevant documents. |\n| 3 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 4 | Q
Have you ever taken any other actions as the record |\n| 5 | custodian for Hudson Diamond, LLC? |\n| 6 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to -- I would |\n| 7 | instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights with |\n| 8 | regard to that if counsel is asking for what she did beyond |\n| 9 | what's set forth in her declaration. |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, we'll renew our objection |\n| 12 | on the same grounds. |\n| 13 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 14 | Q
What computer did you search? |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 16 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'll renew it.
The witness |\n| 19 | literally just offered that testimony.
I'm just asking a |\n| 20 | follow-up question. |\n| 21 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 22 | Q
What accounts did you search? |\n| 23 | A
Email account. |\n| 24 | Q
Which email account? |\n| 25 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 78 client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'll make the same objection. This is clearly just sword and shield at this point. BY MR. LUFT: Q Where is the -- where is that -- are those email accounts kept? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, is this a Hudson Diamond Holdings email -- specific email account? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, is it a Hudson Diamond New York specific account? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'm just going to ask for a standing objection at this point with -- on this topic with Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 79 regard to -- at least to this email account. Or I can renew -- do it each time. THE COURT: I think we need to do it each time, counsel. MR. LUFT: Fair enough, Your Honor. To this question and as to the last, I impose an objection as to improper assertion of the fifth amendment given that the witness is openly testifying on this topic when she thinks it's to her advantage. THE COURT: Well, I assume you're going to file some document after today that's going to point out all of these assertions, and then you can site to the law which talks about the improper -- which would -- law -- and there is case law in the bankruptcy court that talks about improper assertions of fifth amendment when specific questions are asked that have already been made the subject of testimony by the person who is invoking that privilege. And the Court will entertain that when and if it's filed. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll keep moving on then. BY MR. LUFT: Q When did you search your email account? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 80 MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'll object on the same grounds I have been on this issue. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, upon Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC being served with the Rule 2004 subpoena in December of 2020, what did you do as the custodian of records to preserve Hudson Diamond Holdings' documents? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, same objection. BY MR. LUFT: Q In fact, Ms. Guo, you've never done anything to preserve Hudson Diamond Holdings documents in response to the Rule 2004 subpoena you've received from the trustee, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Same objection, Your Honor. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, you've never gathered any documents from Ms. Wang in connection with her work with regard to Hudson Diamond Holdings and Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 80 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 81 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Same objection. |\n| 4 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 5 | Q
Ms. Guo, you've never done anything to make sure to |\n| 6 | gather the documents of Mr. Krasner in connection with his |\n| 7 | work for Hudson Diamond Holdings and Hudson Diamond New |\n| 8 | York, correct? |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
Counsel, can I have the name? |\n| 10 | Mr. Krasner? |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Krasner correct. |\n| 12 | THE INTERPRETER:
Krasner.
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 14 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 17 | Q
Ms. Guo, as a custodian of records for Hudson Diamond |\n| 18 | Holdings, LLC, you've never done anything to make sure that |\n| 19 | there was no spoliation of its or its affiliates' documents, |\n| 20 | correct? |\n| 21 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 22 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Same objection, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 82 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | Q
Okay.
Ms. Guo, in your declaration, you state that you |\n| 2 | reviewed the trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena directed to Hudson |\n| 3 | Diamond Holdings.
Did you also review the trustee's Rule |\n| 4 | 2004 subpoena directed to Hudson Diamond New York when you |\n| 5 | retained Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney to act as counsel for |\n| 6 | both entities? |\n| 7 | MS. WERNICK:
And I would just object to the |\n| 8 | extent that the order that the Court entered directing the |\n| 9 | submission of a declaration was specific as to Hudson |\n| 10 | Diamond Holding, not Hudson Diamond New York. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Objection overruled. |\n| 12 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 13 | client to invoke her fifth amendment. |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
We'll move on. |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 17 | Q
Ms. Guo, you say that you -- in paragraph 3 that you've |\n| 18 | reviewed Mr. Romney's July 7, 2023, declaration, correct? |\n| 19 | A
Correct. |\n| 20 | Q
Okay.
And you believe everything in there is true and |\n| 21 | accurate? |\n| 22 | A
Correct. |\n| 23 | Q
Mr. Romney stated that it's not your -- that you told |\n| 24 | him that your name was not on the Capital One bank account. |\n| 25 | Was that true and accurate? |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 83 MS. WERNICK: Objection. Attorney/client communication. THE COURT: That's overruled, counsel. Your client's declaration talks about Attorney Romney's declaration and that she reviewed it. So your objection is overruled. MS. WERNICK: And, Your Honor, I would just add that it also mischaracterizes the substance of Mr. Romney's declaration. THE COURT: What mischaracterizes? MS. WERNICK: The way that the question is framed to Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, for that reason, I'm going to invoke the fifth -- ask my client to invoke the fifth amendment privilege. MR. LUFT: Sorry. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Sorry. For what reason? MR. TWARDY: For the mischaracterization of the Romney affidavit. MR. LUFT: Okay. I don't want to be accused of mischaracterizing, so why don't we mark as Trustee Exhibit 5 a document that's previously been entered in the record. It's Document 1988. It's a copy of Mr. Romney's declaration Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 84 regarding motion to withdraw as counsel for Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MS. WERNICK: Thank you. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, have you ever seen this document before? A I have seen it before. Q Turn to paragraph 9. Do you see it says, last sentence, \"Ms. Guo further advised me and Attorney Vartan that Capital One confirmed to her that New York previously had an account at Capital One but the account was closed, and Capital One could not provide account statements to Ms. Guo, because her name was not on the account.\" Do you see that? A I see it. Q And, Ms. Guo, is that truthful and accurate? A Correct. Q So it's your sworn testimony that it's truthful and accurate that Capital One told you that your name was not on the bank account for Hudson Diamond New York? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: I'm going to renew my objection, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 84 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 85 of
138 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | | Honor, on this issue.
I can move on to something else, but |\n| 2 | | this will once again -- I would like to revisit this when we |\n| 3 | | go back to the bank records. |\n| 4 | | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 5 | | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 7 | Q | Okay.
Ms. Guo, you tried to contact Mr. Krasner in |\n| 8 | | connection with the subpoena? |\n| 9 | A | I did. |\n| 10 | Q | How did you do that? |\n| 11 | A | Mobile phone. |\n| 12 | Q | What phone number did you use? |\n| 13 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 14 | Q | How did you get the phone number? |\n| 15 | A | Phone number of whom? |\n| 16 | Q | Max Krasner. |\n| 17 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 18 | Q | You don't know how you got the phone number to call |\n| 19 | | Mr. Krasner? |\n| 20 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 21 | Q | Is it a phone number you've had for a long time? |\n| 22 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 23 | Q | Approximately when did you get Mr. Krasner's phone |\n| 24 | number? | |\n| 25 | A | I don't remember. |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 86 of
138 | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
86 | |\n| 1 | Q | Was it in the last six months? | |\n| 2 | A | More than six months. | |\n| 3 | Q | More than a year? | |\n| 4 | A | More than a year. | |\n| 5 | Q | So for more than a year, you've had Mr. Krasner's phone | |\n| 6 | number? | | |\n| 7 | A | Correct. | |\n| 8 | Q | Ms. Guo, do you remember I took your deposition | |\n| 9 | | previously? | |\n| 10 | A | I do. | |\n| 11 | Q | Do you remember you were under oath? | |\n| 12 | A | Yes. | |\n| 13 | Q | And do you remember you swore to tell the truth, the | |\n| 14 | | whole truth, and nothing but the truth? | |\n| 15 | A | I remember. | |\n| 16 | | MR. LUFT:
Counsel, here's a copy of the | |\n| 17 | | deposition transcript.
If Your Honor would like, I'd -- | |\n| 18 | | happy to hand one up to the Court. | |\n| 19 | | THE COURT:
Well, you're going to have to | |\n| 20 | | introduce -- you'll have to file all the documents anyway, | |\n| 21 | | so it's fine. | |\n| 22 | | MS. WERNICK:
And, Your Honor, we would just | |\n| 23 | | object to this as being beyond the scope of this proceeding. | |\n| 24 | | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, this is impeachment. | |\n| 25 | | THE COURT:
Objection overruled. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 87 of
138 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
87 |\n| MR. LUFT:
May I approach the witness? |\n| THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| THE INTERPRETER:
Thank you. |\n| BY MR. LUFT: |\n| Q
Ms. Guo, can you turn to page 146 of your deposition |\n| transcript?
And, Ms. Guo, I took your deposition on |\n| January 20, 2023, correct? |\n| A
I don't remember the specific dates. |\n| Q
Okay.
If you want to look on the front page, this -- |\n| do you see it says Friday, January 20, 2023?
Does that |\n| refresh your recollection that's when I took your |\n| deposition? |\n| A
Okay.
I see it. |\n| Q
Okay.
I'm going to ask you to look at line 7 and line |\n| 8.
Question: \"Do you have Max Krasner's phone number?\" |\n| Answer: \"No.\" |\n| Q
Did I read that correctly? |\n| MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct her |\n| to invoke the fifth amendment. |\n| THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'm going to object. |\n| That's improper instruction on the fifth. |\n| THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| BY MR. LUFT: |\n| Q
Ms. Guo, did you ever attempt to email Mr. Krasner? |\n| |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 88 MS. WERNICK: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Same objection. BY MR. LUFT: Q Did you attempt to contact Mr. Krasner in any other way other than the telephone? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Same objection. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, have you done anything to try to communicate -- contact Ms. Wang in connection with Hudson Diamond Holdings and Hudson Diamond New York, responding to the subpoenas that were served upon them by the rule -- by the trustee? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client not to -- or to invoke her fifth amendment rights with regard to Hudson Diamond New York. THE INTERPRETER: Can I have that again, counselor? MR. TWARDY: Yes. I'm instructing her to not Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 88 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 89 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | answer the question with regard to Hudson Diamonds New York. |\n| 2 | She can answer the question as regard to her attempts with |\n| 3 | Ms. Wang for Hudson Diamond Holding. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, hold on a second. |\n| 5 | I'm sorry.
Go ahead. |\n| 6 | So, Mr. Twardy, your objection is going to her |\n| 7 | position as a corporate -- a person, not with regard to her |\n| 8 | individual rights.
You don't care -- you've told me you |\n| 9 | don't care about the entities.
But now you tell me you do |\n| 10 | care about the entities. |\n| 11 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
So I think that that's not |\n| 13 | appropriate.
If you want to instruct her to answer not -- |\n| 14 | because you're concerned about her individual prosecution, |\n| 15 | that's a different situation.
But you're now taking over |\n| 16 | the role that Attorney Wernick said she was going to take, |\n| 17 | which was you've now made a line in the sand about corporate |\n| 18 | entities which you've told the Court and everyone on several |\n| 19 | occasions you don't care about.
But now you do care about |\n| 20 | it. |\n| 21 | MR. TWARDY:
I do care about -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So -- |\n| 23 | MR. TWARDY:
I do care about it, Your Honor, with |\n| 24 | regard to Ms. Guo.
And this one asked a question about what |\n| 25 | she did with regard -- on behalf of Hudson Holdings as well. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 90 THE COURT: That's right. And that's what the -- that's what this whole hearing is about. MR. TWARDY: Understood. And that's something I would let her answer. It's the question about what she did on behalf of Hudson New York I'm instructing her to invoke the fifth. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. MR. TWARDY: Does that -- THE COURT: I still think that you are -- you are now taking a position that's inconsistent with the position you've taken throughout this hearing, which is that you don't care about the entities. Ms. Wernick has been invoking -- has been objecting on the basis that it goes beyond the scope. And I've overruled all those objections. So now that I continue to overrule those objections, you're now making a different objection than you've made previously. Because now, I've been clear that I -- that the scope of this subpoena and the issues related to showing cause relate to the subpoena as a whole and the Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And we went through this at the beginning of the hearing where Mr. Luft asked your client a question about the definition, and your client answered it and said she understood it. And that included you, yours -- I can write -- I can look at my notes. MR. TWARDY: Yeah. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 91 THE COURT: But the -- MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, if I -- THE COURT: But the point is, counsel, you can't take over their objections when their objections are being overruled, and they don't like the fact that they're being overruled by then asserting that she -- your client should take -- should be able to invoke her fifth amendment privilege, because -- as it relates to one of the corporate entities. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I -- she has invoked her fifth amendment privilege with regard to any question concerning her role with Hudson Valley -- Hudson Diamond New York, because -- it's been consistent with that. I've allowed -- THE COURT: Well, you've also invoked her fifth amendment privilege with regard to anything that has to do with Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. So now we're -- MR. TWARDY: What's -- THE COURT: Now we're getting into the position that I -- MR. TWARDY: Okay. THE COURT: -- I described at the beginning of this hearing that was problematic, which is so now the witness has a lawyer not only representing her in her capacity as a corporate member but in her individual Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 91 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 92 of
138 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
92 | | |\n| 1 | capacity who then gets to assert the privilege with regard | | |\n| 2 | to corporate issues.
That doesn't make any sense to me, | | |\n| 3 | Attorney Twardy. | | |\n| 4 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I will then instruct my | | |\n| 5 | client to invoke the fifth amendment rights to the question | | |\n| 6 | as a whole. | | |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? | | |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
He instructed her to take the fifth. | | |\n| 9 | You have to give her the instruction.
She knows, but -- and | | |\n| 10 | then she will -- | | |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. | | |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
We'll make the same objection, Your | | |\n| 13 | Honor. | | |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT: | | |\n| 15 | Q
Okay.
What, if any, actions have you taken to try to | | |\n| 16 | communicate with Ms. Wang in connection with the subpoena | | |\n| 17 | Hudson Diamond Holdings received? | | |\n| 18 | A
I cannot reach out to Ms. Wang, because she is in | | |\n| 19 | detention center. | | |\n| 20 | Q
You communicate with people in detention currently, | | |\n| 21 | don't you? | | |\n| 22 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor? | | |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:
Who are you referring to? | | |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor?
Your Honor, I will | | |\n| 25 | instruct her to invoke her fifth amendment. | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 93 THE WITNESS: I answered your question. BY MR. LUFT: Q So, okay. I'll proceed then. You communicate with your father who's currently in prison, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q In fact, you post on social media most -- on social media repeatedly that you communicate with your father while he's in detention, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Yes. And thank you for your concern. BY MR. LUFT: Q Do you -- what steps have you taken to communicate with Ms. Wang with regard to Hudson Diamond Holdings' compliance with the subpoena that was served? MR. TWARDY: I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, in fact, you've never taken any steps to try to get information from Ms. Wang with regard to Hudson Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 94 Diamond Holdings' compliance with the trustee's subpoena despite the fact that you list her and Mr. Krasner as the people who operated the business, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And that's because you know that Ms. Wang only takes instructions from your father, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And you know that Mr. Krasner, in fact, only will take instruction from your father, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And that's because Ms. Wang and Mr. Krasner are your father, the debtor's, agents, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 94 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 95 of
138 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
95 |\n| 1 | Q | If we go back to Trustee Exhibit 2, which is your |\n| 2 | | declaration, if I look at paragraph 7 you said, \"I also |\n| 3 | | reached out to my accountant.\"
Who is your accountant? |\n| 4 | A | Mindy. |\n| 5 | Q | Mindy?
What is Mindy's whole name? |\n| 6 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 7 | Q | You don't know your accountant's whole name? |\n| 8 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 9 | Q | What's the name of her accounting firm? |\n| 10 | A | It started with J and something, but I don't remember |\n| 11 | the whole name. | |\n| 12 | Q | All you recall is that it literally starts with the |\n| 13 | | letter J? |\n| 14 | A | J-A and something.
Janover? |\n| 15 | Q | Is it Janover? |\n| 16 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 17 | Q | Is it Janik? |\n| 18 | A | I do not remember. |\n| 19 | Q | It could be an accountant or a paint store.
We don't |\n| 20 | know. | |\n| 21 | | MR. LUFT:
I'll withdraw that. |\n| 22 | | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 23 | Q | How do you contact Mindy? |\n| 24 | A | I send her emails and call her by phone. |\n| 25 | Q | Okay.
When you reached out to her as referenced in |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 96 of
138 | |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
96 | |\n| 1 | | your declaration, how did you contact Mindy? | |\n| 2 | A | I have called her.
I have also sent her emails. | |\n| 3 | Q | What's her phone number? | |\n| 4 | A | I don't remember. | |\n| 5 | Q | Where do you keep her phone number? | |\n| 6 | A | In my mobile phone. | |\n| 7 | Q | Do you have your mobile phone here? | |\n| 8 | A | No. | |\n| 9 | Q | What type of phone is it? | |\n| 10 | A | iPhone. | |\n| 11 | Q | Smart phone? | |\n| 12 | A | iPhone is a smart phone. | |\n| 13 | Q | When did you start using an iPhone? | |\n| 14 | A | In year 2008. | |\n| 15 | Q | And you've used one consistently since then? | |\n| 16 | A | No. | |\n| 17 | Q | Okay.
When did you start using this smart phone? | |\n| 18 | | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my | |\n| 19 | | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. | |\n| 20 | | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. | |\n| 21 | | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, the fifth amendment is not | |\n| 22 | | supposed to be a blanket objection to anything they don't | |\n| 23 | | want to answer.
When did she start using her phone? | |\n| 24 | | THE WITNESS:
I have answered that question.
My | |\n| 25 | | answer is I don't remember. | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 97 MR. TWARDY: And, Your Honor, just if I might for the record? There are issues that arise for the act of production that can be implicated here which is why I'm instructing her to invoke her fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: There's no act of production issue right now, Your Honor. MR. TWARDY: There could well be, and that's what I'm looking -- steps down the road. MR. LUFT: Well, you got to wait until we get there. MR. TWARDY: Well, that's why she's invoking it now. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, that's improper. So he's now saying that she wants to invoke her fifth amendment in case we ever get to an issue that involves -- MR. TWARDY: I don't -- MR. LUFT: -- a fifth amendment issue. MR. TWARDY: I don't care about you. I care about the U.S. Attorney's Office, with all due respect, Mr. Duff -- Luft. MR. LUFT: I don't care how you feel about me, but I'm trying to do an examination. THE COURT: I'm going to just stop -- MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- you both right there. Okay? Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 97 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 98 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | You're going to continue to make your record.
And you're |\n| 2 | going to -- and you're going to do whatever you think is |\n| 3 | appropriate with regard to this record. |\n| 4 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I will say that there are questions |\n| 6 | that have been asked that relate directly to the direct |\n| 7 | testimony of the witness in the declaration to which the |\n| 8 | fifth amendment has been asserted when you've asked the |\n| 9 | question. |\n| 10 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, might we take a quick |\n| 11 | break?
Ms. Guo has been up there for two-and-a-half hours |\n| 12 | almost at this point. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I don't know how much longer Attorney |\n| 14 | Luft has.
Do you want to take a break, or did you want to |\n| 15 | continue? |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
No, Your Honor.
I'd like to finish up. |\n| 17 | I don't have much more.
I mean, if we want to take a break |\n| 18 | before the -- when we get to the bank documents to give the |\n| 19 | Court a chance to look at them, that would be fine. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I'd like to take a break before the |\n| 21 | bank documents.
So why don't you finish up what you can do |\n| 22 | without the bank documents, and then we'll talk about the |\n| 23 | bank documents. |\n| 24 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 25 | Q
Ms. Guo, you said that you use an iPhone, correct? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 99 of
138 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | A
Correct. |\n| 2 | Q
Have you been using an iPhone for the past two years? |\n| 3 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 4 | client to invoke the fifth amendment for the reasons |\n| 5 | previously stated. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'm going to object. |\n| 8 | Can I have tab 30? |\n| 9 | Your Honor, I'd like to show the witness a copy of |\n| 10 | the declaration of Lee Vartan in opposition to trustee's |\n| 11 | order to show cause regarding compliance with Rule 2004 |\n| 12 | subpoenas and January 2023 order.
It's at Docket 1512. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
May I approach the witness? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 16 | THE INTERPRETER:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:
Thanks. |\n| 18 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 19 | Q
Ms. Guo, this is a copy of the declaration of your |\n| 20 | counsel, Mr. Vartan, in opposition to the trustee's order to |\n| 21 | show cause regarding compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoena |\n| 22 | that was directed towards yourself and HK USA. |\n| 23 | Specifically, I want to direct you to paragraph 25. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
And I would object.
Mr. Luft has |\n| 25 | now shown the witness a document that relates to other |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 100 entities outside of the Hudson Diamond entities that we're here for today. THE COURT: Objection overruled. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, do you see on paragraph 25 it cites -- Mr. Vartan writes, \"After Ms. Guo was released from detention in early 2017, her relationship with technology was further changed. She stopped using a smart phone and communicated only by using a flip phone for fear of being tracked by the CCP.\" Do you see that? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I -- Your Honor, my question is literally does she see that. This is an improper invocation of the fifth. MR. TWARDY: That she can answer. I'm sorry. I thought I heard something else, Mr. Luft. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, is it a true -- was Mr. Vartan truthful when he stated that you stopped using a smart phone and communicated only with a -- from a -- with a flip phone starting in early 2017 until the time of his declaration in January of 2023? MR. TWARDY: Now, Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 101 THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Same objection, Your Honor. BY MR. LUFT: Q If I could ask you to look at paragraph 9 of Trustee Exhibit 2, which is a copy of your declaration. You write, \"I reviewed my hard copy and electronic records.\" Which records are you referring to? A That refers to my emails. Q Anything else? A It was just the emails and also whatever documentations that I have at hand. Q Where do you keep -- well, when you say you -- whatever documentations you have at hand, what are you referring to? A It refers to any printed paper document that I have on my table. Q Which table? A My table. Q I don't want to be flip about this, but are you -- is it literally just any documents that happen to be at the table you're at, or do you have some type of file or system where you keep hard copy documents related to whatever business you're in? A It's the table that I kept documents. Q Okay. Where is the table that you keep documents located? Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 102 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
102 |\n| 1 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I don't want to intrude |\n| 2 | here, but I heard her answer \"kept documents,\" as in the |\n| 3 | past tense, which is consistent with what's in the |\n| 4 | affidavit.
Mr. Luft's question was keep.
And I don't -- |\n| 5 | I -- you know, I just wish -- could you clarify your |\n| 6 | question?
Is it current or past tense? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Sure. |\n| 8 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 9 | Q
Ms. Guo, did you destroy the documents you reference in |\n| 10 | paragraph 9 when you say you reviewed your hard copy |\n| 11 | documents? |\n| 12 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct her |\n| 13 | to invoke the fifth amendment. |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Same objection, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 17 | Q
How did you destroy the documents -- hard copy |\n| 18 | documents that you kept that would have been responsive to |\n| 19 | the subpoena? |\n| 20 | MS. WERNICK:
Objection.
