{"id":"court_ctb_2292_55","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2292,"sub_number":55,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-10-26","title":"Exhibit 55 Debtor. \\","summary_zh":"证据附件（庭审记录） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2292-55（2023-10-26立案）。该文件为证据附件，包含 2023 年 8 月 22 日在破产法官 Julie A. Manning 主持下的庭审记录（涉及衍生诉讼 Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017），审理关于 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 为何不应被判藐视法庭的显明理由令，并要求郭美（Mei Guo）作为该实体成员出庭作证。","summary_en":"Exhibit (hearing transcript) —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2292-55 (filed 2023-10-26). This document is an evidentiary exhibit containing the August 22, 2023 hearing transcript before Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning on an Order to Show Cause regarding why Hudson Diamond Holding LLC should not be held in contempt of court and requiring Mei Guo to appear and testify in adversary proceeding Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017.","body_en":"## **Exhibit 55**\n\n139\n\nDebtor. \\*\n\nHO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\*\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n\\*\n\n\\*\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \\* August 22, 2023 \\* v. \\* \\* TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n\n> 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\n\nAPPEARANCES:\n\nChapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nFor the Chapter 11 Trustee: AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ. LUYI SONG, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n> PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n\nProceedings 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\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. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 4 of\n\n| 139                                                            |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>4                             |\n| THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.<br>Are there any other           |\n| appearances we need to take for the record?                    |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, if I might?<br>My name is           |\n| Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. with the law firm of Day Pitney.<br>I'm |\n| here representing Ms. Guo in her individual capacity.<br>I'm   |\n| her criminal defense lawyer.                                   |\n| THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                  |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                     |\n| THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>I'm sorry.<br>I didn't hear           |\n| your last name.                                                |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>If I might approach, I'll give you my           |\n| card.<br>Would that be helpful?                                |\n| THE COURT:<br>That'd be helpful, Attorney Twardy.              |\n| Thank you.                                                     |\n| All right.<br>The matter on the calendar today is an           |\n| order to show -- to appear and show cause why Hudson Diamond   |\n| Holdings, LLC should not be held in contempt and requiring     |\n| Ms. Guo to appear and testify.<br>The order to show cause did  |\n| provide the opportunity for Ms. Guo to file a -- an            |\n| affidavit, which she did.<br>Or she filed a declaration,       |\n| actually, in response to the order to appear and show cause.   |\n| And I appreciate that that affidavit was filed, that           |\n| declaration was filed, because that -- that's complying with   |\n| the Court's order.                                             |\n|                                                                |\n|                                                                |\n\n|    | 139                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>5                           |\n| 1  | testimony, which I assume is going forward.<br>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?<br>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:<br>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.<br>But with Your  |\n| 10 | Honor's permission, you know, happy to proceed in presenting |\n| 11 | for the entity.                                              |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.<br>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:<br>Okay.<br>Correct.<br>Thank you, Your         |\n| 16 | Honor.                                                       |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>So then,                |\n| 18 | Ms. Wernick, you're -- you may proceed.<br>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.<br>Or did you |\n| 21 | all have a discussion where you're just going to start       |\n| 22 | cross-examination?<br>I don't know how you're going to       |\n| 23 | proceed.                                                     |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:<br>So it was our intent to submit her           |\n| 25 | declaration as her affirmative testimony.                    |\n|    |                                                              |\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. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 7 of\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? Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 8 of\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 9 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 9 cross-examination. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LUFT: Q Good afternoon, Ms. Guo. How are you? A (Via interpreter throughout) I'm very good. Thank you. Q Ms. Guo, you're the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, right? A Yes. Q And you've received the subpoena that the trustee issued in its Rule 2004 investigation to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? THE INTERPRETER: Can I have the date again? 2004? MR. LUFT: It's Rule 2004. It's not a date. THE INTERPRETER: Oh, Rule 2004. Okay. THE WITNESS: My attorney receive it. BY MR. LUFT: Q And he's provided it to you? A Yes. Q And you've reviewed it? A I did. Q And you understood it? A I understood. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 10 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 11<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>10                                             |\n| 1  | Q             | When did he provide it to you?                                                  |\n| 2  | A             | I couldn't recall.                                                              |\n| 3  | Q             | Try your best.<br>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.<br>What is the business of Hudson Diamond Holdings?                       |\n| 17 |               | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I would object and                                   |\n| 18 |               | instruct my client not to answer.<br>It goes beyond the scope                   |\n| 19 |               | of the declaration.                                                             |\n| 20 |               | THE COURT:<br>Hold on.<br>Oh, I'm sorry.                                        |\n| 21 |               | MR. TWARDY:<br>I'm sorry.                                                       |\n| 22 |               | THE COURT:<br>No, no.<br>That's all right.                                      |\n| 23 |               | Madam Interpreter, just give me one second.<br>Okay?                            |\n| 24 |               | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Sure.                                                       |\n| 25 |               | THE COURT:<br>But you're right.<br>You do need to say                           |\n|    |               |                                                                                 |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 11 so Ms. Guo understands what her counsel just said. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: Okay? So go right ahead. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. So the objection is that it goes beyond the scope of the -- MR. TWARDY: Declaration. THE COURT: -- of the declaration? MR. TWARDY: Declaration. THE COURT: But the declaration -- she's making the declaration as a -- not in her individual capacity but in her capacity as the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And that's what the order to show cause required. She's not testifying in her individual capacity at all. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, if I might? THE COURT: Yes. MR. TWARDY: Your order dated July 28th states at the last two sentences: \"During the continued hearing, Hudson Diamond Holding may seek to submit Ms. Guo's declaration as her direct testimony. Nevertheless, she must appear at the continued hearing and be available for cross-examination.\" My point is that the question that's being asked is beyond the scope of the declaration, which is what it was -- put in direct testimony. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 12 of 139\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 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 14<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>13                                                              |\n| 1  | disagree.<br>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:<br>Okay.<br>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.<br>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.<br>And Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC                                     |\n| 22 | is a recipient of that subpoena.<br>There's been, again, no                                      |\n| 23 | controversy over that.<br>It's been admitted, quite frankly,                                     |\n| 24 | in pleadings.                                                                                    |\n| 25 | And so your objection is overruled but noted for                                                 |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 15<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>14                                                              |\n| 1  | the record.                                                                                      |\n| 2  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, thank you.<br>I respect                                               |\n| 3  | your ruling.<br>As you know, I'm not counsel for Hudson                                          |\n| 4  | Holding.<br>I'm here as her criminal counsel.<br>Her father has                                  |\n| 5  | been indicated.<br>She has been told that her -- through the                                     |\n| 6  | U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York,                                     |\n| 7  | we learned that she's a subject of that same investigation.                                      |\n| 8  | And as such, I'm going to instruct her not -- to invoke the                                      |\n| 9  | fifth amendment and not answer the question.                                                     |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I understand, counsel.<br>Thank                                           |\n| 11 | you.                                                                                             |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.<br>I'll ask the same question.<br>If                                          |\n| 13 | she wants to invoke her fifth, she can.                                                          |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Well, Mr. Twardy, how do you want -- I                                             |\n| 15 | mean, he's going to have to create his record, regardless.                                       |\n| 16 | So I think she's going to -- if she's going to assert her                                        |\n| 17 | right against self-incrimination, I think she's going to                                         |\n| 18 | have to do it for every question he asks.<br>Because he's                                        |\n| 19 | going to -- he has the right to establish that record.                                           |\n| 20 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.<br>And that's                                             |\n| 21 | fine.<br>But I --                                                                                |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                              |\n| 23 | MR. TWARDY:<br>-- am going to instruct her --                                                    |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                                                      |\n| 25 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Thank you.                                                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | of 139                                                        |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>15                           |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.<br>So I don't know if your        |\n| 2  | client understands that yet, though.<br>So the interpreter -- |\n| 3  | you'll -- if you could explain -- if you could please state   |\n| 4  | for the record what Mr. Twardy just stated.                   |\n| 5  | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Your Honor, I already did a               |\n| 6  | simultaneous interpretation to her --                         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 8  | THE INTERPRETER:<br>-- just now during the                    |\n| 9  | conversation.<br>Probably we can ask a question whether she   |\n| 10 | understood what has transpired.                               |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So what Attorney Twardy is             |\n| 12 | saying is that -- well, I think you're going to say -- and    |\n| 13 | I'm going to ask you, unfortunately, again, because our       |\n| 14 | record is audio, that if a question is asked and you're       |\n| 15 | asking -- and you're instructing your client to assert her    |\n| 16 | right against fifth amendment -- her fifth amendment          |\n| 17 | privilege, then just if you would note that, and then the     |\n| 18 | interpreter can tell her that, and then she can respond.      |\n| 19 | Okay?                                                         |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:<br>So yes, Your Honor, but do I need             |\n| 21 | answer anything?                                              |\n| 22 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Yes.<br>If I might?<br>Yes, she should         |\n| 23 | answer.<br>She should say I invoke my fifth amendment right.  |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:<br>Thank you.<br>I invoke my fifth               |\n| 25 | amendment right.                                              |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 17<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>16                                                              |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                                |\n| 2  | Go ahead, Attorney Luft.                                                                         |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.<br>Should I ask that question again                                           |\n| 4  | or has she invoked it --                                                                         |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>I think that question's been asked and                                             |\n| 6  | answered, so I think you can move --                                                             |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.                                                                               |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>-- on to the next question.                                                        |\n| 9  | MR. LUFT:<br>And move on to the next one.<br>Okay.                                               |\n| 10 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Q<br>What are the assets of Hudson Diamond Holdings?                                             |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, go ahead.<br>I'm sorry.<br>We'll have                                          |\n| 13 | the interpreter interpret the question, and then we'll take                                      |\n| 14 | the answer.                                                                                      |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:<br>I would instruct my client to invoke                                              |\n| 16 | her fifth amendment right.                                                                       |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:<br>I will invoke my fifth amendment                                                 |\n| 18 | right.                                                                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                         |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, if I may?<br>I'd like to mark                                           |\n| 21 | and introduce into evidence a copy of the subpoena we served                                     |\n| 22 | to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC.<br>It has previously been                                       |\n| 23 | marked in this case as Docket Number 1116-2 Exhibit C-37.                                        |\n| 24 | And I'd -- if I could hand a copy to the witness.                                                |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Well, make sure client --                                                          |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 18 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55                | Filed 10/26/23<br>of 139      | Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12                                | Page 19   |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 20 of 139\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55 | Filed 10/26/23 | Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 | Page 21 |\n|---------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------|---------|\n|---------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------|---------|\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>20                            |\n| 1  | MR. TWARDY:<br>-- as opposed to the company.                   |\n| 2  | MR. LUFT:<br>She's here in her corporate capacity.             |\n| 3  | She's the sole member of the entity.<br>I don't understand     |\n| 4  | this -- and she was ordered personally to appear on behalf     |\n| 5  | of Hudson Diamond Holdings.<br>I don't understand the -- does  |\n| 6  | he want me to refer to her as Hudson Diamond Holdings?         |\n| 7  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Yes, please.                                    |\n| 8  | MR. LUFT:<br>I mean, this is insane, Your Honor.               |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I think we'll -- let's just --             |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:<br>A person is the sole member.                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Let's just proceed, and we'll -- we              |\n| 12 | will clarify for the record.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I don't know if the word \"related\" was in       |\n| 24 | there.                                                         |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>Nope.<br>It just says its affiliates,             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 21 divisions, agencies, instrumentalities, departments, officers, partners, officers again -- that's a typo -- directors, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, or anyone acting on its behalf is the definition. THE COURT: So I -- while I understand and appreciate your concern, I do think that he has established through testimony that any question he's asking is in the -- is Ms. Guo in her corporate capacity as the managing member. And that's certainly the way the Court is viewing it. I don't know if that's helpful to you. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, it is. I was just about to say I'm not trying to be difficult. I just need to protect Ms. Guo's -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. TWARDY: -- individual rights. So as long as we all understand that if Mr. Luft uses the word \"your,\" it's referring to the definition of your that's contained in the subpoena, with that -- THE COURT: That's correct. MR. TWARDY: -- then I will not have to -- THE COURT: That's correct. MR. TWARDY: -- be jumping up and down. THE COURT: And I believe that's why he asked the question about the definition on page 7. I don't know that -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 22 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 23<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>22                                                              |\n| 1  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Yeah.                                                                             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>-- 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.<br>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.<br>And we can                                         |\n| 10 | continue.                                                                                        |\n| 11 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                            |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                         |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.                                                                               |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 15 | Q<br>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<br>I see it.                                                                                   |\n| 23 | Q<br>And you understood from number 16 that you were                                             |\n| 24 | required to produce copies of your tax returns, correct?                                         |\n| 25 | A<br>Yes, I see it.                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 24<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>Ms. Guo, why was Hudson Diamond Holdings                               |\n| 25 | created?      |                                                                                 |\n|    |               |                                                                                 |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 25<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>24                                                              |\n| 1  | MR. TWARDY:<br>I'm going to instruct my client to                                                |\n| 2  | invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                                |\n| 3  | THE WITNESS:<br>I invoke my fifth amendment right.                                               |\n| 4  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 5  | Q<br>Ms. Guo, how did you become the sole member of Hudson                                       |\n| 6  | Diamond Holdings?                                                                                |\n| 7  | MR. TWARDY:<br>I am going to instruct my client to                                               |\n| 8  | invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                                |\n| 9  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 10 | Q<br>Your father, the debtor --                                                                  |\n| 11 | A<br>I will invoke my fifth amendment right.                                                     |\n| 12 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Sorry.                                                                             |\n| 13 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Thank you, sir.                                                              |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 15 | Q<br>Your father, the debtor, installed you as the nominal                                       |\n| 16 | named sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, correct?                                           |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 18 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:<br>I will invoke my fifth amendment                                                 |\n| 20 | right.                                                                                           |\n| 21 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 22 | Q<br>In fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings was created at your                                        |\n| 23 | father's direction, wasn't it?                                                                   |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 26 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 27 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 28<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>27                                                              |\n| 1  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 2  | Q<br>In fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings solely owns Hudson                                         |\n| 3  | Diamond New York, correct?                                                                       |\n| 4  | MR. TWARDY:<br>I'm going to instruct -- Your Honor,                                              |\n| 5  | with all due respect, I'm going to instruct my client invoke                                     |\n| 6  | her fifth amendment right.                                                                       |\n| 7  | THE WITNESS:<br>I will invoke my fifth amendment                                                 |\n| 8  | right.                                                                                           |\n| 9  | (Counsel confer)                                                                                 |\n| 10 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Q<br>Okay, Ms. Guo.<br>You are the sole member of Hudson                                         |\n| 12 | Diamond Holdings, LLC, correct?                                                                  |\n| 13 | A<br>Correct.                                                                                    |\n| 14 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Quick question.                                                         |\n| 15 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Your Honor, if I might?                                                 |\n| 16 | Yep.                                                                                             |\n| 17 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Oh, sorry.<br>Go ahead.                                                 |\n| 18 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>No, no.<br>You.                                                         |\n| 19 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>So --                                                                   |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Wait a minute.<br>Excuse me, sir.                                                  |\n| 21 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>I'm the Czech interpreter.                                              |\n| 22 | Sorry.<br>I think the --                                                                         |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Wait a minute.<br>You're the what?                                                 |\n| 24 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>I'm the Czech interpreter.                                              |\n| 25 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Czech interpreter.                                                      |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 29 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 30 of 139\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 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 32 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 33<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>32                                                              |\n| 1  | relate to Hudson Diamond, LLC.                                                                   |\n| 2  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Well --                                                                           |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>Understood, Your Honor.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.\"<br>And I --                                    |\n| 23 | that was inartful of me.<br>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.<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 34 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 34 not having someone talk on the record who's not a lawyer, who hasn't been sworn in, and who doesn't have an appearance and isn't bound by Rule 11. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: Understood. And I reiterate my apology for that, because that is on me. THE COURT: Okay. Then that's how we're going to proceed. Attorney Wernick's going to interpose objections on behalf of the LLC. Attorney Twardy is going to interpose objections on behalf of his client in her individual capacity. If there's a overlap, then I'm sure Attorney Luft will raise an objection, and then I'll have to make some form of a ruling. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, might we just consult for one brief moment? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. TWARDY: I think it will help expedite things. (Counsel confer) THE COURT: Do either of you need water? There's water at the table. THE WITNESS: I'm fine. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Do you need one? You might Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 35 of 139\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 36 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 37<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>36                                                              |\n| 1  | question again and see where we end up.<br>How's that?                                           |\n| 2  | MR. LUFT:<br>Fine.                                                                               |\n| 3  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 4  | Q<br>Ms. Guo, you are the sole member of Hudson Diamond                                          |\n| 5  | Holdings, LLC, correct?                                                                          |\n| 6  | A<br>Yes.                                                                                        |\n| 7  | Q<br>And Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the sole member of                                      |\n| 8  | Hudson Diamond New York, right?                                                                  |\n| 9  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to -- oh, I'm                                               |\n| 10 | sorry.                                                                                           |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Just hold on one second.                                                           |\n| 12 | MR. TWARDY:<br>I --                                                                              |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Is there any objection with regard to                                              |\n| 14 | the use of the word again or the translation?                                                    |\n| 15 | MS. WERNICK:<br>So correct, Your Honor.<br>And so, you                                           |\n| 16 | know, this is beyond me certainly.<br>But I understand that                                      |\n| 17 | the word \"member\" that Mr. Luft used has been translated as                                      |\n| 18 | holder, and that's the distinction that the translator would                                     |\n| 19 | like to make.                                                                                    |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Hold on just one second then.                                             |\n| 21 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Sole member is a holder --                                              |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Let's see if we can accomplish                                                     |\n| 23 | something.                                                                                       |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>It's a holding.<br>Yeah.                                                     |\n| 25 | (Counsel confer)                                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 37 THE COURT: All right. The interpreter is saying the word is the same in Mandarin Chinese, a holder and member are the same. (Counsel confer) MS. WERNICK: Okay. Again, you know, this is far beyond my knowledge, but I understand that there's a word for member in Mandarin Chinese that could be used. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Which is what? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible). THE COURT: Well, I will just say if we're going to go further with regard to interpretation issues, then we're going to have to swear in your interpreter. I need all of the interpreter's name, address, qualifications, everything. It's that -- I mean, we're going to do that if that's going to continue. But what's your suggestion, Attorney Luft? MR. LUFT: My suggestion, Your Honor, is I -- she signed a sworn declaration in which she multiple times refers to herself as the sole member. I didn't -- whatever is -- I think she probably did it in English, because I know she speaks English. But if it was in Chinese, then whatever was the word in Chinese I'm happy to use. But she -- this is her word, so I'm not making it up. THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, the -- THE COURT: No one suggested you were making it Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 38 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 39<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>38                                             |\n| 1  | up.           |                                                                                 |\n| 2  |               | MR. LUFT:<br>Right.<br>I'm just saying we should know                           |\n| 3  |               | what the word is.<br>So maybe we start with whether she read                    |\n| 4  |               | this in English and understood it.<br>And if she did, I don't                   |\n| 5  |               | understand why we're --                                                         |\n| 6  |               | THE COURT:<br>Well, why don't you ask that question.                            |\n| 7  |               | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Your Honor, can the interpreter                             |\n| 8  |               | re-render her interpretation?                                                   |\n| 9  |               | THE COURT:<br>Sure.                                                             |\n| 10 |               | THE WITNESS:<br>Yes.                                                            |\n| 11 |               | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.<br>Why don't we just do this                                 |\n| 12 |               | anyway, so we resolve this.<br>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:<br>Go right ahead.                                                   |\n| 16 |               | MR. LUFT:<br>And may I approach?                                                |\n| 17 |               | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                                     |\n| 18 |               | THE WITNESS:<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 40 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 40 BY MR. LUFT: Q You can answer. A Two of my attorneys, Louisa and Lee. Melissa and Lee. Q Melissa and Lee. Do you know if Ms. Wernick and Mr. Vartan speak Mandarin? A They don't. Q What language do you speak to them in? A English. Q And when you signed your declaration, you reviewed it -- this document in English? A Correct. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, I'd like to mark this as Trustee Exhibit 2. And I forgot to move Exhibit 1 into evidence. I'll ask that 1 and 2 -- THE COURT: I actually -- you did move Exhibit 1 into evidence, and I admitted it in full, because Attorney Wernick said she had no objection to its admission. Do you have any objection, Attorney Wernick, with regard to the admission of the declaration as Trustee's Exhibit 2? MS. WERNICK: No, Your Honor. And I think, you know, we've admitted that as our direct, so. Right. THE COURT: Thank you. You didn't actually admit it, but it's fine. Now it's -- it's now Trustee's 2. Okay? Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 41 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 42<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>41                                                              |\n| 1  | (Trustee's Exhibit 2 admitted)                                                                   |\n| 2  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 3  | Q<br>So I will try to ask my question again.<br>I'm going to                                     |\n| 4  | use the word \"sole member\" the way it was -- in it's English                                     |\n| 5  | term and how it's used in the declaration.<br>Okay?<br>Ms. Guo,                                  |\n| 6  | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the sole member of Hudson                                        |\n| 7  | Diamond New York, correct?                                                                       |\n| 8  | MR. TWARDY:<br>I am going to instruct, Your Honor,                                               |\n| 9  | my client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                   |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:<br>I invoke my fifth amendment right.                                               |\n| 11 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 12 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Ms. Guo, you have signed corporate documents on                                    |\n| 13 | behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, correct?                                                      |\n| 14 | MR. TWARDY:<br>I am going to instruct my client to                                               |\n| 15 | invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                                |\n| 16 | MS. WERNICK:<br>And, Your Honor, on behalf of the                                                |\n| 17 | entity, I would just repeat the objection along the line of                                      |\n| 18 | questioning relating to Hudson Diamond New York.                                                 |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Meaning you think it's beyond the                                                  |\n| 20 | scope?                                                                                           |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:<br>Yeah.<br>Beyond the scope of this                                                |\n| 22 | motion.                                                                                          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.                                                                         |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:<br>I invoke my fifth amendment right.                                               |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'd like to show the                                                    |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 43<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>May I show it to the witness?                                                      |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                                                      |\n| 6  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 7  | Q<br>Ms. Guo, do you recognize this document?                                                    |\n| 8  | MR. TWARDY:<br>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:<br>I invoke my fifth amendment right.                                               |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to have to raise                                              |\n| 12 | an objection to this.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I know is what they discussed.                                                         |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>What declaration?<br>Attorney Twardy may                                           |\n| 21 | not have seen it.<br>But that -- I'm --                                                          |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>It's the July --                                                                    |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I just want to know what you're                                                    |\n| 24 | referring to.                                                                                    |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>Correct, Your Honor.<br>It's at Docket                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 44<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>43                                                              |\n| 1  | 1988 filed on July 7, 2023.<br>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:<br>Attorney Twardy, would you like us to                                              |\n| 5  | pull up that declaration for you to look?<br>We can pull it                                      |\n| 6  | right up so you can see it.                                                                      |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>And specifically paragraph 13 is the                                                |\n| 8  | one I was referencing.                                                                           |\n| 9  | MR. TWARDY:<br>I will look over counsel's shoulder.                                              |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>What is it again, Attorney Luft?                                                   |\n| 11 | What's the ECF number?                                                                           |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:<br>It is 1988, Your Honor.                                                             |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>1988?<br>And you're looking at what                                                |\n| 14 | paragraph?                                                                                       |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:<br>13, Your Honor, is the one I believe                                                |\n| 16 | discusses this exhibit.                                                                          |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, here -- I am here, as                                                 |\n| 18 | Your Honor has indicated, as counsel for Ms. Guo.<br>What                                        |\n| 19 | Mr. Romney did in some document is up to Mr. Luft to deal                                        |\n| 20 | with Mr. Romney.<br>I'm instructing my client not to -- to                                       |\n| 21 | invoke the fifth amendment rights.                                                               |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>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\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 45<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>44                                                              |\n| 1  | Diamond, LLC.<br>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.<br>Mr. Romney                                     |\n| 5  | put information to the Court about what Ms. Guo would say in                                     |\n| 6  | his declaration.<br>That's how they chose to submit it.<br>I                                     |\n| 7  | don't think they can hide behind Mr. Romney now.                                                 |\n| 8  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, we're not hiding behind                                               |\n| 9  | anybody.<br>I'm just instructing her to invoke her fifth                                         |\n| 10 | amendment right.                                                                                 |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>I don't think it can be selectively                                                 |\n| 12 | invoked that way, Your Honor.                                                                    |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Well, that -- whether you can or                                                   |\n| 14 | cannot is not something the Court is going to rule on today.                                     |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:<br>Fair enough, Your Honor.                                                            |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>He's instructing his client to                                            |\n| 17 | invoke the fifth amendment privilege against                                                     |\n| 18 | self-incrimination.<br>You'll just create your record.                                           |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:<br>Fair enough.                                                                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>I think that's what you have to do.                                                |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay, Your Honor.<br>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:<br>I understand your objection.                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 46<br>of 139 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>45                                                              |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                              |\n| THE COURT:<br>And I'm not ruling on that objection                                               |\n| today.<br>Mr. Twardy has instructed his client not to answer                                     |\n| the question.                                                                                    |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>I understand.                                                                       |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, just for completeness,                                                |\n| what they -- and Mr. Luft referred to they.<br>That's counsel                                    |\n| for Hudson Valley Holdings.<br>I'm counsel for her, and I'm                                      |\n| instructing her as herself to invoke the fifth amendment.                                        |\n| What they did I don't care about, with all due respect.                                          |\n| THE COURT:<br>I understand that.<br>But,                                                         |\n| unfortunately, it does impact what goes on in this case as a                                     |\n| whole, Attorney Twardy.                                                                          |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Understood.                                                                       |\n| THE COURT:<br>So I understand your -- I understand                                               |\n| your statement, but there -- it may have different                                               |\n| ramifications for the case as a whole.                                                           |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.                                             |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, may I move what I'd like to                                             |\n| mark as Trustee Exhibit 3 into evidence?                                                         |\n| THE COURT:<br>Which is the --                                                                    |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Which is the document before -- the                                                 |\n| Hudson Diamond New York, LLC --                                                                  |\n| THE COURT:<br>Which was attached to Attorney                                                     |\n| Romney's declaration.                                                                            |\n|                                                                                                  |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 47 of 139\n\n| of 139<br>Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>47<br>THE COURT:<br>Mr. Romney's affidavit for -- in<br>support of his motion to withdraw supports that they're<br>related. |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|                                                                                                                                                                        |\n|                                                                                                                                                                        |\n|                                                                                                                                                                        |\n|                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| MS. WERNICK:<br>Oh, I think, actually, the                                                                                                                             |\n| submission by Mr. Romney supports the fact that they are not                                                                                                           |\n| affiliated entities.                                                                                                                                                   |\n| THE COURT:<br>No.<br>His declaration says he didn't --                                                                                                                 |\n| he thought he was retained, but he wasn't.<br>It doesn't say                                                                                                           |\n| that they're not affiliated.<br>It says that --                                                                                                                        |\n| MS. WERNICK:<br>Well, I think --                                                                                                                                       |\n| THE COURT:<br>It says that he believed he was                                                                                                                          |\n| retained by someone of authority who had the authority to                                                                                                              |\n| retain him who didn't.<br>That's what your affidavit says.                                                                                                             |\n| Isn't your motion to withdraw completely based on that,                                                                                                                |\n| Mr. Romney, that you believed that you were retained to act                                                                                                            |\n| on behalf of the New York entity, and then you found out                                                                                                               |\n| later that you didn't have -- that the person who retained                                                                                                             |\n| you didn't have authority to retain you on behalf of New                                                                                                               |\n| York -- the New York entity?<br>Isn't that what it says?                                                                                                               |\n| MR. ROMNEY:<br>That I was informed by the general                                                                                                                      |\n| counsel of Hodgson Russ that based on their records, the                                                                                                               |\n| individual who had retained me on behalf of Hudson Diamond                                                                                                             |\n| New York, who I previously testified was Ms. Guo, did not                                                                                                              |\n| have the authority to retain me.<br>And on that basis, I was                                                                                                           |\n| going -- I was moving to withdraw.                                                                                                                                     |\n|                                                                                                                                                                        |\n\n|    | of 139                                                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>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:<br>U.S. Trustee's Office.                         |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I apologize.                                  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>That's okay.                                   |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>U.S. Trustee's Office.<br>Thank you,          |\n| 15 | Your Honor.<br>And this declaration was Aaron Romney's       |\n| 16 | statement under penalty of perjury designed to --            |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>No, I understand.