It's argumentative. |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:
Well, I want to know how we -- she did |\n| 22 | it.
It's not argumentative. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Overruled. |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my |\n| 25 | client to invoke the fifth amendment. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 103 THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q In fact, Ms. Guo, you destroyed those documents at the direction of your father, the debtor, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, if you want to take a break, this might be the time where I can figure out if there's anything else other than the bank documents. And then we can -- I can share those with the Court. THE COURT: I'm not in need of a break, but if you want to break so that you can determine how you want to proceed with the documents that are subject to the protective order, that's fine. MR. LUFT: That's what I want to figure out, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. How much time do you need? Fifteen minutes? Twenty minutes? MR. LUFT: Well, I know Your Honor had indicated that you wanted a chance to review them as well, so -- THE COURT: Well, I believe I'm going to have to review them at some point depending upon what occurs. So I'd like the parties to have a discussion about this issue for the next 20 minutes. And we'll come back at 4:50, and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 104 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
104 |\n| 1 | we'll see how we're going to proceed.
Okay? |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
That works, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 4 | MR. TWARDY:
Your Honor? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Court is in recess until 4:50. |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, may we have the general |\n| 7 | admonition that you give to witnesses? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes.
I have to speak to the |\n| 9 | interpreter. |\n| 10 | Would you please remind the witness that she is |\n| 11 | under oath and she remains under oath during this time that |\n| 12 | we're on break.
Okay? |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
Court is in |\n| 16 | recess until 4:50. |\n| 17 | (Court recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:58 p.m.) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Luft, we took a |\n| 19 | recess, and I asked you to -- and the parties to speak about |\n| 20 | the portion of your examination where you had indicated |\n| 21 | you're going to ask some questions about documents that have |\n| 22 | been marked confidential. |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
So is there anything you have to |\n| 25 | report about those discussions? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 105 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 105 MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. My understanding is that Ms. Guo's criminal counsel has reviewed the protective order, has agreed to be bound by it, and he's going to make a statement on the record reflecting that we don't have a hard copy here right now. But I'm -- that's more than adequate to me that if he makes a statement on the record that he's willing to be bound by it. At which point I have shared the documents I'm considering using with counsel for Hudson Diamond Holdings. Once he makes that statement on the record, they will share it with him as well. MR. LUFT: Okay. MR. LUFT: And then I think -- THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. MR. LUFT: -- Your Honor, we can move ahead. MR. TWARDY: And, Your Honor, yes, I will be bound by the confidentiality order that's been entered here. THE COURT: Thank you, Attorney Twardy. Just so you know, it's called a protective order. MR. TWARDY: Protective order. I'm sorry. I -- THE COURT: That's all right. And it's -- it -- the document number is 923. And it was entered in this case on -- in these Chapter 11 cases on October 6, 2022. Okay? MR. TWARDY: Yes. Attorney Linsey sent me -- emailed me a copy of it, and I had a chance to look at it, Your Honor, during the break.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 106 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 106 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. TWARDY: Yeah. Thank you, Attorney Linsey. THE COURT: All right. And you've showed the documents that you're going to ask questions about to Ms. Wernick and Attorney Romney and Attorney Vartan, and now they're going to share them with Attorney Twardy. Is that how you anticipate this will proceed? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. They have copies of the three documents I intend to reference -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: -- at this point. THE COURT: Then please proceed. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. ROMNEY: One moment, Your -- (Counsel confer) MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may? I believe, given that we have a public going on, if we're going to be discussing documents subject to the privilege -- subject -- THE COURT: I can't hear you at all, Attorney Romney. You have to speak into the microphone. MR. ROMNEY: Very sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. ROMNEY: What I was attempting to say is, given that we're about to be going over documents covered by\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 107 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 107 the protective order, presumably these documents will be submitted under seal, I would ask that we clear the courtroom to the extent there are people here that are not parties to the protective order. THE COURT: We're going to be asking questions specifically about the confidential nature of the documents? MR. LUFT: I don't believe so, Your Honor, but\n\n I -- they -- look, many parties in this case have, as a de facto thing, stamped confidential on everything they send to us. I don't think that there's anything more confidential about what we're looking at than anything else we've been talking about today, Your Honor, but that's where we are.\n\n MR. ROMNEY: For the record, these are not documents that Hudson Diamond Holdings has -- or New York has stamped confidential. We've never seen these documents before today. My, I guess, sort of just point was, given that we were not permitted to share them with Attorney Twardy until he put on the record that he was being subject to it, presumably that should operate for everyone else in the courtroom to the extent that we're getting into the substance of the documents.\n\n I have no idea what Attorney Luft is going to be asking, so to the extent he's not getting into the substance of the documents, I suppose that's not necessary. But I was just trying to protect the process, Your Honor. That's --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 108 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 108 THE COURT: Understood. Attorney Luft, what are you planning on doing? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I do plan to ask about the contents of the documents. I believe they are of a piece with other questions I have been asking for the past few hours. They are, you know, bank documents. I assume to the extent that there is -- they asserted confidentiality it is because -- you know what? I don't even want to make an assumption. I would guess it was for their client as a matter of course. But I'm not in their head, Your Honor. I will ask about the contents. I don't know if that information is confidential. As I said, I've been asking questions about Hudson Diamond Holdings' bank accounts for a while. And, quite frankly, the answer to -- has been an assertion of the fifth amendment to -- invariably. And I will not be surprised if that's the way we continue. But that's what I plan to do, Your Honor. I don't have an opinion as to whether the Court needs to be cleared. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I'm just taking a look at this for a moment. (Pause) THE COURT: So I'm looking at paragraphs -- well, I'm looking at a number of paragraphs, but the paragraph I'm\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 109 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
109 |\n| 1 | looking at at the moment in the protective order is |\n| 2 | paragraph 14, use of discovery materials in open court.
It |\n| 3 | says, \"The limitations on disclosure in this order shall not |\n| 4 | apply to any discovery materials offered or otherwise used |\n| 5 | by any party at a trial or any hearing held in open court |\n| 6 | except as provided in this paragraph.
Whenever practicable, |\n| 7 | as part of any pretrial conference or any meet and confer |\n| 8 | regarding the use of exhibits in any evidentiary hearing or, |\n| 9 | if not practicable, prior to the use of any designated |\n| 10 | material at trial or any hearing to be held in open court, |\n| 11 | counsel for any party who desires to offer or use such |\n| 12 | designated material at trial, at hearing to be held in open |\n| 13 | court shall meet and confer in good faith with the producing |\n| 14 | party\" -- so I don't know who produced this document to you, |\n| 15 | but anyway -- \"to discuss ways to redact the designated |\n| 16 | material so that the material may be offered or otherwise |\n\n Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules. If the parties aren't able to resolve a dispute related to such designated material, the producing party shall bear the burden of requesting appropriate relief from the court. Until the court rules on such an issue, the designated materials shall continue to be treated according to its designation and in accordance with the terms of this order.\"\n\nused by any party in accordance with the provisions of the\n\nSo is there any ability to redact this document?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 110 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
110 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, quite frankly, and this is |\n| 2 | on me, I don't know if -- I mean, I could redact what I |\n| 3 | don't care about, but I don't know if that would address the |\n| 4 | confidentiality issue.
I don't -- I guess Capital One is |\n| 5 | the entity that produced the documents, right?
Again, they |\n| 6 | did it on behalf of -- presumably on behalf of Hudson |\n| 7 | Diamond New York. |\n| 8 | We have this circle here where no one is willing |\n| 9 | to say that they are Hudson Diamond New York.
So if counsel |\n| 10 | here is willing to speak on behalf of Hudson Diamond New |\n| 11 | York, we can figure out how to redact the document. |\n| 12 | Otherwise, Your Honor, I can't tell you how it's supposed to |\n| 13 | be redacted no behalf of Hudson Diamond New York or Capital |\n| 14 | One. |\n| 15 | So and I didn't have a chance to speak with |\n| 16 | Capital One bank about this.
I apologize for that. |\n| 17 | (Counsel confer) |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I don't mean to disturb |\n| 19 | you, but Trustee Despins had a suggestion which I'm happy to |\n| 20 | share with the Court. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
I'm not a fortune teller, but my guess |\n| 23 | is that I would not be shocked if I heard an assertion of |\n| 24 | the fifth amendment to the questions I'm going to ask given |\n| 25 | the way the rest of the day has gone.
I can try -- I am |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 111 not -- I think there's a realistic possibility that we may never have to confront that issue. And I can try to -- I have to make some reference to the document to direct the witness in my questions, but the idea of redacting, I can try to be -- you know, not be overt about the contents if possible. I mean, again, I can't guess as to what they're going to do, but -- MR. TWARDY: No, you guessed right. Your Honor, again, I've just seen these literally within the last five minutes. But I will be instructing my client to invoke the fifth amendment. Is there a way this can be done so the documents are filed under seal and just a -- you know, marked into evidence and, you know, then just verify what's on there, do it that way? MR. LUFT: I have to ask your client questions about it, but -- THE COURT: Well, to answer your question, Attorney Twardy, yes, these documents can be filed under seal. That's the -- that's easy. I mean, insofar as the protective order already anticipates that in some respect. And these documents are -- been marked as highly confidential. So then the issue becomes what questions are you going to ask. And I'm not asking you to tell me, right? Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 111 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 112 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
112 |\n| 1 | That's not what I'm doing. |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Sure, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I'm talking about the issue.
Okay? |\n| 4 | What questions are you asking, and what questions are -- and |\n| 5 | what information will be revealed in those questions. |\n| 6 | If you're asking questions about the existence or |\n| 7 | recognition of a document, that's one thing, I think. |\n| 8 | Because the documents will be filed under seal.
But if |\n| 9 | you're asking questions specifically about what's contained |\n| 10 | in the documents, then we might have to figure -- you know, |\n| 11 | we're going to have to figure out how to deal with that. |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:
That's fair, Your Honor.
I am going to |\n| 13 | ask more than just recognition of the documents.
Like I |\n| 14 | said, I can try to be discrete in terms of referring to |\n| 15 | entity on this line, do you see the amount of money |\n| 16 | referenced here, something like that as opposed to stating |\n| 17 | what the amount of money is. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, I think you'd have to do that at |\n| 19 | the very least, right?
Otherwise, you get into -- |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
That's what I'm trying to -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- an issue of disclosing the |\n| 22 | confidential information. |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
Right.
So if that would work, Your |\n| 24 | Honor -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, let me ask Attorney Twardy.
Are |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 113 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
113 |\n| 1 | you -- let's just make an assumption here that I would grant |\n| 2 | a motion to seal these documents.
Are you opposing that |\n| 3 | these -- that these documents be introduced in any way, |\n| 4 | shape, or form as part of a motion to seal? |\n| 5 | MR. TWARDY:
Not at all, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. TWARDY:
This is all part of their case. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 9 | MR. TWARDY:
And they can do what they want.
I |\n| 10 | don't know about counsel for Hudson, but I don't have a |\n| 11 | problem with it. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, we're talking about -- okay. |\n| 13 | That's fair.
So, so far we have an agreement with Ms. Guo's |\n| 14 | criminal counsel that he's not going to oppose a motion to |\n| 15 | seal, right, so that these documents would be under seal. |\n| 16 | Attorney Wernick, you have an opposition to these |\n| 17 | documents being filed under seal? |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:
Not being filed under seal. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
So you have no opposition, correct? |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
To the documents being filed under |\n| 21 | seal, correct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So that takes care of one |\n| 23 | problem, which is this, the documents will be filed under |\n| 24 | seal unless and until they're no longer sealed because of |\n| 25 | the protective order provisions.
And those provisions have |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 114 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
114 |\n| 1 | been in place since October of 2022.
So that, I think, |\n| 2 | makes it a little simpler. |\n| 3 | Now we get to what are your questions.
And if |\n| 4 | your questions do anything to -- if you want to -- if you |\n| 5 | would like to ask questions about specific information that |\n| 6 | is not just being read or acknowledged, then I think we have |\n| 7 | an issue.
I understand that Attorney Twardy has already |\n| 8 | said he's going to ask -- instruct his client to invoke the |\n| 9 | fifth amendment, which is absolutely fine.
But you also |\n| 10 | have the right to ask those questions to have her invoke the |\n| 11 | fifth amendment.
So that's not a problem either. |\n| 12 | So I think you have to decide -- and if you want |\n| 13 | to take a few minutes, you know, I don't have a problem with |\n| 14 | that -- how you want to ask -- or formulate those questions |\n| 15 | in order to avoid any issues.
I'm happy to have you do |\n| 16 | that.
But I also can have you proceed based -- however you |\n| 17 | want to proceed at this point. |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Look, I'm happy |\n| 19 | to push ahead at this point.
I want to ask -- I think I |\n| 20 | need to ask the questions that I need to ask. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
Before you ask -- I'm |\n| 22 | sorry.
When you're done, I just want to say something |\n| 23 | before you start asking any questions.
Okay? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor.
And I -- just |\n| 25 | so we're all level set, I have a couple questions before we |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 115 of
138 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
115 |\n| get to these last couple -- |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. LUFT:
-- that involve this.
Look, I want to |\n| make sure this is done right.
I'm not a big fan of sealing |\n| the courtroom, but if that's the right thing to do at this |\n| point, Your Honor, to make sure that we can get a clear |\n| record and everyone can -- especially with the language |\n| barrier, that everyone can follow my questions, then we |\n| should just do that. |\n| Otherwise, I know how to ask questions to leave |\n| out specifics.
But if that's going to just lead to a |\n| confusing record, then I think the better part of valor is |\n| to just move ahead and let us ask the questions with the |\n| room sealed.
I don't believe it'll be more than five |\n| minutes' worth of questioning on that. |\n| THE COURT:
So you're saying you would agree -- |\n| you would like everyone else to leave the room who's not -- |\n| to leave the courtroom who's not subject to the protective |\n| order.
Is that what you're saying? |\n| MR. LUFT:
I think so, Your Honor, if it means |\n| that we can get a clear record and have a -- |\n| THE COURT:
All right.
Well, we're not there yet. |\n| MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| THE COURT:
But you're going to have to tell me |\n| when we're there.
So before you start -- |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 116 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
116 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- asking any other questions -- |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
I will -- yes. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
-- I -- you've made an oral motion to |\n| 5 | seal apparently three documents? |\n| 6 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I don't know what they are, |\n| 8 | obviously.
There's no opposition from corporate counsel or |\n| 9 | from individual counsel to that motion to seal.
And |\n| 10 | under -- after looking again at the protective order, which |\n| 11 | I did when we were on -- when we took a recess, I think |\n| 12 | that's the appropriate way to proceed with regard to these |\n| 13 | documents. |\n| 14 | So the motion to seal is going to be granted.
You |\n| 15 | obviously have to -- you've made an oral motion.
I'll enter |\n| 16 | an order with regard to that.
But those documents are going |\n| 17 | to have to be filed under seal. |\n| 18 | You understand that.
I understand you understand |\n| 19 | that.
But I'm just making the record.
You're going to -- |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
After the conclusion of today's |\n| 22 | hearing, you're going to file those documents under seal. |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Then when we get to the point |\n| 25 | where you're going to ask questions about the documents, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 117 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
117 |\n| 1 | even if the witness is instructed to assert the fifth |\n| 2 | amendment privilege, we will have to close the courtroom and |\n| 3 | seal that part of the hearing, which will remain under seal |\n| 4 | until further order of the Court in order to protect the |\n| 5 | integrity of the protective order and the process that's |\n| 6 | been in place in this case for quite some time.
Okay? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Does anybody -- Attorney Wernick, do |\n| 9 | you have any questions about what I just said? |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:
No.
We understand -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MS. WERNICK:
-- the procedure, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Say that again. |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
We understand the procedure, Your |\n| 15 | Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 17 | Attorney Twardy? |\n| 18 | MR. TWARDY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's fine with you? |\n| 20 | MR. TWARDY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Fine. |\n| 22 | All right.
Then you please proceed, Attorney |\n| 23 | Luft. |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 118 BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, I wanted to clarify. Earlier I had asked you if you had your iPhone on you. Do you recall that? A I remember. Q Did you bring your iPhone with you to the courthouse today? A No. Q Is anyone who is working for you holding your iPhone today? A No. Q Okay. Ms. Guo, has Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC transferred money to HK USA? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. MR. LUFT: Same objection, Your Honor. BY MR. LUFT: Q Did -- THE COURT: Just state that -- I'm so sorry to make you do it, but remember -- MR. LUFT: Of course. THE COURT: -- we only have audio. MR. LUFT: No, that's fair, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I don't want to hear some transcript -- because you know what's going to happen. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 118 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 119 We're going to have a transcript, and there's going to be holes in it. So -- MR. LUFT: Absolutely. THE COURT: So I'm -- I know that I understand you're making that same objection, but the transcriber is not going to. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, my objection is to the assertion of the fifth amendment to the extent I believe that the witness has opened up these issues both in her declaration as well as statements that her counsel has made to this court in connection with this ongoing contempt proceeding and the motion to compel that came before it. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LUFT: Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, did Hudson Diamond New York transfer money to HK USA? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And did Hudson Diamond pay for the expenses of the Lady May? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to ask my client to invoke the fifth amendment, please. Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 119 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 120 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 120 THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And did -- was Hudson Diamond paying the expenses for the Lady May in 2023? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And has Hudson Diamond New York been paying the expenses for the Lady May? MS. WERNICK: And, Your Honor, I'm going to object ono the basis of relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And has Hudson Diamond New York's payment of expenses for the Lady May been done at the direction of your father, the debtor? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And, Ms. Guo, who was the owner of the Lady May on\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 121 March 1, 2023? MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, objection again to the extent that this is far beyond the scope of the direct testimony and the nature of the proceeding today. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay. Ms. Guo, does Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC pay for the expenses in connection with the Bombardier jet that is the subject of the adversary proceeding against you? MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, same objection as to relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights as -- THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And the actual owner of that Bombardier jet is, in fact, your father, the debtor, correct? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 121 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 122 Q Ms. Guo, does Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC send money to Whitecroft? MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q And Hudson Diamond New York sends money to Whitecroft, correct? MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, same objection. Continue objection as to relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, where are the documents related to the funds Hudson Diamond has transferred to entities associated with your father and your family? MS. WERNICK: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I would request my client to invoke her fifth amendment rights. THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 122 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 123 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
123 |\n| 1 | Q
And who controls Whitecroft, you or your father? |\n| 2 | MS. WERNICK:
Objection, Your Honor.
There's a |\n| 3 | separate adversary proceeding relating to Whitecroft.
This |\n| 4 | is really getting very far beyond the scope of the order to |\n| 5 | show cause and the -- Ms. Guo's direct testimony today. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
How is it beyond her direct testimony |\n| 7 | when she testified in her declaration that she's the sole |\n| 8 | managing member and -- of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC and |\n| 9 | that she operates that business?
How is that beyond the |\n| 10 | scope?
You -- |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:
So the question -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
It may be that she doesn't know the |\n| 13 | answer, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the scope. |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:
Well, I -- I'm -- the question as I |\n| 15 | heard it related solely to the entity Whitecroft. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
I heard it too.
I don't see how |\n| 17 | that's beyond the scope of a Rule 2004 examination and the |\n| 18 | subpoena that requested certain information.
So I just -- I |\n| 19 | overrule your objection. |\n| 20 | MR. TWARDY:
I would request my client to invoke |\n| 21 | her fifth amendment rights. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Fifth amendment. |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
Your Honor, I think we may be at |\n| 24 | that point where we need to seal the courtroom. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
Before we do that, I have |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 124 of
138 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
124 |\n| to talk to the translator in a sec. |\n| Go ahead.
You have to understand something that |\n| you might not understand at this point, which is the only |\n| people that can stay in this courtroom are the lawyers -- |\n| right now for certain questioning -- the lawyers who are |\n| bound by the protective order and then the court staff.
And |\n| you have to be bound by that confidentiality.
And you have |\n| to acknowledge that you'll be bound by that confidentiality. |\n| So could you just do that for me, please?
Because |\n| it's important.
We have a -- an order in place that |\n| requires this -- until there's an order otherwise that this |\n| information would be -- would remain confidential.
So I |\n| need you to just acknowledge on the record that you will -- |\n| any information or questioning that is occurring when this |\n| hearing is sealed that you will be bound by that |\n| confidentially -- |\n| THE INTERPRETER:
Yes. |\n| THE COURT:
-- confidentiality. |\n| THE INTERPRETER:
Yes, I do, Your Honor.
And, |\n| also, the interpreter abide by the general confidentiality |\n| rules for the court. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| THE INTERPRETER:
Thank you. |\n| THE COURT:
I appreciate that. |\n| Now, what we're going to have to do, everyone |\n| |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 125 who's in the courtroom who's not a lawyer that's bound by the protective order or a party bound by the protective order, is you're going to have to leave the courtroom. We're going to have a sealed hearing. Which, Mr. Luft, I think you've said you think -- well, I -- we don't know, but we think this isn't going to take substantial amount of time. MR. LUFT: No. THE COURT: And we also think that Mr. Twardy is going to instruct his client to invoke the fifth amendment privilege at certain points as well. Once the hearing is -- once the sealed portion of the hearing is over, then someone's going to have to go out to the people -- I'm going to -- well, I guess I'll ask staff or someone to go out to the people that they can come back in. There will be a continued public hearing at that point. Okay? Does everyone understand that? Okay. MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm looking in the courtroom, and it appears to me that everyone who's in this courtroom is bound by the protective order. If someone thinks otherwise, I need you to state that for the record immediately, please, so that it's clear. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. To be technical, the U.S. Trustee is not a Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 125 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 126 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 126 party to the confidentiality order. We have not signed the confidentiality order. But pursuant to Section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Trustee's presence is permitted during a sealed hearing.\n\n THE COURT: I think that was hard to hear, but I know what you said, so I'm going to say it again for everyone. Okay? Which is Section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code allows the Office of the United States Trustee to participate in any proceeding, even if a proceeding is a matter of confidentiality, without having to be bound by an order, because they are an arm of the Department of Justice, and they are governed by the Department of Justice. They're an agency of the Department of Justice.\n\n So that it's clear, I agree with you, Attorney Claiborn, that you are allowed to remain in this courtroom even though we -- we're going to seal the record.\n\n And the courtroom deputy will -- what we will do, and we can do, is as soon as I stop talking, which will be soon, believe me, then you're going to seal the recording. Okay? And we'll start, and then there'll be a point when we say, okay, now you can stop sealing the record, and then we'll reopen the record for the public when they can come back in. Because I'm sure people are going to make closing arguments or whatever they're going to do. Okay? So but I agree with -- that the U.S. Trustee's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 127 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | Office -- that Bankruptcy Code Section 107 allows the |\n| 2 | bankruptcy -- allows the United States Trustee to |\n| 3 | participate -- it's actually 107(b)(3) -- United States |\n| 4 | Trustee, bankruptcy administrator, trustee, and any other |\n| 5 | servicer under this shall have full access to all |\n| 6 | information and shall not disclose information specifically |\n| 7 | protected by the court under this title.