<br>I --                      |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>-- 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:<br>I understand.                                  |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead, Attorney Luft.                       |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>I sought to           |\n| 25 | move Trustee Exhibit 3 into evidence.                        |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 50<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>49                                                              |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Any opposition to the admission of                                                 |\n| 2  | Exhibit 3 into evidence?                                                                         |\n| 3  | MS. WERNICK:<br>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:<br>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?<br>Or maybe it's                                    |\n| 12 | the other way around.<br>But there's documents in the record                                     |\n| 13 | of this case, counsel.                                                                           |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:<br>There's --                                                                       |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>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?<br>That's                                      |\n| 20 | your argument?                                                                                   |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:<br>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:<br>The declaration isn't before the Court                                             |\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>50                            |\n| 1  | today.<br>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.<br>That's what's before the Court today.<br>And the |\n| 5  | documents that have been produced in this case establish       |\n| 6  | that there's a relationship between the two entities.<br>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?<br>Okay.<br>Overruled. |\n| 10 | (Trustee's Exhibit 3 admitted)                                 |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead, Mr. Luft.                              |\n| 13 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                   |\n| 14 | Q<br>Ms. Guo, if you could look at Trustee Exhibit 3.<br>Do    |\n| 15 | you see on the top it says, \"Hudson Diamond New York, LLC      |\n| 16 | consent of sole member without a meeting\"?<br>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.\"<br>And it says, \"Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC by Mei Guo |\n| 20 | as sole member.\"<br>Do you see that?                           |\n| 21 | A<br>Yes.                                                      |\n| 22 | Q<br>And that's your signature there, correct?                 |\n| 23 | A<br>Correct.                                                  |\n| 24 | Q<br>Okay.<br>And Ms. Guo, you retained Mr. Romney and         |\n| 25 | Mr. Vartan to act as counsel for Hudson Diamond New York,      |\n|    |                                                                |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 52 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 53 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 54<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>53                                                              |\n| 1  | bank dated for the period of July 1, 2019, through July 31,                                      |\n| 2  | 2019.<br>There is a Bates stamp of Cap1Kwok0000049.<br>It has                                    |\n| 3  | been marked confidential.<br>So I don't know -- so for the                                       |\n| 4  | record, we should mark it that -- note that.<br>But                                              |\n| 5  | otherwise --                                                                                     |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I haven't seen whatever you're                                            |\n| 7  | looking at, so that's fine.                                                                      |\n| 8  | MR. LUFT:<br>I understand, Your Honor.                                                           |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.<br>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:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                                                    |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So then the protective order                                              |\n| 15 | allows certain attorneys and parties to look at confidential                                     |\n| 16 | documents, correct?                                                                              |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                                                                |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Has Attorney -- have Attorney Wernick                                              |\n| 19 | and Romney and Vartan seen this document before?                                                 |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>I'm about to show it to them now.                                                   |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>They've never seen this document?                                                  |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>I don't know if they've seen it                                                     |\n| 23 | otherwise.                                                                                       |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Well --                                                                            |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>It's from their client's records.                                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 54 THE COURT: -- not through the production process? MR. LUFT: No, I have not shown it to them beforehand. THE COURT: Okay. Has Attorney Twardy seen this document through the production process? MR. LUFT: I've never met Mr. Twardy before today. THE COURT: Okay. Then he -- then you probably haven't given it to him. MR. LUFT: Correct. THE COURT: Let me think for a second now. It's confidential. So we have to determine how -- but you have to be able to show the lawyers the document and maintain its confidentiality. MR. LUFT: Right. THE COURT: So how are we going to do that? MR. LUFT: So, Your Honor, I don't know if Mr. Twardy has ever signed a protective order. I know Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney and Ms. Wernick have. So they can see it. Again, Mr. Twardy, have you ever signed the protective order? MR. TWARDY: I have not. MR. LUFT: We could give him a copy. He can review it. THE COURT: One of the ways we could proceed with Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 55 of 139\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>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 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 56 MR. LUFT: Let me check if there are -- that may be the bulk of them, Your Honor. I can do a double check, but I think so. There are some emails that they don't appear to have. THE COURT: Is there any -- are there questions that you can ask and we can address that -- these documents at the end? Or if not, that's fine. Then I would like to take a short recess and consider how to -- I haven't looked at the protective order recently. I'd have to go back and read the protective order, right? MR. LUFT: That's totally fine, Your Honor. I can move this to the end, but I would like to ask the witness about the documents. THE COURT: That's fine. Then let's move on, and we'll come back to this area. MR. LUFT: Okay. THE COURT: Any documents that are subject to the protective order. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor, if it helps the Court in her -- your deliberations, I will instruct -- I'm going to instruct Ms. Guo to invoke her fifth as with regard to these documents. THE COURT: I understand. MR. TWARDY: Okay. THE COURT: Unfortunately, Attorney Twardy, he's Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 57 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 58 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 58 go ahead and object, but there was no objection raised that -- with regard to the subpoena there's no protective order, no motion to quash, no nothing. With regard to the issues and the evidence that was sought through that subpoena. So I would like to note that for the record. MS. WERNICK: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, for the record, just -- and I know it's been a while, but the stipulation that was entered into verbally in court between Attorney Luft and I on behalf of our respective clients and then submitted in writing and so ordered by the Court did specifically preserve the right of the Hudson Diamond entities to assert privilege. THE COURT: Yeah. To assert privilege. But you didn't object to any specific document requests that said it went beyond the attorney/client privilege. You didn't do that. MR. ROMNEY: No. Correct. THE COURT: You didn't do that. MR. ROMNEY: The objection was to a question phrased, not a document request. MS. WERNICK: Correct. MR. ROMNEY: That's -- THE COURT: That's fine. I'm still overruling it. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 59 of 139\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nMR. TWARDY: Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 60 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 61 of 139\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 62 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 63 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 63 THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Q Ms. Guo, you had conversations with Attorney Romney regarding a Rolls Royce held -- owned by Hudson Diamond New York, correct? MS. WERNICK: Objection, Your Honor. Again, this is attorney/client communications. THE COURT: Oh, go ahead. And then I'm going to respond to Attorney Wernick when you're done. Okay. With regard to your objection, you have -- you continue to assert attorney/client privilege objections. And I'm looking at Ms. Guo's declaration that you put in as direct testimony. And in that direct testimony she talks about specifically talking with you, Attorney Romney, and Attorney Vartan about several things, including Capital One, including you being with her when she made a phone call to try to get Mr. Krasner. There's nothing in her declaration about trying to attempt to contact Ms. Wang. So your client's already waived the attorney/client privilege with regard to the issues that are in her declaration, because she's already stated that she's had these conversations with you and with Mr. Romney and with Mr. Vartan. So I overrule your objection. MS. WERNICK: All right. And just respectfully, Your Honor, I would just note that the direct question posed Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 64 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 65<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>64                                                              |\n| 1  | to Ms. Guo is not addressed in her declaration, and I would                                      |\n| 2  | maintain --                                                                                      |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Well, but it is.<br>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.<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I think it's my turn to                                               |\n| 11 | tell my client to invoke the fifth amendment.                                                    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Go right ahead.                                                                    |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 15 | Q<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 19 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:<br>And,<br>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<br>Where is that Rolls-Royce now?                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 66<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>65                                                              |\n| 1  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 2  | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 3  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 4  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 5  | Q<br>In fact, that Rolls-Royce is an asset of your father's                                      |\n| 6  | correct?                                                                                         |\n| 7  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 8  | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 9  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 10 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Q<br>Hudson Diamond has also been involved in attempting to                                      |\n| 12 | purchase real estate, correct?<br>Sorry.<br>Hudson Diamond New                                   |\n| 13 | York.<br>I apologize.                                                                            |\n| 14 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 15 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 17 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 18 | Q<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 22 | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 24 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 25 | Q<br>Hudson Diamond has sought to purchase multiple                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 67<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>66                                                              |\n| 1  | properties over the past few years, correct?                                                     |\n| 2  | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Hudson Diamond New York, right,                                              |\n| 3  | sir?                                                                                             |\n| 4  | MR. LUFT:<br>Hudson Diamond New York.<br>We can --                                               |\n| 5  | we'll ask both of them.                                                                          |\n| 6  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 7  | Q<br>Hudson Diamond New York?                                                                    |\n| 8  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 9  | client to invoke the fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'd like to provisionally                                               |\n| 12 | mark as Trustee Exhibit 4 a document with the Bates stamp                                        |\n| 13 | GREE002323.<br>It is a Caldwell Banker exclusive right to                                        |\n| 14 | represent the buyer form.<br>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:<br>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:<br>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.<br>But I -- again, I don't know what this                                     |\n| 22 | relates to.<br>And as I said, we haven't seen it before.                                         |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Well, didn't you just say -- just                                                  |\n| 24 | tell -- what -- it's a listing agreement between Caldwell                                        |\n| 25 | Banker and whom?                                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 68 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 69 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 70<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>69                                                              |\n| 1  | see under buyer it says Hudson Diamond on the front page?                                        |\n| 2  | A<br>Yes.                                                                                        |\n| 3  | Q<br>Do you see on the back page under the signature it says                                     |\n| 4  | print name, Hudson Diamond?                                                                      |\n| 5  | A<br>I see it.                                                                                   |\n| 6  | Q<br>And that's the -- above it, it's the signature of                                           |\n| 7  | Ms. Yvette Wang, correct?                                                                        |\n| 8  | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 9  | client to not -- invoke her fifth amendment right.                                               |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>We'll renew our objection, Your Honor,                                              |\n| 12 | for the same grounds.                                                                            |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>You just need to -- I just barely                                                  |\n| 14 | heard you, Attorney Luft.<br>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:<br>Of course, Your Honor.<br>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:<br>Your Honor, if I might just for the                                               |\n| 23 | record?<br>They, Hudson Diamond, cannot waive Ms. Guo's                                          |\n| 24 | personal fifth amendment right.<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 71 of 139\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>71                            |\n| 1  | We have testimony that Hudson Diamond Holdings is owned by     |\n| 2  | Ms. Guo.<br>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.<br>To the extent they want to    |\n| 5  | assert the fifth, then they -- that's their right.<br>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.<br>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:<br>Your Honor, the document relates               |\n| 11 | to -- I can't even tell what entity it relates to.<br>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:<br>Your Honor, it says in two places                 |\n| 18 | Hudson Diamond.<br>Of course it says who it relates to.        |\n| 19 | MS. WERNICK:<br>I don't -- I'm --                              |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>It says it on the front and the back.             |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a minute, Attorney Wernick.              |\n| 22 | Go ahead, Mr. Luft.                                            |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 73 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 74<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>73                                                              |\n| 1  | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 2  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 3  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 4  | Q<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 8  | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 9  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 10 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Q<br>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:<br>I just object.<br>It's a compound                                                |\n| 16 | question.                                                                                        |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm -- well --                                                        |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                                                          |\n| 19 | MR. TWARDY:<br>I'm sorry.<br>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:<br>I wasn't going to say anything, so you                                             |\n| 23 | go right ahead.                                                                                  |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Okay.<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 75 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 76<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>75                                                              |\n| 1  | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC entail?                                                             |\n| 2  | A<br>I do not understand this question.                                                          |\n| 3  | Q<br>Okay.<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 7  | client to invoke her fifth amendment right.                                                      |\n| 8  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor --                                                                       |\n| 9  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:<br>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<br>What actions have you taken as the record custodian for                                     |\n| 17 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC?                                                                    |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:<br>I would just object and ask if you                                               |\n| 19 | could ask a more specific question.                                                              |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.<br>The -- overruled.<br>The                                             |\n| 21 | question was fine.<br>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.<br>That's a new one.                                                |\n| 24 | MS. WERNICK:<br>Respectfully, Your Honor, I was just                                             |\n| 25 | objecting that it was vague and ambiguous.                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 77 of 139\n\n|    | of 139                                                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>77                          |\n| 1  | THE WITNESS:<br>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<br>Have you ever taken any other actions as the record     |\n| 5  | custodian for Hudson Diamond, LLC?                           |\n| 6  | MR. TWARDY:<br>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:<br>Fifth amendment.                             |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, we'll renew our objection           |\n| 12 | on the same grounds.                                         |\n| 13 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                 |\n| 14 | Q<br>What computer did you search?                           |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my          |\n| 16 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights.                 |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                             |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'll renew it.<br>The witness       |\n| 19 | literally just offered that testimony.<br>I'm just asking a  |\n| 20 | follow-up question.                                          |\n| 21 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                 |\n| 22 | Q<br>What accounts did you search?                           |\n| 23 | A<br>Email account.                                          |\n| 24 | Q<br>Which email account?                                    |\n| 25 | MR. TWARDY:<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 79 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 80<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>79                                                              |\n| 1  | regard to -- at least to this email account.<br>Or I can                                         |\n| 2  | renew -- do it each time.                                                                        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I think we need to do it each time,                                                |\n| 4  | counsel.                                                                                         |\n| 5  | MR. LUFT:<br>Fair enough, Your Honor.<br>To this                                                 |\n| 6  | question and as to the last, I impose an objection as to                                         |\n| 7  | improper assertion of the fifth amendment given that the                                         |\n| 8  | witness is openly testifying on this topic when she thinks                                       |\n| 9  | it's to her advantage.                                                                           |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I assume you're going to file                                                |\n| 11 | some document after today that's going to point out all of                                       |\n| 12 | these assertions, and then you can site to the law which                                         |\n| 13 | talks about the improper -- which would -- law -- and there                                      |\n| 14 | is case law in the bankruptcy court that talks about                                             |\n| 15 | improper assertions of fifth amendment when specific                                             |\n| 16 | questions are asked that have already been made the subject                                      |\n| 17 | of testimony by the person who is invoking that privilege.                                       |\n| 18 | And the Court will entertain that when and if it's filed.                                        |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>I'll keep                                                 |\n| 20 | moving on then.                                                                                  |\n| 21 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 22 | Q<br>When did you search your email account?                                                     |\n| 23 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 24 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights.                                                     |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 81 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 82<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>81                                                              |\n| 1  | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights.                                                     |\n| 2  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Same objection.                                                                     |\n| 4  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 5  | Q<br>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:<br>Counsel, can I have the name?                                                |\n| 10 | Mr. Krasner?                                                                                     |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>Krasner correct.                                                                    |\n| 12 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Krasner.<br>Okay.                                                            |\n| 13 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 14 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights.                                                     |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 17 | Q<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 22 | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights.                                                     |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>Same objection, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| 25 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n|    |                                                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 83<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>82                                                              |\n| 1  | Q<br>Okay.<br>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.<br>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:<br>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:<br>Objection overruled.                                                               |\n| 12 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                              |\n| 13 | client to invoke her fifth amendment.                                                            |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.<br>We'll move on.                                                             |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 17 | Q<br>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<br>Correct.                                                                                    |\n| 20 | Q<br>Okay.<br>And you believe everything in there is true and                                    |\n| 21 | accurate?                                                                                        |\n| 22 | A<br>Correct.                                                                                    |\n| 23 | Q<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 84 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 85 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 86<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>85                                             |\n| 1  |               | Honor, on this issue.<br>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:<br>I understand.                                                     |\n| 5  |               | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                             |\n| 6  |               | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                    |\n| 7  | Q             | Okay.<br>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 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 87<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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:<br>Counsel, here's a copy of the                                      |\n| 17 |               | deposition transcript.<br>If Your Honor would like, I'd --                      |\n| 18 |               | happy to hand one up to the Court.                                              |\n| 19 |               | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>And, Your Honor, we would just                                  |\n| 23 |               | object to this as being beyond the scope of this proceeding.                    |\n| 24 |               | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, this is impeachment.                                   |\n| 25 |               | THE COURT:<br>Objection overruled.                                              |\n|    |               |                                                                                 |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 88<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>87                                                              |\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>May I approach the witness?                                                         |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                               |\n| 3  | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Thank you.                                                                   |\n| 4  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 5  | Q<br>Ms. Guo, can you turn to page 146 of your deposition                                        |\n| 6  | transcript?<br>And, Ms. Guo, I took your deposition on                                           |\n| 7  | January 20, 2023, correct?                                                                       |\n| 8  | A<br>I don't remember the specific dates.                                                        |\n| 9  | Q<br>Okay.<br>If you want to look on the front page, this --                                     |\n| 10 | do you see it says Friday, January 20, 2023?<br>Does that                                        |\n| 11 | refresh your recollection that's when I took your                                                |\n| 12 | deposition?                                                                                      |\n| 13 | A<br>Okay.<br>I see it.                                                                          |\n| 14 | Q<br>Okay.<br>I'm going to ask you to look at line 7 and line                                    |\n| 15 | 8.<br>Question: \"Do you have Max Krasner's phone number?\"                                        |\n| 16 | Answer: \"No.\"                                                                                    |\n| 17 | Q<br>Did I read that correctly?                                                                  |\n| 18 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct her                                             |\n| 19 | to invoke the fifth amendment.                                                                   |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to object.                                                    |\n| 22 | That's improper instruction on the fifth.                                                        |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                                                      |\n| 24 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 25 | Q<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 89 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 89 answer the question with regard to Hudson Diamonds New York. She can answer the question as regard to her attempts with Ms. Wang for Hudson Diamond Holding. THE COURT: Well, hold on a second. I'm sorry. Go ahead. So, Mr. Twardy, your objection is going to her position as a corporate -- a person, not with regard to her individual rights. You don't care -- you've told me you don't care about the entities. But now you tell me you do care about the entities. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor -- THE COURT: So I think that that's not appropriate. If you want to instruct her to answer not -- because you're concerned about her individual prosecution, that's a different situation. But you're now taking over the role that Attorney Wernick said she was going to take, which was you've now made a line in the sand about corporate entities which you've told the Court and everyone on several occasions you don't care about. But now you do care about it. MR. TWARDY: I do care about -- THE COURT: So -- MR. TWARDY: I do care about it, Your Honor, with regard to Ms. Guo. And this one asked a question about what she did with regard -- on behalf of Hudson Holdings as well. Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 90 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 91 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 92 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 93<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>92                                                              |\n| 1  | capacity who then gets to assert the privilege with regard                                       |\n| 2  | to corporate issues.<br>That doesn't make any sense to me,                                       |\n| 3  | Attorney Twardy.                                                                                 |\n| 4  | MR. TWARDY:<br>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:<br>Sorry?                                                                       |\n| 8  | MR. LUFT:<br>He instructed her to take the fifth.                                                |\n| 9  | You have to give her the instruction.<br>She knows, but -- and                                   |\n| 10 | then she will --                                                                                 |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                 |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:<br>We'll make the same objection, Your                                                 |\n| 13 | Honor.                                                                                           |\n| 14 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                     |\n| 15 | Q<br>Okay.<br>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<br>I cannot reach out to Ms. Wang, because she is in                                           |\n| 19 | detention center.                                                                                |\n| 20 | Q<br>You communicate with people in detention currently,                                         |\n| 21 | don't you?                                                                                       |\n| 22 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor?                                                                       |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:<br>Who are you referring to?                                                        |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor?<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 94 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 95 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 96<br>of 139 |  |\n|----|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    |               | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.\"<br>Who is your accountant?                       |  |\n| 4  | A             | Mindy.                                                                          |  |\n| 5  | Q             | Mindy?<br>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.<br>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.<br>We don't                         |  |\n| 20 | know.         |                                                                                 |  |\n| 21 |               | MR. LUFT:<br>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.<br>When you reached out to her as referenced in                           |  |\n|    |               |                                                                                 |  |\n\n| Case 22-50073 |   | Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 97<br>of 139 |\n|---------------|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|               |   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>96                                             |\n| 1             |   | your declaration, how did you contact Mindy?                                    |\n| 2             | A | I have called her.<br>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.<br>When did you start using this smart phone?                             |\n| 18            |   | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                             |\n| 19            |   | client to invoke her fifth amendment rights.                                    |\n| 20            |   | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                |\n| 21            |   | MR. LUFT:<br>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.<br>When did she start using her phone?                          |\n| 24            |   | THE WITNESS:<br>I have answered that question.<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 98 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 99<br>of 139 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>98                                                              |\n| 1  | You're going to continue to make your record.<br>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:<br>Okay.                                                                               |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>Your Honor, might we take a quick                                                 |\n| 11 | break?<br>Ms. Guo has been up there for two-and-a-half hours                                     |\n| 12 | almost at this point.                                                                            |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>I don't know how much longer Attorney                                              |\n| 14 | Luft has.<br>Do you want to take a break, or did you want to                                     |\n| 15 | continue?                                                                                        |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>I'd like to finish up.                                           |\n| 17 | I don't have much more.<br>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:<br>I'd like to take a break before the                                                |\n| 21 | bank documents.<br>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<br>Ms. Guo, you said that you use an iPhone, correct?                                          |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 100<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>99                                                               |\n| 1  | A<br>Correct.                                                                                     |\n| 2  | Q<br>Have you been using an iPhone for the past two years?                                        |\n| 3  | MR. TWARDY:<br>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:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                  |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>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.<br>It's at Docket 1512.                                         |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                               |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:<br>May I approach the witness?                                                          |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                                                       |\n| 16 | THE INTERPRETER:<br>Thank you.                                                                    |\n| 17 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Thanks.                                                                            |\n| 18 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                      |\n| 19 | Q<br>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:<br>And I would object.<br>Mr. Luft has                                               |\n| 25 | now shown the witness a document that relates to other                                            |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 101<br>of 139 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>100                                                              |\n| entities outside of the Hudson Diamond entities that we're                                        |\n| here for today.                                                                                   |\n| THE COURT:<br>Objection overruled.                                                                |\n| BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                      |\n| Q<br>Ms. Guo, do you see on paragraph 25 it cites --                                              |\n| Mr. Vartan writes, \"After Ms. Guo was released from                                               |\n| detention in early 2017, her relationship with technology                                         |\n| was further changed.<br>She stopped using a smart phone and                                       |\n| communicated only by using a flip phone for fear of being                                         |\n| tracked by the CCP.\"<br>Do you see that?                                                          |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my                                               |\n| client to invoke the fifth amendment.                                                             |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I -- Your Honor, my                                                      |\n| question is literally does she see that.<br>This is an                                            |\n| improper invocation of the fifth.                                                                 |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>That she can answer.<br>I'm sorry.<br>I                                            |\n| thought I heard something else, Mr. Luft.                                                         |\n| BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                      |\n| Q<br>Ms. Guo, is it a true -- was Mr. Vartan truthful when                                        |\n| he stated that you stopped using a smart phone and                                                |\n| communicated only with a -- from a -- with a flip phone                                           |\n| starting in early 2017 until the time of his declaration in                                       |\n| January of 2023?                                                                                  |\n| MR. TWARDY:<br>Now, Your Honor, I'm going to                                                      |\n| instruct my client to invoke the fifth amendment.                                                 |\n|                                                                                                   |\n\n|    | of 139                                                        |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>101                          |  |\n| 1  | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                              |  |\n| 2  | MR. LUFT:<br>Same objection, Your Honor.                      |  |\n| 3  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                  |  |\n| 4  | Q<br>If I could ask you to look at paragraph 9 of Trustee     |  |\n| 5  | Exhibit 2, which is a copy of your declaration.<br>You write, |  |\n| 6  | \"I reviewed my hard copy and electronic records.\"<br>Which    |  |\n| 7  | records are you referring to?                                 |  |\n| 8  | A<br>That refers to my emails.                                |  |\n| 9  | Q<br>Anything else?                                           |  |\n| 10 | A<br>It was just the emails and also whatever documentations  |  |\n| 11 | that I have at hand.                                          |  |\n| 12 | Q<br>Where do you keep -- well, when you say you -- whatever  |  |\n| 13 | documentations you have at hand, what are you referring to?   |  |\n| 14 | A<br>It refers to any printed paper document that I have on   |  |\n| 15 | my table.                                                     |  |\n| 16 | Q<br>Which table?                                             |  |\n| 17 | A<br>My table.                                                |  |\n| 18 | Q<br>I don't want to be flip about this, but are you -- is    |  |\n| 19 | it literally just any documents that happen to be at the      |  |\n| 20 | table you're at, or do you have some type of file or system   |  |\n| 21 | where you keep hard copy documents related to whatever        |  |\n| 22 | business you're in?                                           |  |\n| 23 | A<br>It's the table that I kept documents.                    |  |\n| 24 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Where is the table that you keep documents      |  |\n| 25 | located?                                                      |  |\n\n|    | of 139<br>Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>102                |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. TWARDY:<br>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.<br>Mr. Luft's question was keep.<br>And I don't -- |\n| 5  | I -- you know, I just wish -- could you clarify your          |\n| 6  | question?<br>Is it current or past tense?                     |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Sure.                                            |\n| 8  | BY MR. LUFT:                                                  |\n| 9  | Q<br>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:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct her          |\n| 13 | to invoke the fifth amendment.                                |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                              |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:<br>Same objection, Your Honor.                      |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                  |\n| 17 | Q<br>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:<br>Objection.<br>It's argumentative.             |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:<br>Well, I want to know how we -- she did           |\n| 22 | it.<br>It's not argumentative.                                |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Overruled.                                      |\n| 24 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to instruct my           |\n| 25 | client to invoke the fifth amendment.                         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 103 THE WITNESS: Fifth amendment. BY MR. LUFT: Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 104 of 139\n\n 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.\n\n 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.\n\n MR. LUFT: That's what I want to figure out, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. How much time do you need? Fifteen minutes? Twenty minutes?\n\n MR. LUFT: Well, I know Your Honor had indicated that you wanted a chance to review them as well, so --\n\n 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\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 104 we'll see how we're going to proceed. Okay? MR. LUFT: That works, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. TWARDY: Your Honor? THE COURT: Court is in recess until 4:50. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, may we have the general admonition that you give to witnesses? THE COURT: Yes. I have to speak to the interpreter. Would you please remind the witness that she is under oath and she remains under oath during this time that we're on break. Okay? THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in recess until 4:50. (Court recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:58 p.m.) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Luft, we took a recess, and I asked you to -- and the parties to speak about the portion of your examination where you had indicated you're going to ask some questions about documents that have been marked confidential. MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So is there anything you have to report about those discussions? Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 105 of 139\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>105                           |\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>My understanding is           |\n| 2  | that Ms. Guo's criminal counsel has reviewed the protective    |\n| 3  | order, has agreed to be bound by it, and he's going to make    |\n| 4  | a statement on the record reflecting that we don't have a      |\n| 5  | hard copy here right now.<br>But I'm -- that's more than       |\n| 6  | adequate to me that if he makes a statement on the record      |\n| 7  | that he's willing to be bound by it.<br>At which point I have  |\n| 8  | shared the documents I'm considering using with counsel for    |\n| 9  | Hudson Diamond Holdings.<br>Once he makes that statement on    |\n| 10 | the record, they will share it with him as well.               |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 12 | MR. LUFT:<br>And then I think --                               |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.<br>Thank you.                       |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:<br>-- Your Honor, we can move ahead.                 |\n| 15 | MR. TWARDY:<br>And, Your Honor, yes, I will be bound           |\n| 16 | by the confidentiality order that's been entered here.         |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you, Attorney Twardy.<br>Just so           |\n| 18 | you know, it's called a protective order.                      |\n| 19 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Protective order.<br>I'm sorry.<br>I --         |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>That's all right.<br>And it's -- it --           |\n| 21 | the document number is 923.<br>And it was entered in this case |\n| 22 | on -- in these Chapter 11 cases on October 6, 2022.<br>Okay?   |\n| 23 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Yes.<br>Attorney Linsey sent me --              |\n| 24 | emailed me a copy of it, and I had a chance to look at it,     |\n| 25 | Your Honor, during the break.                                  |\n|    |                                                                |\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 of 139\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 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. 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. 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 -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 108 of 139\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>108                           |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Understood.                                      |\n| 2  | Attorney Luft, what are you planning on doing?                 |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I do plan to ask about the            |\n| 4  | contents of the documents.<br>I believe they are of a piece    |\n| 5  | with other questions I have been asking for the past few       |\n| 6  | hours.<br>They are, you know, bank documents.                  |\n| 7  | I assume to the extent that there is -- they                   |\n| 8  | asserted confidentiality it is because -- you know what?<br>I  |\n| 9  | don't even want to make an assumption.<br>I would guess it was |\n| 10 | for their client as a matter of course.<br>But I'm not in      |\n| 11 | their head, Your Honor.                                        |\n| 12 | I will ask about the contents.<br>I don't know if              |\n| 13 | that information is confidential.<br>As I said, I've been      |\n| 14 | asking questions about Hudson Diamond Holdings' bank           |\n| 15 | accounts for a while.<br>And, quite frankly, the answer to --  |\n| 16 | has been an assertion of the fifth amendment to --             |\n| 17 | invariably.<br>And I will not be surprised if that's the way   |\n| 18 | we continue.<br>But that's what I plan to do, Your Honor.<br>I |\n| 19 | don't have an opinion as to whether the Court needs to be      |\n| 20 | cleared.                                                       |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Thank you.<br>I'm just             |\n| 22 | taking a look at this for a moment.                            |\n| 23 | (Pause)                                                        |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>So I'm looking at paragraphs -- well,            |\n| 25 | I'm looking at a number of paragraphs, but the paragraph I'm   |\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>109                           |\n| 1  | looking at at the moment in the protective order is            |\n| 2  | paragraph 14, use of discovery materials in open court.<br>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.<br>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| 17 | used by any party in accordance with the provisions of the     |\n| 18 | Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules.<br>If the parties aren't |\n| 19 | able to resolve a dispute related to such designated           |\n| 20 | material, the producing party shall bear the burden of         |\n| 21 | requesting appropriate relief from the court.<br>Until the     |\n| 22 | court rules on such an issue, the designated materials shall   |\n| 23 | continue to be treated according to its designation and in     |\n| 24 | accordance with the terms of this order.\"                      |\n| 25 | So is there any ability to redact this document?               |\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>110                           |\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>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.<br>I don't -- I guess Capital One is    |\n| 5  | the entity that produced the documents, right?<br>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.<br>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.<br>I apologize for that.          |\n| 17 | (Counsel confer)                                               |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:<br>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:<br>Go right ahead.                                  |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>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.<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 112 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 113<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>112                                                              |\n| 1  | That's not what I'm doing.                                                                        |\n| 2  | MR. LUFT:<br>Sure, Your Honor.                                                                    |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I'm talking about the issue.<br>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.<br>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:<br>That's fair, Your Honor.<br>I am going to                                            |\n| 13 | ask more than just recognition of the documents.<br>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:<br>Well, I think you'd have to do that at                                              |\n| 19 | the very least, right?<br>Otherwise, you get into --                                              |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>That's what I'm trying to --                                                         |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>-- an issue of disclosing the                                                       |\n| 22 | confidential information.                                                                         |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>Right.<br>So if that would work, Your                                                |\n| 24 | Honor --                                                                                          |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Well, let me ask Attorney Twardy.<br>Are                                            |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 113 you -- let's just make an assumption here that I would grant a motion to seal these documents. Are you opposing that these -- that these documents be introduced in any way, shape, or form as part of a motion to seal? MR. TWARDY: Not at all, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TWARDY: This is all part of their case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TWARDY: And they can do what they want. I don't know about counsel for Hudson, but I don't have a problem with it. THE COURT: Well, we're talking about -- okay. That's fair. So, so far we have an agreement with Ms. Guo's criminal counsel that he's not going to oppose a motion to seal, right, so that these documents would be under seal. Attorney Wernick, you have an opposition to these documents being filed under seal? MS. WERNICK: Not being filed under seal. THE COURT: So you have no opposition, correct? MR. LUFT: To the documents being filed under seal, correct. THE COURT: Okay. So that takes care of one problem, which is this, the documents will be filed under seal unless and until they're no longer sealed because of the protective order provisions. And those provisions have Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 114 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 115<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>114                                                              |\n| 1  | been in place since October of 2022.<br>So that, I think,                                         |\n| 2  | makes it a little simpler.                                                                        |\n| 3  | Now we get to what are your questions.<br>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.<br>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.<br>But you also                                        |\n| 10 | have the right to ask those questions to have her invoke the                                      |\n| 11 | fifth amendment.<br>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.<br>I'm happy to have you do                                         |\n| 16 | that.<br>But I also can have you proceed based -- however you                                     |\n| 17 | want to proceed at this point.                                                                    |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Look, I'm happy                                            |\n| 19 | to push ahead at this point.<br>I want to ask -- I think I                                        |\n| 20 | need to ask the questions that I need to ask.                                                     |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Before you ask -- I'm                                                 |\n| 22 | sorry.<br>When you're done, I just want to say something                                          |\n| 23 | before you start asking any questions.<br>Okay?                                                   |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>Of course, Your Honor.<br>And I -- just                                              |\n| 25 | so we're all level set, I have a couple questions before we                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 116<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>115                                                              |\n| 1  | get to these last couple --                                                                       |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                               |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>-- that involve this.<br>Look, I want to                                             |\n| 4  | make sure this is done right.<br>I'm not a big fan of sealing                                     |\n| 5  | the courtroom, but if that's the right thing to do at this                                        |\n| 6  | point, Your Honor, to make sure that we can get a clear                                           |\n| 7  | record and everyone can -- especially with the language                                           |\n| 8  | barrier, that everyone can follow my questions, then we                                           |\n| 9  | should just do that.                                                                              |\n| 10 | Otherwise, I know how to ask questions to leave                                                   |\n| 11 | out specifics.<br>But if that's going to just lead to a                                           |\n| 12 | confusing record, then I think the better part of valor is                                        |\n| 13 | to just move ahead and let us ask the questions with the                                          |\n| 14 | room sealed.<br>I don't believe it'll be more than five                                           |\n| 15 | minutes' worth of questioning on that.                                                            |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>So you're saying you would agree --                                                 |\n| 17 | you would like everyone else to leave the room who's not --                                       |\n| 18 | to leave the courtroom who's not subject to the protective                                        |\n| 19 | order.<br>Is that what you're saying?                                                             |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>I think so, Your Honor, if it means                                                  |\n| 21 | that we can get a clear record and have a --                                                      |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, we're not there yet.                                            |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.                                                                                |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>But you're going to have to tell me                                                 |\n| 25 | when we're there.<br>So before you start --                                                       |\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>116                           |\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>-- asking any other questions --                 |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>I will -- yes.                                    |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>-- I -- you've made an oral motion to            |\n| 5  | seal apparently three documents?                               |\n| 6  | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                  |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I don't know what they are,             |\n| 8  | obviously.<br>There's no opposition from corporate counsel or  |\n| 9  | from individual counsel to that motion to seal.<br>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.<br>You           |\n| 15 | obviously have to -- you've made an oral motion.<br>I'll enter |\n| 16 | an order with regard to that.<br>But those documents are going |\n| 17 | to have to be filed under seal.                                |\n| 18 | You understand that.<br>I understand you understand            |\n| 19 | that.<br>But I'm just making the record.<br>You're going to -- |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                            |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>After the conclusion of today's                  |\n| 22 | hearing, you're going to file those documents under seal.      |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                  |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>Then when we get to the point           |\n| 25 | where you're going to ask questions about the documents,       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | of 139                                                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>Okay?     |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Does anybody -- Attorney Wernick, do           |\n| 9  | you have any questions about what I just said?               |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:<br>No.<br>We understand --                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 12 | MS. WERNICK:<br>-- the procedure, Your Honor.                |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Say that again.                                |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:<br>We understand the procedure, Your            |\n| 15 | Honor.                                                       |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 17 | Attorney Twardy?                                             |\n| 18 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                              |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>That's fine with you?                          |\n| 20 | MR. TWARDY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                              |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Fine.                                 |\n| 22 | All right.<br>Then you please proceed, Attorney              |\n| 23 | Luft.                                                        |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 119 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 120 of 139\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 121 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 122 of 139\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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 123 of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 124<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>123                                                              |\n| 1  | Q<br>And who controls Whitecroft, you or your father?                                             |\n| 2  | MS. WERNICK:<br>Objection, Your Honor.<br>There's a                                               |\n| 3  | separate adversary proceeding relating to Whitecroft.<br>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:<br>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?<br>How is that beyond the                                        |\n| 10 | scope?<br>You --                                                                                  |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:<br>So the question --                                                                |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>Well, I -- I'm -- the question as I                                               |\n| 15 | heard it related solely to the entity Whitecroft.                                                 |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>I heard it too.<br>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.<br>So I just -- I                                    |\n| 19 | overrule your objection.                                                                          |\n| 20 | MR. TWARDY:<br>I would request my client to invoke                                                |\n| 21 | her fifth amendment rights.                                                                       |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:<br>Fifth amendment.                                                                  |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.<br>Your Honor, I think we may be at                                            |\n| 24 | that point where we need to seal the courtroom.                                                   |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Before we do that, I have                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                   |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 125<br>of 139 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>124                                                              |\n| to talk to the translator in a sec.                                                               |\n| Go ahead.<br>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.<br>And                                    |\n| you have to be bound by that confidentiality.<br>And you have                                     |\n| to acknowledge that you'll be bound by that confidentiality.                                      |\n| So could you just do that for me, please?<br>Because                                              |\n| it's important.<br>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.<br>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:<br>Yes.                                                                          |\n| THE COURT:<br>-- confidentiality.                                                                 |\n| THE INTERPRETER:<br>Yes, I do, Your Honor.<br>And,                                                |\n| also, the interpreter abide by the general confidentiality                                        |\n| rules for the court.                                                                              |\n| THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                          |\n| THE INTERPRETER:<br>Thank you.                                                                    |\n| THE COURT:<br>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 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 126 of 139\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>126                          |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | party to the confidentiality order.<br>We have not signed the |\n| 2 | confidentiality order.<br>But pursuant to Section 107 of the  |\n| 3 | Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Trustee's presence is permitted     |\n| 4 | 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\n|    | of 139                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>Okay?<br>Thank you.                                 |\n| 17 | (Record sealed at 5:31 p.m. to 5:54 p.m.)                      |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So are the parties -- did          |\n| 19 | the parties want to make closing statements?<br>Plaintiff?     |\n| 20 | Not the plaintiff.<br>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:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Very                 |\n| 25 | briefly.<br>As set forth in Ms. Guo's declaration, Ms. Guo and |\n\n|    | of 139                                                      |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>We --           |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Objection, Your Honor.<br>She's                |\n| 8  | testifying now.                                             |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, she is.<br>So it's okay.<br>Go right     |\n| 10 | ahead.<br>Go ahead.                                         |\n| 11 | MS. WERNICK:<br>I'm -- just in closing statements           |\n| 12 | and repeating the information that was previously submitted |\n| 13 | in Ms. Guo's declaration.<br>Reasonable steps were taken to |\n| 14 | comply with the subpoena.<br>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:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                           |\n| 23 | Mr. Luft?                                                   |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>May I approach?      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                 |\n|    |                                                             |\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>129                         |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'll be brief, because this         |\n| 2 | has been a long day.<br>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|    | of 139                                                        |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>130                          |\n| 1  | We have had multiple hearings, including two extra            |\n| 2  | just relating to the confusion with regard to whether or not  |\n| 3  | they even hired counsel.<br>The trustee has been diligent.    |\n| 4  | And at the end of the day, we get here, which is              |\n| 5  | you heard Ms. Guo tell you, to the extent she was allowed to  |\n| 6  | say anything, that she has produced two documents.<br>We have |\n| 7  | no documents from Hudson Diamond New York.<br>Clearly, there  |\n| 8  | are significant assets that are moving through Hudson         |\n| 9  | Diamond New York such that documents had to have been         |\n| 10 | created, whether they are for ownership of a car, real        |\n| 11 | estate transactions, multi-million dollars going through the  |\n| 12 | account.<br>And we are getting none of it.                    |\n| 13 | So they -- look, they seem content to allow                   |\n| 14 | contempt rulings.<br>And if -- and I think the idea is that   |\n| 15 | there'll be no one that we can try to enforce it upon.<br>But |\n| 16 | we know who we should be enforcing it on.                     |\n| 17 | Ms. Guo clearly controls Hudson Diamond Holdings.             |\n| 18 | Hudson Diamond Holdings clearly controls Hudson Diamond New   |\n| 19 | York.<br>So I believe contempt should be found.               |\n| 20 | But I'm also going to ask, because I do not                   |\n| 21 | believe they have made any effort to do this yet, that they   |\n| 22 | should be forced to go find Hudson Diamond New York's         |\n| 23 | documents and turn them over to the trustee.<br>And that      |\n| 24 | should include the bank accounts.<br>This testimony or lines  |\n| 25 | that somehow Ms. Guo's name is not on that Capital One bank   |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 132<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>131                                                              |\n| 1  | account is clearly false.<br>We saw the document.                                                 |\n| 2  | So, Your Honor, I'll rest there.<br>But I believe a                                               |\n| 3  | contempt is proper, and I really -- and we really need the                                        |\n| 4  | documents.<br>I'd ask that they be forced to produce the                                          |\n| 5  | documents for Hudson Diamond New York.<br>Thank you, Your                                         |\n| 6  | Honor.                                                                                            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                          |\n| 8  | MS. WERNICK:<br>Your Honor, a brief rebuttal?                                                     |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Brief.                                                                              |\n| 10 | MS. WERNICK:<br>All right.<br>What we heard from                                                  |\n| 11 | Mr. Luft's presentation just now was almost nothing at all                                        |\n| 12 | about Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, which was the entity we                                       |\n| 13 | were compelled to appear for here today.<br>It was almost                                         |\n| 14 | entirely with regards to Hudson Diamond New York, an entity                                       |\n| 15 | which I believe has already been held in contempt with                                            |\n| 16 | respect to the separate subpoena that was served on that                                          |\n| 17 | entity.                                                                                           |\n| 18 | That's not the subject of this proceeding.<br>Your                                                |\n| 19 | Honor already made a determination with respect to the New                                        |\n| 20 | York entity.<br>Which, again, none of us here today represent                                     |\n| 21 | the New York --                                                                                   |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Well, Mr. Romney still does unless and                                              |\n| 23 | until his motion to withdraw is granted.<br>So that's not                                         |\n| 24 | accurate.                                                                                         |\n| 25 | MS. WERNICK:<br>All right.<br>My apologies, Your                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 133<br>of 139 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>132                                                              |\n| 1  | Honor.<br>I certainly don't represent Hudson Diamond --                                           |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                                                       |\n| 3  | MS. WERNICK:<br>-- New York.<br>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:<br>Thank you.                                                                          |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'll be brief.<br>If I may                                               |\n| 20 | approach?                                                                                         |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                                |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>First of all, Ms. Wernick says she                                                   |\n| 23 | doesn't represent Hudson Diamond New York.<br>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.<br>I don't                                     |\n\n|    | of 139                                                         |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>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.<br>But         |  |\n| 3  | certainly Mr. Vartan was hired from her law firm.<br>So the    |  |\n| 4  | idea that they don't represent them is not true.               |  |\n| 5  | They say there was a single document.<br>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.<br>We signed (sic) her signing as the   |  |\n| 10 | sole member of Holdings for New York.<br>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.<br>I           |  |\n| 14 | absolutely think an adverse inference should be drawn from     |  |\n| 15 | all those fifth amendment assertions.<br>We came here today to |  |\n| 16 | try to get information.<br>That was the point of Ms. Guo       |  |\n| 17 | coming here, to understand something.<br>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.<br>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\nvarious terms we used which clearly included Hudson Diamond\n\n|    | of 139                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>134                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | New York.                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Hudson Diamond Holdings is the parent company.<br>It            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | has an obligation to produce -- make sure its subsidiary is     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | in compliance.<br>They are clearly an affiliate.<br>They should |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | have produced the documents.<br>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:<br>Thank you.                                        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | All right.<br>The matter before the Court, the order            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | to appear and show cause, we've -- I've heard argument          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | today.<br>And there's been an invocation of the fifth           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | amendment as it relates to Ms. Guo individually.