And it's |\n| 8 | specifically protected by the Court under this title in |\n| 9 | connection with the protective order. |\n| 10 | All right.
Does anybody else want to say anything |\n| 11 | before I instruct the courtroom deputy to seal the record? |\n| 12 | Okay. |\n| 13 | I would ask you to seal -- begin the recording as |\n| 14 | sealed, please, at this point in time, and keep it sealed |\n| 15 | until further instructions that we can go back on a public |\n| 16 | record.
Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 17 | (Record sealed at 5:31 p.m. to 5:54 p.m.) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
So are the parties -- did |\n| 19 | the parties want to make closing statements?
Plaintiff? |\n| 20 | Not the plaintiff.
This was an order to appear and show |\n| 21 | cause regarding Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, and Ms. Guo. |\n| 22 | So you can proceed, Ms. Wernick, first, if you'd like to |\n| 23 | make a closing statement. |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Very |\n| 25 | briefly.
As set forth in Ms. Guo's declaration, Ms. Guo and |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 128 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
128 |\n| 1 | Hudson Diamond Holding took reasonable steps to comply with |\n| 2 | the subpoena, many of which I participated with Ms. Guo in |\n| 3 | terms of searching through email, searching through mobile |\n| 4 | applications, searching through phone numbers, going to |\n| 5 | Capital One bank and making requests for the record |\n| 6 | specifically sought for by the subpoena.
We -- |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Objection, Your Honor.
She's |\n| 8 | testifying now. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yes, she is.
So it's okay.
Go right |\n| 10 | ahead.
Go ahead. |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:
I'm -- just in closing statements |\n| 12 | and repeating the information that was previously submitted |\n| 13 | in Ms. Guo's declaration.
Reasonable steps were taken to |\n| 14 | comply with the subpoena.
Documents that were found |\n| 15 | responsive to the subpoena were produced to the trustee. |\n| 16 | There is no basis for contempt under the record that's |\n| 17 | before the Court. |\n| 18 | And we'd otherwise submit on the papers with an |\n| 19 | understanding that the trustee may look to submit further |\n| 20 | applications in writing which we reserve the right to |\n| 21 | respond to. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Mr. Luft? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
May I approach? |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 129 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
129 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'll be brief, because this |\n| 2 | has been a long day.
I find it -- the idea that they took |\n| 3 | reasonable steps when they filed a declaration that almost |\n| 4 | invariably Ms. Guo was instructed to assert the fifth as to |\n| 5 | the basis for almost every question I asked her about it is |\n| 6 | completely unsupported, if not -- if only because she |\n| 7 | asserted the fifth amendment when I tried to probe on most |\n| 8 | of those questions. |\n\n I think it's very clear from the record that Hudson Diamond Holdings -- every document we see indicates that it wholly owns Hudson Diamond New York. Ms. Guo took actions for years on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, including withdrawing money, signing bank accounts, signing corporate documents. And now they are refusing to produce documents about Hudson Diamond New York for a claim that Ms. Guo was not able to substantiate in any way today that somehow Hudson Diamond Holdings isn't the owner of Hudson Diamond New York despite having all evidence to the contrary.\n\n I think that it is quite clear that they have not taken reasonable steps to try to comply with the subpoena. They have cost the estate an astonishing amount of money in terms of how long we've had to pursue their compliance. This is a subpoena that I believe was served in December. We are here in August.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 130 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 130 We have had multiple hearings, including two extra just relating to the confusion with regard to whether or not they even hired counsel. The trustee has been diligent. And at the end of the day, we get here, which is you heard Ms. Guo tell you, to the extent she was allowed to say anything, that she has produced two documents. We have no documents from Hudson Diamond New York. Clearly, there are significant assets that are moving through Hudson Diamond New York such that documents had to have been created, whether they are for ownership of a car, real estate transactions, multi-million dollars going through the account. And we are getting none of it. So they -- look, they seem content to allow contempt rulings. And if -- and I think the idea is that there'll be no one that we can try to enforce it upon. But we know who we should be enforcing it on. Ms. Guo clearly controls Hudson Diamond Holdings. Hudson Diamond Holdings clearly controls Hudson Diamond New York. So I believe contempt should be found. But I'm also going to ask, because I do not believe they have made any effort to do this yet, that they should be forced to go find Hudson Diamond New York's documents and turn them over to the trustee. And that should include the bank accounts. This testimony or lines that somehow Ms. Guo's name is not on that Capital One bank\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 131 account is clearly false. We saw the document. So, Your Honor, I'll rest there. But I believe a contempt is proper, and I really -- and we really need the documents. I'd ask that they be forced to produce the documents for Hudson Diamond New York. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, a brief rebuttal? THE COURT: Brief. MS. WERNICK: All right. What we heard from Mr. Luft's presentation just now was almost nothing at all about Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, which was the entity we were compelled to appear for here today. It was almost entirely with regards to Hudson Diamond New York, an entity which I believe has already been held in contempt with respect to the separate subpoena that was served on that entity. That's not the subject of this proceeding. Your Honor already made a determination with respect to the New York entity. Which, again, none of us here today represent the New York -- THE COURT: Well, Mr. Romney still does unless and until his motion to withdraw is granted. So that's not accurate. MS. WERNICK: All right. My apologies, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 131 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 132 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
132 |\n| 1 | Honor.
I certainly don't represent Hudson Diamond -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 3 | MS. WERNICK:
-- New York.
And when Mr. Luft |\n| 4 | refers to some sort of extraordinary amount of evidence |\n| 5 | connecting New York with Holdings, all that I've seen in the |\n| 6 | proceeding today is a single document that was apparently |\n| 7 | produced by the same law firm that told Mr. Vartan and |\n| 8 | Mr. Romney that there was not a connection between the two. |\n| 9 | And so, certainly, when Your Honor is considering |\n| 10 | what this motion appears to really be about, to try to bring |\n| 11 | back in New York, which I don't represent, which Hodgson |\n| 12 | Russ is saying Ms. Guo wasn't the member of, we can sort of |\n| 13 | short-circuit their burden of proof by just saying there's |\n| 14 | an abundance of evidence connecting the two when there's one |\n| 15 | document where the law firm that prepared the document says |\n| 16 | the entities are not related. |\n| 17 | So I'd rest with that. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'll be brief.
If I may |\n| 20 | approach? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
First of all, Ms. Wernick says she |\n| 23 | doesn't represent Hudson Diamond New York.
If you read |\n| 24 | Mr. Romney's declaration, he makes it very clear that |\n| 25 | Ms. Guo hired both Attorney Vartan and Mr. Romney.
I don't |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 133 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
133 |\n| 1 | know if Ms. Wernick is being very specific that not her -- |\n| 2 | that her firm wasn't hired but only Mr. Vartan.
But |\n| 3 | certainly Mr. Vartan was hired from her law firm.
So the |\n| 4 | idea that they don't represent them is not true. |\n| 5 | They say there was a single document.
I don't |\n| 6 | know which one of the multiple documents we showed is the |\n| 7 | single document, but we saw Mei Guo signing for a document. |\n| 8 | We saw her signing a bank account on behalf of Holdings -- |\n| 9 | on behalf of New York.
We signed (sic) her signing as the |\n| 10 | sole member of Holdings for New York.
And we've heard |\n| 11 | countless testimonies in which Mr. -- Ms. Guo invoked the |\n| 12 | fifth. |\n| 13 | And I should have said this before, Your Honor.
I |\n| 14 | absolutely think an adverse inference should be drawn from |\n| 15 | all those fifth amendment assertions.
We came here today to |\n| 16 | try to get information.
That was the point of Ms. Guo |\n| 17 | coming here, to understand something.
Instead, we were |\n| 18 | stonewalled with the fifth amendment. |\n| 19 | Finally, as to the argument that I only spoke |\n| 20 | about Hudson Diamond New York, I believe Your Honor has |\n| 21 | ruled on this maybe 19 times when Ms. Wernick made the same |\n| 22 | objection before.
As Your Honor has pointed out to them and |\n| 23 | as I've showed, the definition for Hudson Diamond Holdings' |\n| 24 | subpoena clearly included all affiliates and all the other |\n| 25 | various terms we used which clearly included Hudson Diamond |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 134 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
134 |\n| 1 | New York. |\n| 2 | Hudson Diamond Holdings is the parent company.
It |\n| 3 | has an obligation to produce -- make sure its subsidiary is |\n| 4 | in compliance.
They are clearly an affiliate.
They should |\n| 5 | have produced the documents.
So my objection is not |\n| 6 | improper, and it's -- and my asking for contempt as to |\n| 7 | Holdings based on the fact that we've received nothing from |\n| 8 | New York is completely on point for the subpoena we served. |\n| 9 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | All right.
The matter before the Court, the order |\n| 12 | to appear and show cause, we've -- I've heard argument |\n| 13 | today.
And there's been an invocation of the fifth |\n| 14 | amendment as it relates to Ms. Guo individually.
I |\n| 15 | indicated during the hearing that if the trustee wants to |\n| 16 | file documents with regard to whether or not that invocation |\n| 17 | of the fifth amendment is proper, you're entitled to do so. |\n| 18 | And you can do so.
I'm not going to set any deadline, |\n| 19 | because you'd have to order a transcript and determine what |\n| 20 | you want to do. |\n| 21 | With regard to whether or not Hudson Diamond |\n| 22 | Holdings, LLC will be held in contempt of court, the Court |\n| 23 | will take that matter under advisement. |\n| 24 | There is no further business of the Court today. |\n| 25 | I'm not going to -- yeah.
I'm not going to address any |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2168 | Filed 09/05/23 | Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 | Page 135 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 135 other issues today. There are some issues that are outstanding on the trustee's side of the equation that have nothing to do with this matter, including a motion that I -- and you'll just -- there'll be a virtual order entered, and you'll take whatever action you need to take. You're looking for some -- an order on a subpoena that I -- the subpoena already had a specific period of time in it to serve out foreign defendants. But there was a request for an order. I don't know if you need that request. So we're going to issue some order that you can then respond to whether or not you actually need an order or if you can just rely on the subpoena yourself -- theirselves (sic). MR. LINSEY: I believe that there was a motion filed requesting an answer deadline with respect to the Golden Spring entity. THE COURT: And the subpoena has that time frame in it. MR. LINSEY: The subpoena -- this was an -- the answer for the Golden Spring adversary complaint was what I -- THE COURT: And I think the answer -- the subpoena has that time frame -- MR. LINSEY: Oh, you mean the summons has that?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 136 of\n\n| | 138 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
136 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Did I say subpoena?
Sorry. |\n| 2 | MR. LINSEY:
You did.
That's why I was confused. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
We've been talking about a subpoena |\n| 4 | all day.
I apologize.
I apologize.
My mistake. |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
Understood. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
The summons. |\n| 7 | MR. LINSEY:
We'll look to that, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
The summons.
I apologize. |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
We've been talking about -- |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:
Yeah.
Understood. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
-- a subpoena all day.
I apologize. |\n| 15 | Okay.
There's no further business for the Court |\n| 16 | today then.
Thank you, all.
Court is adjourned. |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
Court is |\n| 19 | adjourned. |\n| 20 | (Proceedings concluded at 6:04 p.m.) |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2168
Filed 09/05/23
Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57
Page 137 of
138 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023
137 |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 3 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 4 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 5 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the |\n| 6 | above-entitled matter. |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | September 5, 2023 |\n| 10 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 138 INDEX WITNESS FOR THE TRUSTEE: Direct Cross Redirect Recross Mei Guo -- 9 TRUSTEE'S EXHIBITS: ID Received 1 Subpoena 16 17 2 Mei Guo Declaration 40 41 3 Hudson Diamond New York Consent 45 50 12 Of Sole Member 4 Caldwell Banker Real Estate Agreement 70 72 Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 138 of","body_zh":"美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n对抗程序编号：23-05017\n\n原告，\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\n2023年8月22日\n\n诉\n\nTAURUS FUND, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\n关于 HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）为何不应被认定藐视法庭的说明理由令庭审记录\n\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美利坚合众国破产法院法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nAVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ.（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特律师）\nLUYI SONG, ESQ.（宋露怡律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street,13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审过程通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表原告、HK International Funds（香港国际基金）及 MEI GUO（郭美）：\nLEE VARTAN, ESQ.（李·瓦尔坦律师）\nMELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ.（梅丽莎·F·韦尔尼克律师）\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（奇萨、沙希尼安及詹托马西律师事务所）\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n\nAARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·A·罗姆尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th FL\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表郭女士个人：\nSTANLEY A. TWARDY, JR., ESQ.（小斯坦利·A·特沃迪律师）\n（刑事辩护律师）\nDay Pitney（戴·皮特尼律师事务所）\nOne Stamford Plaza\n263 Tresser Blvd.\nStamford, CT 06901\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 3 页，共 138 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n3\n\n（庭审于下午2时01分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holding, LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）。\n\n法官：下午好。请各方为记录作出庭声明，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS律师：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\nLUFT律师：下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY律师：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith，受托人的康涅狄格州代理律师。\n\nSONG律师：下午好，法官阁下。Luyi Song，来自 Paul Hastings，代表受托人。\n\nCLAIBORN律师：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\nVARTAN律师：下午好，法官阁下。Lee Vartan，代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC。\n\nROMNEY律师：下午好，法官阁下。Aaron Romney，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。\n\nWERNICK律师：法官阁下，下午好。Melissa Wernick，来自 CSG Law，亦代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 4 页，共 138 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1 法官：\n下午好。是否还有其他需要为记录作出庭声明的人员？\n\n3 TWARDY律师：\n法官阁下，如可允许？我叫 Stanley A. Twardy, Jr.，来自 Day Pitney 律师事务所。我在此代表郭女士个人。我是她的刑事辩护律师。\n\n7 法官：\n下午好。\n\n8 TWARDY律师：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n9 法庭书记员：\n抱歉。我没有听清您的姓氏。\n\n11 TWARDY律师：\n如可允许，我可以过去给您我的名片。这样会有帮助吗？\n\n13 法官：\n这会有帮助，Twardy律师。谢谢。\n\n15 法官：\n好的。今天日程上的事项是一项说明理由令——要求出庭说明 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 为何不应被认定藐视法庭，并要求郭女士出庭作证。说明理由令确实给予郭女士提交一份——一份宣誓书的机会，她也确实提交了。实际上，她是就出庭说明理由令提交了一份声明作为回应。我感谢该宣誓书已提交、该声明已提交，因为这——这符合本院的命令。但现在我们需要转入实际的证言，我假定这将继续进行。Despins受托人以及——我不知道，Vartan律师或——哪位律师将代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 出庭？因为郭女士仅以 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 成员的身份作证。\n\nWERNICK律师：\n法官阁下，Vartan律师和我今天早些时候已代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 提交了特许出庭许可动议。但经法官阁下许可，我们很乐意继续代表该实体进行陈述。\n\n法官：\n可以。而且我知道你们已获准在该对抗程序中以特许出庭身份代理，所以我相信如果文件一切齐备，就不会有问题。\n\nWERNICK律师：\n好的。正确。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。那么，Wernick律师，您——您可以继续。我认为此时由你方负担责任，传唤——该——郭女士作为 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 的代表出庭。还是你们已商议好，直接开始交叉询问？我不知道你们将如何进行。\n\nWERNICK律师：\n因此，我们原本打算将她的声明作为其正面证言提交。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 6 页，共 138 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n6\n\n法官：好的。那么由第11章受托人进行。你们是否传唤证人对该证人进行交叉询问？\n\nLUFT律师：是的。如果他们已完成其陈述，那么我将进行交叉询问该证人。\n\n法官：Wernick律师，您已结束了吗？\n\nWERNICK律师：是的。我们请求如此进行。是的。谢谢。\n\n法官：是。好的。\n\nLUFT律师：为明确起见，法官阁下，我假定他们已完成其陈述，我们不改变顺序，并且他们不会提交任何证据。\n\nWERNICK律师：是的，但不影响我方反驳的权利。这是我方的正面陈述。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。Luft律师，请继续。\n\nLUFT律师：法官阁下，那么，我们可以请证人到证人席宣誓吗？\n\n法官：可以。\n\nTWARDY律师：法官阁下，如可允许？是的。我想您可以过去那里。\n\n法官：我们只需要在麦克风旁边，Twardy律师。\n\nTWARDY律师：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 7 页，共 138 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n7\n\n法官：抱歉。我们——\n\nTWARDY律师：不。我只是想知道您希望我站在哪里，法官阁下。\n\n法官：是。因为我们——我们的记录仅通过音频保存。因此，如果麦克风没有收录到您的声音，我们将无法记录您所说的任何内容。好吗？\n\nTWARDY律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：谢谢。\n\n（律师协商）\n\n法官：好的。法庭书记员将先为口译员宣誓，然后再为证人宣誓。好吗？\n\n口译员：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭书记员：请举起您的右手。\n\n（口译员宣誓）\n\n法官：您需要一把椅子，还是站着没问题？\n\n口译员：我站着没问题，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n口译员：谢谢。\n\n法庭书记员：证人可以举起她的右手吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 8 页，共 138 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n8\n\nMEI GUO（郭美），证人，已宣誓\n\n法官：她可以坐下。谢谢。\n\n证人：（全程通过口译员）好的，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS律师：法官阁下，我们能否请口译员使用口译设备，因为我们的同事可能——听不到她。\n\n法官：好的。是。而且那不是您的——不幸的是，本院只有音频。因此，我们必须尽可能对着麦克风说话。否则，如果有人请求制作本次听证的庭审记录，就无法收录人们所说的话。而且转录员甚至不是在法庭内的人员。所以我们必须非常谨慎。因此，如果我在任何时候打断您，只是因为我试图尽可能清晰地保存记录。其他人也一样。我的意思是，您可以说“我没听见”，对吧？所以不要犹豫提出这一点。好吗？\n\n口译员：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：因为我们希望确保记录准确无误。\n\n口译员：谢谢。谢谢澄清。\n\n法官：谢谢。好的，Luft律师。您可以继续进行——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 9 页，共 138 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n9\n\n1 交叉询问。\n\n2 LUFT律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n3 交叉询问\n\n4 由 LUFT律师进行：\n\n5 问 下午好，郭女士。您好吗？\n\n6 答 （全程通过口译员）我很好。谢谢。\n\n8 问 郭女士，您是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员，对吗？\n\n10 答 是。\n\n11 问 您已收到受托人在其依据规则2004进行的调查中向 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 发出的传票，对吗？\n\n14 口译员：我可以再听一遍日期吗？2004？\n\n16 LUFT律师：这是规则2004。不是日期。\n\n17 口译员：哦，规则2004。好的。\n\n18 证人：我的律师收到了。\n\n19 由 LUFT律师进行：\n\n20 问 他已将其提供给您？\n\n21 答 是。\n\n22 问 您已审阅过它？\n\n23 答 我审阅过。\n\n24 问 您理解它吗？\n\n25 答 我理解。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1 问 他何时将其提供给您？\n\n2 答 我记不起来了。\n\n3 问 请尽您所能。对于您何时收到它，您最好的记忆是什么？\n\n5 答 几个月前。\n\n6 问 那么，2023年5月听起来对吗？\n\n7 答 我确实无法具体记得。\n\n8 问 您是否阅读了传票中的全部请求事项？\n\n9 答 我阅读了。\n\n10 问 如果传票中有任何不清楚之处，您是否向您的律师询问澄清？\n\n12 答 我询问了。\n\n13 问 除您的律师外，您是否是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 中唯一对传票作出回应的人？\n\n15 答 正确。\n\n16 问 好的。Hudson Diamond Holdings 的业务是什么？\n\n17 TWARDY律师：法官阁下，我提出异议，并指示我的当事人不要回答。该问题超出该声明的范围。\n\n20 法官：等一下。哦，抱歉。\n\n21 TWARDY律师：抱歉。\n\n22 法官：不，不。没关系。\n\n23 法官：口译女士，请给我一秒钟。好吗？\n\n24 口译员：当然。\n\n25 法官：但是您说得对。您确实需要说出来，以便郭女士理解她的律师刚才所说的话。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 11 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1 口译员：是的，法官阁下。\n\n3 法官：好吗？那么，请继续。\n\n4 口译员：谢谢。\n\n5 法官：好的。因此，异议是该问题超出——\n\n7 TWARDY律师：声明。\n\n8 法官：——该声明的范围？\n\n9 TWARDY律师：声明。\n\n10 法官：但是该声明——她作出该声明时是以——并非以其个人身份，而是以 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 成员的身份。这正是说明理由令所要求的。她完全不是以个人身份作证。\n\n15 TWARDY律师：法官阁下，如可允许？\n\n16 法官：可以。\n\n17 TWARDY律师：您7月28日的命令在最后两句话中规定：“在续行听证期间，Hudson Diamond Holding 可以寻求将郭女士的声明作为她的主询问证言提交。尽管如此，她必须出席续行听证，并可供交叉询问。”\n\n23 我的观点是，正在提出的问题超出了该声明的范围，而该声明正是——作为主询问证言提交的内容。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交日期：09/05/23\n登记日期：09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 12 页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日 12\n\nLUFT律师：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLUFT律师：这太荒谬了。我问她该公司的业务是什么。这绝不是任何公平的解读。他们是因藐视法庭而到庭。他们被命令今天安排郭女士（Ms. Guo）出庭作证。按照该律师的逻辑，他本可以写一句话，说我的名字是郭女士，然后转过头来说，好吧，那——其他任何事项都超出证词范围。法官阁下，本次听证的范围是他们是否遵守传票，以及他们是否构成藐视法庭。这就是本次听证的范围。任何主张说我除了他们精心挑选写在一张纸上的内容外不能问任何问题的论点，都是荒谬的。而且即便如此，我认为她称自己是Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的唯一成员这一事实，也完全属于仅仅询问其业务是什么的范围之内。但我确实打算问她有关该公司的问题。我打算问她该公司声称拥有哪些文件。我的意思是，这就是我们到这里来的原因。因此，我不希望有任何虚假的借口，说我将逐字逐句只问她写在那张纸上的确切文字。这不是交叉询问的范围。\n\nTWARDY律师：法官阁下，恕我直言，我不同意。如果郭女士只是简单地说“我是郭女士”，而被告所提交的内容也仅此而已，那么他们就不会满足您命令所要求的举证责任，即说明为何不应作出藐视法庭命令的理由。\n\n法庭：好的。我驳回你的异议。本次听证涉及数月前向Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC发出的《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条传票；郭女士称她是该公司的——且所附声明文件证明，并且任何诉状中均未对此提出争议——该公司管理成员。整份传票要求提供Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC的文件及其他通信记录，这是《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条所允许的广泛范围传票。这是对受托人为确定破产财产中可能有哪些资产可用于清偿三个共同合并——管理，并非合并，抱歉——根据郭文贵先生第11章案件管理的破产财产之债权人的努力所进行调查的一部分。Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC是该传票的接收方。再次说明，对此不存在争议。坦率地说，这一点已在诉状中承认。因此，你的异议被驳回，但为记录在案予以注明。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日 14\n\nTWARDY律师：法官阁下，谢谢您。我尊重您的裁决。如您所知，我不是Hudson Holding的律师。我作为她的刑事辩护律师到庭。她的父亲已被起诉。我们通过纽约南区（Southern District of New York）美国检察官办公室获悉，她是同一调查的调查对象。因此，我将指示她援引第五修正案，不回答该问题。\n\n法庭：好的。我明白，律师。谢谢。\n\nLUFT律师：好的。我会再问同一个问题。如果她想援引第五修正案，她可以这样做。\n\n法庭：嗯，Twardy律师，你希望如何——我的意思是，无论如何，他都必须建立记录。因此，我认为她将会——如果她要主张反对自证其罪的权利，我认为对于他提出的每一个问题，她都必须这样做。因为他有权建立该记录。\n\nTWARDY律师：明白，法官阁下。这没有问题。但是我——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nTWARDY律师：——将指示她——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nTWARDY律师：谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交日期 09/05/23\n登记日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第14页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交日期 09/05/23\n登记日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第15页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日 15\n\n法庭：我明白。不过，我不知道你的当事人是否已经明白。因此，口译员——你们——请你说明——请为记录陈述Twardy律师刚才所说的话。\n\n口译员：法官阁下，我刚才在谈话过程中已经为她进行了同声传译——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n口译员：——我们或许可以问她是否明白刚刚发生了什么。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，Twardy律师所说的是——嗯，我认为你将要说——我很遗憾要再次问你，因为我们的记录是音频记录，如果有人提出问题，而你要求并指示你的当事人主张第五修正案权利——她的第五修正案特权，那么请你说明这一点，口译员就可以告诉她，然后她可以作出回答。好吗？\n\n证人：那么，是的，法官阁下，但我需要回答任何问题吗？\n\nTWARDY律师：是的，如果我可以说的话？是的，她应当回答。她应当说“我援引我的第五修正案权利”。\n\n证人：谢谢。我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日 16\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。请继续，Luft律师。\n\nLUFT律师：好的。我应当再次问那个问题，还是她已经援引了该权利——\n\n法庭：我认为那个问题已经问过并得到回答，因此我认为你可以继续——\n\nLUFT律师：好的。\n\n法庭：——问下一个问题。\n\nLUFT律师：并继续下一个问题。好的。\n\n由LUFT律师询问：\n\n问：Hudson Diamond Holdings的资产是什么？\n\n法庭：哦，请继续。抱歉。我们将让口译员翻译该问题，然后再听取回答。\n\nTWARDY律师：我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nLUFT律师：法官阁下，如果可以？我想标记并作为证据提交一份我们向Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC送达的传票副本。该文件此前已在本案中标记为案卷编号1116-2证物C-37。而且我——如果可以的话，我想将一份副本交给证人。\n\n法庭：嗯，确保当事人——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交日期 09/05/23\n登记日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第16页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日 17\n\nLUFT律师：我会的。\n\n法庭：——律师对提交该传票没有异议。坦率地说，我不确定你为什么会有任何异议，但无论如何——\n\nLUFT律师：我们有副本。他们可以查看——\n\nWERNICK律师：是的。没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，我认为我们将把该证物标记为——因为它是今天听证记录的一部分。那么，你希望如何标记？受托人1号？\n\nLUFT律师：受托人1号即可，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。受托人1号。我们将把该证物作为完整证物标记。\n\n（受托人1号证物获准入证）\n\nLUFT律师：好的。法官阁下，如果可以，我可以把这个交给证人吗？\n\n法庭：可以。我面前没有该文件，但看起来它带有一张证物封面，目前上面没有写“受托人1号”。但这就是受托人1号证物。好吗？好的。谢谢。\n\n证人：好的。\n\n由LUFT律师询问：\n\n问：郭女士，请花一点时间熟悉该文件。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交日期 09/05/23\n登记日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第17页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交日期 09/05/23\n登记日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日\n\n答：是的，我看完了。\n\n问：郭女士，这是你告诉我你此前审阅过的、发给Hudson Diamond Holdings的传票副本吗？\n\n答：我记不清楚了，但我相信是。\n\n问：好的。你是否曾见过发给Hudson Diamond Holdings的任何其他传票？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：好的。我向你陈述，这是一份向Hudson Diamond Holdings送达的真实准确的传票副本。好吗？\n\n答：谢谢。\n\n问：郭女士，请你翻到第7页，在“定义”类别下。你看到“你、你的及你自己”一词的第一个定义了吗？其写道：“系指并涉及Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.及其所有关联公司、部门”，然后继续？\n\nTWARDY律师：法官阁下，如果可以？我相信律师提到的是Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.，而不是LLC，但我听到译员提到的是LLC。我只是想确保所指的是正确的实体。\n\nLUFT律师：如果我说的是Inc.，那是我口误，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，你指的是LLC？\n\nLUFT律师：LLC。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日 19\n\nLUFT律师：我今天不会故意提及Inc.。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n证人：好的。\n\n由LUFT律师询问：\n\n问：因此，我的问题是，你看到该定义了吗？\n\n答：是的，我看到了。\n\n问：而且你在审阅传票时读过该定义，对吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：好的。请你翻到第15页。你看到第14项要求Hudson Diamond Holdings提供足以显示其全部资产及收入或资金来源的文件吗？\n\n答：我看到了。\n\n问：而且你理解，提供响应该项要求的文件是你的义务，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\nTWARDY律师：法官阁下，如果可以，当你说“你的律师”时，你指的是Hudson Diamond Holdings，而不是她个人——\n\nLUFT律师：法官阁下，我此时已经糊涂了。\n\nTWARDY律师：刚才提出的问题是指她，而不是——\n\nLUFT律师：法官阁下——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 登记日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第20页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月22日\n\nTWARDY律师：——而不是公司。\n\nLUFT律师：她是以公司身份在这里。她是该实体的唯一成员。我不明白这个——而且她被命令以Hudson Diamond Holdings的代表身份亲自出庭。我不明白这个——他是想让我称她为Hudson Diamond Holdings吗？\n\nTWARDY律师：是的，请这样称呼。\n\nLUFT律师：我的意思是，这太荒谬了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为我们将——就让我们——\n\nLUFT律师：一个人是唯一成员。\n\n法庭：让我们继续，并且我们将——我们将为记录加以澄清。你应当尽量——我确信你不一定每次都能做到，但尽量提及Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。我明白你的顾虑，Twardy律师。但是，Luft律师在提出关于应当提供文件的更具体问题之前，确实就定义提出了问题。而且——我面前没有该定义，但我听到了问题，也听到Luft律师所说的“你、你的及你自己”的定义；它指的是Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC及其关联公司或相关关联公司。我不知道其中是否有“相关”一词。\n\nLUFT律师：没有。它只写了其关联公司，\n\n1 部门、机构、工具性实体、司、\n2 高级职员、合伙人、高级职员再次出现——这是一个笔误——\n3 董事、代理人、律师、代表、雇员，或\n4 任何代表其行事的人，即为该定义。\n5 法院：\n因此，我——虽然我理解并\n6 理解你方的关切，但我确实认为，他已通过证词表明，\n7 他所提出的任何问题均是向——\n8 Guo 女士（郭女士）以其作为管理成员的公司身份提出的。\n9 而这当然也是法院对此的理解方式。我\n10 不知道这是否对你方有帮助。\n11 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，确实有帮助。我正要\n12 说，我并非有意刁难。我只是需要\n13 保护 Guo 女士的——\n14 法院：\n我理解。\n15 TWARDY 先生：\n——个人权利。因此，只要\n16 我们都明白，若 Luft 先生（卢夫特）使用“your”一词，\n17 其所指的是传票中所载的“your”一词的定义，\n18 那么——\n19 法院：\n正确。\n20 TWARDY 先生：\n——那么我就不必——\n21 法院：\n正确。\n22 TWARDY 先生：\n——再三起身提出异议。\n23 法院：\n我相信这就是他为何提出\n24 第 7 页关于该定义的问题。我不知道\n25 是否——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 TWARDY 先生：\n是。\n2 法院：\n——但我——我作出此项推定，\n3 是基于这样一个事实：当该事项就提交材料问题提交\n4 法院审理时，其始终是向该有限责任公司提出的。\n5 而且，显然，该有限责任公司只能\n6 通过其管理成员或获授权的人员运作。\n7 \n8 因此，无论如何，我理解你方的观点，并且我\n9 认为我们已经就此作出记录澄清。我们可以\n10 继续。\n11 TWARDY 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n12 法院：\n谢谢。\n13 LUFT 先生：\n好的。\n14 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n15 问\nGuo 女士，如果你看第——第 15 项请求，你\n16 理解你必须提交显示所有资产的全部文件，即\n17 第 14 项中所识别、价值超过\n18 $50,000 的资产，以及与你方取得该等资产有关的文件和\n19 与你方取得该等资产有关的文件，以及与\n20 债务人及债务人家属就该等资产所作通信，\n21 对吗？\n22 答\n我看到了。\n23 问\n而且你从第 16 项理解到，你被\n24 要求提交你的纳税申报表副本，对吗？\n25 答\n是，我看到了。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 问\n你理解你应当提交\n2 适用于 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的纳税申报表\n3 副本，对吗？\n4 答\n我理解。\n5 问\n好的。而且从第 17 项，你理解你应当\n6 提交足以显示 Hudson Diamond Holdings\n7 占有或控制之下所有银行账户和\n8 投资账户的文件，包括每一该等账户的余额以及\n9 转入和转出情况，对吗？\n10 答\n我看到了。\n11 问\n而且你理解你应当提交该等\n12 文件，对吗？\n13 答\n是。\n14 问\n而且你已理解，对于所有这些请求，\n15 向 Hudson Diamond Holdings 提出的任何请求均包括 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的任何\n16 关联方，对吗？\n17 答\n我理解。\n18 问\n好的。Guo 女士，你没有提交任何一份\n19 回应我刚才提及的任何请求的文件，对吗？\n20 答\n正确。\n21 问\n并且，就总计 21 项请求而言，你只\n22 提交了两份文件，对吗？\n23 答\n正确。\n24 问\n好的。Guo 女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings\n25 为何成立？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 TWARDY 先生：\n我将指示我的当事人\n2 援引其第五修正案权利。\n3 证人：\n我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n4 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n5 问\nGuo 女士，你如何成为 Hudson\n6 Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员？\n7 TWARDY 先生：\n我将指示我的当事人\n8 援引其第五修正案权利。\n9 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n10 问\n你的父亲，即债务人——\n11 答\n我将援引我的第五修正案权利。\n12 问\n好的。抱歉。\n13 口译员：\n谢谢，先生。\n14 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n15 问\n你的父亲，即债务人，将你指定为 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的名义\n16 登记唯一成员，对吗？\n17 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n18 当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n19 证人：\n我将援引我的第五修正案\n20 权利。\n21 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n22 问\n事实上，Hudson Diamond Holdings 是依照你父亲的\n23 指示成立的，不是吗？\n24 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n25 当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 25 证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。由 LUFT 先生询问：问 而且，在任何时候，你的父亲都控制着 Hudson Diamond Holdings，对吗？TWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。由 LUFT 先生询问：问 而且，在任何时候，你的父亲也控制着 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约），对吗？TWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。由 LUFT 先生询问：问 而且，Hudson Diamond New York 中的所有资产也都是你父亲的资产，对吗？TWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将援引——我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：我援引我的第五修正案权利。由 LUFT 先生询问：问 而且，以 Hudson Diamond 名义开立的所有银行账户\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 25 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 26 Holdings 的银行账户实际上都是由你父亲控制的账户，对吗？TWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。由 LUFT 先生询问：问 而且，Hudson Diamond New York 的所有银行账户，事实上都是由你的父亲，即债务人，控制的银行账户，对吗？TWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。WERNICK 女士（韦尼克）：我们还要提出异议，理由是关于 Hudson Diamond New York 的问题超出了今日本传陈述及本次出庭令所涉事项的范围。法院：驳回该异议。继续。DESPINS 先生（德斯平斯）：Avi？法官阁下，我能与我的同事交谈两秒钟吗？法院：可以。\n（律师协商）\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，我已准备恢复询问。\n法院：请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 26 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 27 由 LUFT 先生询问：问 事实上，Hudson Diamond Holdings 唯一拥有 Hudson Diamond New York，对吗？TWARDY 先生：我将指示——法官阁下，恕我直言，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。\n（律师协商）\n由 LUFT 先生询问：问 好的，Guo 女士。你是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员，对吗？答 正确。身份不明的发言人：一个简短问题。身份不明的发言人：法官阁下，如果可以的话？是的。身份不明的发言人：哦，抱歉。请继续。身份不明的发言人：不，不。你。身份不明的发言人：所以——法院：等一下。请原谅，先生。身份不明的发言人：我是捷克语口译员。抱歉。我认为——法院：等一下。你是什么？身份不明的发言人：我是捷克语口译员。身份不明的发言人：捷克语口译员。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 27 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 28 法院：我们没有让你宣誓就职，也没有做任何这类事情。