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I'm not going to address any       |  |  |  |  |  |\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? of 139\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 137<br>of 139 |  |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023<br>136                                                              |  |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Did I say subpoena?<br>Sorry.                                                       |  |\n| 2  | MR. LINSEY:<br>You did.<br>That's why I was confused.                                             |  |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>We've been talking about a subpoena                                                 |  |\n| 4  | all day.<br>I apologize.<br>I apologize.<br>My mistake.                                           |  |\n| 5  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Understood.                                                                        |  |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>The summons.                                                                        |  |\n| 7  | MR. LINSEY:<br>We'll look to that, Your Honor.                                                    |  |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                               |  |\n| 9  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you.                                                                         |  |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>The summons.<br>I apologize.                                                        |  |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Thank you.                                                                         |  |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>We've been talking about --                                                         |  |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Yeah.<br>Understood.                                                               |  |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>-- a subpoena all day.<br>I apologize.                                              |  |\n| 15 | Okay.<br>There's no further business for the Court                                                |  |\n| 16 | today then.<br>Thank you, all.<br>Court is adjourned.                                             |  |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                               |  |\n| 18 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>All rise.<br>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<br>Doc 2292-55<br>Filed 10/26/23<br>of 139 | Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12<br>Page 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\n|    | Case 22-50073                 | Doc 2292-55                           | Filed 10/26/23<br>of 139              |       | Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 | Page 139 |  |\n|----|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------|---------------------------|----------|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 |                                       |                                       |       |                           | 138      |  |\n| 1  |                               | INDEX                                 |                                       |       |                           |          |  |\n| 2  |                               | WITNESS                               |                                       |       |                           |          |  |\n| 3  | FOR THE                       |                                       |                                       |       |                           |          |  |\n| 4  | TRUSTEE:                      |                                       | Direct                                | Cross | Redirect                  | Recross  |  |\n| 5  | Mei Guo                       |                                       | --                                    | 9     |                           |          |  |\n| 6  |                               |                                       |                                       |       |                           |          |  |\n| 7  | TRUSTEE'S                     |                                       |                                       |       |                           |          |  |\n| 8  | EXHIBITS:<br>ID               |                                       |                                       |       |                           | Received |  |\n| 9  | 1                             | Subpoena                              |                                       |       | 16                        | 17       |  |\n| 10 | 2                             | Mei Guo Declaration<br>40             |                                       |       |                           | 41       |  |\n| 11 | 3                             | Hudson Diamond New York Consent<br>45 |                                       |       |                           | 50       |  |\n| 12 |                               | Of Sole Member                        |                                       |       |                           |          |  |\n| 13 | 4                             |                                       | Caldwell Banker Real Estate Agreement |       | 70                        | 72       |  |\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|    |                               |                                       |                                       |       |                           |          |  |","body_zh":"证物55\n\n债务人。*\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）和 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），*\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院） DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州联邦地区） BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于 * 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n*\n\n*\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），* 对抗程序案号：23-05017 * * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 原告，* 2023年8月22日 * 诉 * * TAURUS FUND, LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司）等，* * 被告。* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n> 在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法院法官面前，就 HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）为何不应被裁定藐视法庭而作出的说明理由命令之庭审笔录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ.（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特） LUYI SONG, ESQ.（宋露怡） Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n> PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西） Neubert Pepe and Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所） 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n\n庭审程序以电子录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n出庭人员：代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩） Office of U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室） The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 代表原告，LEE VARTAN, ESQ.（李·瓦尔坦） HK International Funds（HK国际基金）及 MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ.（梅丽莎·F·韦尼克） Mei Guo（梅·郭）：Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（奇耶萨、沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所） 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 AARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·A·罗姆尼） Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒律师事务所） 10 Middle Street, 15th FL Bridgeport, CT 06604 代表郭女士个人：STANLEY A. TWARDY, JR., ESQ.（斯坦利·A·特沃迪，小）（刑事辩护律师） Day Pitney（戴·皮特尼律师事务所） One Stamford Plaza 263 Tresser Blvd. Stamford, CT 06901\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 3 （庭审程序于下午2:01开始）法庭书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holding, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）。法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人开始，为记录在案而说明出庭身份。DESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。LUFT先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings 的 Avi Luft，代表第11章受托人。LINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 的 Patrick Linsey，担任受托人的康涅狄格州律师。SONG女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings 的 Luyi Song，代表受托人。CLAIBORN女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn。VARTAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 的 Lee Vartan。ROMNEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Aaron Romney，代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。WERNICK女士：法官阁下，下午好。我也是代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 的 CSG Law 的 Melissa Wernick。案号22-50073 文件2292-55 于10/26/23提交 于10/26/23 20:46:12录入 第4页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n法官：\n下午好。\n是否还有其他需要为记录在案而说明的出庭人员？\n\nTWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我可以吗？\n我叫 Stanley A. Twardy, Jr.，来自 Day Pitney 律师事务所。\n我在此代表郭女士个人。\n我是她的刑事辩护律师。\n\n法官：\n下午好。\n\nTWARDY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：\n抱歉。\n我没有听清\n您的姓氏。\n\nTWARDY先生：\n如果可以的话，我走近一些，把我的\n名片给您。\n这样会有帮助吗？\n\n法官：\n那会有帮助，特沃迪律师。\n谢谢。\n好的。\n今天排期审理的事项是一项\n要求 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 出庭说明其为何不应被裁定藐视法庭，并要求\n郭女士出庭作证的说明理由命令。\n该说明理由命令\n确实为郭女士提交一份——一份\n宣誓书提供了机会，她也确实提交了。\n或者说，她实际上提交了一份声明，\n以回应出庭说明理由命令。\n我感谢她提交了该宣誓书、该声明，\n因为那——那是遵从本院命令。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日\n\n1　证言，我假定将继续进行。\n这是否\n2　正确，Despins受托人以及——我不知道，Vartan律师\n3　或者律师——谁将代表\n4　Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 出庭？\n因为郭女士仅\n5　以 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 成员的身份\n6　作证。\n7　WERNICK女士：\n法官阁下，Vartan先生和我本人，\n8　今天早些时候代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 提交了\n9　临时出庭许可动议。\n不过，经法官阁下许可，\n10　我们乐意继续代表该实体陈述。\n11　\n12　法官：\n可以。\n我知道你们\n13　在该对抗程序中已获准临时出庭，因此我相信如果\n14　文件手续齐备，就不会有问题。\n15　WERNICK女士：\n好的。\n正确。\n谢谢您，\n16　法官阁下。\n17　法官：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n那么，\n18　Wernick女士，你——你可以继续。\n我认为现在\n19　应由你方承担举证责任，传唤——郭女士作为\n20　Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 的代表作证。\n或者你们\n21　是否讨论过，准备直接开始\n22　交叉询问？\n我不知道你们将如何\n23　进行。\n24　WERNICK女士：\n因此，我们原本打算将她的\n25　声明作为她的直接证词提交。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 6 法官：好的。那么由第11章受托人进行。你们是否传唤证人以交叉询问该证人？LUFT先生：是的。如果他们已完成陈述，那么我将开始交叉询问该证人。法官：Wernick女士，你们完成了吗？WERNICK女士：是的。我们请求如此进行。是的。谢谢。法官：是。好的。LUFT先生：为明确起见，法官阁下，我假定他们已完成陈述，我们并未改变顺序，而且他们不再提出任何证据。WERNICK女士：是的，但保留我们的反驳权。这是我方的直接陈述。法官：好的。谢谢。请继续，Luft先生。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我们能否请证人走上证人席宣誓？法官：可以。TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我可以吗？是的。我想你可以去那边。法官：我们只需要在麦克风旁边，特沃迪律师。TWARDY先生：好的。案号22-50073 文件2292-55 于10/26/23提交 于10/26/23 20:46:12录入 第7页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 7 法官：抱歉。我们——TWARDY先生：不。我只是想知道您希望我站在哪里，法官阁下。法官：是。因为我们——法庭——我们的记录仅通过录音保存。因此，如果麦克风未收录到你的声音，我们就无法记录你所说的任何内容。明白吗？TWARDY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官：谢谢。（律师协商）法官：好的。法庭书记员将先让口译员宣誓，然后再让证人宣誓。明白吗？口译员：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官：好的。谢谢。法庭书记员：请举起右手。（口译员宣誓）法官：你需要椅子，还是站着没问题？口译员：我站着没问题，法官阁下。法官：好的。口译员：谢谢。法庭书记员：请证人举起右手。案号22-50073 文件2292-55 于10/26/23提交 于10/26/23 20:46:12录入 第8页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 8 MEI GUO（梅·郭），证人，已宣誓 法官：她可以坐下。谢谢。证人：（全程通过口译员）好的，法官阁下。DESPINS先生：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——无法听到她。法官：好的。是的。而且那不是你的——遗憾的是，本院只有录音。因此，我们必须尽可能对着麦克风讲话。否则，若有人请求制作本次听证的笔录，笔录不会收录人们所说的话。而转录员甚至不在法庭内。因此，我们必须非常注意。如果我在任何时候打断你，只是因为我在努力使记录尽可能清晰。其他人也是如此。我的意思是，你可以说“我没听见”，对吧？所以不要犹豫说出来。明白吗？口译员：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官：因为我们希望确保记录准确。口译员：谢谢。感谢澄清。法官：谢谢。好的，Luft律师。你可以开始进行交叉询问。案号22-50073 文件2292-55 于10/26/23提交 于10/26/23 20:46:12录入 第9页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 9 交叉询问。LUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n由LUFT先生进行交叉询问：\n\n问　下午好，郭女士。您好吗？\n\n答　（全程通过口译员）我很好。谢谢。\n\n问　郭女士，您是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员，对吗？\n\n答　是。\n\n问　并且，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？\n\n口译员：我能再听一遍日期吗？2004？\n\nLUFT先生：这是规则2004。不是日期。\n\n口译员：哦，规则2004。好的。\n\n证人：我的律师收到了。\n\n由LUFT先生继续询问：\n\n问　他已将其提供给您？\n\n答　是。\n\n问　您已审阅过它？\n\n答　我审阅过。\n\n问　您理解它？\n\n答　我理解。\n\n案号22-50073　文件2292-55\n于10/26/23提交\n于10/26/23 20:46:12录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—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。\n\n3　问　请尽力回忆。\n您对何时\n4　收到它的最佳记忆是什么？\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要求？\n\n9　答　我阅读了。\n\n10　问　如果传票中有任何内容不清楚，\n11　您是否向您的律师寻求澄清？\n\n12　答　我寻求了。\n\n13　问　除您的律师外，您是否是 Hudson Diamond Holdings\n14　中唯一对该传票作出回应的人？\n\n15　答　正确。\n\n16　问　好的。\nHudson Diamond Holdings 的业务是什么？\n\n17　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我反对，并且\n18　指示我的当事人不要回答。\n这超出了该声明的范围。\n\n19　\n20　法官：\n等一下。\n哦，抱歉。\n\n21　TWARDY先生：\n抱歉。\n\n22　法官：\n不，不。\n没关系。\n\n23　法官：\n口译员女士，请给我一秒钟。\n好吗？\n\n24　口译员：\n当然。\n\n25　法官：\n不过你说得对。\n你确实需要说出来，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月22日 11 以便郭女士理解她的律师刚才所说的话。口译员：是，法官阁下。法官：好吗？那么请继续。口译员：谢谢。法官：好的。那么反对理由是，该问题超出了——TWARDY先生：声明。法官：——声明的范围？TWARDY先生：声明。法官：但是该声明——她作出该声明是以——并非以其个人身份，而是以 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 成员的身份。而这正是说明理由命令所要求的。她完全不是以个人身份作证。TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我可以吗？法官：可以。TWARDY先生：您7月28日的命令在最后两句话中写道：“在续行听证期间，Hudson Diamond Holding 可寻求将郭女士的声明作为她的直接证词提交。不过，她必须出席续行听证，并接受交叉询问。”我的观点是，所提出的问题超出了该声明的范围，而该声明正是——作为直接证词提交的内容。案号22-50073 文件2292-55 于10/26/23提交 于10/26/23 20:46:12录入 第12页，共139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 12  卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？法庭：可以。卢夫特先生：这太荒谬了。我问她公司的业务是什么。这绝非任何公平的解读。他们因藐视法庭事宜到庭。他们被命令今天让郭女士到庭作证。按照该律师的逻辑，他本可以写一句话，说我叫郭女士，然后转过头说，好吧，其他任何内容都超出证言范围。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。任何声称我不能询问除他们精心挑选写在一张纸上的内容之外的任何事项的论点，都是荒谬的。而且即便如此，我认为她称自己是 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）唯一成员这一事实，也完全属于询问其业务为何的范围之内。但我确实打算询问她关于该公司的情况。我打算询问她该公司声称拥有何种文件。我的意思是，这正是我们到这里来的原因。因此，我不认为——我不想让人错误地以为，我会仅仅询问她写在那张纸上的确切文字。这不是交叉询问的范围。特沃迪先生：法官阁下，恕我直言，我\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n录入于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　不同意。\n如果郭女士只是简单地说“我是郭女士”，而\n2　被告提交的内容仅此而已，那么他们将\n3　无法满足您裁定所要求的举证责任，即说明\n4　为何不应作出藐视法庭命令的理由。\n5　法庭：好的。我驳回你的异议。\n6　本次听证涉及数月前发出的规则2004传票，\n7　该传票发给 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），\n8　而郭女士称其为——且所附声明文件证明，\n9　并且任何诉状中均未对此提出争议，\n10　即\n11　她是 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的管理成员。\n12　整份传票要求提交\n13　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的文件及其他通信记录，\n14　这是一份范围广泛的传票，破产规则第2004条\n15　所允许的传票。此事是\n16　对受托人为确定\n17　破产财产中可能有哪些资产可供\n18　满足三个破产财产债权人利益所作努力的调查的一部分，\n19　这三个破产财产已被共同合并——管理，而非\n20　合并，抱歉——在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的 Chapter 11 案件下管理。\n21　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC\n22　是该传票的受领人。再次说明，对此不存在\n23　争议。坦率地说，诉状中已予承认。\n24　\n25　因此，你的异议被驳回，但为\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n录入于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　记录在案。\n2　特沃迪先生：法官阁下，谢谢。我尊重\n3　您的裁定。如您所知，我不是 Hudson\n4　Holding 的律师。我作为她的刑事辩护律师到庭。她父亲已被\n5　起诉。她已被告知，她——通过\n6　Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的 U.S. Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室），\n7　我们获悉她是同一调查的调查对象。\n8　因此，我将指示她不——援引\n9　第五修正案且不回答该问题。\n10　法庭：好的。我明白，律师。谢谢。\n11　\n12　卢夫特先生：好的。我会问同一个问题。如果\n13　她想援引第五修正案，她可以这样做。\n14　法庭：那么，特沃迪先生，你想如何——我的意思是，\n15　无论如何，他必须建立记录。因此我认为她将——如果她要主张\n16　其\n17　不自证其罪权利，我认为她必须针对他提出的每一个问题\n18　这样做。因为他将——他有权建立该记录。\n19　\n20　特沃迪先生：明白，法官阁下。那\n21　没问题。但我——\n22　法庭：好的。\n23　特沃迪先生：——将指示她——\n24　法庭：我明白。\n25　特沃迪先生：谢谢。\n\n第16页，共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　法庭：我明白。不过，我不知道你的\n2　当事人是否已经明白。因此，口译员——\n3　你——如果你可以解释——请你为\n4　记录陈述特沃迪先生刚才所说的内容。\n5　口译员：法官阁下，我刚才已经为她进行了\n6　同步口译——\n7　法庭：好的。\n8　口译员：——就在刚才\n9　谈话过程中。或许我们可以问她是否\n10　理解已发生的情况。\n11　法庭：好的。因此，特沃迪律师所说的是——嗯，我想你将会说——而且\n12　很遗憾，我要再次问你，因为我们的\n13　记录是音频的，如果提出一个问题，而你——\n14　而你正指示你的当事人主张其\n15　第五修正案权利——其第五修正案特权，\n16　那么请你注明这一点，\n17　然后口译员可以告诉她，之后她可以作出回应。\n18　好吗？\n19　\n20　证人：那么，是的，法官阁下，但我需要\n21　回答任何问题吗？\n22　特沃迪先生：是的。如果我可以？是的，她应当\n23　回答。她应当说：“我援引我的第五修正案权利。”\n24　证人：谢谢。我援引我的第五\n25　修正案权利。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n录入于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　法庭：好的。谢谢。\n2　请继续，卢夫特律师。\n3　卢夫特先生：好的。我应当再次问那个问题，\n4　还是她已经援引了该权利——\n5　法庭：我认为那个问题已经问过并得到\n6　回答，因此我认为你可以继续——\n7　卢夫特先生：好的。\n8　法庭：——进行下一个问题。\n9　卢夫特先生：并进行下一个问题。好的。\n10　卢夫特先生询问：\n11　问：Hudson Diamond Holdings 的资产是什么？\n12　法庭：哦，请继续。抱歉。我们将让\n13　口译员翻译问题，然后再听取\n14　回答。\n15　特沃迪先生：我会指示我的当事人援引\n16　其第五修正案权利。\n17　证人：我将援引我的第五修正案\n18　权利。\n19　法庭：谢谢。\n20　卢夫特先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我想将\n21　我们向 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 送达的传票副本标记并\n22　作为证据提交。该传票此前已在本案中标记为\n23　案卷编号 1116-2、证物 C-37。\n24　并且我——如果可以的话，我想向证人递交一份副本。\n25　法庭：那么，请确保当事人——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 17  卢夫特先生：我会的。法庭：——律师不反对将该传票作为证据提交。坦率地说，我不明白你们为何会有任何反对，但无论如何——卢夫特先生：我们有副本。他们可以查看——韦尼克女士：是的。不反对，法官阁下。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。那么你想如何标记？受托人证物1？卢夫特先生：受托人证物1可以，法官阁下。法庭：好的。受托人证物1。我们将把该证物标记为完整证物。（受托人证物1获准作为证据）卢夫特先生：好的。法官阁下，如果可以，我能将此交给证人吗？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——上面目前没有写“受托人证物1”。但那就是受托人证物1。好吗？好的。谢谢。证人：好的。卢夫特先生询问：问：郭女士，请花一点时间熟悉该文件。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交于 10/26/23\n第19页，共139页　录入于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023　18\n\n1　答：是的，我看完了。\n2　问：郭女士，这是你告诉我你之前审阅过的、发给 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的传票副本吗？\n3　\n4　答：我无法清楚记得，但我相信是。\n5　问：好的。你是否曾见过发给 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的其他传票？\n6　\n7　答：我不记得。\n8　问：好的。我向你说明，这是送达给 Hudson\n9　Diamond Holdings 的传票真实准确的副本。好吗？\n10　\n11　答：谢谢。\n12　问：郭女士，请翻到第7页的“定义”项下。你是否看到“你、你的及你本人”一词的第一项定义？其中写道：“系指 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 及其所有关联方、部门”，然后继续？\n13　\n14　\n15　\n16　\n17　特沃迪先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我相信\n18　律师提到的是 Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司），而非 LLC，但我听到翻译员提到 LLC。我\n19　只是想确保所指的是正确实体。\n20　\n21　\n22　卢夫特先生：如果我说了 Inc.，那是我说错了，法官阁下。\n23　法庭：好的。那么你指的是 LLC？\n24　卢夫特先生：LLC。\n25　法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 19  卢夫特先生：我今天不会故意提及 Inc.。法庭：好的。证人：好的。卢夫特先生询问：问：那么我的问题是，你看到该定义了吗？答：是的，我看到了。问：而且你在审阅传票时读过该定义，对吗？答：是的。问：好的。如果请你翻到第15页。你是否看到第14项请求要求 Hudson Diamond Holdings 出示足以显示其全部资产及收入或资金来源的文件？答：我看到了。问：而且你理解，出示回应该请求的文件是你的义务，对吗？答：正确。特沃迪先生：法官阁下，如果可以，当你说“你的律师”时，你指的是 Hudson Diamond Holdings，而非她个人——卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我此刻迷失方向了。特沃迪先生：只是所问的问题指的是她，而非——卢夫特先生：法官阁下——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交于 10/26/23　录入于 10/26/23 20:46:12　第20页，共139页\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交于 10/26/23　录入于 10/26/23 20:46:12　第21页，共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　特沃迪先生：——而非该公司。\n2　卢夫特先生：她以公司身份到庭。\n3　她是该实体的唯一成员。我不明白\n4　这一点——而且她被命令亲自代表\n5　Hudson Diamond Holdings 出庭。我不明白——他\n6　想让我称她为 Hudson Diamond Holdings 吗？\n7　特沃迪先生：是的，请这样称呼。\n8　卢夫特先生：我的意思是，这太荒谬了，法官阁下。\n9　法庭：那么，我认为我们将——就——\n10　卢夫特先生：一个人是唯一成员。\n11　法庭：我们继续进行，并且我们将——我们\n12　将为记录作出澄清。你应当尽量——我确信\n13　你可能不会每次都这样做，但尽量提及\n14　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。\n15　特沃迪律师，我理解你的关切。但是\n16　卢夫特律师在提出\n17　关于应出示文件的更具体问题之前，确实就该定义提出了问题。\n18　而该——我面前没有\n19　该定义，但我听到了这个问题，也听到了卢夫特律师所说的\n20　“你、你的及你本人”的定义，\n21　其指的是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC\n22　及其关联方或相关关联方。\n23　我不知道其中是否有“相关”一词。\n24　\n25　卢夫特先生：没有。它只是说其关联方，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 21 各分部、机构、部门、处室、官员、合伙人、官员再次出现——这是一个笔误——董事、代理人、律师、代表、雇员，或任何代表其行事的人，均属于该定义。法庭：因此，我——虽然我理解并重视您的关切，但我确实认为，他已通过证词证明，他所提出的任何问题均系向郭女士以其作为管理成员的公司身份提出。这当然也是法庭对此的理解方式。我不知道这是否对您有帮助。TWARDY先生：法官阁下，是有帮助的。我正要说，我并非有意为难。我只是需要保护郭女士的——法庭：我明白。TWARDY先生：——个人权利。因此，只要我们都理解，如果Luft先生使用“your”一词，其所指的是传票中所载的“your”定义，那么——法庭：正确。TWARDY先生：——我就无需——法庭：正确。TWARDY先生：——大惊小怪。法庭：而且我相信，这就是他为何询问第7页上定义的问题。我不知道是否——案号 22-50073 文件 2292-55 提交于 10/26/23 登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12 第22页，共139页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1　TWARDY先生：\n是。\n\n2　法庭：\n——但我——我是基于以下事实作出推定：\n\n3　即，当本事项就文件提交问题提交法庭审理时，\n\n4　其始终是向该LLC提出的。\n\n5　而且，显然，该LLC只能通过其管理成员或经授权\n\n6　人员行事。\n\n7　\n\n8　因此，无论如何，我理解您的观点，而且我\n\n9　认为我们已就此明确记入案卷。我们可以\n\n10　继续。\n\n11　TWARDY先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n12　法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n13　LUFT先生：\n好的。\n\n14　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n15　问　郭女士，如果您看一下第——第15项请求，您\n\n16　理解您必须提交显示第14项中所确定的所有\n\n17　价值超过$50,000的资产的全部文件，以及与您\n\n18　取得该等资产有关的文件，和就该等资产与\n\n19　债务人及债务人家属之间的通信，\n\n20　对吗？\n\n21　\n\n22　答　我看到了。\n\n23　问　并且，您从第16项理解到，您被\n\n24　要求提交您的纳税申报表副本，对吗？\n\n25　答　是，我看到了。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1　问　并且，您理解您应当提交适用于Hudson\n\n2　Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的纳税申报表\n\n3　副本，对吗？\n\n4　答　我理解。\n\n5　问　好的。并且，根据第17项，您理解您应当\n\n6　提交足以显示Hudson Diamond Holdings所持有或\n\n7　控制的全部银行账户和投资账户的文件，\n\n8　包括每一该等账户的余额以及向该等账户和从该等账户\n\n9　进行的转账，对吗？\n\n10　答　我看到了。\n\n11　问　并且，您理解您应当提交那些\n\n12　文件，对吗？\n\n13　答　是。\n\n14　问　并且，您已经理解，就所有这些请求而言，\n\n15　任何向Hudson Diamond Holdings提出的请求均包括Hudson\n\n16　Diamond Holdings的任何关联方，对吗？\n\n17　答　我理解。\n\n18　问　好的。郭女士，您没有提交一份回应我刚才提到的任何\n\n19　请求的文件，对吗？\n\n20　答　正确。\n\n21　问　并且，就总共21项请求而言，您仅\n\n22　提交了两份文件，对吗？\n\n23　答　正确。\n\n24　问　好的。郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings为何\n\n25　被设立？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1　TWARDY先生：\n我将指示我的当事人\n\n2　援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n3　证人：\n我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n4　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n5　问　郭女士，您是如何成为Hudson\n\n6　Diamond Holdings的唯一成员的？\n\n7　TWARDY先生：\n我将指示我的当事人\n\n8　援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n9　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n10　问　您的父亲，即债务人——\n\n11　答　我将援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n12　问　好的。抱歉。\n\n13　口译员：\n谢谢您，先生。\n\n14　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n15　问　您的父亲，即债务人，将您安排为Hudson Diamond\n\n16　Holdings名义上登记的唯一成员，对吗？\n\n17　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n\n18　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n19　证人：\n我将援引我的第五修正案\n\n20　权利。\n\n21　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n22　问　事实上，Hudson Diamond Holdings是依照您\n\n23　父亲的指示设立的，不是吗？\n\n24　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n\n25　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 25 证人：我将援引我的第五修正案权利。由LUFT先生询问：问　并且，在任何时候，您的父亲一直控制着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　并且，在任何时候，您的父亲也一直控制着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　并且，Hudson Diamond New York中的所有资产也都是您父亲的资产，对吗？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将——我将请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　并且，以Hudson Diamond名义开立的所有银行账户——案号 22-50073 文件 2292-55 提交于 10/26/23 登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12 第26页，共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 26 Holdings名下的所有银行账户实际上都是由您父亲控制的账户，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　并且，Hudson Diamond New York的所有银行账户事实上均是由您的父亲、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：我们还希望提出异议，认为有关Hudson Diamond New York的问题超出了直接陈述的范围，也超出了今日出庭所涉说明理由命令的理解范围。法庭：驳回该异议。请继续。DESPINS先生：Avi？法官阁下，我能与我的同事商量两秒钟吗？法庭：可以。（律师商议）LUFT先生：法官阁下，我已准备好继续。法庭：请继续。案号 22-50073 文件 2292-55 提交于 10/26/23 登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12 第27页，共139页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交于 10/26/23\n登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日\n\n1　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n2　问　事实上，Hudson Diamond Holdings完全拥有Hudson\n\n3　Diamond New York，对吗？\n\n4　TWARDY先生：\n我将指示——法官阁下，\n\n5　恕我直言，我将指示我的当事人\n\n6　援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n7　证人：\n我将援引我的第五修正案\n\n8　权利。\n\n9　（律师商议）\n\n10　由LUFT先生询问：\n\n11　问　好的，郭女士。您是Hudson\n\n12　Diamond Holdings, LLC的唯一成员，对吗？\n\n13　答　正确。\n\n14　身份不明发言人：\n简短问一个问题。\n\n15　身份不明发言人：\n法官阁下，容我？\n\n16　是。\n\n17　身份不明发言人：\n哦，抱歉。您先请。\n\n18　身份不明发言人：\n不，不，您。\n\n19　身份不明发言人：\n所以——\n\n20　法庭：\n等一下。请原谅，先生。\n\n21　身份不明发言人：\n我是捷克语口译员。\n\n22　抱歉。我认为——\n\n23　法庭：\n等一下。您是什么？\n\n24　身份不明发言人：\n我是捷克语口译员。\n\n25　身份不明发言人：\n捷克语口译员。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 28 法庭：我们并未让您宣誓就任或做任何类似程序。第一，我不知道有一名捷克语口译员。身份不明发言人：好的。法庭：第二，您不能在庭审进行中间就站起来开始说话。好吗？程序不是这样运作的。我并不是说我们无法解决这个问题，但正如您所见，我们必须让口译员宣誓。如果您要担任捷克语口译员，您需要宣誓。您不能只是到这里来做这件事。因此，我不知道您是谁。我不知道您的姓名。我对您一无所知。而且这——我们必须建立案卷记录。所以是否——我完全不知道。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？身份不明发言人：已披露，法官阁下。我们昨天告知了第11章受托人。身份不明发言人：您告诉过我您会带来一名口译员。我告诉您我们已经有一名。这不是一回事。请看，法官阁下——法庭：我们以前这样做过。好吗？这不是第一次。因此，我不知道这为何会成为问题。我们以前这样做过。我们在本案的听证会上曾有两名口译员。而且当——如果您不打算——我不会扰乱程序。案号 22-50073 文件 2292-55 提交于 10/26/23 登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12 第29页，共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 29 LUFT先生：法官阁下？法庭：所以——不。等一下，Luft律师。所以，Romney先生——ROMNEY先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：——以及可能Wernick女士和Vartan先生——我不记得了，但我认为你们此前曾在有两名口译员时在场，是吗？ROMNEY先生：我没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。不过，您办公室的某个人曾在场。ROMNEY先生：我——法庭：好吗？而且我们——我不明白这有什么道理：现在正处于庭审中，一个问题正在被提出，一名不是律师、未提交出庭通知、也未宣誓的人站起来，现在正在扰乱本程序。ROMNEY先生：是，法官阁下。我不反对法官阁下刚才所说的任何内容。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，由其调查。法庭：那么，有人告知法庭怎么样？那不恰当吗？ROMNEY先生：嗯——案号 22-50073 文件 2292-55 提交于 10/26/23 登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12 第30页，共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 30 法庭：那是恰当的，不是吗，即法庭应当了解发生了什么？因为必须作出决定的人是法庭，而不是律师，对吗？ROMNEY先生：我明白。我所解释的是，法官阁下，我——我对该程序将如何进行的理解，显然因我未与我们的捷克语口译员沟通而产生的问题是：如果他有问题，他会告知律师。律师会提出异议，之后再由此继续。而该错误在于我。法庭：好的。那么——我——好。ROMNEY先生：我道歉。法庭：我明白您的意思。不过，事情并未如此发生。ROMNEY先生：事情并未如此发生，我对此承担责任。法庭：好的。那么我们接下来如何进行？按照您刚才所说的方式，即你们三人中的某个人将会站起来提出异议？ROMNEY先生：不。我认为——法官阁下，容我说一句？我们当然听从法庭安排。但在我看来，最佳的进行方式是让捷克语口译员与提出异议的Twardy先生交谈，而Twardy先生将把任何问题转达给\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　31　法庭：好的，Twardy先生仅就与证人个人——\n\nROMNEY先生：明白。\n\n法庭：——身份有关的事项提出异议。\n\nROMNEY先生：明白。\n\n法庭：并非就该法人实体而言。明白吗？因此，我——Twardy先生在此以其所述方式代表其当事人，也就是说，他已获悉——我相信，Twardy先生，您是这么说的，但如我有误请您纠正——您的当事人是 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）正在进行调查的一个可能目标。您是这么说的吗？\n\nTWARDY先生：我说她是调查对象，法官大人，这略有不同——\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉。\n\nTWARDY先生：——在细微差别上有所不同，但仍然，法官大人，是的——\n\n法庭：所以她是——所以您——\n\nTWARDY先生：——她处于——她面临风险。\n\n法庭：她面临风险。因此，他在此是为保护她个人所面临的责任风险。各位在此是为保护 Hudson Diamond, LLC（哈德逊钻石有限责任公司）所面临的责任风险。这是你们所代表的当事人。因此，事情将按此方式进行。Twardy先生不得提出如下异议：Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 32 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023\n\n1　涉及 Hudson Diamond, LLC 的异议。\n\n2　ROMNEY先生：\n嗯——\n\n3　法庭：\n他可以提出\n\n4　他认为影响其——当事人\n\n5　就 Southern District of New York 的程序而言的个人权利的异议。\n\n6\n\n7　ROMNEY先生：\n明白，法官大人。但是，\n\n8　在异议基于以下事实的范围内，\n\n9　即向作为该有限责任公司行事之人的证人\n\n10　错误翻译了问题，\n\n11　我认为无法作出——作出这种区分。因为\n\n12　异议针对的是向个人以及\n\n13　实体同时提出的问题的翻译。\n\n14\n\n15　从实际角度而言——我的看法和\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，由——由\n\n18　口译员告知我们，并由我们其中一人站起来\n\n19　提出该异议。对于未就此向我们的口译员说清楚，\n\n20　我表示歉意。\n\n21　事实上，我们进来时，我说过，如果有任何\n\n22　问题——我用了“请不要不好意思”这几个字。而我——\n\n23　那是我措辞不当。我的意思是——我用那些话\n\n24　所表达的意思——而且那些正是我的原话——是\n\n25　告诉我，我会采取措施。法庭上发生的事情\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　33　因此是我的责任。不过，您知道，无论法庭希望如何——如同 Vartan律师所述，无论是 Wernick律师、Twardy律师，还是我本人——\n\n法庭：不会有三个人——\n\nROMNEY先生：不，不。我——\n\n法庭：——代表该实体提出异议——\n\nROMNEY先生：我明白。\n\n法庭：——这不会发生。因此，你们三人必须作出选择。\n\nROMNEY先生：不。\n\n法庭：而且 Wernick律师一开始就表示她今天将进行陈述。因此，应由她代表该有限责任公司提出异议——\n\nROMNEY先生：并且——\n\n法庭：——明白吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：并且我重申律师——\n\n法庭：然后 Twardy律师——\n\nROMNEY先生：是。\n\n法庭：——如其提出异议，将代表其当事人的个人权利提出异议，对此 Luft律师亦可表示——他也可以提出异议。届时我将必须作出裁定。明白吗？但这就是——这就是我们今后的进行方式。好吗？我们 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 34 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　34　不会让一个并非律师、未经宣誓、未作出出庭登记且不受 Rule 11 约束的人在记录中发言。明白吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：明白。我再次为此表示歉意，因为这是我的责任。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们将按此方式进行。Wernick律师将代表该有限责任公司提出异议。Twardy律师将代表其当事人以个人身份提出异议。如有重叠，我相信 Luft律师将提出异议，届时我将必须作出某种形式的裁定。明白吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nTWARDY先生：法官大人，我们能否简短商议片刻？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nTWARDY先生：我认为这将有助于加快进程。\n\n（律师商议）\n\n法庭：你们二位需要水吗？桌上有水。\n\n证人：我不需要。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n证人：谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。您需要一瓶吗？