第一，我不知道有一名捷克语口译员。身份不明的发言人：好的。法院：第二，你不能在庭审进行到一半时随意站起来开始说话。明白吗？程序不是这样运作的。我不是说我们不能解决此事，但如你所见，我们必须让口译员宣誓。如果你要担任捷克语口译员，你需要宣誓。你不能只是到这里来做这件事。因此我不知道你是谁。我不知道你的名字。我对你一无所知。而且这——我们必须形成记录。所以是否——我毫无头绪。是否已向 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）披露会有一名捷克语口译员？身份不明的发言人：是的，法官阁下。我们昨天已通知第 11 章受托人。身份不明的发言人：你告诉我你会带一名口译员来。我告诉你我们已经有一名。这不是一回事。听着，法官阁下——法院：我们以前做过这个。明白吗？这不是第一次。因此我不知道为什么这会成为问题。我们以前做过这个。在本案的听证会上，我们曾有过两名口译员。而且我不会扰乱程序，当——如果你不打算——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 28 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 29 LUFT 先生：法官阁下？法院：所以——不。等一下，Luft 律师。因此，Romney 先生（罗姆尼）——ROMNEY 先生：是，法官阁下。法院：——以及可能 Wernick 女士和 Vartan 先生（瓦尔坦）——我不记得了，但我认为你们以前在我们有两名口译员时曾在场，不是吗？ROMNEY 先生：我没有，法官阁下。法院：好的。不过你们事务所的某人曾在场。ROMNEY 先生：我——法院：明白吗？而且我们——这对我来说毫无道理，我们现在正处于庭审中，有一个问题正在被提出，而有人站起来，他不是律师，没有提交出庭代理声明，也没有宣誓，现在却在扰乱本程序。ROMNEY 先生：是，法官阁下。我不同意法官阁下刚才所说的任何一点。我的理解是，如果捷克语口译员有问题，他会告知律师，并由——律师提出异议，进行调查。法院：那么由某人告知法院呢。这难道不恰当吗？ROMNEY 先生：嗯——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n第 29 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 30 法院：这会是恰当的，不是吗，法院应当了解正在发生什么？因为必须作出决定的是法院，而不是律师，对吗？ROMNEY 先生：我明白。而我正在解释的是，法官阁下，我——我对该程序将如何进行的理解，以及显然由于我没有与我们的捷克语口译员沟通而造成的责任，都在我身上，是如果他有问题，他会告知律师。律师会提出异议，之后程序将从那里继续。而该错误在我。法院：好的。那么——我——好吧。ROMNEY 先生：我道歉。法院：我理解你的意思。但那并没有发生。ROMNEY 先生：那确实没有发生，我对此承担责任。法院：好的。那么我们接下来如何进行？按照你刚才所述的方式，即你们三人中的某人将站起来提出异议？ROMNEY 先生：不。我认为——法官阁下，如果可以？当然，我们遵从法院的决定。但在我看来，最好的进行方式是让捷克语口译员与 Twardy 先生交谈，Twardy 先生负责提出异议，而 Twardy 先生会将任何问题转达给……\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日 第31页 法庭。法官：好的，Twardy先生（特沃迪）仅就证人个人身份相关事项提出异议——\n\nROMNEY先生（罗姆尼）：明白。\n\n法官：——而非就公司实体提出异议。明白吗？因此，我——Twardy先生在此以其所述方式代表其当事人，即，据告知——我相信，Twardy先生，您是这样说的，但如我有误请纠正——您的当事人是纽约南区（Southern District of New York）正在进行的调查可能针对的对象。您是这么说的吗？\n\nTwardy先生：我说她是调查对象，法官阁下，这略有不同——\n\n法官：好的。抱歉。\n\nTwardy先生：——细微差别在于，但仍然，法官阁下，是的——\n\n法官：所以她——所以您——\n\nTwardy先生：——她处于——她面临风险。\n\n法官：她面临风险。因此，他在这里是为了保护她个人可能承担的责任。你们都在这里保护Hudson Diamond, LLC（哈德逊钻石有限责任公司）可能承担的责任。这是你们所代表的主体。因此，程序将如此进行。Twardy先生不得提出以下异议：Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 31 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日\n\n1 涉及Hudson Diamond, LLC（哈德逊钻石有限责任公司）的异议。\n\n2 ROMNEY先生：嗯——\n\n3 法官：他可以提出\n\n4 其认为影响其——当事人\n\n5 就纽约南区（Southern District of New York）程序所享有的个人权利的\n\n6 异议。\n\n7 ROMNEY先生：明白，法官阁下。然而，\n\n8 在异议所依据的事实是，\n\n9 向作为该有限责任公司代表人的证人提出的问题\n\n10 被错误翻译的范围内，我认为\n\n11 无法作出——无法作出该种区分。因为\n\n12 该异议针对的是向个人以及\n\n13 实体提出的问题的翻译。\n\n15 从实际角度而言——我的观点和\n\n16 理解是，侵扰性最小的做法应当是\n\n17 仅由律师提出异议，让——让\n\n18 口译员告知我们，并由我们其中一人起立\n\n19 提出该异议。对于我没有向\n\n20 我们的口译员明确说明这一点，我表示歉意。\n\n21 实际上，在我们走进来时，我说如果有任何\n\n22 问题——我使用了“请不要不好意思”这几个字。而我——\n\n23 这是我措辞不当。我的意思是——我以那些话\n\n24 所表达的意思——而且那是我的原话——是告诉我，我会采取措施。法庭上\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日 第33页 发生的事情因此由我负责。不过，无论法院希望如何处理——如同Vartan律师（瓦尔坦）所述，无论是Wernick律师（韦尼克）、Twardy律师，还是我本人——\n\n法官：不会有三个人分别——\n\nROMNEY先生：不，不。我——\n\n法官：——代表该实体提出异议——\n\nROMNEY先生：我明白。\n\n法官：——这不会发生。因此，你们三人必须作出选择。\n\nROMNEY先生：不。\n\n法官：而Wernick律师一开始就说，她今天将作陈述。因此，应当由她代表该有限责任公司提出异议——\n\nROMNEY先生：而且——\n\n法官：——代表该有限责任公司。明白吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：而且我赞同律师——\n\n法官：然后Twardy律师——\n\nROMNEY先生：是。\n\n法官：——如果他提出异议，他将代表其当事人的个人权利提出异议；对此，Luft律师（卢夫）可以说——他也可以提出异议。然后我必须作出裁定。明白吗？但这就是——这就是我们接下来将如何进行。好吗？我们——Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 33 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日\n\n1 不会让一名非律师、\n\n2 未经宣誓、未提交出庭代理声明，\n\n3 且不受第11条规则约束的人在记录中发言。明白吗？\n\n4 ROMNEY先生：明白。而且我再次\n\n5 为此道歉，因为这是我的责任。\n\n6 法官：好的。那么我们将如此\n\n7 进行。Wernick律师将代表该有限责任公司提出异议。\n\n8 Twardy律师将代表其当事人以其个人\n\n9 身份提出异议。如有重叠，那么我相信Luft律师\n\n10 将提出异议，然后我必须作出某种\n\n11 形式的裁定。明白吗？\n\n13 ROMNEY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n14 法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n15 Twardy先生：法官阁下，我们可以\n\n16 简短商议片刻吗？\n\n17 法官：可以。\n\n18 Twardy先生：我认为这将有助于加快进程。\n\n19 （律师商议）\n\n20 法官：你们二位有人需要水吗？桌上\n\n21 有水。\n\n22 证人：我没事。\n\n23 法官：好的。\n\n24 证人：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n25 法官：好的。您需要一瓶吗？您可能——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日 第35页 您可能需要一瓶，对吗？\n\n口译员：我有我的。\n\n法官：好的。您有一些？好的。\n\n口译员：这是我的词典——\n\n法官：是的。没关系。如果有——是的。我明白您是将其用作词典。没关系。谢谢。\n\nWERNICK女士：法官阁下，代表该实体提出的异议仅涉及翻译问题。据我理解，Luft先生使用“holder”一词时，该词被翻译为“owner”一词，我们只希望翻译能够反映所提出的问题。\n\n法官：好的。我得说，此时我甚至不记得问题是什么了，所以问题是什么？我是说，您说的是——\n\nLUFT先生：（听不清），法官阁下。\n\n法官：您使用的是“owner”一词。您是这样说的吗？\n\nLUFT先生：我——坦率地说不知道（听不清）——\n\n法官：哦。\n\n口译员：唯一所有人。\n\nLUFT先生：是。\n\n法官：那么，为什么我们不再问一遍这个问题，看看结果如何。怎么样？\n\nLUFT先生：好的。\n\n以下由LUFT先生询问：\n\n问：郭女士（Ms. Guo），您是Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的唯一成员，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）是Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）的唯一成员，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我要——哦，抱歉。\n\n法官：请稍等一下。\n\nTWARDY先生：我——\n\n法官：对于再次使用该词或其翻译，有任何异议吗？\n\nWERNICK女士：是的，法官阁下。因此，您知道，这当然超出我的知识范围。但据我理解，Luft先生所用的“member”一词被翻译为“holder”，这就是译员希望作出的区分。\n\n法官：好的。那么请稍等一下。\n\n身份不明的发言人：唯一成员是持有人——\n\n法官：让我们看看是否能解决问题。\n\n口译员：这是一个持有关系。是的。\n\n（律师商议）Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 36 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日\n\n1 法官：好的。口译员说，\n\n2 在普通话中，这两个词是相同的，持有人和\n\n3 成员是相同的。\n\n4 （律师商议）\n\n5 WERNICK女士：好的。再次说明，您知道，这远远\n\n6 超出我的知识范围，但据我理解，\n\n7 普通话中有一个可用于表示成员的词。\n\n8 身份不明的发言人：那是什么？\n\n9 身份不明的发言人：（听不清）。\n\n10 法官：那么，我只想说，如果我们要\n\n11 进一步处理翻译问题，\n\n12 那么我们就必须让你们的口译员宣誓。我需要\n\n13 口译员的姓名、地址、资格，\n\n14 一切信息。就是这样——我的意思是，如果\n\n15 这还要继续，我们就会这样做。\n\n16 但您的建议是什么，Luft律师？\n\n17 LUFT先生：我的建议是，法官阁下，我——她\n\n18 签署了一份宣誓声明，其中多次\n\n19 称自己为唯一成员。我没有——无论\n\n20 是什么——我认为她可能是用英语作出的，因为我知道\n\n21 她会说英语。但如果是中文，那么中文中的\n\n22 词是什么，我都乐意使用。但这是——\n\n23 她自己的用语，所以不是我编造的。\n\n24 口译员：法官阁下，这——\n\n25 法官：没有人认为您是在编造——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日\n\n1 出来。\n\n2 LUFT先生：对。我只是说我们应当知道\n\n3 那个词是什么。所以也许我们先从她是否以英语阅读\n\n4 并理解了这份文件开始。如果她阅读并理解了，我\n\n5 不明白为什么我们要——\n\n6 法官：那么您为什么不问这个问题。\n\n7 口译员：法官阁下，口译员可以\n\n8 重新表述其翻译吗？\n\n9 法官：当然。\n\n10 证人：可以。\n\n11 LUFT先生：好的。无论如何，我们就这么做，\n\n12 以解决这个问题。我可以拿到标签11吗？\n\n13 法官阁下，我想向证人出示一份\n\n14 她的声明副本。\n\n15 法官：请便。\n\n16 LUFT先生：我可以走近吗？\n\n17 法官：可以。\n\n18 证人：谢谢。\n\n19 以下由LUFT先生询问：\n\n20 问：郭女士，您认得这份文件吗？\n\n21 答：是，我认得。\n\n22 问：这是什么？\n\n23 答：这是我的声明。\n\n24 问：是谁写的？\n\n25 答：这是一份声明。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日 第39页 问：是谁写的？\n\n答：我的律师根据我的陈述起草的。\n\n问：所以，您向律师口述了您希望写入其中的内容？\n\nWERNICK女士：而且，法官阁下，我仅在其涉及任何律师—当事人通信的范围内提出异议。\n\n法官：驳回异议。\n\n以下由LUFT先生询问：\n\n问：我需要一个回答。\n\n答：我必须回答吗？\n\n问：是的，除非您的律师将指示您援引第五修正案权利。\n\nTWARDY先生：回答吧。\n\n法官：Twardy律师说回答吧。\n\n证人：先生，您可以重复一遍问题吗？\n\n以下由LUFT先生询问：\n\n问：当然。我只是想理解。因此，您向律师口述了您希望写入其中的内容，而他们将其写下来？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是与哪一位律师这样做的？\n\nWERNICK女士：再次说明，法官阁下，我将在其涉及律师—当事人通信的范围内提出异议。\n\n法官：驳回异议。Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 39 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－2023年8月22日\n\n1 以下由LUFT先生询问：\n\n2 问：您可以回答。\n\n3 答：我的两位律师，Louisa（路易莎）和Lee（李）。Melissa（梅丽莎）和Lee（李）。\n\n4 问：Melissa和Lee。您知道Wernick女士和\n\n5 Vartan先生是否会说普通话吗？\n\n6 答：他们不会。\n\n7 问：您用什么语言与他们交流？\n\n8 答：英语。\n\n9 问：您签署声明时，审阅了\n\n10 这份英文文件？\n\n11 答：正确。\n\n12 LUFT先生：好的。法官阁下，我想将\n\n13 此标记为受托人证物2。我忘了将证物1\n\n14 申请作为证据。我请求将证物1和证物2——\n\n15 法官：实际上——您已将证物1申请作为证据，\n\n16 而且我已全部准许其作为证据，因为Wernick律师\n\n17 表示她不反对接纳该证物。\n\n18 Wernick律师，对于将该声明作为受托人\n\n19 证物2接纳，您有任何异议吗？\n\n21 WERNICK女士：没有，法官阁下。而且我认为，您知道，\n\n22 我们已将其作为直接证据提出，所以。对。\n\n23 法官：谢谢。您实际上并未将其接纳，\n\n24 但没关系。现在它——现在是受托人证物2。明白吗？\n\n25 谢谢。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 41 （受托人证物2获准采纳）\n\nLUFT 律师（Luft）：问：那么，我会再次尝试提问。我将按照其英文术语以及其在声明中的使用方式来使用“sole member”一词。好吗？郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）的唯一成员，对吗？\n\nTWARDY 律师（Twardy）：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT 律师：问：好的。郭女士，您曾代表 Hudson Diamond New York 签署公司文件，对吗？\n\nTWARDY 律师：我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\nWERNICK 律师（Wernick）：并且，法官阁下，我代表该实体，仅重申对涉及 Hudson Diamond New York 的这一询问方向提出异议。\n\n法庭：您的意思是，您认为这超出范围？\n\nWERNICK 律师：是的。超出本动议的范围。\n\n法庭：异议驳回。\n\n证人：我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我想向证人出示一份文件，该文件载于 Docket 1805-46。它是我声明的证物T，是一份 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的无需召开会议的唯一成员同意书副本。我可以向证人出示吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLUFT 律师：问：郭女士，您认得这份文件吗？\n\nTWARDY 律师：我将——法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我必须对此提出异议。Romney 先生在本案中提交了一份声明，其中他谈到曾就这份完全相同的文件与证人交谈，随后依据她向他作出的陈述提供了证词。我认为，你们不能想谈论问题时就谈论，想援引第五修正案时就援引。如果需要审阅，我很乐意调出他的——Romney 律师的声明，但我知道该声明在那里。我知道这就是他们所讨论的内容。\n\n法庭：什么声明？Twardy 律师可能没有看过。但那——我是——\n\nLUFT 律师：是7月的——\n\n法庭：我只是想知道您指的是什么。\n\nLUFT 律师：是的，法官阁下。它是 Docket 1988，于 2023年7月7日提交。该文件是 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）就 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 律师撤回代理动议所作的声明。\n\n法庭：Twardy 律师，您是否希望我们调出那份声明供您查看？我们可以马上调出来，以便您查看。\n\nLUFT 律师：具体而言，我所指的是第13段。\n\nTWARDY 律师：我会从对方律师肩后查看。\n\n法庭：Luft 律师，您再说一次是什么？ECF 编号是什么？\n\nLUFT 律师：是 1988，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：1988？您查看的是哪一段？\n\nLUFT 律师：第13段，法官阁下，我认为该段讨论了这份证物。\n\nTWARDY 律师：法官阁下，如法官阁下所指出，我在此是作为郭女士的代理律师。Romney 先生在某份文件中做了什么，Luft 先生应当与 Romney 先生处理。我正在指示我的当事人不要——援引第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我认为 Romney 先生并非以其——他是因为寻求撤回作为 Hudson Diamond New York 律师的代理资格而行事，在该事项中，他受 Hudson Diamond New York 和 Hudson Diamond, LLC 的委托。我认为——我假定他是作为律师并作为其代理人行事。\n\nLUFT 律师：称这是 Romney 先生的问题，要我与他处理，我认为并不适当。Romney 先生在其声明中向法庭提交了有关郭女士会作何陈述的信息。这就是他们选择提交该信息的方式。我认为他们现在不能躲在 Romney 先生背后。\n\nTWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我们没有躲在任何人背后。我只是指示她援引其第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT 律师：我认为不能以这种方式选择性地援引，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：嗯，能否如此援引，并非本法庭今天将作出裁决的事项。\n\nLUFT 律师：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好吗？他正在指示其当事人援引反对自证其罪的第五修正案特权。您只需保留记录。\n\nLUFT 律师：可以。\n\n法庭：我认为这就是您必须做的。\n\nLUFT 律师：好的，法官阁下。那么，我将记录我的异议，前提是他们正在试图——企图就其已经放弃并披露信息的领域援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n法庭：我理解您的异议。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我今天也不会就该异议作出裁决。Twardy 律师已指示其当事人不要回答该问题。\n\nLUFT 律师：我理解。\n\nTWARDY 律师：法官阁下，为完整起见，他们——Luft 先生所称的“他们”，是指 Hudson Valley Holdings（哈德逊谷控股公司）的律师。我是她的律师，我正指示她以其个人身份援引第五修正案。恕我直言，他们做了什么，我不在乎。\n\n法庭：我理解。但遗憾的是，Twardy 律师，这确实影响本案整体中的程序进展。\n\nTWARDY 律师：明白。\n\n法庭：因此，我理解您的——我理解您的陈述，但这可能会对整个案件产生不同的影响。\n\nTWARDY 律师：明白，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我可以申请将我希望标记为受托人证物3的文件采纳为证据吗？\n\n法庭：也就是——\n\nLUFT 律师：就是眼前这份文件——Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的——\n\n法庭：附于 Romney 律师声明的那份文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 46\n\nLUFT 律师：不是，法官阁下。它原先附于我的声明，作为 Docket 1805-46 的证物T。\n\n法庭：它是否也附于 Romney 律师的声明？是否为同一份文件？\n\nLUFT 律师：不是。他只是提及——他提及——\n\n法庭：他提及。\n\nLUFT 律师：——该文件。\n\n法庭：好的。但他的声明确实附有一份文件。\n\nLUFT 律师：是的，法官阁下。一串电子邮件。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nWERNICK 律师：并且，法官阁下，我们仅对该文件提出相同异议，即该文件涉及 Hudson Diamond New York，而不是我们今天在此所涉的 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。\n\n法庭：我将再次驳回您的异议。如我已向 Twardy 律师说明，传票的范围极其宽泛，而贵当事人作为 Hudson Holdings 的代表已作证的定义，包括 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 及其关联方。因此，您的异议驳回。\n\nWERNICK 律师：恕我直言，法官阁下——我理解您的裁定。但我不知道是否已有任何证明显示它们是关联实体。\n\n法庭：Romney 先生为支持其撤回代理动议所作的宣誓书，支持它们具有关系这一点。\n\nWERNICK 律师：哦，我认为，事实上，Romney 先生的提交材料支持它们并非关联实体这一事实。\n\n法庭：不是。他的声明称他没有——他认为自己受到了委托，但实际上没有。它并未称它们并非关联方。它称——\n\nWERNICK 律师：嗯，我认为——\n\n法庭：它称，他相信自己由一名具有授权他之权限的人委托，而该人实际上并不具有该权限。这就是你们的宣誓书所说的内容。Romney 先生，您的撤回代理动议不完全是基于此吗：您认为自己受委托代表纽约实体行事，而后您发现您没有——委托您代表纽约——纽约实体行事的人并没有委托您的权限？这不是该文件所说的吗？\n\nROMNEY 律师：Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的总法律顾问告知我，根据他们的记录，代表 Hudson Diamond New York 委托我的个人，即我此前作证称为郭女士的人，并没有委托我的权限。基于此，我将要——我正在申请撤回代理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\nROMNEY 律师：我只想为记录声明，以免因我坐在房间里而将我的沉默理解为默许：这份声明是我在伪证处罚下签署的，以回应基于我的撤回代理动议而作出的说明理由命令。并且，在就我的撤回代理动议发出说明理由命令之后，Claiborn 女士代表 U.S. Trust（原文如此） Attorney's Office 向我提出了一系列问题，而这就是我的——\n\n法庭：U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）。\n\nROMNEY 律师：抱歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nROMNEY 律师：U.S. Trustee's Office。谢谢您，法官阁下。这份声明是 Aaron Romney 在伪证处罚下作出的陈述，旨在——\n\n法庭：不，我理解。我——\n\nROMNEY 律师：——处理——以便我——只是为了明确——因此没有——我是在代表 Aaron Romney 提交这份声明。\n\n法庭：我理解。\n\nROMNEY 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：请继续，Luft 律师。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。我申请将受托人证物3采纳为证据。\n\n法庭：是否有人反对将证物3采纳为证据？\n\nWERNICK 律师：再次提出先前已载入记录的异议，即该证物涉及并非本程序标的的实体，并且没有证明其与 Hudson Diamond Holdings 实体有关联。\n\n法庭：本案记录中没有证明这些实体有关联，即使有文件称 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 拥有 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC？或者可能正好相反。但本案记录中有相关文件，律师。\n\nWERNICK 律师：有——\n\n法庭：您是在向我称，本案中没有任何文件、没有任何证据证明这两个当事方之间存在关系，包括向州务卿办公室提交的正式文件？这就是您的论点？\n\nWERNICK 律师：恕我直言，法官阁下，我指的是 Romney 先生声明中提及的、来自 Hodgson Russ 的通信，该通信表明二者之间不存在关系——\n\n法庭：该声明不在法庭面前。\n\n今日。\n\n今日提交本院审理的问题是，是否应当基于被送达传票的一方未能提交文件而作出藐视法庭认定。这就是今日提交本院审理的问题。\n\n而本案中已提交的文件证明，这两个实体之间存在关联关系。这一点载于州务卿记录中。\n\n那么，你——你要提出这样的论点，即该事项超出本传票的范围？好。驳回异议。\n\n（受托人证物3获准作为证据）\n\nWERNICK女士（WERNICK）：好的。\n\n法庭：请继续，Luft先生（LUFT）。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：Guo女士（Guo），请您看一下受托人证物3。您是否看到顶部写着：“Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）无须召开会议的唯一成员同意书”？然后第二页写着：“兹证明，本无须召开会议的唯一成员同意书于2020年12月4日签署。”其中写道：“Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），由Mei Guo（郭梅）作为唯一成员。”您看到了吗？\n\n答：看到了。\n\n问：那是您的签名，对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：好的。Guo女士，您聘请Romney先生（Romney）和Vartan先生（Vartan）担任Hudson Diamond New York的律师，对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 51\n\n口译员：可以请您再说一遍律师的姓名吗？抱歉。\n\nLUFT先生：Romney先生和Vartan先生。\n\nTWARDY先生（TWARDY）：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我再次提出异议。本案已进行了广泛的证据开示，并已有关于Guo女士是否聘请Vartan先生和Romney先生的证言。他们据此提出了动议。我明白他——但我只是——为了记录在案。\n\n法庭：您是在保留记录。请继续。\n\nTWARDY先生：我指示您援引您的第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：Guo女士，您是否曾告诉Vartan先生和Romney先生，您不是该人——即Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC不是Hudson Diamond New York的唯一成员？\n\nWERNICK女士：异议，法官阁下。他是在直接询问律师—当事人之间的沟通。\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，他们提出了退出代理的动议——\n\n法庭：这不是受特权保护的沟通。案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 51 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 52\n\n我驳回——驳回你们的异议。\n\n口译员：先生，可以请您再说一遍问题吗？\n\nLUFT先生：当然可以。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：Guo女士，您是否曾告诉Romney先生和Vartan先生，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC不是Hudson Diamond New York的唯一成员？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：好的。Guo女士，您授权为Hudson Diamond New York开立银行账户，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：事实上，您是在Capital One Bank（第一资本银行）开立这些银行账户的，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT先生：好的。法官阁下，此时我想向证人出示一份来自Capital One Bank的银行对账单。案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 52 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n该银行对账单所涉期间为2019年7月1日至2019年7月31日。其上有Bates编号Cap1Kwok0000049。该文件已标记为保密。因此我不知道——因此，为了记录在案，我们应当标明——注意到这一点。但是，除此以外——\n\n法庭：好的。我尚未看过您正在查看的任何文件，所以没问题。\n\nLUFT先生：我明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没问题。这是一份在本案这些第11章案件的证据开示过程中提交的保密文件，适用保护令吗？\n\nLUFT先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，保护令允许某些律师和当事人查看保密文件，对吗？\n\nLUFT先生：对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Wernick律师、Romney律师和Vartan律师此前看过这份文件吗？\n\nLUFT先生：我现在正要向他们出示。\n\n法庭：他们从未看过这份文件？\n\nLUFT先生：我不知道他们是否以其他方式看过。\n\n法庭：那么——\n\nLUFT先生：这是来自其当事人的记录。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n法庭：——不是通过提交程序获得的？\n\nLUFT先生：不是，我此前没有向他们出示。\n\n法庭：好的。Twardy律师是否通过提交程序看过这份文件？\n\nLUFT先生：在今天之前，我从未见过Twardy先生。\n\n法庭：好的。那么他——那么您大概没有向他提供该文件。\n\nLUFT先生：对。\n\n法庭：让我想一下。这是保密文件。因此我们必须确定如何处理——但您必须能够向律师出示该文件，同时维持其保密性。\n\nLUFT先生：对。\n\n法庭：那么我们该如何做？\n\nLUFT先生：那么，法官阁下，我不知道Twardy先生是否曾签署保护令。我知道Vartan先生、Romney先生和Wernick女士均已签署。因此他们可以查看。\n\n再次请问，Twardy先生，您是否曾签署保护令？\n\nTWARDY先生：没有。\n\nLUFT先生：我们可以给他一份副本。他可以审阅。\n\n法庭：我们就该文件可以采取的处理方式之一是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 55 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n关于该文件——以及您计划就此询问证人的任何其他可能属于保密文件的文件——可能是我必须对文件及保护令进行庭内审查。因为，Twardy律师——我知道您此前未参与本案——保护令中关于保密文件有严格规定。\n\n并且在此时，任何已成为保护令当事方的一方均有权查看保密文件。显然，您尚未成为该等当事方，因为您实质上直到今天才参与。因此，我必须弄清楚——我希望弄清楚最佳的处理方式，以免此事在将来成为问题。这正是制定保护令的全部原因。\n\n您还有多少份可能属于——符合这一类别、并计划据以询问证人的其他文件？\n\nLUFT先生：让我核查一下，法官阁下。我认为——是银行对账单。他们基本上一律以保密标记向我们提供。\n\n法庭：他们是谁？\n\nLUFT先生：Capital One Bank，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\nLUFT先生：让我核查是否还有——这可能是其中的大部分，法官阁下。我可以再核查一遍，但我认为是这样。有一些电子邮件，他们似乎没有。\n\n法庭：是否有——是否有一些问题您可以先问，而我们在最后处理这些文件？如果没有，也没关系。那么我想短暂休庭，并考虑如何处理——我最近没有看过保护令。我必须回去重新阅读保护令，对吗？\n\nLUFT先生：完全没问题，法官阁下。我可以把这个问题留到最后，但我确实希望就这些文件询问证人。\n\n法庭：没问题。那么我们继续，之后再回到这一领域。\n\nLUFT先生：好的。\n\n法庭：任何受保护令约束的文件。\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，如果这有助于本院进行——您的审议，我将指示——我将指示Guo女士就这些文件援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nTWARDY先生：好的。\n\n法庭：遗憾的是，Twardy律师，他——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 57\n\n必须保留该记录。他将提出他希望提出的每一个问题。如果她——援引第五修正案权利，那当然——您知道，她有权这样做。但他同样有权建立该记录。\n\nTWARDY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，Luft律师。请继续。\n\nLUFT先生：好的。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：那么让我看看在不使用文件的情况下能做什么。请稍候。事实上，Guo女士，您签署了——您是Capital One Bank的Hudson Diamond New York银行账户签字人之一，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT先生：给我一秒钟。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：Guo女士，您是否告诉Romney先生，您的姓名并未列在Capital One Bank的该Hudson Diamond New York账户上？\n\nWERNICK女士：并且，法官阁下，我将基于律师—当事人特权提出异议。\n\n法庭：我将再次驳回你的异议，并为记录在案指出，您没有就传票中的任何问题提出正式异议。因此，如果您继续提出异议，您可以——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 57 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 58 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n继续提出异议，但并未提出任何异议——关于该传票，没有保护令，没有撤销传票的动议，什么都没有。关于通过该传票所寻求的问题和证据。因此，我希望为记录在案指出这一点。\n\nWERNICK女士：好的。\n\nROMNEY先生：法官阁下，为了记录在案，只是——我知道已经过了一段时间，但Luft律师和我代表各自当事人在法庭上口头达成、随后以书面提交并经本院裁定的约定，确实明确保留了Hudson Diamond各实体主张特权的权利。\n\n法庭：是的。主张特权。但是你没有针对任何具体文件请求提出异议，称其超出律师—当事人特权的范围。你没有这样做。\n\nROMNEY先生：没有。对。\n\n法庭：你没有这样做。\n\nROMNEY先生：异议是针对一个措辞表述的问题，而非文件请求。\n\nWERNICK女士：对。\n\nROMNEY先生：那是——\n\n法庭：没问题。我仍然驳回该异议。\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 59\n\n当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT先生询问：\n\n问：Guo女士，我将援引Romney先生7月7日声明书第9段。他写道——我向您陈述其中内容如下：“Guo女士还告知我和Vartan律师，Capital One向她确认，New York此前在Capital One有一个账户，但该账户已关闭，而Capital One无法向Guo女士提供账户对账单，因为她的姓名未列在该账户上？”\n\n口译员：律师，我可以拿一下该文件吗？哦，抱歉。\n\nLUFT先生：当然可以。\n\n口译员：没关系。\n\n（律师交谈）\n\n口译员：谢谢。\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\nLUFT先生：我甚至还没有提出问题，法官阁下。\n\nTWARDY先生：在我听来那像是一个问题。抱歉。\n\nLUFT先生：嗯，我读了前提。我当时没有——我——没有机会提出我的问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 登记于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 59 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 60 法院：请继续提问。卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft）：问：郭女士，是否属实，您曾告知瓦尔坦先生（Mr. Vartan）和罗姆尼先生（Mr. Romney），您无法取得Capital One（第一资本银行）账户，因为您的姓名不在该账户上？特沃迪先生（Mr. Twardy）：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。卢夫特先生：法官阁下——证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：为记录起见，我提出异议；显然，他们通过基于该等沟通作出主张，已经开启了对此进行探询的范围。法院：明白。卢夫特先生：好的。卢夫特先生问：郭女士，您今日坐在这里，是否有任何依据主张Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）并非Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）的唯一成员？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示她——我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生问：郭女士，罗姆尼先生或瓦尔坦先生是否曾告诉您，Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯）的Kevin Kearney（凯文·卡尼）告诉他——告诉他们，文件显示Holdings是成员，而非您的兄弟，Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 60 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 61 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 61 不是您的兄弟？韦尼克女士（Ms. Wernick）：法官阁下，基于律师—当事人沟通，继续提出异议。法院：驳回。特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。卢夫特先生：为记录起见，我们将提出异议。您必须翻译她的回答。证人：第五修正案。特沃迪先生：谢谢。卢夫特先生问：好的。郭女士，为答复向Hudson Diamond New York和Hudson Diamond Holdings发出的传票，以及法院关于您出席本次程序的命令，您的兄弟从未告诉您，他——他是Hudson Diamond New York的成员，对吗？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生问：郭女士，您从未询问过您的兄弟，你们二人中谁是持有人——谁是Hudson Diamond New York的成员，对吗？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 62 当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生问：您从未向您的父亲询问谁是Hudson Diamond New York的成员，对吗？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将告诉我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生问：而且，您从未试图与Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）交谈，以询问谁是Hudson Diamond New York的成员，对吗？口译员：能否再说一遍姓名？Wang？卢夫特先生：Yvette Wang。口译员：Yvette Wang。好的。特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生问：郭女士，您从未指示您在Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）的律师——该所也担任您父亲的律师——询问您的父亲谁是Hudson Diamond New York的成员，对吗？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 62 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 63 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1 证人：\n第五修正案。\n2 卢夫特先生问：\n3 问：\n郭女士，您曾与罗姆尼律师就一辆由Hudson Diamond New York持有——拥有的Rolls-Royce（劳斯莱斯）进行交谈，对吗？\n6 韦尼克女士：\n异议，法官阁下。这仍然属于律师—当事人沟通。\n8 法院：\n哦，请继续。然后您结束后，我将回应韦尼克律师。好的。\n10 关于您的异议，您已经——持续主张律师—当事人特权异议。我正在查看您作为直接证言提交的郭女士声明。在该直接证言中，她具体谈到曾与您、罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师就数项事项进行交谈，包括Capital One，包括您在她试图联系Krasner先生（克拉斯纳先生）时陪同她打电话。她的声明中没有任何内容涉及试图联系王女士。\n19 因此，就她声明中涉及的问题而言，您的当事人已经放弃了律师—当事人特权，因为她已经陈述，她曾与您、罗姆尼先生和瓦尔坦先生进行这些交谈。因此，我驳回您的异议。\n24 韦尼克女士：\n好的。谨此表示尊重，法官阁下，我仅想指出，所提出的直接问题\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1 向郭女士提出的直接问题并未在她的声明中涉及，我仍坚持——\n3 法院：\n不过，它确实涉及了。您已经开启了整个——您已通过提交一份声明开启了整个探询范围，她在该声明中证明，她曾就所有这些事项与您进行交谈。并且就传票作出了答复。因此，我驳回您的异议。\n9 请继续，卢夫特律师。\n10 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我认为现在轮到我告诉我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n12 法院：\n请便。\n13 证人：\n第五修正案。\n14 卢夫特先生问：\n15 问：\n在2023年7月11日的听证会上，罗姆尼先生告诉法院：“我确实就该Rolls-Royce向郭女士进行了询问。”这是否发生过？\n18 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n20 证人：\n第五修正案。\n21 卢夫特先生：\n并且，法官阁下，鉴于他们已经谈及此事，我将再次就此情形下援引第五修正案提出异议。\n24 卢夫特先生问：\n25 问：\n那辆Rolls-Royce现在在哪里？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n3 证人：\n第五修正案。\n4 卢夫特先生问：\n5 问：\n事实上，那辆Rolls-Royce是您父亲的一项资产，对吗？\n7 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n9 证人：\n第五修正案。\n10 卢夫特先生问：\n11 问：\nHudson Diamond也曾试图购买房地产，对吗？抱歉。Hudson Diamond New York。我道歉。\n14 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n16 证人：\n第五修正案。\n17 卢夫特先生问：\n18 问：\n事实上，Hudson Diamond New York是应您父亲指示设立的房地产实体，旨在取得房地产，对吗？\n21 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n23 证人：\n第五修正案。\n24 卢夫特先生问：\n25 问：\nHudson Diamond在过去几年中曾试图购买多处\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1 房产，对吗？\n2 口译员：\n是Hudson Diamond New York，对吗，先生？\n4 卢夫特先生：\nHudson Diamond New York。我们可以——我们将两者都问。\n6 卢夫特先生问：\n7 问：\nHudson Diamond New York？\n8 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案权利。\n10 证人：\n第五修正案。\n11 卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我希望暂且将一份带有Bates编号GREE002323的文件标记为受托人证物4。这是一份Coldwell Banker（科德威尔·班克）独家代理买方表格。我可以向证人出示吗？并且，法官阁下，我可以走近并向法院提交一份吗？\n16 法院：\n韦尼克律师，您是否反对将该文件作为受托人证物4完整接纳？\n19 韦尼克女士：\n法官阁下，我认为我们此前没有机会查看该文件，因此我们将查看一下。但我——再次，我不知道这与何事有关。而且，正如我所说，我们此前未曾见过它。\n23 法院：\n那么，您刚才不是说——只是告诉——什么——这是一份Coldwell Banker与谁之间的房源挂牌协议？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 67 卢夫特先生：这是一份Hudson Diamond表示由Coldwell Banker——的房地产协议。法院：哪个Hudson Diamond？卢夫特先生：法官阁下，文件上仅写着Hudson Diamond。法院：好的。以及Coldwell Banker？卢夫特先生：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。韦尼克女士：因此，再次说明，法官阁下，此刻首次查看该文件时，文件中有若干手写填写内容，我们不知道其来源。而且，再次说明，文件中未列明具体实体名称。因此，我们据此提出异议。法院：我会让您先问几个问题，然后我将决定是否接纳。好吗？卢夫特先生：当然，法官阁下。法院：请继续。卢夫特先生：我可以走近证人席和法官席吗？法院：可以。口译员：谢谢。卢夫特先生问：郭女士，您在声明中称，王女士负责Hudson Diamond\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 68 Holdings的业务和运营？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我可以占用一点时间吗？您能说一下是——第几段吗？卢夫特先生：当然。特沃迪先生：谢谢。卢夫特先生：我指的是她声明的第5段，其中她称：“Yvette Wang和Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）负责Holding的业务和事务。”特沃迪先生：如果我可以向法院询问？她有副本吗？证人：是的，我有。特沃迪先生：您可以回答。口译员：抱歉？卢夫特先生问：您可以回答。答：您能否重复一下您的问题，因为我现在不记得问题了。问：当然。在您的宣誓声明中，您称Yvette Wang负责Holding的业务和事务，对吗？答：Yvette Wang和Max Krasner。问：他们两人都负责？答：正确。问：好的。如果您可以查看我暂且标记为受托人证物4、并交给您的文件。您是否 Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 68 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1 在首页“买方”项下看到写着Hudson Diamond？\n2 答：\n是。\n3 问：\n您是否在背页签名项下看到写着“印刷姓名，Hudson Diamond”？\n5 答：\n我看到了。\n6 问：\n而且，那个——在其上方，是Yvette Wang女士的签名，对吗？\n8 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人——援引其第五修正案权利。\n10 证人：\n第五修正案。\n11 卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我们将基于相同理由再次提出异议。\n13 法院：\n卢夫特律师，您需要——我刚刚几乎没有听到您说的话。这不是您的错，但请再说一遍，以便明确记入记录，好吗？\n17 卢夫特先生：\n当然，法官阁下。鉴于我们认为他们通过主张王女士就Hudson Diamond Holdings所发挥的作用，已经开启了该问题的探询范围，我们将基于相同理由反对援引第五修正案。\n22 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，如果我可以仅为记录说明？他们，即Hudson Diamond，不能放弃郭女士个人的第五修正案权利。因此，我不知道——也不在乎他们做了什么，但她并未放弃其权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n法庭：明白。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士——\n\n卢夫特先生：那么，为什么不——法官阁下，我请求准许将受托人证据4作为证据提交。\n\n韦尼克女士：我们持续提出异议。\n\n法庭：你们持续提出的异议是什么？\n\n韦尼克女士：该记录未经认证。\n\n法庭：嗯，那不是一项持续异议。你们此前尚未就认证提出异议，因此那不是一项持续异议。那么，请陈述你们的异议，我会听取。\n\n韦尼克女士：好的。该文件包含手写内容。郭女士——没有任何证据——没有任何证据表明郭女士与该文件有任何关系，或者此前曾见过该文件。文件中有无法归属、无法确定该文件来源的笔迹。此外，也没有任何知情人士对该文件予以确认。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：卢夫特律师，您想回应吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：当然，法官阁下。有证词表明，王女士代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）行事。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第70页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第71页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n我们有证词表明，Hudson Diamond Holdings 由郭女士所有。而且我特别询问过，该签名是否为王女士的签名、她是否知道该签名是王女士的签名，而他们援引了第五修正案。在他们希望援引第五修正案的范围内，那是他们的权利。但他们不能提出异议并称我没有证据证明她知道该签名来自何处。在这一点上，法官阁下，应当作出不利推定，即该文件就是其所称的文件。\n\n韦尼克女士：法官阁下，该文件涉及——我甚至无法判断它涉及哪个实体。我认为没有任何人声称或提出任何——卢夫特女士（原文如此）没有就该文件涉及哪个实体，或其性质、如何被制作、或可能由谁签署，提出任何内容。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，其中两处写着 Hudson Diamond。当然，它说明了其所涉及的对象。\n\n韦尼克女士：我不——我是——\n\n卢夫特先生：正面和背面都写着。\n\n法庭：请等一下，韦尼克律师。卢夫特先生，请继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：在买方一栏写着 Hudson Diamond，在签名姓名一栏也写着 Hudson Diamond。因此，认为我们不知道该文件涉及哪个实体的说法——它涉及 Hudson Diamond，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 72\n\n法庭：还有什么——\n\n韦尼克女士：至于——\n\n法庭：律师，还有其他内容吗？\n\n韦尼克女士：有，法官阁下。据我所知，没有任何实体——当然也没有任何受本具体程序约束的实体——简称 Hudson Diamond。\n\n法庭：我驳回你们的异议。我将其作为受托人证据4予以采纳。我将赋予其我认为适当的证明力。\n\n（受托人证据4获准采纳）\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：如果您能看一下受托人证据2，即您的声明。实际上，您现在可以先把它放在一边。Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）在过去几年中曾试图购买多处房产，对吗？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士，与所有这些房地产交易有关的文件在哪里？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第72页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 2168\n\n提交日期 09/05/23\n\n录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：并且，郭女士，Hudson Diamond 的房地产交易的全部资金均来自您的父亲，即债务人，对吗？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士，事实上，Hudson Diamond Holdings 和 Hudson Diamond New York 除来自您父亲、债务人的资金或资产，或由其控制的资金或资产外，没有其他资产或资金来源，对吗？\n\n韦尼克女士：我提出异议。这是复合问题。\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我——嗯——\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\n特沃迪先生：抱歉。我只是要指示她援引其第五修正案权利，但我不想抢在法官阁下之前。\n\n法庭：我本来不会说什么，所以您尽管继续。\n\n特沃迪先生：好的。法官阁下，那么我将指示她援引第五修正案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 74\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：好的。郭女士，如果您现在可以拿出受托人证据2，即您的声明副本。您称自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的记录保管人，对吗？\n\n特沃迪先生：如果我可以帮她一下。请您找到该处。\n\n卢夫特先生：这是她的声明。第一行就是。\n\n特沃迪先生：好的。\n\n卢夫特先生：我假定她对该文件有一定了解。\n\n口译员：律师，能否请您再说一遍问题？\n\n卢夫特先生：当然。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士，我看的是您的引言和第1段，您在其中称自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的记录保管人。您看到了吗？\n\n答：我看到了。\n\n问：这是真的吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。担任 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的记录保管人一职意味着什么？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第74页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 2168\n\n提交日期 09/05/23\n\n录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n答：我不理解这个问题。\n\n问：好的。您称自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings（音频缺失）的记录保管人？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下——\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我们将基于此前提出过的相同理由提出异议，即她显然已就该问题将证词载入记录，此时援引第五修正案权利并不适当。好吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：问：您作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的记录保管人采取过哪些行动？\n\n韦尼克女士：我仅提出异议，并请求您提出一个更具体的问题。\n\n法庭：驳回。驳回。这个问题没有问题。她要么能够回答，要么不能回答。你希望以不同方式提出该问题，并不是异议的依据。这倒是新鲜。\n\n韦尼克女士：恭敬地说，法官阁下，我只是提出异议，认为该问题含糊且不明确。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 76\n\n法庭：律师，那是你对此的理解。而且你没有说含糊和——你没有那样说。所以我不——驳回你的异议。\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我能否请求重新提出问题，因为我现在已经忘记原来的问题是什么。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，如果您希望我这样做，我会再问一遍。\n\n法庭：卢夫特先生，是的。我并不希望你这么做，但我要你这么做。\n\n卢夫特先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士，您作为 Hudson Diamonds, LLC（哈德逊钻石有限责任公司）的记录保管人采取过哪些行动？\n\n特沃迪先生：你可以回答，因为这在你的声明中。\n\n证人：我不太理解这个问题。您具体是在问我对这些文件做了什么吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：问：不是。我问的是，您作为 Hudson Diamond, LLC 记录保管人采取过哪些行动，如有的话。\n\n韦尼克女士：抱歉，法官阁下。我们能否为该问题设定时间范围？\n\n法庭：不能。请继续。她可以回答那个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第76页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第77页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n证人：我只是到我的电脑和邮箱——我的电子邮箱中搜索相关文件。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：您作为 Hudson Diamond, LLC 的记录保管人还曾采取过任何其他行动吗？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，如果律师是在询问她做过超出其声明所载内容的事情，我将指示我的当事人就此援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我们基于相同理由重申异议。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：您搜索的是哪台电脑？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我重申异议。证人刚刚确实作出了该证词。我只是提出一个追问。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：您搜索了哪些账户？\n\n答：电子邮件账户。\n\n问：哪个电子邮件账户？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 78\n\n当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我提出相同异议。此时这显然只是既作剑又作盾。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：那个——那个——那些电子邮件账户保存在哪里？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士，这是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的电子邮件——专用电子邮件账户吗？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：郭女士，这是 Hudson Diamond New York 的专用账户吗？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，此时我仅就该主题，至少就这个电子邮件账户，请求准许持续提出异议。或者我可以——每次都重申。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第78页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 79\n\n法庭：我认为我们需要每次都这样做，律师。\n\n卢夫特先生：可以，法官阁下。就此问题以及上一个问题，我提出异议，理由是第五修正案被不当援引，因为证人认为对其有利时就在该主题上公开作证。\n\n法庭：嗯，我假定你今天之后将提交某份文件，指出所有这些援引，然后你可以援引有关不当——将会——法律——的法律；而且破产法院有判例法讨论，在提出已被援引该特权之人作证涉及的具体问题时，不当援引第五修正案的情形。法院将在该文件提交时及如提交时审理此事。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。那么我将继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：问：您何时搜索了您的电子邮件账户？\n\n特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第79页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 80 卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我将基于我此前就此问题提出的相同理由提出异议。由卢夫特先生询问：问：郭女士，在Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）于2020年12月收到Rule 2004 subpoena（第2004条传票）后，作为记录保管人，您为保存Hudson Diamond Holdings的文件做了什么？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：法官阁下，同样的异议。由卢夫特先生询问：问：事实上，郭女士，您从未针对您从受托人处收到的Rule 2004 subpoena采取任何措施保存Hudson Diamond Holdings的文件，对吗？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：法官阁下，同样的异议。由卢夫特先生询问：问：郭女士，您从未收集过王女士就Hudson Diamond Holdings和Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）的工作所涉任何文件，对吗？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人——案号 22-50073 文件 2168 于09/05/23提交 于09/05/23 16:03:57登记 第80页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n于09/05/23提交\n于09/05/23 16:03:57登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n1 当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n2 证人：\n第五修正案。\n3 卢夫特先生：\n同样的异议。\n4 由卢夫特先生询问：\n5 问\n郭女士，您从未采取任何措施确保收集克拉斯纳先生就Hudson Diamond Holdings和Hudson Diamond New York所做工作相关的文件，对吗？\n9 口译员：\n律师，我可以确认一下姓名吗？\n10 克拉斯纳先生？\n11 卢夫特先生：\nKrasner，正确。\n12 口译员：\nKrasner。好的。\n13 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n15 证人：\n第五修正案。\n16 由卢夫特先生询问：\n17 问\n郭女士，作为Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC的记录保管人，您从未采取任何措施确保其或其关联方的文件没有被毁损，对吗？\n21 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n23 证人：\n第五修正案。\n24 卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，同样的异议。\n25 由卢夫特先生询问：\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n于09/05/23提交\n于09/05/23 16:03:57登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n1 问\n好的。郭女士，您在您的声明中称，您审阅了受托人向Hudson Diamond Holdings发出的Rule 2004 subpoena。您在聘请瓦坦先生和罗姆尼先生担任这两个实体的律师时，是否也审阅了受托人向Hudson Diamond New York发出的Rule 2004 subpoena？\n7 韦尼克女士：我仅就法院作出的要求提交声明的命令明确针对Hudson Diamond Holding，而非Hudson Diamond New York这一点提出异议。\n11 法院：异议驳回。\n12 特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案。\n14 证人：第五修正案。\n15 卢夫特先生：好的。我们继续。