您可能 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 35 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　35　需要一瓶，对吗？\n\n口译员：我有我的。\n\n法庭：好的。您有一些？好的。\n\n口译员：这是我的词典——\n\n法庭：是的。没关系。如果——是的。我明白您在用它作词典。没关系。谢谢。\n\nWERNICK女士：法官大人，代表该实体提出的异议只是一个翻译问题。据我理解，Luft先生使用“holder”一词时，被翻译为“owner”一词，我们只是希望翻译能够反映所提出的问题。\n\n法庭：好的。我必须说，我此时甚至不记得问题了，所以问题是什么？我的意思是，您是说——\n\nLUFT先生：（听不清），法官大人。\n\n法庭：您使用的是“owner”一词。您是这么说的吗？\n\nLUFT先生：我——坦率地说不知道（听不清）——\n\n法庭：哦。\n\n口译员：唯一所有人。\n\nLUFT先生：是的。\n\n法庭：那么，我们何不重新提出这个 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 36 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023\n\n1　问题，看看结果如何。如何？\n\n2　LUFT先生：\n可以。\n\n3　由 LUFT先生提问：\n\n4　问　Guo女士，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\n5\n\n6　答　是。\n\n7　问　而 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）的唯一成员，对吗？\n\n8\n\n9　TWARDY先生：法官大人，我将要——哦，我\n\n10　抱歉。\n\n11　法庭：\n请稍等一下。\n\n12　TWARDY先生：\n我——\n\n13　法庭：\n对于\n\n14　再次使用该词或其翻译，有任何异议吗？\n\n15　WERNICK女士：\n是的，法官大人。因此，您\n\n16　知道，这当然超出了我的了解范围。但我理解，\n\n17　Luft先生所使用的“member”一词被翻译为\n\n18　holder，这正是译员希望作出的区分。\n\n19\n\n20　法庭：\n好的。那么请稍等一下。\n\n21　身份不明的发言者：\n唯一成员就是持有人——\n\n22　法庭：\n让我们看看能否完成\n\n23　一些事情。\n\n24　口译员：\n这是一种持有关系。是的。\n\n25　（律师商议）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　37　法庭：好的。口译员表示，在普通话中该词相同，持有人和成员是相同的。\n\n（律师商议）\n\nWERNICK女士：好的。再次说明，您知道，这远超出我的知识范围，但我理解在普通话中有一个表示成员的词可以使用。\n\n身份不明的发言者：那是什么？\n\n身份不明的发言者：（听不清）。\n\n法庭：如果我们要进一步处理口译问题，那么就必须让你们的口译员宣誓。我需要该口译员的姓名、地址、资格，一切信息。就是这样——我的意思是，如果这将持续下去，我们就会这么做。但您的建议是什么，Luft律师？\n\nLUFT先生：我的建议，法官大人，是我——她签署了一份经宣誓的声明，其中多次称自己为唯一成员。我没有——无论是什么——我认为她可能是用英语完成的，因为我知道她会说英语。但如果是中文，那么中文中使用的任何词我都乐于使用。但这是——这是她自己的用词，所以我不是凭空编造的。\n\n口译员：法官大人，这——\n\n法庭：没有人说您是在凭空编造 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 38 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023\n\n1　。\n\n2　LUFT先生：\n对。我只是说，我们应当知道\n\n3　这个词是什么。因此，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。如果她确实如此，我不明白我们为何——\n\n5\n\n6　法庭：\n那么您何不问这个问题。\n\n7　口译员：\n法官大人，口译员可以\n\n8　重新作出她的口译吗？\n\n9　法庭：\n当然可以。\n\n10　证人：\n可以。\n\n11　LUFT先生：\n好的。我们无论如何就这么做，\n\n12　以便解决这个问题。我可以要第11标签吗？\n\n13　法官大人，我想向证人出示一份\n\n14　她的声明副本。\n\n15　法庭：\n请进行。\n\n16　LUFT先生：\n我可以上前吗？\n\n17　法庭：\n可以。\n\n18　证人：\n谢谢。\n\n19　由 LUFT先生提问：\n\n20　问　Guo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　谁写的？\n\n25　答　这是一份声明。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　39　问　谁写的？\n\n答　我的律师根据我的陈述起草的。\n\n问　所以，您向您的律师口述了您希望写在这里的内容？\n\nWERNICK女士：并且，法官大人，我仅在其涉及任何律师—当事人沟通的范围内提出异议。\n\n法庭：驳回异议。\n\n由 LUFT先生提问：\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：请回答。\n\n法庭：Twardy律师说请回答。\n\n证人：先生，您能重复一下问题吗？\n\n由 LUFT先生提问：\n\n问　当然。我只是想了解。因此，您向您的律师口述了您希望写在这里的内容，而他们将其写下来？\n\n答　是。\n\n问　您是与哪位律师这样做的？\n\nWERNICK女士：再次，法官大人，我在其涉及律师—当事人沟通的范围内提出异议。\n\n法庭：驳回异议。Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 40 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023　40　由 LUFT先生提问：\n\n问　您可以回答。\n\n答　我的两位律师，Louisa和Lee。Melissa和Lee。\n\n问　Melissa和Lee。您知道 Wernick女士和 Vartan先生是否会说普通话吗？\n\n答　他们不会。\n\n问　您用什么语言与他们交谈？\n\n答　英语。\n\n问　而且，当您签署您的声明时，您审阅了它——这份英文文件？\n\n答　正确。\n\nLUFT先生：好的。法官大人，我想将此标记为 Trustee Exhibit 2。我忘了将 Exhibit 1 申请作为证据。我请求将1和2——\n\n法庭：实际上——您确实已申请将 Exhibit 1 作为证据，而我已全部采纳，因为 Wernick律师表示她不反对采纳该证据。Wernick律师，对于将该声明作为 Trustee's Exhibit 2 采纳，您有任何异议吗？\n\nWERNICK女士：没有，法官大人。而且我认为，您知道，我们已将其作为我们的直接证据提交，所以。对。\n\n法庭：谢谢。您实际上并未将其作为证据提交，但没关系。现在它——现在是 Trustee's 2。明白吗？谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23\n20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 22, 2023\n\n1　（受托人证据2获准入证）\n\n2　卢夫特先生：\n\n3　问\n那么，我将再次尝试提出我的问题。我将按照其英语术语以及该声明中的使用方式使用“唯一成员”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\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。\n\n10　证人：\n我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n11　卢夫特先生：\n\n12　问\n好的。郭女士，您曾代表Hudson Diamond New York签署公司文件，对吗？\n\n14　特沃迪先生：\n我将指示我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n\n16　韦尼克女士：\n并且，法官阁下，我代表该实体，仅重申就涉及Hudson Diamond New York的提问路线提出的异议。\n\n19　法庭：\n也就是说，您认为这超出了范围？\n\n21　韦尼克女士：\n是的。超出了本动议的范围。\n\n23　法庭：\n异议驳回。\n\n24　证人：\n我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n25　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我想向证人出示一份文件，即案卷编号1805-46中的文件。该文件是我声明的证据T，是一份Hudson Diamond New York, LLC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案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n5　法庭：\n可以。\n\n6　卢夫特先生：\n\n7　问\n郭女士，您认识这份文件吗？\n\n8　特沃迪先生：\n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\n10　证人：\n我援引我的第五修正案权利。\n\n11　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我必须对此提出异议。罗姆尼先生在本案中提交了一份声明，其中谈到他曾就这份完全相同的文件与证人交谈，随后根据她向他作出的陈述提供证词。我认为，不能在您想谈论问题时谈论问题，而在您想援引第五修正案时援引第五修正案。如果我们想查看，我很乐意调出他的——罗姆尼律师的声明，但我知道其中有这个。我知道他们讨论了什么。\n\n20　法庭：\n什么声明？特沃迪律师可能没有看过。不过，那——我——\n\n22　卢夫特先生：\n是7月的——\n\n23　法庭：\n我只是想知道您指的是什么。\n\n25　卢夫特先生：\n是的，法官阁下。该文件位于案卷编号1988，于2023年7月7日提交。这是Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼）就Hudson Diamond New York, LLC律师退出代理动议所作的声明。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n4　法庭：\n特沃迪律师，您想让我们调出该声明供您查看吗？我们可以立即调出来，让您看到。\n\n7　卢夫特先生：\n具体而言，我所提及的是第13段。\n\n9　特沃迪先生：\n我会从对方律师肩后查看。\n\n10　法庭：\n卢夫特律师，再说一遍，是什么？ECF编号是什么？\n\n12　卢夫特先生：\n是1988，法官阁下。\n\n13　法庭：\n1988？您查看的是哪一段？\n\n15　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我认为讨论该证据的是第13段。\n\n17　特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，如法官阁下所指出，我在此是郭女士的律师。罗姆尼先生在某份文件中所做的事情，应由卢夫特先生与罗姆尼先生处理。我正指示我的当事人不要——援引第五修正案权利。\n\n22　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我相信罗姆尼先生并非以其——而是因为他正寻求退出作为Hudson Diamond New York律师的代理；在该事项中，他是由Hudson Diamond New York和Hudson Diamond, LLC聘任的。我相信——我假定他是作为律师及其代理人行事。说这是罗姆尼先生的问题，应由我与他交涉，我认为并不适当。罗姆尼先生在其声明中向法庭提交了关于郭女士将会如何作答的信息。这是他们选择提交信息的方式。我认为他们现在不能躲在罗姆尼先生背后。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n8　特沃迪先生：\n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\n11　卢夫特先生：\n我认为不能以这种方式选择性地援引，法官阁下。\n\n13　法庭：\n嗯，那——是否可以这样做，并非本法庭今天将作出裁定的事项。\n\n15　卢夫特先生：\n可以，法官阁下。\n\n16　法庭：\n好吗？他正指示其当事人援引第五修正案反对自证其罪特权。您只需保留记录。\n\n19　卢夫特先生：\n可以。\n\n20　法庭：\n我认为这就是您必须做的。\n\n21　卢夫特先生：\n好的，法官阁下。那么，我将记录我的异议，即在他们试图——企图就其已经放弃并披露信息的领域援引第五修正案权利的范围内提出异议。\n\n25　法庭：\n我理解您的异议。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n卢夫特先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n而且我今天不对该异议作出裁定。特沃迪先生已指示其当事人不要回答该问题。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n我明白。\n\n特沃迪先生：\n法官阁下，为求完整，正如卢夫特先生提到的“他们”，那是Hudson Valley Holdings（哈德逊谷控股公司）的律师。我是她的律师，并且正指示她以其个人身份援引第五修正案。他们做了什么，我不关心，恕我直言。\n\n法庭：\n我明白。不过，遗憾的是，特沃迪律师，这确实会影响本案整体的进行。\n\n特沃迪先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n所以，我理解您的——我理解您的陈述，但这可能对本案整体产生不同的影响。\n\n特沃迪先生：\n明白，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以将我希望标记为受托人证据3的文件作为证据提交吗？\n\n法庭：\n即——\n\n卢夫特先生：\n即面前的文件——Hudson Diamond New York, LLC——\n\n法庭：\n即附于罗姆尼律师声明的文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 46　卢夫特先生：不，法官阁下。该文件最初作为我声明中的证据T附于案卷编号1805-46。法庭：它是否也附于罗姆尼律师的声明？是同一份文件吗？卢夫特先生：不。他只是提到——他提到——法庭：他提到。卢夫特先生：——该文件。法庭：好的。但他确实在其声明中附了一份文件。卢夫特先生：是的，法官阁下。一串电子邮件。法庭：好的。韦尼克女士：并且，法官阁下，我们仅就该文件重申相同异议，即在该文件涉及Hudson Diamond New York而非我们今日在此所涉的Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC的范围内。法庭：我将再次驳回您的异议。正如我向特沃迪律师所述，传票的范围极其宽泛，而正如贵当事人，嗯，作为Hudson Holdings代表所作证的那样，相关定义包括Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC及其关联方。因此，您的异议被驳回。韦尼克女士：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表明它们是关联实体。案件 22-50073 文件 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第47页，共139页\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n法庭：\n罗姆尼先生为支持其退出代理动议而提交的宣誓书支持它们存在关联。\n\n韦尼克女士：\n哦，我认为，实际上，罗姆尼先生提交的材料支持这样一个事实，即它们并非关联实体。\n\n法庭：\n不。他的声明称他没有——他以为自己受聘了，但事实并非如此。它没有说它们不具有关联。它说的是——\n\n韦尼克女士：\n嗯，我认为——\n\n法庭：\n它说，他认为是由一名具有权限、也有权聘请他的人员聘请的，但该人员并没有这种权限。您的宣誓书就是这么说的。罗姆尼先生，您的退出代理动议是否完全基于这一点，即您认为自己受聘代表纽约实体行事，然后您后来发现您没有——聘请您代表纽约——纽约实体行事的人并无权聘请您？它是不是这样说的？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\nHodgson 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聘请我的个人——我此前作证称该个人是郭女士——并无权聘请我。基于该理由，我将——我正在申请退出代理。\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n1　我只想为记录作出说明，以免因我坐在房间内而将我的沉默视为默许，即该声明是我因应基于我的退出代理动议作出的说明理由令，而由我在伪证处罚下签署的。并且，该声明是在——在就我的退出代理动议发出说明理由令之后，美国受托人（原文如此）检察官办公室的克莱伯恩女士代表该办公室向我提出了一系列问题，而这就是我的——\n\n11　法庭：\n美国受托人办公室。\n\n12　罗姆尼先生：\n我道歉。\n\n13　法庭：\n没关系。\n\n14　罗姆尼先生：\n美国受托人办公室。谢谢您，法官阁下。该声明是Aaron Romney在伪证处罚下所作的陈述，旨在——\n\n17　法庭：\n不，我明白。我——\n\n18　罗姆尼先生：\n——处理——以便我——只是为了说明——所以不存在——我是在代表Aaron Romney提交这份声明。\n\n21　法庭：\n我明白。\n\n22　罗姆尼先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n23　法庭：\n请继续，卢夫特律师。\n\n24　卢夫特先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。我寻求将受托人证据3作为证据提交。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n1　法庭：\n对于准许将证据3作为证据提交，是否有异议？\n\n3　韦尼克女士：\n再次提出先前已记录在案的异议，即该证据涉及并非本程序标的的实体，并且未证明其与Hudson Diamond Holdings实体有关联。\n\n8　法庭：\n即使有文件表明Hudson Diamond New York, LLC拥有Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，案件记录中仍未证明这些实体有关联？或者也许正好相反。但本案记录中有文件，律师。\n\n14　韦尼克女士：\n有——\n\n15　法庭：\n您是在对我说，没有任何文件，没有任何已在本案中提出的证据，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\n21　韦尼克女士：\n恕我直言，法官阁下，我指的是罗姆尼先生声明中提及的、来自Hodgson Russ的通信，该通信表明不存在——\n\n25　法庭：\n该声明不在本法庭面前。\n\n今天法庭面前要审理的是，是否应当因被送达传票的一方未提交文件而作出藐视法庭的认定。这就是今天法庭面前的事项。本案中已提交的文件证明，这两个实体之间存在关系。这一点载于州务卿的记录中。\n\n所以你——你要提出该论点，称其超出本传票的范围？好的。异议驳回。\n\n（受托人证物3获准入证）\n\nWernick 女士（韦尼克）：好的。\n\n法庭：请继续，Luft 先生（卢夫特）。\n\n由 Luft 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo 女士（郭梅），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（哈德森钻石纽约有限责任公司）无会议独资成员同意书”？然后第二页写着：“兹证明，本无会议独资成员同意书于 December 4, 2020 签署。”其中写道：“Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德森钻石控股有限责任公司），由 Mei Guo（郭梅）作为独资成员。”您看到了吗？\n\n答：是。\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（罗姆尼）和 Vartan 先生（瓦尔坦）担任 Hudson Diamond New York 的律师，对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 51\n\n口译员：请再说一遍律师的姓名，可以吗？抱歉。\n\nLuft 先生：Romney 先生和 Vartan 先生。\n\nTwardy 先生（特沃迪）：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。本案已经进行了广泛的证据开示，并就 Guo 女士是否聘请 Vartan 先生和 Romney 先生作出了证词。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\n由 Luft 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——Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 并非 Hudson Diamond New York 的独资成员？\n\nWernick 女士：异议，法官阁下。他直接询问律师与当事人之间的沟通。\n\nLuft 先生：法官阁下，他们曾提出退出代理的动议——\n\n法庭：这不是享有特权的沟通。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 52 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 52\n\n法庭：我驳回——驳回你的异议。\n\n口译员：先生，请再说一遍问题，可以吗？\n\nLuft 先生：当然可以。\n\n由 Luft 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 并非 Hudson Diamond New York 的独资成员？\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\n由 Luft 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\n由 Luft 先生询问：\n\n问：事实上，您是在 Capital One 开立了那些银行账户，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：好的。法官阁下，此时我想向证人出示一份来自 Capital One 的银行对账单。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 53 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n该银行对账单的期间为 July 1, 2019 至 July 31, 2019。其 Bates 编号为 Cap1Kwok0000049。该文件已标注为保密。因此我不知道——因此，为记录在案，我们应当标明——注意这一点。但是，除此之外——\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。这是一份在这些受保护令适用的 Chapter 11 案件的证据开示过程中提交的保密文件？\n\nLuft 先生：是，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：这是来自他们当事人的记录。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 54\n\n法庭：——不是通过提交程序取得的？\n\nLuft 先生：不是，我此前未向他们出示。\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：今天之前我从未见过 Twardy 先生。\n\n法庭：好的。那么他——那么您大概没有给过他这份文件。\n\nLuft 先生：对。\n\n法庭：让我现在想一想。这是保密文件。因此我们必须确定如何——但您必须能够向律师出示该文件，同时保持其保密性。\n\nLuft 先生：是。\n\n法庭：那么我们该如何处理？\n\nLuft 先生：因此，法官阁下，我不知道 Twardy 先生是否曾签署过保护令。我知道 Vartan 先生、Romney 先生和 Wernick 女士都签署过。因此他们可以查看。再次请问，Twardy 先生，您是否曾签署过保护令？\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：我们可以就该文件采取的方式之一是——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 55 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n关于该文件，以及您计划就其询问证人的任何其他可能保密的文件，可能需要我对该文件和保护令进行不公开审查。因为对于保密文件，保护令中有严格的规定，Twardy 律师——我知道您此前并未参与本案——关于保护令中的规定。\n\n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，因为实质上您直到今天才参与其中。因此，我必须弄清楚——我想弄清楚最佳的处理方式，以免此事日后成为问题。这正是设立保护令的全部原因。\n\n您还有多少可能属于——符合这一类别、且计划就其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。他们一直都将其以保密标记交给我们。\n\n法庭：他们是谁？\n\nLuft 先生：Capital One 银行，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 56\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。我可以再次核查，但我认为是这样。还有一些他们似乎没有的电子邮件。\n\n法庭：是否有——是否有您可以先询问的问题，而我们可以在最后处理这些文件？如果没有，也没关系。那我想短暂休庭，并考虑如何处理——我最近没有看过保护令。我得回去重新阅读保护令，对吗？\n\nLuft 先生：完全没问题，法官阁下。我可以把这个问题移到最后，但我想就这些文件询问证人。\n\n法庭：没问题。那么我们继续，之后再回到这一事项。\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，如果这有助于法庭在其——您的审议中，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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 57 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 57\n\n必须作出该记录。他将提出他希望提出的每一个问题。如果她——援引其第五修正案权利，这完全——您知道，她有权这样做。但他也有权建立该记录。\n\nTwardy 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\nLuft 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：Luft 律师，请继续。\n\nLuft 先生：好的。\n\n由 Luft 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。请稍等。事实上，Guo 女士，您签署了——您是 Capital One 的 Hudson Diamond New York 银行账户的签字人之一，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：请给我一秒钟。\n\n由 Luft 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo 女士，您是否告诉 Romney 先生，您的名字不在 Capital One 的那个 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：我将再次驳回您的异议，并为记录在案指出，您未就传票中的任何事项提出正式异议。因此，如果您继续提出异议，您可以继续提出异议，但未就该传票提出任何异议——没有保护令、没有撤销传票的动议，什么也没有。关于通过该传票寻求的事项和证据。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，为记录在案，只是——我知道已经过去一段时间了，但我和 Luft 律师代表各自的当事人在法庭上口头达成、其后以书面提交并由法庭作出命令的该项约定，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。但您并未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。您没有这样做。\n\nRomney 先生：没有。对。\n\n法庭：您没有这样做。\n\nRomney 先生：异议是针对所提出的问题，而非文件请求。\n\nWernick 女士：对。\n\nRomney 先生：就是——\n\n法庭：没问题。我仍然驳回该异议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 59 of 139\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\nTwardy 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 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\n由 Luft 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo 女士，我将援引 Romney 先生 July 7th 声明的第9段。他写道——我向您表示其中内容如下：“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，且 Capital One 无法向 Guo 女士提供账户对账单，因为她的名字不在该账户上？”\n\n口译员：律师，我能拿一下该文件吗？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：我甚至还没有提出我的问题，法官阁下。\n\nTwardy 先生：听起来像是一个问题。抱歉。\n\nLuft 先生：嗯，我读了前提。我随后并未——我——我没有机会提出我的问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 60 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 60 法院：请继续提问。LUFT先生代为询问：问：郭女士，您是否确实告知 Vartan先生和 Romney先生，您无法取得该 Capital One（第一资本）账户，因为您的姓名不在该账户上？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。LUFT先生：法官阁下——证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生：并且为记录在案，我提出异议，显然他们已通过基于该沟通作出主张而就此打开了话题。法院：明白。LUFT先生：好的。LUFT先生代为询问：问：郭女士，您今天坐在这里，是否——您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）的唯一成员？TWARDY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。LUFT先生代为询问：问：Romney先生或 Vartan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，文件表明 Holdings 是成员，而非您的兄弟？案号 22-50073 文书 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 61 页，共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 61 并非您的兄弟？WERNICK女士：法官阁下，基于律师—当事人沟通继续提出异议。法院：驳回。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。LUFT先生：为记录在案，我们提出异议。您必须翻译她的回答。证人：第五修正案。TWARDY先生：谢谢。LUFT先生代为询问：问：郭女士，为回应向 Hudson Diamond New York 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings 发出的传票，以及法院关于您为此出庭的命令，您的兄弟从未告诉您他——他是 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员，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先生代为询问：问：郭女士，您从未询问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？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。案号 22-50073 文书 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 62 页，共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 62 证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生代为询问：问：您从未向您的父亲询问谁是 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员，对吗？TWARDY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。LUFT先生代为询问：问：并且，您从未试图与 Yvette Wang（王伊维特）交谈，以了解谁是 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员，对吗？口译员：我可以再听一遍姓名吗？Wang？LUFT先生：Yvette Wang。口译员：Yvette Wang。好的。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先生代为询问：问：郭女士，您从未指示您在 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒和泽斯勒律师事务所）的律师——其亦为您父亲的律师——向您的父亲询问 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁，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。案号 22-50073 文书 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 63 页，共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 63 证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生代为询问：问：郭女士，您曾与 Romney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？WERNICK女士：异议，法官阁下。这再次涉及律师—当事人沟通。法院：哦，请继续。您结束后，我将回应 Wernick律师。好的。关于您的异议，您——您继续主张律师—当事人保密特权异议。我正在查看您方作为直接证词提交的郭女士声明。在该直接证词中，她具体谈到曾与您、Romney律师和 Vartan律师就数项事项进行交谈，其中包括 Capital One，其中包括您在她试图打电话联系 Krasner先生时陪同她。她的声明中没有任何关于试图联系 Wang女士的内容。因此，就其声明所涉事项而言，您的当事人已放弃律师—当事人保密特权，因为她已经陈述，她曾与您、Romney先生和 Vartan先生进行这些交谈。因此，我驳回您的异议。WERNICK女士：好的。并且，恭敬地说，法官阁下，我仅想指出，向郭女士提出的直接问题并未在其声明中涉及，我仍然坚持——案号 22-50073 文书 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 64 页，共 139 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n1　法院：但确实涉及。您已经\n2　打开了整个——您通过提交一份声明打开了整个\n3　询问范围，\n4　她在该声明中证言称，她曾与您就所有这些\n5　事项进行交谈。\n6　因此——并且关于对传票的回应。\n7　因此，我驳回您的异议。\n8　请继续，Luft律师。\n9　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我认为轮到我\n10　指示我的当事人援引第五修正案了。\n11　法院：请便。\n12　证人：第五修正案。\n13　LUFT先生代为询问：\n14　问：并且，在 2023年7月11日的听证会上，Romney先生对\n15　法院说：“我确实向郭女士询问过这辆 Rolls-Royce。”\n16　这发生过吗？\n17　TWARDY先生：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：第五修正案。\n20　LUFT先生：并且，\n21　法官阁下，鉴于他们已经对此作出\n22　回应，我将重申对在该语境下援引第五修正案的\n23　异议。\n24　LUFT先生代为询问：\n25　问：那辆 Rolls-Royce 现在在哪里？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n1　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n2　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n3　证人：第五修正案。\n4　LUFT先生代为询问：\n5　问：事实上，那辆 Rolls-Royce 是您父亲的一项\n6　资产，对吗？\n7　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n8　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n9　证人：第五修正案。\n10　LUFT先生代为询问：\n11　问：Hudson Diamond 也曾参与试图购买\n12　房地产，对吗？抱歉。Hudson Diamond New\n13　York。我道歉。\n14　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n15　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n16　证人：第五修正案。\n17　LUFT先生代为询问：\n18　问：事实上，Hudson Diamond New York 是应\n19　您父亲指示设立的房地产实体，\n20　旨在取得不动产，对吗？\n21　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n22　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n23　证人：第五修正案。\n24　LUFT先生代为询问：\n25　问：Hudson Diamond 曾试图购买多处\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n1　房产，在过去几年中，对吗？\n2　口译员：是 Hudson Diamond New York，对吗，\n3　先生？\n4　LUFT先生：Hudson Diamond New York。我们可以——\n5　我们将把两者都问一遍。\n6　LUFT先生代为询问：\n7　问：Hudson Diamond New York？\n8　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n9　当事人援引第五修正案权利。\n10　证人：第五修正案。\n11　LUFT先生：法官阁下，我希望暂时将一份带有\n12　贝茨编号 GREE002323 的文件标记为受托人证物 4。\n13　该文件是一份 Coldwell Banker（科尔德韦尔·班克）独家买方代理权\n14　表格。我可以向证人出示吗？\n15　并且，法官阁下，我可以走近并向法院提交一份吗？\n16　法院：Wernick律师，您是否反对将该文件作为\n17　受托人证物 4 全部接纳？\n18　WERNICK女士：法官阁下，我认为我们此前\n19　没有机会查看该文件，因此我们将查看它。\n20　但我——再次，我不知道这与什么有关。\n21　而且，如我所说，我们此前没有见过它。\n22　法院：那么，您刚才不是说——只是\n23　告诉我——什么——这是 Coldwell\n24　Banker 与谁之间的挂牌协议？\n25　\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 67 LUFT先生：这是一份 Hudson Diamond 表示 Coldwell Banker——的房地产协议。法院：哪个 Hudson Diamond？LUFT先生：法官阁下，文件上仅写着 Hudson Diamond。法院：好的。还有 Coldwell Banker？LUFT先生：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。WERNICK女士：因此，再次说明，法官阁下，此时首次查看该文件时，文件中有某些手写填写内容，我们不知道其来源。并且，再次说明，文件上未列明具体实体名称。因此，我们基于此提出异议。法院：我将允许您问几个问题，然后我将决定是否接纳它。好吗？LUFT先生：当然，法官阁下。法院：请继续。LUFT先生：我可以走近证人席和审判席吗？法院：可以。口译员：谢谢。LUFT先生代为询问：问：郭女士，您在声明中陈述，Wang女士负责 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的业务和运营？案号 22-50073 文书 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 68 页，共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日 68 TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我可以要一点时间吗？您能说一下——在哪一段吗？LUFT先生：当然。TWARDY先生：谢谢。LUFT先生：我指的是她声明的第 5 段，其中她说：“Yvette Wang 和 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）负责 Holding 的业务和事务。”TWARDY先生：她是否有一份——如果我可以向法院询问？她有副本吗？证人：是的，我有。TWARDY先生：您可以回答。口译员：抱歉？LUFT先生代为询问：问：您可以回答。答：请您重复一下您的问题，因为我现在不记得问题了。问：当然。在您的宣誓声明中，您陈述 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：对。问：好的。如果您能看一下我暂时标记为受托人证物 4、我交给您的文件。您是否案号 22-50073 文书 2292-55 提交日期 10/26/23 录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 69 页，共 139 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年8月22日\n\n1　看到首页买方栏下写着 Hudson Diamond？\n2　答：是。\n3　问：您是否看到背页签名栏下写着\n4　正楷姓名，Hudson Diamond？\n5　答：我看到了。\n6　问：而且，那——在其上方，是\n7　Yvette Wang 女士的签名，对吗？\n8　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的\n9　当事人——援引其第五修正案权利。\n10　证人：第五修正案。\n11　LUFT先生：法官阁下，我们将基于相同理由重申\n12　异议。\n13　法院：我刚才几乎没有\n14　听到您说的话，Luft律师。这不是您的错，但请\n15　再说一遍，以便明确记入记录，\n16　好吗？\n17　LUFT先生：当然，法官阁下。我们将基于相同理由\n18　对援引第五修正案提出异议，因为我们认为他们已通过\n19　主张 Wang女士在 Hudson\n20　Diamond Holdings 中的角色而打开了话题。\n21　TWARDY先生：法官阁下，如果我可以仅为\n22　记录说明？\n23　他们，即 Hudson Diamond，不能放弃郭女士\n24　个人的第五修正案权利。因此我不知道——也不在乎\n25　他们做了什么，但她并未放弃其权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月22日 70　法庭：明白。卢夫特先生：问　郭女士——卢夫特先生：嗯，为什么不——法官阁下，我请求将受托人证据4作为证据接纳。韦尼克女士：我们有一项持续异议。法庭：你的持续异议是什么？韦尼克女士：该记录未经认证。法庭：嗯，那不是一项持续异议。你此前尚未就认证提出异议，因此那不是一项持续异议。那么请陈述你的异议，我会听取。韦尼克女士：好的。该文件包含手写内容。郭女士——没有任何证据表明郭女士与该文件有关，或者此前曾见过该文件。文件上有手写内容，我们无法确定其出自何人，也无法确定该文件来自何人。此外，没有任何知情人对该文件予以认证。卢夫特先生：法官阁下？法庭：卢夫特律师，你想作出回应吗？卢夫特先生：当然，法官阁下。有证言表明，Wang女士代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）行事。案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交日期 10/26/23　录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12　第71页，共139页\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1　我们有证言表明，Hudson Diamond Holdings 由\n2　郭女士所有。\n而且我明确询问了该签名是否为\n3　Wang女士的签名，她是否知道该签名是 Wang 女士的签名，而\n4　她们援引了第五修正案。\n在其希望\n5　援引第五修正案的范围内，那是她们的权利。\n但随后\n6　她们就不能提出异议并称我\n7　没有证据证明她知道该\n8　签名的来源。\n届时应作出不利推定，\n9　法官阁下，即该文件就是其所载明的内容。\n10　韦尼克女士：\n法官阁下，该文件涉及\n11　——我甚至无法判断它涉及哪个实体。\n我不\n12　认为有人声称或提出任何——\n13　卢夫特先生未就该文件涉及何\n14　实体，或其性质、如何形成、\n15　或可能由谁签署该文件等任何其他事项提出任何证据。\n16　\n17　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，其中两处写着\n18　Hudson Diamond。\n它当然写明了它涉及谁。\n19　韦尼克女士：\n我不——我——\n20　卢夫特先生：\n正面和背面都写着。\n21　法庭：\n请稍等，韦尼克律师。\n22　卢夫特先生，请继续。\n23　卢夫特先生：\n在买方一栏写着 Hudson Diamond，\n24　签名姓名一栏也写着 Hudson Diamond。\n25　所以，认为我们不知道该文件涉及哪个实体的说法——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日 72　其涉及 Hudson Diamond，法官阁下。法庭：还有其他——韦尼克女士：至于——法庭：律师，还有其他意见吗？韦尼克女士：有，法官阁下。据我所知，没有任何实体——当然没有受本特定程序约束的实体——仅仅被称为 Hudson Diamond。法庭：我驳回你的异议。我将其作为受托人证据4接纳，并将赋予其我认为适当的证明力。（受托人证据4获准接纳）卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。卢夫特先生问：问　如果您可以看一下受托人证据2，即您的声明。实际上，您现在可以先把它放在一边。过去几年，Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）曾试图购买多处房产，正确吗？特瓦迪先生：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：问　郭女士，与所有这些房地产交易有关的文件在哪里？特瓦迪先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引其——案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交日期 10/26/23　录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12　第73页，共139页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 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　卢夫特先生问：\n4　问\n郭女士，Hudson Diamond 的所有房\n5　地产交易资金均来自您的父亲，即\n6　债务人，正确吗？\n7　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n8　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\n郭女士，事实上，Hudson Diamond Holdings 和 Hudson\n12　Diamond New York 除了来自\n13　或受您的父亲，即债务人控制的\n14　资产或资金外，没有其他资产或资金来源，正确吗？\n15　韦尼克女士：\n我提出异议。这是一个复合\n16　问题。\n17　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我——嗯——\n18　法庭：\n请继续。\n19　特瓦迪先生：\n对不起。我只是要\n20　指示她援引其第五修正案权利，但我\n21　不想抢在法官阁下之前。\n22　法庭：\n我本来不打算说什么，所以你\n23　请继续。\n24　特瓦迪先生：\n好的。\n法官阁下，那么我将\n25　指示她援引第五修正案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日 74　证人：第五修正案。卢夫特先生问：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）的档案保管人，正确吗？特瓦迪先生：如果我可以帮她一下。请您找到该处。卢夫特先生：这是她的声明。第一行。特瓦迪先生：好的。卢夫特先生：我假定她对该文件有一定了解。口译员：律师，我可以再听一遍问题吗？卢夫特先生：当然。卢夫特先生问：问　郭女士，我看的是您的引言及第1段，您在其中称自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的档案保管人。您看到这一点了吗？答　我看到了。问　这是真的吗？答　是。问　好的。担任——案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交日期 10/26/23　录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12　第75页，共139页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的档案保管人这一职务\n2　包括什么？\n3　答\n我不理解这个问题。\n4　问\n好的。您称自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的档案保管人（音频缺失）\n5　作为档案保管人？\n6　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n7　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n8　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下——\n9　证人：\n第五修正案。\n10　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我们将提出此前\n11　已经提出过的同一异议，即在她显然已经就该问题\n12　在案卷中作出证言的情况下援引第五修正案权利\n13　是不当的。\n14　好吗？\n15　卢夫特先生问：\n16　问\n您作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的档案保管人采取过\n17　哪些行动？\n18　韦尼克女士：\n我仅提出异议，并请求您\n19　提出一个更具体的问题。\n20　法庭：\n驳回。驳回。\n该\n21　问题没有问题。她可以回答，也可以无法回答。\n22　这不是提出异议的依据，只是你希望以不同方式\n23　提出问题。\n这倒是个新说法。\n24　韦尼克女士：\n恕我直言，法官阁下，我只是\n25　就该问题含糊且歧义提出异议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日 76　法庭：律师，这是你的理解。而且你没有说含糊且——你没有这样说。所以我不——驳回你的异议。特瓦迪先生：法官阁下，我能否请求重新提出该问题，因为我现在已经忘记问题是什么了。卢夫特先生：如果法官阁下希望我这么做，我会再问一遍。法庭：卢夫特先生，是的。我并不希望你这么做，但我要请你这么做。卢夫特先生：可以，法官阁下。卢夫特先生问：问　郭女士，您作为 Hudson Diamonds, LLC 的档案保管人采取过哪些行动？特瓦迪先生：你可以回答，因为这在你的声明中。证人：我不太理解这个问题。您具体是问我对这些文件做了什么吗？卢夫特先生问：问　不是。我问的是，您作为 Hudson Diamond, LLC 的档案保管人采取过哪些行动，如有的话。韦尼克女士：抱歉，法官阁下。我们能否为该问题限定时间范围？法庭：不能。请继续。她可以回答该问题。案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交日期 10/26/23　录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12　第77页，共139页\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1　证人：\n我只是到我的电脑和我的\n2　邮箱——我的电子邮箱中搜索相关文件。\n3　卢夫特先生问：\n4　问\n您是否曾作为 Hudson Diamond, LLC 的档案保管人采取过任何其他\n5　行动？\n6　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将——如果\n7　律师询问的是她在声明所述内容之外做了什么，\n8　我将指示我的当事人就此援引其第五修正案权利。\n9　\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\n12　再次提出异议。\n13　卢夫特先生问：\n14　问\n您搜索的是哪台电脑？\n15　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n16　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n17　证人：\n第五修正案。\n18　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我再次提出异议。\n证人\n19　刚刚确实作出了该证言。\n我只是提出一个\n20　后续问题。\n21　卢夫特先生问：\n22　问\n您搜索了哪些账户？\n23　答\n电子邮箱账户。\n24　问\n哪个电子邮箱账户？\n25　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日 78　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，我提出同一异议。此时这显然是在又作剑又作盾。卢夫特先生问：问　该——那个——那些电子邮箱账户保存在哪里？特瓦迪先生：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：问　郭女士，这是一个 Hudson Diamond Holdings 专用电子邮箱账户吗？特瓦迪先生：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：问　郭女士，这是一个 Hudson Diamond New York 专用账户吗？特瓦迪先生：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，此时我仅就——至少就该电子邮箱账户这一问题请求一项持续异议。案号 22-50073　文件 2292-55　提交日期 10/26/23　录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12　第79页，共139页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交日期 10/26/23\n录入日期 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年8月22日\n\n1　或者我可以——每次都再次\n2　提出异议。\n3　法庭：\n我认为我们需要每次都这样做，\n4　律师。\n5　卢夫特先生：\n可以，法官阁下。\n就该问题及前一个问题，我提出异议，理由是\n7　在证人认为对其有利时就该主题公开作证的情况下，\n8　不当援引第五修正案\n9　权利。\n10　法庭：\n嗯，我假定你今天之后将提交\n11　一份文件，指出所有这些援引情况，随后你可以援引\n12　涉及不当——即——法律的规定——\n13　而且破产法院有判例法讨论\n14　在提出具体问题，而该问题已经成为援引该特权之人\n15　证言内容的情况下，\n16　不当援引第五修正案的情形。\n17　\n18　如提交该文件，法庭将在适当时候予以审理。\n19　卢夫特先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n那么我将\n20　继续往下问。\n21　卢夫特先生问：\n22　问\n您何时搜索您的电子邮箱账户？\n23　特瓦迪先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n24　当事人援引其第五修正案权利。\n25　证人：\n第五修正案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 80\n\nLUFT（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。\n\n由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo（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 月被送达 Rule 2004 subpoena（第2004条规则传票）后，您作为记录保管人采取了什么措施来保存 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的文件？\n\nTWARDY（特沃迪）先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，同一异议。\n\n由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n问：事实上，Guo 女士，针对您从受托人处收到的 Rule 2004 subpoena，您从未采取任何措施保存 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的文件，对吗？\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张其第五修正案权利。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，同一异议。\n\n由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo 女士，您从未收集 Wang（王）女士就 Hudson Diamond Holdings 和 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）所从事工作而持有的任何文件，对吗？\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张其第五修正案权利。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　证人：\n第五修正案。\n2　LUFT 先生：\n同一异议。\n3　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n4　问：\nGuo 女士，您从未采取任何措施确保收集 Krasner（克拉斯纳）先生就其为 Hudson Diamond Holdings 和 Hudson Diamond New York 所从事工作而持有的文件，对吗？