\n16 由卢夫特先生询问：\n17 问\n郭女士，您在第3段中称，您审阅了罗姆尼先生2023年7月7日的声明，对吗？\n19 答\n对。\n20 问\n好的。您认为其中的一切均真实且准确吗？\n22 答\n对。\n23 问\n罗姆尼先生称，并非您的——您告诉他，您的姓名并未列在Capital One（第一资本银行）银行账户上。那是真实且准确的吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 83 韦尼克女士：异议。律师—当事人沟通。法院：律师，异议驳回。您当事人的声明谈到了罗姆尼律师的声明，并称她审阅过该声明。因此，您的异议驳回。韦尼克女士：法官阁下，我还要补充一点，该问题也歪曲了罗姆尼先生声明的内容。法院：歪曲了什么？韦尼克女士：向郭女士提出问题的表述方式。法院：异议驳回。特沃迪先生：法官阁下，基于该理由，我将援引第五修正案——请求我的当事人援引第五修正案特权。卢夫特先生：抱歉。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：抱歉。基于什么理由？特沃迪先生：因为歪曲了罗姆尼宣誓书。卢夫特先生：好的。我不希望被指控歪曲，因此我们不妨将一份此前已载入案卷的文件标记为受托人证物5。该文件为文件1988。这是罗姆尼先生的声明副本——案号 22-50073 文件 2168 于09/05/23提交 于09/05/23 16:03:57登记 第83页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 84 该声明涉及请求辞去Hudson Diamond New York, LLC律师职务的动议。法官阁下，我可以走近证人吗？法院：可以。韦尼克女士：谢谢。由卢夫特先生询问：问：郭女士，您以前见过这份文件吗？答：我以前见过。问：翻到第9段。您看到最后一句写着：“郭女士进一步告知我和瓦坦律师，Capital One向她确认，纽约此前在Capital One有一个账户，但该账户已关闭，而且Capital One无法向郭女士提供账户对账单，因为她的姓名并未列在该账户上。”您看到了吗？答：我看到了。问：郭女士，这是真实且准确的吗？答：对。问：因此，您的宣誓证言是，Capital One告诉您，您的姓名未列在Hudson Diamond New York的银行账户上，这一说法是真实且准确的？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：我将重申我的异议，法官——案号 22-50073 文件 2168 于09/05/23提交 于09/05/23 16:03:57登记 第84页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168\n于09/05/23提交\n于09/05/23 16:03:57登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n1 阁下，就这个问题。我可以转向其他事项，但当我们回到银行记录时，我希望再次讨论此事。\n4 法院：\n我明白。\n5 卢夫特先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n6 由卢夫特先生询问：\n7 问 好的。郭女士，您曾就该传票尝试联系克拉斯纳先生？\n9 答 是的。\n10 问 您是如何联系的？\n11 答 手机。\n12 问 您使用了什么电话号码？\n13 答 我不记得了。\n14 问 您是如何得到该电话号码的？\n15 答 谁的电话号码？\n16 问 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。\n17 答 我不记得了。\n18 问 您不知道自己是如何取得用来致电克拉斯纳先生的电话号码的？\n20 答 我不记得了。\n21 问 这是您持有已久的电话号码吗？\n22 答 我不记得了。\n23 问 您大约何时取得克拉斯纳先生的电话号码？\n25 答 我不记得了。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n于09/05/23提交\n于09/05/23 16:03:57登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n1 问 是在过去六个月内吗？\n2 答 超过六个月。\n3 问 超过一年？\n4 答 超过一年。\n5 问 所以，您持有克拉斯纳先生的电话号码已超过一年？\n7 答 对。\n8 问 郭女士，您记得我此前对您进行了证言录取吗？\n10 答 记得。\n11 问 您记得您当时宣誓了吗？\n12 答 是。\n13 问 您记得您宣誓要说出事实、全部事实，并且只说事实吗？\n15 答 记得。\n16 卢夫特先生：\n律师，这里有一份证言录取笔录副本。如果法官阁下需要，我——很乐意向法院提交一份。\n19 法院：\n嗯，反正您必须作为证据提出——您无论如何都必须提交所有文件，所以没关系。\n22 韦尼克女士：\n法官阁下，我们仅就此超出本程序范围提出异议。\n24 卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，这是为弹劾证人。\n25 法院：\n异议驳回。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2168\n于09/05/23提交\n于09/05/23 16:03:57登记\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n卢夫特先生：\n我可以走近证人吗？\n法院：\n可以。\n口译员：\n谢谢。\n由卢夫特先生询问：\n问\n郭女士，您可以翻到您的证言录取笔录第146页吗？郭女士，我于2023年1月20日对您进行了证言录取，对吗？\n答\n我不记得具体日期。\n问\n好的。如果您看一下首页，这里——您看到上面写着2023年1月20日，星期五吗？这是否唤起您的记忆，即我是在那天对您进行证言录取的？\n答\n好的。我看到了。\n问\n好的。我请您看第7行和第8行。问题：“您有Max Krasner的电话号码吗？”回答：“没有。”\n问\n我读得正确吗？\n特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示她援引第五修正案。\n证人：\n第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我提出异议。这是不当的第五修正案指示。\n法院：\n我明白。\n由卢夫特先生询问：\n问\n郭女士，您是否曾尝试向克拉斯纳先生发送电子邮件？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 88 韦尼克女士：异议。含糊不清。法院：异议驳回。特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：同样的异议。由卢夫特先生询问：问：除电话以外，您是否曾以其他方式尝试联系克拉斯纳先生？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生：同样的异议。由卢夫特先生询问：问：郭女士，就Hudson Diamond Holdings和Hudson Diamond New York为回应受托人向其送达的——规则——受托人传票一事，您是否采取任何措施尝试与王女士沟通——联系？特沃迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人不——或者就Hudson Diamond New York援引其第五修正案权利。口译员：律师，我可以再听一遍吗？特沃迪先生：可以。我指示她不要——案号 22-50073 文件 2168 于09/05/23提交 于09/05/23 16:03:57登记 第88页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2168 于09/05/23提交 于09/05/23 16:03:57登记 第89页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n1 就Hudson Diamonds New York回答该问题。\n2 她可以就其代表Hudson Diamond Holding联系王女士的尝试回答该问题。\n4 法院：\n嗯，等一下。\n5 抱歉。请继续。\n6 所以，特沃迪先生，您的异议涉及她作为公司——作为一名人员的地位，而非涉及她的个人权利。\n8 您不关心——您告诉我，您不关心这些实体。但现在您告诉我，您关心这些实体。\n11 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下——\n12 法院：\n所以——\n13 我认为这不合适。如果您想指示她不回答——因为您担心对她个人的刑事追诉，那是另一种情况。但您现在正在接替韦尼克律师所说她将承担的角色，即您现在就公司实体划出了一条界线，而您已多次告诉法院和在场所有人您不关心这些实体。但现在您确实关心了。\n21 特沃迪先生：\n我确实关心——\n22 法院：\n所以——\n23 特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，就郭女士而言，我确实关心。而这个问题也询问了她就——代表Hudson Holdings所做的事情。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 90 法庭：没错。这正是——这正是本次整个听证会所要处理的事情。\n\nTWARDY先生：明白。这是我会让她回答的事情。关于她代表 Hudson New York（哈德逊纽约）所做之事的问题，我指示她援引第五修正案。\n\n口译员：好的。\n\nTWARDY先生：那是否——\n\n法庭：我仍然认为你——你现在所采取的立场，与您在整个听证会期间所采取的立场不一致，即你不在乎这些实体。Wernick女士一直援引——一直基于超出范围提出异议。而我已驳回所有这些异议。因此，现在我继续驳回这些异议时，你现在提出了一个与先前不同的异议。因为现在，我已明确指出，我——该传票的范围以及与说明理由有关的问题，涉及作为整体的传票以及 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。在听证会开始时，我们讨论过这一点，当时 Luft先生询问了你的当事人有关定义的问题，而你的当事人作出了回答，并称她理解该定义。其中包括你、你方——我可以写下来——我可以查看我的笔记。\n\nTWARDY先生：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第90页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 91 法庭：但是——\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，如果我——\n\n法庭：但关键在于，律师，你不能在他们的异议被驳回时接管他们的异议，而他们不喜欢自己的异议被驳回，便转而主张她——你的当事人应当——应当能够援引其第五修正案特权，因为——这涉及其中一个公司实体。\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我——她已就任何有关其在 Hudson Valley——Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）中角色的问题援引其第五修正案特权，因为——这与此一直保持一致。我已允许——\n\n法庭：嗯，你还就任何与 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）有关的事项援引了她的第五修正案特权。因此，现在我们——\n\nTWARDY先生：什么——\n\n法庭：现在我们正进入我——\n\nTWARDY先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——我在本次听证会开始时所述的有问题的立场，即现在证人有一名律师，不仅以她作为公司成员的身份代表她，也以她个人的身份代表她。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第91页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1 身份，该律师随后就公司事项主张特权。\n2 Twardy律师，这对我而言毫无道理。\n3 \n4 TWARDY先生：法官阁下，那么我将指示我的\n5 当事人就整个问题援引第五修正案权利。\n6 \n7 口译员：抱歉？\n8 \n9 LUFT先生：他指示她援引第五修正案。你必须向她作出指示。她知道，但是——然后她将——\n10 \n11 证人：第五修正案。\n12 \n13 LUFT先生：我们将提出同样的异议，法官阁下。\n14 \n15 由 LUFT先生询问：\n16 问 好的。就 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股）收到的传票而言，您曾采取何种行动（如有），试图与 Wang女士取得联系？\n17 \n18 答 我无法联系 Wang女士，因为她在拘留中心。\n19 \n20 问 您目前与被拘留的人士沟通，对吗？\n21 \n22 TWARDY先生：法官阁下？\n23 \n24 证人：您指的是谁？\n25 \n26 TWARDY先生：法官阁下？法官阁下，我将指示她援引第五修正案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 93 证人：我已经回答了您的问题。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 那么，好吧。我接着问。您与目前在监狱中的父亲沟通，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 事实上，您多次在社交媒体上——在社交媒体上发布您在父亲被拘留期间与其沟通的内容，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n\n证人：是的。谢谢您的关心。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 就 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股）遵守已送达传票一事，您采取了哪些措施与 Wang女士沟通？\n\nTWARDY先生：我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 Guo女士，事实上，尽管您将 Wang女士和 Krasner先生列为经营该企业的人员，但您从未采取任何措施，试图从 Wang女士处获得有关 Hudson——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第93页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 94 Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股）遵守受托人传票的信息，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 这是因为您知道 Wang女士只接受您父亲的指示，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 而且您知道，事实上，Krasner先生也只会接受您父亲的指示，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n问 这是因为 Wang女士和 Krasner先生是您父亲，即债务人的代理人，对吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\n由 LUFT先生询问：\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第94页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1 问 如果我们回到受托人证物2，也就是您的声明，如果我查看第7段，您说：“我还联系了我的会计师。”谁是您的会计师？\n2 \n3 答 Mindy。\n4 \n5 问 Mindy？Mindy的全名是什么？\n6 \n7 答 我不记得。\n8 \n9 问 您不知道您会计师的全名？\n10 \n11 答 我不记得。\n12 \n13 问 她的会计师事务所叫什么名字？\n14 \n15 答 是以 J 开头的什么名字，但我不记得全名。\n16 \n17 问 您只记得它确实是以字母 J 开头？\n18 \n19 答 J-A 和什么。Janover？\n20 \n21 问 是 Janover 吗？\n22 \n23 答 我不记得。\n24 \n25 问 是 Janik 吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1 答 我不记得。\n2 \n3 问 它可能是一名会计师，也可能是一家油漆店。我们不知道。\n4 \n5 LUFT先生：我撤回该问题。\n6 \n7 由 LUFT先生询问：\n8 \n9 问 您如何联系 Mindy？\n10 \n11 答 我给她发电子邮件，并通过电话联系她。\n12 \n13 问 好的。当您如声明中所述联系她时，您是如何联系 Mindy 的？\n14 \n15 答 我给她打过电话。我也给她发过电子邮件。\n16 \n17 问 她的电话号码是多少？\n18 \n19 答 我不记得。\n20 \n21 问 您把她的电话号码保存在哪里？\n22 \n23 答 在我的手机里。\n24 \n25 问 您带着手机吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1 答 没有。\n2 \n3 问 是什么类型的手机？\n4 \n5 答 iPhone。\n6 \n7 问 智能手机？\n8 \n9 答 iPhone 是智能手机。\n10 \n11 问 您何时开始使用 iPhone？\n12 \n13 答 2008年。\n14 \n15 问 自那以后您一直持续使用？\n16 \n17 答 没有。\n18 \n19 问 好的。您何时开始使用这部智能手机？\n20 \n21 TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n22 \n23 证人：第五修正案。\n24 \n25 LUFT先生：法官阁下，第五修正案不应当成为对任何他们不想回答的问题一概提出的异议。她何时开始使用她的手机？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 97 证人：我已经回答了该问题。我的回答是我不记得。\n\nTWARDY先生：而且，法官阁下，如我可为记录说明？此处可能涉及因提交行为而产生的问题，这就是我指示她援引第五修正案的原因。\n\nLUFT先生：目前不存在提交行为的问题，法官阁下。\n\nTWARDY先生：很可能会有，而这正是我正在考虑的——后续步骤。\n\nLUFT先生：嗯，你得等到我们谈到那里。\n\nTWARDY先生：嗯，这就是她现在援引该修正案的原因。\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，那是不适当的。因此，他现在说，她想要援引第五修正案，以防我们将来涉及一个——\n\nTWARDY先生：我不——\n\nLUFT先生：——涉及第五修正案问题的问题。\n\nTWARDY先生：我不在乎你。恕我直言，Duff——Luft先生，我在乎的是美国检察官办公室。\n\nLUFT先生：我不在乎你对我的看法，但我正在进行询问。\n\n法庭：我现在要制止——\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——你们二位。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2168 提交于 09/05/23 录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57 第97页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1 你们将继续保留你们的记录。并且你们将——你们将就该记录采取你们认为适当的任何行动。\n2 \n3 \n4 LUFT先生：好的。\n5 \n6 法庭：我要说的是，已提出的问题中，有些直接涉及证人在其声明中所作的直接证言，而在您提出问题时却援引了第五修正案。\n7 \n8 \n9 \n10 TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我们能否稍作休息？Guo女士到目前为止已在证人席上将近两个半小时。\n11 \n12 \n13 法庭：我不知道 Luft律师还需要多长时间。你们想休息，还是想继续？\n14 \n15 \n16 LUFT先生：不，法官阁下。我想结束。我没有多少内容了。我的意思是，如果我们在——当我们谈到银行文件时休息一下，让法庭有机会查看这些文件，那也可以。\n17 \n18 \n19 \n20 法庭：我想在银行文件之前休息。因此，你先完成不需要银行文件的部分，然后我们再讨论银行文件。\n21 \n22 \n23 \n24 由 LUFT先生询问：\n25 问 Guo女士，您说您使用 iPhone，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2168\n提交于 09/05/23\n录入于 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1 答 对。\n2 \n3 问 在过去两年里，您一直使用 iPhone 吗？\n4 \n5 TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将基于先前所述理由指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n6 \n7 证人：第五修正案。\n8 \n9 LUFT先生：法官阁下，我提出异议。能给我第30标签吗？\n10 \n11 法官阁下，我想向证人出示 Lee Vartan（李·瓦坦）为反对受托人就遵守《规则2004》传票及2023年1月命令而提出的说明理由命令所作的声明副本。该文件见于案卷文件1512。\n12 \n13 法庭：好的。\n14 \n15 LUFT先生：我可以走近证人吗？\n16 \n17 法庭：可以。\n18 \n19 口译员：谢谢。\n20 \n21 TWARDY先生：谢谢。\n22 \n23 由 LUFT先生询问：\n24 \n25 问 Guo女士，这是您的律师 Vartan先生所作声明的副本，该声明反对受托人就遵守向您本人及 HK USA（香港美国公司）发出的《规则2004》传票而提出的说明理由命令。具体而言，我想请您看第25段。\n\nWERNICK女士：我提出异议。Luft先生现在向证人出示了一份与其他事项有关的文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 100 家与我们今天在此所涉的 Hudson Diamond entities（哈德逊钻石实体）无关的实体。法庭：异议驳回。由 LUFT 先生（卢夫特先生）询问：问：Guo 女士（郭女士），您是否看到第25段引用的内容——Vartan 先生（瓦尔坦先生）写道：“Guo 女士于2017年初获释后，她与科技的关系进一步发生了变化。她停止使用智能手机，并且由于担心被 CCP（中国共产党）追踪，只使用翻盖手机进行通信。”您看到了吗？TWARDY 先生（特沃迪先生）：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。LUFT 先生：法官阁下，我——法官阁下，我的问题字面上只是她是否看到了该内容。这是不当援引第五修正案。TWARDY 先生：她可以回答这个问题。很抱歉。我以为我听到了别的内容，Luft 先生。由 LUFT 先生询问：问：Guo 女士，这是否属实——Vartan 先生在其陈述中称，自2017年初起直至其于2023年1月作出声明时，您停止使用智能手机，并且仅使用——从——翻盖手机进行通信，他的说法是否真实？TWARDY 先生：现在，法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 101 证人：第五修正案。LUFT 先生：同样的异议，法官阁下。由 LUFT 先生询问：问：请您看一下受托人证物2第9段，这是您的声明副本。您写道：“我审阅了我的纸质和电子记录。”您指的是哪些记录？答：那是指我的电子邮件。问：还有其他的吗？答：只有电子邮件，以及我手头持有的任何文件材料。问：您在哪里保存——嗯，当您说您——手头持有的任何文件材料时，您指的是什么？答：是指我桌上所有已打印的纸质文件。问：哪张桌子？答：我的桌子。问：我不想对此轻率发问，但您——这是否确实只是您所在桌面上碰巧放着的任何文件，还是您有某种档案或系统，用于保存与您所从事的任何业务有关的纸质文件？答：是我存放文件的那张桌子。问：您存放文件的那张桌子位于何处？Case 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我不想在此打断，\n2 但我听到她回答“存放文件”，即使用\n3 过去时态，这与宣誓书中的内容\n4 一致。Luft 先生的问题使用的是现在时。我并不——\n5 我——您知道，我只是希望——您能否澄清您的\n6 问题？是现在时还是过去时？\n7 LUFT 先生：\n当然。\n8 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n9 问：\nGuo 女士，您是否销毁了您在\n10 第9段中所提及的文件，即您说您审阅过您的纸质\n11 文件时所指的文件？\n12 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示她\n13 援引第五修正案。\n14 证人：\n第五修正案。\n15 LUFT 先生：\n同样的异议，法官阁下。\n16 由 LUFT 先生询问：\n17 问：\n您是如何销毁这些文件——您所保存的、\n18 本应对传票作出响应的纸质\n19 文件的？\n20 WERNICK 女士（韦尼克女士）：\n异议。这是诱导性提问。\n21 LUFT 先生：\n嗯，我想知道她是如何\n22 做的。这不是诱导性提问。\n23 法庭：\n异议驳回。\n24 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n25 当事人援引第五修正案。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 103 证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 先生询问：问：事实上，Guo 女士，您是依照您父亲，即债务人的指示销毁了这些文件，对吗？TWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。LUFT 先生：法官阁下，如果您想休庭，这或许正是我可以查明除银行文件外是否还有其他文件的时候。然后我们可以——我可以与法庭分享那些文件。法庭：我不需要休庭，但如果您想休庭，以便确定您希望如何处理受保护令所涉的文件，那可以。LUFT 先生：这正是我想弄清楚的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。您需要多少时间？十五分钟？二十分钟？LUFT 先生：嗯，我知道法官阁下曾表示您也想有机会审阅这些文件，所以——法庭：嗯，我相信我将不得不在某个时候审阅它们，具体取决于发生什么。因此，我希望各方在接下来的20分钟内讨论这个问题。我们将在4:50回来，然后\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 我们将看看如何继续进行。好吗？\n2 LUFT 先生：\n这样可以，法官阁下。\n3 法庭：\n好的。\n4 TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下？\n5 法庭：\n法庭休庭至4:50。\n6 DESPINS 先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n法官阁下，我们能否请您作出\n7 您通常向证人作出的告诫？\n8 法庭：\n可以。我得先同\n9 口译员交谈。\n10 请您提醒证人，她\n11 已宣誓，并且在我们休庭的这段时间内\n12 仍须遵守宣誓。好吗？\n13 证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n14 LUFT 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n15 法庭书记员：\n全体起立。法庭\n16 休庭至4:50。\n17 （法庭于下午4:30至下午4:58休庭。）\n18 法庭：\n好的。Luft 先生，我们休庭了，\n19 我要求您——以及各方讨论\n20 您询问中您曾表示\n21 将就已标记为保密的文件\n22 提出一些问题的部分。\n23 LUFT 先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：\n那么，您是否有任何事项要\n25 就那些讨论作出报告？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 105 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 105 LUFT 先生：是，法官阁下。据我了解，Guo 女士的刑事辩护律师已经审阅了保护令，同意受其约束，并将作出记录在案的陈述，说明我们现在没有纸质副本在此。但我——对我而言，只要他作出记录在案的陈述，表示他愿意受其约束，这就完全足够了。届时，我已将我正在考虑使用的文件与 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）的律师共享。一旦他作出该记录在案的陈述，他们也将与他共享这些文件。LUFT 先生：好的。LUFT 先生：然后我认为——法庭：这可以。谢谢。LUFT 先生：——法官阁下，我们可以继续进行。TWARDY 先生：并且，法官阁下，是的，我将受本案已作出的保密令约束。法庭：谢谢您，Twardy 律师。请您知悉，这称为保护令。TWARDY 先生：保护令。抱歉。我——法庭：没关系。而且——其——文件编号为923。该命令于2022年10月6日在本案——这些 Chapter 11（第11章）案件中作出。好吗？TWARDY 先生：是的。Linsey 律师（林赛律师）向我——通过电子邮件向我发送了一份副本，我在休庭期间有机会查看了它，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 106 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 106 法庭：好的。谢谢。TWARDY 先生：是的。谢谢您，Linsey 律师。法庭：好的。您已将您将要就其提问的文件出示给 Wernick 女士、Romney 律师（罗姆尼律师）和 Vartan 律师，现在他们将与 Twardy 律师共享这些文件。您预计将如此进行吗？LUFT 先生：是，法官阁下。他们持有我打算引用的三份文件副本——法庭：好的。LUFT 先生：——目前如此。法庭：那么，请继续。LUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。ROMNEY 先生：请稍候，法官——（律师协商）ROMNEY 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？我相信，鉴于我们正在公开进行，如果我们将要讨论受特权保护的文件——受——法庭：我完全听不见您说话，Romney 律师。您必须对着麦克风说话。ROMNEY 先生：非常抱歉，法官阁下。法庭：没关系。ROMNEY 先生：我试图表达的是，鉴于我们即将审阅受\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 107 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 107 保护令涵盖的文件，推定这些文件将密封提交，我请求清空法庭，以排除在场但并非保护令当事人的人员。法庭：我们将专门就文件的保密性质提问吗？LUFT 先生：我认为不会，法官阁下，但\n\n我——他们——您看，本案许多当事人事实上会在他们发送给我们的每一份文件上都标注保密。我认为我们正在审阅的内容并不比我们今天一直在谈论的其他任何内容更具保密性，法官阁下，但情况就是这样。\n\nROMNEY 先生：为记录在案，这些并非 Hudson Diamond Holdings——或 New York（纽约）标注为保密的文件。我们在今天之前从未见过这些文件。我想，我的观点大致是，鉴于在 Twardy 律师记录在案表示他受其约束之前，我们不被允许与他共享这些文件，推定如果我们谈及文件的实质内容，这一规定也应适用于法庭内的其他所有人。\n\n我不知道 Luft 律师将要询问什么，因此，如果他不涉及文件的实质内容，我想这就没有必要。但我只是试图保护这一程序，法官阁下。这就是——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 108 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 108 法庭：明白。Luft 律师，您打算做什么？LUFT 先生：法官阁下，我确实打算询问文件的内容。我相信它们与我过去几小时一直在提出的其他问题属于同一类。它们是，您知道，银行文件。我推定，如果存在——他们主张保密，是因为——您知道吗？我甚至不想作出假定。我猜想，这是他们例行地为其当事人所作的安排。但我不了解他们的想法，法官阁下。我将询问内容。我不知道该信息是否保密。如我所述，我已就 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的银行账户提问一段时间了。而且，坦率地说，对此的回答一直都是——无一例外地——援引第五修正案。我不会惊讶于我们继续以这种方式进行。但这就是我的打算，法官阁下。我对是否需要清空法庭没有意见。法庭：好的。谢谢。我现在看一下这个。（停顿）法庭：所以我正在看各段——嗯，我正在看若干段，但我正在看的这一段\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n我目前正在查看保护令，其中第14段涉及在公开法庭上使用证据开示材料。其规定：“本命令对披露的限制，不适用于任何一方在审判或任何公开法庭举行的听证会上提交或以其他方式使用的任何证据开示材料，但本段另有规定的除外。在可行的情况下，作为任何审前会议的一部分，或就任何证据听证会上使用证物进行协商时；如不可行，则在审判或任何公开法庭举行的听证会上使用任何指定材料之前，任何希望在审判或公开法庭举行的听证会上提交或使用该等指定材料的一方律师，均应与提供方进行善意协商”——因此，我不知道是谁向你方提供了这份文件，但无论如何——“以讨论如何对指定材料进行删节，从而使该材料可以由任何一方依照《破产法典》和《破产规则》的规定提交或以其他方式使用。如果当事人无法解决与该等指定材料有关的争议，提供方应负担向法庭请求适当救济的责任。在法庭就该问题作出裁定之前，指定材料应继续按照其指定性质并依照本命令的条款予以处理。”\n\n那么，这份文件是否可以进行删节？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 110 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特先生）：法官阁下，坦率地说，这件事是我的责任，我不知道是否——我是说，我可以删节我不关心的内容，但我不知道那样是否能解决保密问题。我不——我想 Capital One（第一资本银行）是提供这些文件的实体，对吗？再说一次，它是代表——推定是代表 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）提供的。\n\n我们在这里形成了一个循环，没有人愿意说他们是 Hudson Diamond New York。因此，如果在场律师愿意代表 Hudson Diamond New York 发言，我们可以弄清楚如何删节该文件。否则，法官阁下，我无法说明应当如何代表 Hudson Diamond New York 或 Capital One 对其进行删节。\n\n而且，我没有机会就此事与 Capital One 银行交谈。我对此表示歉意。\n\n（律师协商）\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我无意打扰您，但 Despins受托人（德斯平斯受托人）有一项建议，我很乐意与法庭分享。\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\nLUFT先生：我不是算命先生，但鉴于今天余下时间的进展方式，我猜想，如果我听到对我将要提出的问题援引第五修正案，我不会感到惊讶。我可以尝试——我并不——我认为我们很可能永远不必面对这个问题。我可以尝试——我必须在提问中对该文件作出某种提及，以引导证人，但关于删节的想法，我可以尽量——你知道的，尽可能不直接谈及其内容。我的意思是，再说一次，我无法猜测他们会怎么做，但是——\n\nTWARDY先生（特沃迪先生）：不，你猜对了。法官阁下，再说一次，我确实是在过去五分钟内才看到这些文件。但我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。是否可以这样处理，即将文件密封提交，只是——你知道的，作为证据标记，然后——你知道的，核实其中所载内容，以那种方式进行？\n\nLUFT先生：我必须就此向您的当事人提问，但是——\n\n法庭：那么，回答你的问题，Twardy律师，是的，这些文件可以密封提交。这——这很容易。我的意思是，保护令在某种程度上已经预见到了这一点。而且这些文件——已被标记为高度保密。因此，问题就变成你将提出什么问题。我不是要你告诉我，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 111 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n这不是我正在做的事。\n\nLUFT先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我谈论的是这个问题。好吗？你要问什么问题，以及——这些问题会披露什么信息。\n\n如果你问的是有关某份文件存在与否或确认该文件的问题，我认为那是一回事。因为这些文件将被密封提交。但如果你具体询问文件中所载的内容，那么我们可能必须弄清楚——你知道的，我们必须弄清楚如何处理。\n\nLUFT先生：这是公平的，法官阁下。我将问的不仅仅是确认文件的问题。如我所说，我可以在提及方式上尽量谨慎，例如，问“这一行中的实体”，或“你是否看到这里提及的金额”，诸如此类，而不是直接说明金额是多少。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为你至少必须这么做，对吗？否则，你就会涉及——\n\nLUFT先生：这正是我试图——\n\n法庭：——披露保密信息的问题。\n\nLUFT先生：是的。因此，如果这样可行，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：那么，让我问一下Twardy律师。让我们假定我会批准密封这些文件的动议。你是否反对这些——反对以任何方式、任何形式将这些文件作为密封动议的一部分提交？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 113 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\nTWARDY先生：完全不反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nTWARDY先生：这都是他们案件的一部分。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nTWARDY先生：他们可以按自己的意愿处理。我不知道 Hudson 的律师如何，但我对此没有异议。\n\n法庭：嗯，我们谈论的是——好的。这是公平的。因此，到目前为止，我们已与 Guo女士（郭女士）的刑事辩护律师达成一致，他不会反对密封动议，对吗？因此，这些文件将被密封。Wernick律师（韦尼克律师），你是否反对将这些文件密封提交？\n\nWERNICK女士（韦尼克女士）：不反对密封提交。\n\n法庭：那么你没有异议，正确吗？\n\nLUFT先生：对文件密封提交没有异议，正确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，这就解决了一个问题，即这些文件将被密封提交，除非并直到因保护令的规定而不再密封。并且这些规定自2022年10月起一直有效。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n因此，我认为这使事情稍微简单一些。\n\n现在，我们来谈谈你的问题是什么。如果你的问题会以任何方式——如果你想——如果你希望就并非仅被朗读或确认的具体信息提问，那么我认为我们就有一个问题。我理解Twardy律师已经表示，他将指示其当事人援引第五修正案，这完全没有问题。但你也有权提出这些问题，让她援引第五修正案。因此，这也不是问题。\n\n所以，我认为你必须决定——如果你想花几分钟，你知道的，我对此没有问题——你想如何提出或组织这些问题，以避免任何问题。我很乐意让你这样做。但我也可以让你继续进行——此时你希望如何进行，就如何进行。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。听着，我愿意此时继续推进。我想问——我认为我需要问我必须问的问题。\n\n法庭：好的。在你提问之前——抱歉。你说完后，在你开始提问之前，我想说几句话。好吗？\n\nLUFT先生：当然，法官阁下。而且我——只是为了让我们都保持一致，在涉及这最后几份文件之前，我还有几个问题——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLUFT先生：——与此有关。听着，我想确保这样做是正确的。我不太赞成封闭法庭，但如果此时这是正确的做法，法官阁下，为了确保我们能够形成清晰的记录，并且每个人都能——特别是考虑到语言障碍——都能理解我的问题，那么我们就应当这样做。\n\n否则，我知道如何在提问时省略具体内容。但如果那只会导致记录混乱，那么我认为谨慎起见，最好继续进行，并让我们在法庭封闭的情况下提出问题。我相信对此的询问不会超过五分钟。\n\n法庭：所以你的意思是，你会同意——你希望所有不——所有不受保护令约束的人离开法庭。你是这个意思吗？\n\nLUFT先生：我认为是这样，法官阁下，如果这意味着我们可以形成清晰的记录并且有一个——\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，我们还没有到那一步。\n\nLUFT先生：好的。\n\n法庭：但当我们到了那一步时，你必须告诉我。因此，在你开始——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——提出任何其他问题之前——\n\nLUFT先生：我会——是的。\n\n法庭：——我——你显然已就三份文件提出口头密封动议？\n\nLUFT先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我显然不知道它们是什么。公司律师或个人律师均未反对该密封动议。而且，根据——在我们休庭期间，我再次查看了保护令，我认为就这些文件而言，这是适当的处理方式。\n\n因此，密封动议将获准。你显然必须——你已提出口头动议。我将就此作出命令。但这些文件必须密封提交。\n\n你明白这一点。我明白你明白这一点。但我只是为了记录在案。你将要——\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：在今日听证结束后，你将把这些文件密封提交。\n\nLUFT先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？然后，当我们进行到你要就这些文件提问时，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 117 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n即使证人被指示援引第五修正案特权，我们也必须封闭法庭，并密封听证会的该部分；为保护保护令的完整性以及本案中已施行相当长时间的程序，该部分将持续密封，直至法庭另行作出命令。好吗？\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：有人——Wernick律师，对于我刚才所说的内容，你有什么问题吗？\n\nWERNICK女士：没有。我们理解——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nWERNICK女士：——该程序，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：请再说一遍。\n\nWERNICK女士：我们理解该程序，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Twardy律师？\n\nTWARDY先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：你对此没有问题？\n\nTWARDY先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。\n\n好的。那么请继续，Luft律师。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n交叉询问继续\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 118\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：郭女士，我想澄清一下。此前我曾问过您，您的 iPhone 是否在您身上。您记得吗？\n答：我记得。\n问：您今天把您的 iPhone 带到法院来了吗？\n答：没有。\n问：今天是否有为您工作的人持有您的 iPhone？\n答：没有。\n问：好的。郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）是否向 HK USA（美国HK）转移过资金？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生：同一异议，法官大人。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：是否——\n法庭：请说明——很抱歉让您这样做，但请记住——\n卢夫特先生：当然。\n法庭：——我们只有音频。\n卢夫特先生：不，这很公平，法官大人。\n法庭：而且我不想听到某种记录稿——因为您知道会发生什么。\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 118 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 119\n我们将会有一份记录稿，而其中会有缺漏。因此——\n卢夫特先生：绝对如此。\n法庭：所以我——我知道，我理解您提出的是同一异议，但记录员不会理解。\n卢夫特先生：法官大人，我的异议是针对援引第五修正案，因为我认为，证人已在其声明中，以及其律师在与本持续进行的藐视法庭程序及此前提出的强制动议有关而向本法庭作出的陈述中，就这些问题作出了说明。\n法庭：谢谢。\n卢夫特先生：好的。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）是否向 HK USA 转移过资金？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：Hudson Diamond 是否支付了 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的费用？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请我的当事人援引第五修正案，谢谢。\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 119 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 120 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 120\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：并且——Hudson Diamond 是否在 2023 年支付 Lady May 的费用？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：Hudson Diamond New York 是否一直在支付 Lady May 的费用？\n韦尼克女士：并且，法官大人，我以不具相关性为由提出异议。\n法庭：驳回。\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：Hudson Diamond New York 为 Lady May 支付费用，是否是依照您父亲，即债务人的指示所为？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：并且，郭女士，截至\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 121\n2023 年 3 月 1 日，Lady May 的所有人是谁？\n韦尼克女士：法官大人，再次提出异议，因为这远远超出直接证言的范围以及今日程序的性质。\n法庭：驳回。\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：好的。郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是否支付与作为针对您的对抗程序标的的 Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气机有关的费用？\n韦尼克女士：法官大人，基于相关性的同一异议。\n法庭：驳回。\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利，如——\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：而该 Bombardier 喷气机的实际所有人实际上是您的父亲，即债务人，对吗？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 121 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 122\n问：郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是否向 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）汇款？\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：并且 Hudson Diamond New York 向 Whitecroft 汇款，对吗？\n韦尼克女士：法官大人，同一异议。继续就相关性提出异议。\n法庭：驳回。\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我将请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n问：郭女士，与 Hudson Diamond 向与您父亲和您家人有关联的实体转移的资金有关的文件在哪里？\n韦尼克女士：异议。假定了未被证据证明的事实。\n法庭：驳回。\n特沃迪先生：法官大人，我请求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n证人：第五修正案。\n卢夫特先生讯问：\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 122 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2168\n提交 09/05/23\n登记 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 问：Whitecroft 由谁控制，是您还是您父亲？\n2 韦尼克女士：法官大人，异议。存在一项\n3 与 Whitecroft 有关的单独对抗程序。这\n4 确实已经远远超出说明理由命令以及——郭女士今日\n5 直接证言的范围。\n6 法庭：当她在其声明中证称她是\n7 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一\n8 管理成员，并且——她经营该企业时，这如何超出其直接证言的\n9 范围？这如何超出\n10 范围？您——\n11 韦尼克女士：所以该问题——\n12 法庭：可能她不知道\n13 答案，但这并不意味着其超出范围。\n14 韦尼克女士：嗯，我——我——就我\n15 所听到的，该问题仅与 Whitecroft 这一实体有关。\n16 法庭：我也听到了。我不明白\n17 这如何超出依据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条进行的审查以及\n18 要求提供某些信息的传票的范围。因此，我只是——我\n19 驳回您的异议。\n20 特沃迪先生：我请求我的当事人援引\n21 其第五修正案权利。\n22 证人：第五修正案。\n23 卢夫特先生：好的。法官大人，我认为我们可能已到\n24 需要对法庭进行闭庭的那个时点。\n25 法庭：好的。在我们这样做之前，我有\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2168\n提交 09/05/23\n登记 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n件事要马上同译员谈谈。请继续。\n您必须理解一件您在此时可能\n尚未理解的事情，那就是唯一可以留在本法庭的人是律师——\n目前就某些询问而言——受保护令约束的\n律师以及法庭工作人员。\n并且您必须受该保密义务约束。您必须\n确认您将受该保密义务约束。\n那么，您能否为我确认一下？\n因为\n这很重要。我们有一项——一项现行命令，\n要求在另有命令之前，此\n信息将会——仍须保密。因此，我\n需要您在记录中确认，您将会——\n在本听证会被密封期间发生的任何信息或询问，您将受该\n保密义务约束——\n译员：是。\n法庭：——保密义务。\n译员：是的，我同意，法官大人。而且，\n译员遵守法庭的一般保密\n规则。\n法庭：谢谢。\n译员：谢谢。\n法庭：谢谢您的配合。现在，我们将不得不做的是，所有\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 125\n在法庭内但并非受保护令约束的律师或受保护令约束的一方当事人的人员，都必须离开法庭。我们将举行密封听证会。卢夫特先生，我想您说过您认为——嗯，我——我们不知道，但我们认为这不会耗费大量时间。\n卢夫特先生：不会。\n法庭：并且我们也认为，特沃迪先生将在某些时候指示其当事人援引第五修正案特权。听证会——听证会的密封部分结束后，就必须有人出去告诉那些人——我要——嗯，我想我会请工作人员或某人出去告诉他们，他们可以回来。届时将继续举行公开听证会。好的？大家都明白吗？好的。\n卢夫特先生：是，法官大人。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我看了一下法庭，似乎本法庭内的每个人都受保护令约束。如果有人认为情况并非如此，我需要您立即为记录说明，以便明确。\n克莱伯恩女士：法官大人，我是代表美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的霍莉·克莱伯恩（Holley Claiborn）。严格来说，美国受托人不是\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 125 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 126 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 126\n保密令的一方。我们尚未签署保密令。但是，根据《破产法典》第 107 条，美国受托人获准在密封听证会期间在场。\n\n法庭：我认为刚才不容易听清，但我知道您说了什么，因此我要再向大家说一遍。好的？也就是说，《破产法典》第 107 条允许美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）参加任何程序，即使该程序涉及保密事项，也无需受命令约束，因为他们是司法部的一个部门，并且受司法部管辖。他们是司法部的一个机构。\n\n为明确起见，克莱伯恩律师，我同意您的意见，即使我们——我们将对记录予以密封，您也可以留在本法庭内。\n\n法庭书记员将会——我们将做且可以做的是，在我停止发言后，而这很快就会发生，相信我，您将对录音予以密封。好的？然后我们将开始，届时会有一个时点，我们会说，好的，现在您可以停止密封记录，然后我们将向公众重新开放记录，届时他们可以回来。因为我确信人们将会作结案陈词，或者无论他们将做什么。好的？但是我同意——美国受托人\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 127 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1 办公室——《破产法典》第 107 条允许\n2 破产——允许美国受托人\n3 参加——实际上是 107(b)(3)——美国\n4 受托人、破产管理人、受托人，以及法院指定的任何其他\n5 实体，应可完全查阅所有\n6 信息，且不得披露法庭依据本法典专门\n7 保护的信息。并且该信息\n8 已由法庭依据本法典\n9 根据保护令予以专门保护。\n10 好的。在我指示法庭书记员密封记录之前，\n11 还有其他人想要说什么吗？\n12 好的。\n13 我请您——请从此刻开始将录音\n14 作为密封记录，并持续密封\n15 直至进一步指示我们可以恢复公开\n16 记录。好的？谢谢。\n17 （记录于下午 5:31 至下午 5:54 期间密封。）\n18 法庭：好的。那么当事人是否——当事人是否想作\n19 结案陈述？原告？\n20 不是原告。这是一项关于 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 和\n21 郭女士的出庭说明理由命令。\n22 因此，如果您想作结案陈述，韦尼克女士，您可以先进行。\n23 \n24 韦尼克女士：谢谢，法官大人。非常\n25 简要地说。如郭女士的声明所述，郭女士和\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2168 提交 09/05/23 登记 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 128 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nHudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）为遵守传票采取了合理措施，其中许多措施是我与Guo女士共同参与的，包括检索电子邮件、检索移动应用程序、检索电话号码、前往Capital One bank（第一资本银行）并就传票具体要求的记录提出请求。我们——\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特）：反对，法官阁下。她现在正在作证。\n\n法庭：是的，她在作证。所以可以。请继续。继续。\n\nWERNICK女士（韦尼克）：我——只是在作结案陈词，并重述此前在Guo女士的声明中提交的信息。已采取合理措施以遵守传票。已将查找到的对传票有回应性的文件交付给受托人。根据法庭目前掌握的记录，没有认定藐视法庭的依据。除此之外，我们将依据书面材料提交，并理解受托人可能会寻求以书面形式提交进一步申请，而我们保留对此作出回应的权利。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nLuft先生？\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我会简短陈述，因为今天已经很长了。我认为——他们在提交一份声明时声称已采取合理措施，而在几乎所有我就此向Guo女士提出的问题上，她都被指示援引第五修正案，这种说法完全没有依据；即使仅仅因为当我试图就其中大部分问题进行追问时，她援引了第五修正案，也是如此。\n\n我认为，从记录中非常清楚的是，Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股）——我们看到的每一份文件都表明，其全资拥有Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）。Guo女士多年来代表Hudson Diamond New York采取行动，包括提取款项、签署银行账户文件、签署公司文件。而现在，他们拒绝出示关于Hudson Diamond New York的文件，理由是Guo女士今天完全无法以任何方式证实，即尽管所有证据均恰恰相反，Hudson Diamond Holdings不知何故并非Hudson Diamond New York的所有人。\n\n我认为，非常清楚的是，他们没有采取合理措施来努力遵守传票。他们因我们不得不花费如此长时间来寻求其遵守，而使破产财团付出了惊人的金额。这是一份我相信于December送达的传票。如今已是August。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 130 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 130 我们已举行多次听证，其中包括两次额外听证，仅与他们是否甚至聘请了律师这一问题的混乱有关。受托人一直勤勉尽责。归根结底，我们到了这里，也就是您听到Guo女士告诉您的——在她获准说任何话的范围内——她出示了两份文件。我们没有从Hudson Diamond New York获得任何文件。显然，有大量资产经由Hudson Diamond New York流动，以致必然已形成文件，无论这些文件涉及汽车所有权、房地产交易，还是数百万美元经由该账户流转。而我们一无所获。因此，他们——听着，他们似乎满足于让法庭作出藐视法庭裁定。而且——我认为其想法是，不会有人可以让我们向其执行该裁定。但我们知道应当向谁执行。Guo女士显然控制Hudson Diamond Holdings。Hudson Diamond Holdings显然控制Hudson Diamond New York。因此，我认为应当认定藐视法庭。但我还将请求，因为我不认为他们迄今已为此作出任何努力，应当强制他们查找Hudson Diamond New York的文件并将其交给受托人。这应包括银行账户。有关Guo女士姓名不在该Capital One bank账户上的这一证词或说法显然是虚假的。我们看到了该文件。因此，法官阁下，我的陈述到此为止。但我认为认定藐视法庭是适当的，而且我确实——我们确实需要这些文件。我请求强制他们出示Hudson Diamond New York的文件。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nWERNICK女士：法官阁下，简短反驳一下？\n\n法庭：简短。\n\nWERNICK女士：好的。我们刚刚从Luft先生的陈述中听到的，几乎完全不是关于Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），即我们今天被强制代表出庭的实体。几乎全部是关于Hudson Diamond New York，我相信该实体已就向其送达的另一份传票被认定藐视法庭。这不是本程序的主题。法官阁下已就纽约实体作出决定。而且，再次说明，我们今天在场的任何人都不代表纽约——\n\n法庭：嗯，Romney先生（罗姆尼）仍然代表，除非且直到其退出代理的动议获准。因此，这并不准确。\n\nWERNICK女士：好的，抱歉，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 131 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\nWERNICK女士：我当然不代表Hudson Diamond——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nWERNICK女士：——New York。而当Luft先生提到某种将纽约实体与Holdings联系起来的异常大量证据时，我今天在本程序中所见到的全部内容，是一份显然由同一家律师事务所出示的文件；该律师事务所曾告知Vartan先生（瓦尔坦）和Romney先生，两者之间不存在关联。因此，当然，在法官阁下考虑这项动议实际看来所要做的事情——即试图将我并不代表的纽约实体重新纳入，而Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯）称Guo女士并非该实体成员——我们不能仅仅通过声称有大量证据将二者联系起来，从而绕过其举证责任；因为仅有一份文件，而编制该文件的律师事务所称这些实体并无关联。\n\n因此，我的陈述到此为止。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我会简短陈述。我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLUFT先生：首先，Wernick女士说她不代表Hudson Diamond New York。如果您阅读Romney先生的声明，他非常明确地表示，是Guo女士聘请了Vartan律师和Romney先生。我不——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT先生：我不知道Wernick女士是否是在非常具体地说，不是她——她的律师事务所没有受聘，而只是Vartan先生受聘。但Vartan先生当然是从她的律师事务所受聘的。因此，他们不代表该实体的说法并不属实。\n\n他们说只有一份文件。我不知道我们出示的多份文件中哪一份是那一份文件，但我们看到Mei Guo（郭梅）签署了一份文件。我们看到她代表Holdings——代表New York签署了一份银行账户文件。我们看到（原文如此）她作为Holdings为New York的唯一成员签字。我们还听取了无数证词，在这些证词中，Guo女士援引了第五修正案。\n\n而且，我本应在此前说明这一点，法官阁下。我绝对认为，应当从所有这些援引第五修正案的行为中作出不利推定。我们今天到这里来是为了获得信息。这正是Guo女士到场的目的，即了解某些情况。相反，我们遭到了以第五修正案为由的阻挠。\n\n最后，关于我只谈及Hudson Diamond New York的论点，我相信法官阁下在Wernick女士此前提出同样反对意见时，可能已就此裁定过19次。正如法官阁下已向他们指出的，以及正如我所展示的，Hudson Diamond Holdings传票中的定义明确包括所有关联方及我们使用的所有其他各种术语，而这些术语明确包括Hudson Diamond——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\nNew York。\n\nHudson Diamond Holdings是母公司。其有义务出示——确保其子公司遵守传票。它们显然是关联方。它们本应出示这些文件。因此，我的反对并不不当，而且——我基于我们没有从New York收到任何文件这一事实，要求就Holdings认定藐视法庭，完全符合我们所送达传票的要点。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n好的。提交法庭审理的事项，即出庭说明理由令，我们——我今天已听取辩论。并且，就Guo女士个人而言，援引了第五修正案。我在听证期间指出，如果受托人希望提交关于该项援引第五修正案是否适当的文件，你们有权这样做。你们可以这样做。我不会设定任何期限，因为你们必须订购庭审记录，并确定你们希望如何处理。\n\n关于Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC是否将被认定藐视法庭，法庭将对该事项留待裁定。\n\n法庭今天没有其他事项。我不会——是的。我不会处理任何——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 135 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 135 今天其他事项。受托人方面尚有一些未决事项，与本案无关，包括一项动议，我——你们只需——将会录入一项电子命令，而你们将采取你们需要采取的任何行动。你们正在寻求某项——一项关于传票的命令，而该传票已经规定了向外国被告送达的具体期限。但有人请求作出一项命令。我不知道你们是否需要该请求。因此，我们将发布某项命令，之后你们可以就你们实际上是否需要一项命令，或是否可以仅自行依赖传票——他们自己（原文如此）作出回应。\n\nLINSEY先生（林西）：我相信已提交一项动议，请求就Golden Spring（黄金春）实体设定答辩期限。\n\n法庭：而传票中已有该期限。\n\nLINSEY先生：传票——这是关于Golden Spring对抗性诉状的答辩，我——\n\n法庭：而且我认为答辩——传票中已有该期限——\n\nLINSEY先生：哦，您的意思是传唤令中有该期限？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2168 Filed 09/05/23 Entered 09/05/23 16:03:57 Page 136 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n法庭：我说的是传票吗？抱歉。\n\nLINSEY先生：您是这么说的。这就是我感到困惑的原因。\n\n法庭：我们整天都在谈传票。我道歉。我道歉。是我的错误。\n\nLINSEY先生：明白。\n\n法庭：传唤令。\n\nLINSEY先生：我们会查看，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：传唤令。我道歉。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：我们整天都在谈——\n\nLINSEY先生：是的。明白。\n\n法庭：——传票。我道歉。\n\n好的，那么法庭今天没有其他事项了。谢谢各位。现在休庭。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：全体起立。现在休庭。\n\n（程序于6:04 p.m.结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2168\nFiled 09/05/23\nEntered 09/05/23 16:03:57\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录员及经认证的电子记录员和记录转写员，证明上述内容系对上述案件程序官方电子录音的正确记录转写。\n\nSeptember 5, 2023\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 138 索引 受托人证人： 主询问 交叉询问 重新询问 再次交叉询问 Mei Guo（梅果）—9 受托人证据： 编号 已接收 1 传票 16 17 2 Mei Guo 声明 40 41 3 Hudson Diamond New York 单一成员同意书 45 50 12 4 Coldwell Banker 不动产协议 70 72 案件 22-50073 文件 2168 提交日期 09/05/23 录入日期 09/05/23 16:03:57 第 138 页，共","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1988,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":34691,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-09-05 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-09-05","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:52:35"}