\n9　口译员：\n律师，我能确认一下姓名吗？\n10　Krasner 先生？\n11　LUFT 先生：\n对，是 Krasner。\n12　口译员：\nKrasner。好的。\n13　TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张其第五修正案权利。\n15　证人：\n第五修正案。\n16　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n17　问：\nGuo 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未被毁损，对吗？\n21　TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张其第五修正案权利。\n23　证人：\n第五修正案。\n24　LUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，同一异议。\n25　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　问：\n好的。Guo 女士，您在您的声明中称，您审阅了受托人发给 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的 Rule 2004 subpoena。您在聘请 Vartan（瓦尔坦）先生和 Romney（罗姆尼）先生担任两家实体的律师时，是否也审阅了受托人发给 Hudson Diamond New York 的 Rule 2004 subpoena？\n7　WERNICK（韦尼克）女士：\n我仅就法院作出的要求提交声明的命令具体针对的是 Hudson Diamond Holding，而非 Hudson Diamond New York 这一点提出异议。\n11　法院：\n异议驳回。\n12　TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张其第五修正案权利。\n14　证人：\n第五修正案。\n15　LUFT 先生：\n好的。我们继续下一个问题。\n16　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n17　问：\nGuo 女士，您在第 3 段中称，您审阅了 Romney 先生于 July 7, 2023 作出的声明，对吗？\n19　答：\n对。\n20　问：\n好的。您相信其中所有内容都是真实准确的吗？\n22　答：\n对。\n23　问：\nRomney 先生称，并非您的——您告诉他，您的姓名不在 Capital One（第一资本银行）银行账户上。那是真实准确的吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 83\n\nWERNICK 女士：异议。律师与当事人之间的沟通。\n\n法院：律师，异议驳回。您当事人的声明提及 Romney 律师的声明，并称她已审阅该声明。因此，您的异议驳回。\n\nWERNICK 女士：法官阁下，我还要补充一点，该问题还歪曲了 Romney 先生声明的实质内容。\n\n法院：歪曲了什么？\n\nWERNICK 女士：向 Guo 女士提出该问题的表述方式。\n\n法院：异议驳回。\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，基于该理由，我将主张第五修正案——要求我的当事人主张第五修正案特权。\n\nLUFT 先生：抱歉。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT 先生：抱歉。基于什么理由？\n\nTWARDY 先生：因为歪曲了 Romney 的宣誓书。\n\nLUFT 先生：好的。我不希望被指控歪曲事实，因此不如我们将一份此前已纳入记录的文件标记为受托人证据 5。该文件是 Document 1988。这是 Romney 先生的声明副本。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\nPage 84 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 84\n\n该声明涉及其申请辞去 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）律师职务的动议。法官阁下，我可以走近证人吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nWERNICK 女士：谢谢。\n\n由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo 女士，您以前见过这份文件吗？\n\n答：我以前见过。\n\n问：翻到第 9 段。您看到最后一句写道：“Guo 女士进一步告知我和 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；Capital One 无法向 Guo 女士提供账户对账单，因为她的姓名不在该账户上。”您看到了吗？\n\n答：我看到了。\n\n问：Guo 女士，该内容真实准确吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：因此，您宣誓作证称，Capital One 告诉您，您的姓名不在 Hudson Diamond New York 的银行账户上，这一点真实准确吗？\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张第五修正案。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，我将再次提出异议。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\nPage 85 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　法官阁下，就此问题而言。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　LUFT 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n6　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n7　问：好的。Guo 女士，您曾就该传票尝试联系 Krasner 先生？\n9　答：是。\n10　问：您是如何联系的？\n11　答：手机。\n12　问：您使用了哪个电话号码？\n13　答：我不记得。\n14　问：您如何取得该电话号码？\n15　答：谁的电话号码？\n16　问：Max Krasner。\n17　答：我不记得。\n18　问：您不知道您是如何取得致电 Krasner 先生的电话号码的吗？\n20　答：我不记得。\n21　问：这是您持有很久的电话号码吗？\n22　答：我不记得。\n23　问：您大约何时取得 Krasner 先生的电话号码？\n25　答：我不记得。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\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：因此，您持有 Krasner 先生的电话号码已超过一年？\n7　答：对。\n8　问：Guo 女士，您记得我此前对您进行了证言录取吗？\n10　答：记得。\n11　问：您记得您当时是在宣誓后作证吗？\n12　答：是。\n13　问：您记得您曾宣誓将陈述事实、全部事实，并且只陈述事实吗？\n15　答：我记得。\n16　LUFT 先生：\n律师，这是证言录取笔录副本。如果法官阁下需要，我很乐意向法院提交一份。\n19　法院：\n无论如何，您都必须引入——您都必须提交全部文件，所以没问题。\n22　WERNICK 女士：\n法官阁下，我们仅以这超出本程序范围为由提出异议。\n24　LUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，这是为了弹劾。\n25　法院：\n异议驳回。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　LUFT 先生：\n我可以走近证人吗？\n2　法院：\n可以。\n3　口译员：\n谢谢。\n4　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n5　问：\nGuo 女士，您能翻到您的证言录取笔录第 146 页吗？Guo 女士，我于 January 20, 2023 对您进行了证言录取，对吗？\n8　答：\n我不记得具体日期。\n9　问：\n好的。如果您想看一下首页——您看到上面写着 Friday, January 20, 2023 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？\n13　答：\n好的。我看到了。\n14　问：\n好的。我将请您看第 7 行和第 8 行。问题：“您有 Max Krasner 的电话号码吗？”回答：“没有。”\n17　问：\n我读得对吗？\n18　TWARDY 先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示她主张第五修正案。\n20　证人：\n第五修正案。\n21　LUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我提出异议。这是不当的第五修正案指示。\n23　法院：\n我明白。\n24　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n25　问：\nGuo 女士，您是否曾尝试向 Krasner 先生发送电子邮件？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 88\n\nWERNICK 女士：异议。含糊不清。\n\n法院：异议驳回。\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张第五修正案。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT 先生：同一异议。\n\n由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n问：除电话以外，您是否曾以其他方式尝试联系 Krasner 先生？\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人主张第五修正案。\n\n证人：第五修正案。\n\nLUFT 先生：同一异议。\n\n由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n问：Guo 女士，就 Hudson Diamond Holdings 和 Hudson Diamond New York 而言，针对受托人依据该规则向它们送达的传票，您是否采取任何措施尝试与 Wang 女士沟通——联系 Wang 女士？\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，就 Hudson Diamond New York 而言，我将指示我的当事人不要——或者主张其第五修正案权利。\n\n口译员：律师，您能再说一遍吗？\n\nTWARDY 先生：可以。我指示她不要——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\nPage 89 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 89\n\n就 Hudson Diamond New York 而言回答该问题。就她为 Hudson Diamond Holding 联系 Wang 女士所作的尝试而言，她可以回答该问题。\n\n法院：嗯，等一下。抱歉。请继续。那么，Twardy 先生，您的异议是针对她作为公司——作为一个人的身份，而非针对她的个人权利。您并不关心——您告诉过我，您不关心这些实体。但现在您告诉我，您关心这些实体。\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下——\n\n法院：因此，我认为这并不适当。如果您希望指示她不回答——因为您担心对她个人的刑事追诉，那是不同的情况。但您现在正在接替 Wernick 律师曾表示她将承担的角色，也就是说，您现在已就公司实体划出了一条界线，而您曾多次告诉法院和所有人您并不关心这些公司实体。但现在您又关心了。\n\nTWARDY 先生：我确实关心——\n\n法院：所以——\n\nTWARDY 先生：法官阁下，就 Guo 女士而言，我确实关心。并且，这个问题也问及她就——代表 Hudson Holdings 所做的事情。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\nPage 90 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023 90 法院：正是如此。这也正是——这正是整个听证会的内容。TWARDY先生（特沃迪）：明白。这是我会让她回答的问题。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。口译员：好的。TWARDY先生：这是否——法院：我仍然认为您——您现在所持的立场与您在整个听证会期间所持的立场不一致，即您不关心这些实体。Wernick女士（韦尼克）一直援引——一直以超出范围为由提出异议。而我已驳回所有这些异议。因此，既然我继续驳回这些异议，您现在提出了与此前不同的异议。因为现在我已经明确，我——本传票的范围以及与说明理由有关的问题，涉及整个传票及 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。我们在听证会开始时已经讨论过此事，当时 Luft先生（卢夫特）就定义向您的当事人提问，而您的当事人作了回答，并称她理解该定义。其中包括您、您的——我可以写——我可以查看我的笔记。TWARDY先生：是的。Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 91 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 91 法院：但是——TWARDY先生：法官阁下，如果我——法院：但关键是，律师，您不能在他们的异议被驳回后接管他们的异议，并且由于他们不喜欢其异议被驳回，便主张她——您的当事人应当——应当能够就其中一个公司实体援引其第五修正案特权。TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我——她已就有关 Hudson Valley——Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）的任何问题援引其第五修正案特权，因为——这一直是一致的。我已经允许——法院：嗯，您还就与 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 有关的任何事项援引了她的第五修正案特权。所以现在我们——TWARDY先生：什么——法院：现在我们正进入我——TWARDY先生：好的。法院：——我在本次听证会开始时所述的有问题的状况，即现在该证人不仅有一名律师在其作为公司成员的身份中代理她，而且还在其个人 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 92 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1　身份中代理她，而该律师随后得以就公司事项主张特权。\n2　这对我而言毫无道理，\n3　Twardy律师。\n4　TWARDY先生：\n那么，法官阁下，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：\n抱歉？\n8　LUFT先生：\n他指示她援引第五修正案。\n9　您必须向她作出指示。她知道，但——然后\n10　她将会——\n11　证人：\n第五修正案。\n12　LUFT先生：\n我们将提出相同的异议，\n13　法官阁下。\n14　LUFT先生询问：\n15　问　好的。您为就 Hudson Diamond Holdings 收到的传票与 Wang女士（王女士）沟通而采取了哪些行动，如有？\n16　\n17　\n18　答　我无法联系 Wang女士，因为她在\n19　拘留中心。\n20　问　您目前与被拘留者沟通，\n21　不是吗？\n22　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下？\n23　证人：\n您指的是谁？\n24　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下？法官阁下，我将\n25　指示她援引她的第五修正案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 93 证人：我已经回答了您的问题。LUFT先生询问：问　那么，好。我接着问。您与目前正在服刑的父亲沟通，对吗？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案。证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生询问：问　事实上，您在社交媒体上多次——在社交媒体上反复发布，称您在父亲被拘留期间与其沟通，对吗？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案。证人：是的。感谢您的关心。LUFT先生询问：问　您——对于送达的传票，您为就 Hudson Diamond Holdings 遵从该传票一事与 Wang女士沟通，采取了什么措施？TWARDY先生：我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案。证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生询问：问　Guo女士（郭女士），事实上，尽管您将 Wang女士和 Krasner先生（克拉斯纳）列为经营该企业的人，您从未采取任何措施，试图从 Wang女士处获取有关 Hudson Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 94 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 94 Diamond Holdings 遵从受托人传票的信息，对吗？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生询问：问　这是因为您知道 Wang女士只听从您父亲的指示，对吗？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生询问：问　而且您知道，事实上，Krasner先生也只会听从您父亲的指示，对吗？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生询问：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？TWARDY先生：法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引她的第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生询问：Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 95 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1　问　如果我们回到受托人证物2，即您的\n2　声明，如我查看第7段，您说：“我还\n3　联系了我的会计师。”谁是您的会计师？\n4　答　Mindy（明迪）。\n5　问　Mindy？Mindy 的全名是什么？\n6　答　我不记得。\n7　问　您不知道您会计师的全名？\n8　答　我不记得。\n9　问　她所在会计师事务所的名称是什么？\n10　答　名称以 J 开头，还有别的，但我不记得\n11　全名。\n12　问　您所记得的只是它确实以字母\n13　J 开头？\n14　答　J-A 和别的。Janover（雅诺弗）？\n15　问　是 Janover 吗？\n16　答　我不记得。\n17　问　是 Janik（贾尼克）吗？\n18　答　我不记得。\n19　问　它可能是一名会计师，也可能是一家油漆店。我们\n20　不知道。\n21　LUFT先生：\n我撤回该问题。\n22　LUFT先生询问：\n23　问　您如何联系 Mindy？\n24　答　我给她发电子邮件，也给她打电话。\n25　问　好的。当您如\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1　在您的声明中所述联系她时，您是如何联系 Mindy 的？\n2　答　我给她打过电话。我也给她发过电子邮件。\n3　问　她的电话号码是多少？\n4　答　我不记得。\n5　问　您把她的电话号码存在哪里？\n6　答　在我的手机里。\n7　问　您的手机在这里吗？\n8　答　不在。\n9　问　是什么类型的手机？\n10　答　iPhone。\n11　问　智能手机？\n12　答　iPhone 是智能手机。\n13　问　您何时开始使用 iPhone？\n14　答　在 year 2008。\n15　问　此后您一直持续使用吗？\n16　答　没有。\n17　问　好的。您何时开始使用这部智能手机？\n18　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n19　当事人援引她的第五修正案权利。\n20　证人：\n第五修正案。\n21　LUFT先生：\n法官阁下，第五修正案不\n22　应当成为对他们不愿回答的任何问题的一概异议。\n23　她何时开始使用她的手机？\n24　证人：\n我已经回答了该问题。我的\n25　回答是我不记得。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023 97 TWARDY先生：并且，法官阁下，如果我可以为了记录说明？这里可能涉及与提交行为有关的问题，这正是我指示她援引第五修正案的原因。LUFT先生：目前不存在提交行为的问题，法官阁下。TWARDY先生：很可能会有，这正是我所关注的——后续步骤。LUFT先生：那么您得等到我们进行到那里。TWARDY先生：这就是她现在援引该权利的原因。LUFT先生：法官阁下，这是不当的。因此，他现在称她想要援引第五修正案，以防我们日后触及一个涉及——TWARDY先生：我不——LUFT先生：——第五修正案问题的问题。TWARDY先生：我不在乎您。我在乎美国检察官办公室，恕我直言，Duff——Luft先生。LUFT先生：我不在乎您对我的看法，但我正在进行询问。法院：我将停止——LUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：——你们两位，就在这里。好吗？Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 98 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1　您将继续完成您的记录。并且您\n2　将——并且您将就该记录采取您认为\n3　适当的任何行动。\n4　LUFT先生：\n好的。\n5　法院：\n我要说的是，有些问题\n6　直接涉及该证人在声明中的直接\n7　证言，而当您提出该问题时，\n8　已援引第五修正案。\n9　\n10　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我们可以稍作\n11　休息吗？Guo女士到目前为止已在证人席上近两个半小时\n12　了。\n13　法院：\n我不知道 Luft律师还要多长时间。\n14　您想休息，还是想\n15　继续？\n16　LUFT先生：\n不，法官阁下。我想结束。\n17　我没有多少问题了。我的意思是，如果我们想在——在处理银行文件时休息，\n18　让法院有机会查看文件，那也可以。\n19　\n20　法院：\n我想在处理\n21　银行文件之前休息。因此，您为什么不先完成不需要银行文件即可进行的事项，\n22　然后我们再讨论\n23　银行文件。\n24　LUFT先生询问：\n25　问　Guo女士，您说您使用 iPhone，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n1　答　对。\n2　问　您在过去两年一直使用 iPhone 吗？\n3　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的\n4　当事人基于先前陈述的理由援引第五修正案。\n5　\n6　证人：\n第五修正案。\n7　LUFT先生：\n法官阁下，我提出异议。\n8　我可以拿到标签30吗？\n9　法官阁下，我想向证人出示一份\n10　Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）就反对受托人关于遵从\n11　Rule 2004（规则2004）传票及 January 2023 命令的说明理由\n12　命令所作声明的副本。该文件载于案卷 1512。\n13　法院：\n好的。\n14　LUFT先生：\n我可以走近证人吗？\n15　法院：\n可以。\n16　口译员：\n谢谢。\n17　TWARDY先生：\n谢谢。\n18　LUFT先生询问：\n19　问　Guo女士，这是您的律师 Vartan先生就反对受托人关于遵从\n20　针对您本人及 HK USA（香港美国）的 Rule 2004 传票的\n21　说明理由命令所作声明的副本。\n22　\n23　具体而言，我想请您看第25段。\n24　WERNICK女士：\n我提出异议。Luft先生现已\n25　向证人出示了一份涉及其他的\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n本案今日所涉 Hudson Diamond entities（哈德逊钻石实体）之外的实体。\n\n法庭：\n异议驳回。\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特先生）：\n问：\nGuo女士（郭女士），您是否看到第25段援引——Vartan先生（瓦尔坦先生）写道：“Guo女士于2017年初获释后，她与科技产品的关系进一步发生了变化。她停止使用智能手机，并且出于担心被 CCP 追踪，仅使用翻盖手机进行通信。”您是否看到这一内容？\n\nTWARDY先生（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。\n\nLUFT先生：\n法官阁下，我——法官阁下，我的问题仅仅是她是否看到了这一内容。这是不当援引第五修正案。\n\nTWARDY先生：\n她可以回答这个问题。抱歉。我以为我听到了别的内容，Luft先生。\n\nLUFT先生：\n问：\nGuo女士，Vartan先生陈述称，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——通过——翻盖手机进行通信；该陈述是否属实？\n\nTWARDY先生：\n现在，法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　证人：\n第五修正案。\n2　LUFT先生：\n同一异议，法官阁下。\n3　LUFT先生：\n4　问：\n如果我请您查看受托人证物2的第9段，该文件是您的声明副本。您写道：“我查阅了我的纸质和电子记录。”您所指的是哪些记录？\n8　答：\n那是指我的电子邮件。\n9　问：\n还有别的吗？\n10　答：\n只有电子邮件，以及我手头持有的任何文件资料。\n12　问：\n您在哪里保管——嗯，当您说您——手头持有的任何文件资料时，您指的是什么？\n14　答：\n是指我桌上持有的任何打印纸质文件。\n16　问：\n哪一张桌子？\n17　答：\n我的桌子。\n18　问：\n我不想对此轻浮，但您——这是否确实只是碰巧在您所在桌上的任何文件，还是您有某种档案或系统，用以保管与您所从事的任何业务有关的纸质文件？\n23　答：\n是我存放文件的那张桌子。\n24　问：\n好的。您存放文件的那张桌子位于何处？\n\n共139页\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，但我听到她回答“存放文件”，即过去时态，这与宣誓书中的内容一致。Luft先生的问题使用的是“存放”。而且我不——我——您知道，我只是希望——您能澄清一下您的问题吗？是现在时还是过去时？\n7　LUFT先生：\n当然可以。\n8　LUFT先生：\n9　问：\nGuo女士，当您在第9段中说您查阅了纸质文件时，您是否销毁了您所提及的文件？\n12　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示她援引第五修正案。\n14　证人：\n第五修正案。\n15　LUFT先生：\n同一异议，法官阁下。\n16　LUFT先生：\n17　问：\n您是如何销毁您所保管、且本应对传票作出回应的纸质文件的？\n20　WERNICK女士（韦尼克女士）：\n异议。该问题具有争辩性。\n21　LUFT先生：\n嗯，我想知道我们——她是如何做到的。这并不具有争辩性。\n23　法庭：\n异议驳回。\n24　TWARDY先生：\n法官阁下，我将指示我的当事人援引第五修正案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023　103　证人：第五修正案。LUFT先生：案号 22-50073，文件 2292-55，于 10/26/23 提交，于 10/26/23 20:46:12 登记，第 104 页，共 139 页。\n\n问：\n事实上，Guo女士，您是根据您父亲，即债务人的指示销毁了那些文件，对吗？\n\nTWARDY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。\n\n证人：\n第五修正案。\n\nLUFT先生：\n法官阁下，如果您想休庭，这可能正是我可以弄清除银行文件以外是否还有其他文件的时候。然后我们可以——我可以将那些文件提交法庭。\n\n法庭：\n我不需要休庭，但如果您希望休庭，以便您能够确定如何处理受保护令约束的文件，可以。\n\nLUFT先生：\n这正是我想弄清的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。您需要多长时间？十五分钟？二十分钟？\n\nLUFT先生：\n嗯，我知道法官阁下曾表示您也希望有机会审阅这些文件，所以——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我相信，视乎后续发生的情况，我在某个时候将不得不审阅它们。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\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023　104　看看我们将如何继续。好吗？\n\nLUFT先生：\n这样可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nTWARDY先生：\n法官阁下？\n\n法庭：\n法庭休庭至4:50。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n法官阁下，我们可以获得您通常向证人作出的提醒吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。我需要向口译员说明。请您提醒证人，她已宣誓，并且在我们休庭期间仍受该宣誓约束。好吗？\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nLUFT先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：\n全体起立。法庭休庭至4:50。\n\n（法庭于下午4:30至下午4:58休庭。）\n\n法庭：\n好的。Luft先生，我们刚才休庭，我要求您——并要求各方讨论您询问中那一部分，即您表示将就被标记为保密的文件提出一些问题的部分。\n\nLUFT先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n那么，关于这些讨论，您有什么需要报告的吗？案号 22-50073，文件 2292-55，于 10/26/23 提交，于 10/26/23 20:46:12 登记，第 105 页，共 139 页。\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　LUFT先生：\n是，法官阁下。我的理解是，Guo女士的刑事辩护律师已经审阅了该保护令，同意受其约束，并将作出一项记入庭审记录的陈述，说明我们现在没有纸质副本在这里。但是，我——对我而言，如果他记入庭审记录地陈述他愿意受其约束，这已经绰绰有余。届时，我已将我考虑使用的文件与 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）的律师分享。一旦他在庭审记录中作出该陈述，他们也将与他分享这些文件。\n11　LUFT先生：\n好的。\n12　LUFT先生：\n然后我认为——\n13　法庭：\n可以。谢谢。\n14　LUFT先生：\n——法官阁下，我们可以继续。\n15　TWARDY先生：\n并且，法官阁下，是的，我将受本案已作出的保密令约束。\n17　法庭：\n谢谢您，Twardy律师。仅供您知悉，它被称为保护令。\n19　TWARDY先生：\n保护令。抱歉。我——\n20　法庭：\n没关系。而且它——它——文件编号为923。它于 October 6, 2022 在本案——这些 Chapter 11 案件中作出。好吗？\n23　TWARDY先生：\n是。Linsey律师（林赛律师）向我发送了——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它，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023　106　法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nTWARDY先生：\n是的。谢谢您，Linsey律师。\n\n法庭：\n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律师分享这些文件。您预计将如此进行吗？\n\nLUFT先生：\n是，法官阁下。他们持有我打算援引的三份文件的副本——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nLUFT先生：\n——目前。\n\n法庭：\n那么请继续。\n\nLUFT先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n请稍候，法官——\n\n（律师协商）\n\nROMNEY先生：\n法官阁下，如果可以？我认为，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——\n\n法庭：\n我完全听不见您说话，Romney律师。您必须对着麦克风说话。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n非常抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n没关系。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n我试图说的是，鉴于我们即将审阅受保护令涵盖的文件，推定这些文件将以密封方式提交，我请求清空法庭，只要在场人员中有不受保护令约束的人。\n\n法庭：\n我们将专门就这些文件的保密性质提问吗？\n\nLUFT先生：\n我不这样认为，法官阁下，但我——他们——您看，本案中的许多当事方，作为一种事实上的做法，会在他们发送给我们的所有文件上标注“保密”。我认为，我们正在查看的文件并不比我们今天一直在谈论的其他任何事项更加保密，法官阁下，但情况就是如此。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n为记录起见，这些不是 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，我的观点只是，鉴于在 Twardy律师记入庭审记录表示他受其约束之前，我们不被允许与他分享这些文件，推定该限制也应适用于法庭内其他所有人，只要我们涉及文件的实质内容。我完全不知道 Luft律师将要问什么，因此，只要他不涉及文件的实质内容，我想那就没有必要。但我只是试图保护程序，法官阁下。这——案号 22-50073，文件 2292-55，于 10/26/23 提交，于 10/26/23 20:46:12 登记，第 108 页，共 139 页。\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n1　法庭：\n明白。\n2　Luft律师，您打算怎么做？\n3　LUFT先生：\n法官阁下，我确实打算询问这些文件的内容。我相信它们与我过去数小时一直提出的其他问题属于同一事项。它们，您知道，是银行文件。\n7　我假定，只要存在——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，这是他们作为惯例为其客户所作的做法。但我不了解他们的想法，法官阁下。\n12　我将询问其内容。我不知道该信息是否保密。如我所说，我已经就 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的银行账户提问了一段时间。而且，坦白说，答案——一直都是援引第五修正案——无一例外。我不会对我们继续如此感到意外。但这就是我的计划，法官阁下。对于是否需要清空法庭，我没有意见。\n21　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。我只是暂时查看一下。\n23　（暂停）\n24　法庭：\n那么，我正在查看各段——嗯，我正在查看若干段，但我所查看的那一段——\n\n共139页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n我此刻正在查阅保护令中的第 14 段，即在公开法庭中使用证据开示材料。其规定：“本命令对披露的限制不适用于任何一方在审判中或在公开法庭举行的任何听证会上提出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。在可行情况下，作为任何审前会议的一部分，或就任何证据听证会中使用证物进行协商时；如不可行，则在审判中或任何将在公开法庭举行的听证会上使用任何指定材料之前，任何希望在审判中或将在公开法庭举行的听证会上提出或使用该等指定材料的一方律师，应与提供方进行善意协商”——因此，我不知道是谁向你们提供了这份文件，不过无论如何——“以讨论对指定材料进行删节的方式，从而使任何一方能够依照《破产法典》和《破产规则》的规定提出或以其他方式使用该材料。如各方无法解决与该等指定材料有关的争议，提供方应负担向法院请求适当救济的责任。在法院就该问题作出裁决之前，指定材料应继续按照其指定性质并依照本命令的条款处理。”那么，是否可以对这份文件进行删节？\n\n共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT 先生（卢夫特）：法官阁下，坦率地说，这一点是我的责任，我不知道是否——我的意思是，我可以删掉我不在意的内容，但我不知道那样是否能够解决保密问题。我不——我想 Capital One（第一资本银行）是提供这些文件的实体，对吗？同样，他们是代表——推定是代表 Hudson Diamond New York（纽约哈德逊钻石）提供的。这里存在一个循环，没有人愿意说他们是纽约哈德逊钻石。因此，如果在场律师愿意代表纽约哈德逊钻石发言，我们可以商定如何删节该文件。否则，法官阁下，我无法告诉您应如何代表纽约哈德逊钻石或第一资本银行对其进行删节。因此，我没有机会就此与第一资本银行交谈。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）提出了一项建议，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情况，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——我并非——我认为，我们很有现实可能性根本不必面对该问题。我可以尝试——我必须在问题中提及该文件，以便引导证人，但关于删节的想法，我可以尝试做到——您知道，如有可能，不公开谈论其内容。我的意思是，同样，我无法猜测他们会怎么做，但是——\n\nTWARDY 先生（特沃迪）：不，您猜对了。法官阁下，我确实是在最近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：将文件密封提交，仅作为——您知道——标记为证据，然后，您知道，核实上面的内容，就这样做？\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，回答您的问题，特沃迪律师，可以，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，问题就变成您将提出什么问题。我并不是要求您告诉我，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交 10/26/23\n登记 10/26/23 20:46:12\n第 112 页，共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 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：我是在讨论这个问题。好吗？您要问什么问题，以及——这些问题会披露什么信息。\n\n如果您问的是有关文件存在或确认的问题，我认为那是一回事。因为这些文件将被密封提交。但如果您具体询问文件中包含的内容，那么我们可能必须弄清楚——您知道，我们将不得不弄清楚该如何处理。\n\nLUFT 先生：这很公平，法官阁下。我将询问的不仅仅是对文件的确认。正如我所说，我可以在提及方式上保持克制，例如，问“这一行所列的是哪个实体，您是否看到这里提到的金额”，诸如此类，而不是说明该金额是多少。\n\n法庭：那么我认为，您至少必须这样做，对吗？否则，您就会涉及——\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，如果这样做可行，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：那么，让我问一下特沃迪律师。我们先作如下假设：我会准许密封这些文件的动议。您是否反对以任何方式、任何形式将这些文件作为密封动议的一部分提交？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nTWARDY 先生：完全不反对，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nTWARDY 先生：这都是他们案件的一部分。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nTWARDY 先生：他们可以按其意愿处理。我不知道 Hudson 的律师如何，但我没有异议。\n\n法庭：那么，我们正在谈论的是——好。这很公平。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？这样这些文件将处于密封状态。Wernick 律师（韦尼克），您反对密封提交这些文件吗？\n\nWERNICK 女士：不反对密封提交。\n\n法庭：所以您没有异议，对吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：对于密封提交这些文件，没有异议，正确。\n\n法庭：好。那么这就解决了一个问题，即这些文件将被密封提交，除非且直至其因保护令条款而不再处于密封状态。而这些条款自 2022 年 10 月起一直有效。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交 10/26/23\n登记 10/26/23 20:46:12\n第 114 页，共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n因此，我认为，这使事情稍微简单一些。\n\n现在我们要讨论的是您的问题。如果您的问题做了任何——如果您想要——如果您希望就不仅仅是被朗读或确认的具体信息提出问题，那么我认为我们就会面临一个问题。我理解特沃迪律师已经表示，他将指示其当事人援引第五修正案，这完全没有问题。但您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所以我认为您必须决定——如果您想花几分钟，您知道，我对此没有问题——您希望如何提出或组织这些问题，以避免任何问题。我很乐意让您这样做。但此时，我也可以让您继续进行——无论您希望如何继续进行。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。听着，我很乐意此时继续推进。我想提问——我认为我需要提出我需要提出的问题。\n\n法庭：好。在您提问之前——抱歉。在您完成后，我只想在您开始提出任何问题之前说些事情。好吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：当然，法官阁下。而且我——只是为了让我们都了解同一情况，在我们谈到最后这几个——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2292-55\n提交 10/26/23\n登记 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\n——之前。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nLUFT 先生：——涉及此事的问题之前。听着，我希望确保此事得到妥善处理。我不是特别赞成封闭法庭，但如果此时这是正确做法，法官阁下，为确保我们能够形成清晰的记录，并使每个人——尤其考虑到语言障碍——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。但如果那样只会导致记录混乱，那么我认为谨慎起见，还是继续进行，让我们在法庭封闭的情况下提出问题。我相信就此提问不会超过五分钟。\n\n法庭：所以您的意思是，您会同意——您希望所有不受保护令约束的人离开房间——离开法庭。您是这个意思吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：我认为是这样，法官阁下，如果这意味着我们能够形成清晰的记录并且——\n\n法庭：好。我们还没到那一步。\n\nLUFT 先生：好。\n\n法庭：但您到那一步时必须告诉我。因此，在您开始——\n\n共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT 先生：好。\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——您显然已就三份文件提出了口头密封动议？\n\nLUFT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。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，在再次审阅保护令后——我在我们休庭时审阅了它——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。您显然必须——您已提出口头动议。我将就此作出命令。但这些文件将必须密封提交。\n\n您明白这一点。我明白您明白这一点。但我只是作出记录。您将要——\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：在今天听证会结束后，您将密封提交这些文件。\n\nLUFT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好吗？然后，当我们进行到您将就这些文件提出问题时，\n\n共 139 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 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；该部分将持续处于密封状态，直至法庭另行命令，以保护保护令的完整性，以及本案中已实施相当长时间的程序。好吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：有人——韦尼克律师，您对我刚才所说的内容有任何问题吗？\n\nWERNICK 女士：没有。我们理解——\n\n法庭：好。\n\nWERNICK 女士：——该程序，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：再说一遍。\n\nWERNICK 女士：我们理解该程序，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。谢谢。特沃迪律师？\n\nTWARDY 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：您对此没有问题？\n\nTWARDY 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。很好。那么，请您继续，卢夫特律师。\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 由 LUFT 律师提问：问：郭女士，我想澄清一下。此前我曾问过您是否随身带着您的 iPhone。您记得吗？答：我记得。问：您今天把您的 iPhone 带到法院来了吗？答：没有。问：今天是否有任何为您工作的人持有您的 iPhone？答：没有。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 转移过资金？TWARDY 律师：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。LUFT 律师：同样的异议，法官阁下。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：是否——法院：请明确说明——很抱歉要让您这样做，但请记住——LUFT 律师：当然。法院：——我们只有音频。LUFT 律师：不，这很公平，法官阁下。法院：而且我不想听到什么庭审记录——因为您知道会发生什么。Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 119 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 119 我们会有一份庭审记录，而其中会有缺失之处。所以——LUFT 律师：当然。法院：所以我——我知道，我明白您提出的是同样的异议，但记录员不会明白。LUFT 律师：法官阁下，我的异议针对援引第五修正案，因为我认为证人已在其声明以及其律师就本持续进行的藐视法庭程序和此前提出的强制要求动议向本院所作的陈述中，涉及了这些问题。法院：谢谢。LUFT 律师：好的。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）是否向 HK USA 转移过资金？TWARDY 律师：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。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：Hudson Diamond 是否支付了“Lady May”号的费用？TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将请我的当事人援引第五修正案，拜托。Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 120 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 120 证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：并且——Hudson Diamond 是否在 2023 年支付“Lady May”号的费用？TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：Hudson Diamond New York 是否一直在支付“Lady May”号的费用？WERNICK 律师：并且，法官阁下，我以不具相关性为由提出异议。法院：驳回异议。TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：Hudson Diamond New York 支付“Lady May”号费用是否是在您父亲，即债务人的指示下进行的？TWARDY 律师：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。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：并且，郭女士，截至 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 121 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 121 March 1, 2023，“Lady May”号的所有人是谁？WERNICK 律师：法官阁下，再次提出异议，因为该问题远远超出了直接证词的范围以及今日程序的性质。法院：驳回异议。TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：好的。郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是否支付与针对您的对抗程序所涉 Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气机相关的费用？WERNICK 律师：法官阁下，基于相关性提出同样的异议。法院：驳回异议。TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利，如——证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：并且，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？TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 122 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 122 问：郭女士，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是否向 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）汇款？TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：并且 Hudson Diamond New York 向 Whitecroft 汇款，对吗？WERNICK 律师：法官阁下，同样的异议。继续就相关性提出异议。法院：驳回异议。TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：问：郭女士，与 Hudson Diamond 已向与您父亲及您家人有关联的实体转移的资金有关的文件在哪里？WERNICK 律师：异议。假定了未被证据支持的事实。法院：驳回异议。TWARDY 律师：法官阁下，我将要求我的当事人援引其第五修正案权利。证人：第五修正案。由 LUFT 律师提问：Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 123 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n1　问\nWhitecroft 由谁控制，是您还是您的父亲？\n2　WERNICK 律师：\n异议，法官阁下。存在一项\n3　与 Whitecroft 有关的单独对抗程序。这\n4　确实远远超出了出庭说明理由命令以及——郭女士今日直接证词的\n5　范围。\n6　法院：\n既然她在其声明中作证称她是\n7　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一\n8　管理成员，并且——她经营该企业，\n9　这如何超出范围？您——\n10　\n11　WERNICK 律师：\n那么，该问题——\n12　法院：\n她可能不知道\n13　答案，但这并不意味着其超出范围。\n14　WERNICK 律师：\n嗯，我——我是——据我\n15　所听到的，该问题仅涉及 Whitecroft 这一实体。\n16　法院：\n我也听到了。我不明白\n17　这如何超出 Rule 2004 审查以及要求提供某些信息的\n18　传票的范围。所以我只是——我\n19　驳回您的异议。\n20　TWARDY 律师：\n我将要求我的当事人援引\n21　其第五修正案权利。\n22　证人：\n第五修正案。\n23　LUFT 律师：\n好的。法官阁下，我认为我们可能已到\n24　需要封闭法庭的阶段。\n25　法院：\n好的。在此之前，我得\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n马上与口译员谈谈。请继续。您必须了解一件您此刻可能尚不明白的事情，即在本法庭中唯一可以留下的人——目前就某些提问而言——是受保护令约束的律师以及法院工作人员。并且您必须受该保密义务约束。您必须确认您将受该保密义务约束。所以请您为我确认一下，可以吗？因为这很重要。我们现有一项命令，要求在另有命令之前，该信息将——将保持保密。因此，我需要您在记录中确认，您将——在本听证被封存期间发生的任何信息披露或提问，您将受该保密义务约束——\n\n口译员：是。\n\n法院：——保密义务。\n\n口译员：是的，我会，法官阁下。而且，口译员遵守法院的一般保密规则。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n口译员：谢谢。\n\n法院：我对此表示感谢。现在，我们必须做的是，法庭中所有不受保护令约束的律师或不受保护令约束的当事人，都必须离开法庭。我们将举行一场封存听证。Luft 律师，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\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023 125 LUFT 律师：不会。\n\n法院：我们还认为，Twardy 律师将在某些问题上指示其当事人援引第五修正案特权。一旦听证——一旦听证的封存部分结束，就必须有人出去告诉外面的人——我将——嗯，我想我会请工作人员或某人出去告诉大家，他们可以回来。届时将继续举行公开听证。好吗？每个人都明白吗？好的。\n\nLUFT 律师：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。我看了一下法庭，看来本法庭内的每个人都受保护令约束。如果有人认为并非如此，请立即在记录中说明，以便明确。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。严格来说，美国受托人并非 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-55 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 126 of 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n1　保密命令的一方。我们尚未签署该\n2　保密命令。但根据 Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）Section 107，\n3　美国受托人获准在\n4　封存听证期间出席。\n\n法院：我认为刚才不太容易听清，但我知道您说了什么，因此我要为大家再说一遍。好吗？即，《破产法典》Section 107 允许 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）参与任何程序，即使该程序涉及保密事项，也无需受命令约束，因为其是 Department of Justice（司法部）的一个部门，并受司法部管辖。其是司法部的一个机构。\n\n为明确起见，Claiborn 律师，我同意您的观点，即使我们——我们将封存记录，您仍获准留在本法庭内。\n\n法庭书记员将——我们将要做并且可以做的是，我一停止讲话——相信我，很快就会停止——你们就将录音封存。好吗？然后我们开始，随后会有一个时间点，我们会说，好的，现在你们可以停止封存记录，然后在公众可以回来时，我们将重新开放公开记录。因为我确信人们会作结案陈词或做他们将要做的任何事情。好吗？所以，但我同意——美国受托人\n\nof 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\n1　办公室——《破产法典》Section 107 允许破产——允许\n2　美国受托人参与——实际上是 107(b)(3)——美国\n3　受托人、破产管理人、受托人以及本条规定的任何其他\n4　服务机构，均应完全查阅所有\n5　信息，且不得披露法院根据本法典明确\n6　予以保护的信息。\n7　而该信息正是法院根据本法典\n8　就保护令明确予以保护的信息。\n9　\n10　好的。在我指示法庭书记员封存记录之前，\n11　还有其他人想说什么吗？\n12　好的。\n13　我请你们自此时起将录音——开始作为\n14　封存记录，请保持封存，\n15　直至另有指示，我们可以恢复公开\n16　记录。好吗？谢谢。\n17　（记录于 5:31 p.m. 至 5:54 p.m. 封存。）\n18　法院：\n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 Holdings, LLC 及郭女士的\n21　出庭说明理由命令。\n22　因此，如果您愿意作结案陈述，Wernick 律师，您可以\n23　先进行。\n24　WERNICK 律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。非常\n25　简要地说。正如郭女士的声明所述，郭女士及\n\nof 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 22, 2023\n\nHudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股公司）已采取合理措施遵从传票，其中许多措施是我与 Guo 女士（郭女士）一同参与的，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）并请求取得传票具体要求的记录。我们——\n\nLUFT 先生（卢夫特先生）：反对，法官阁下。她现在正在作证。\n\n法庭：是的，她正在作证。因此可以。请继续。继续。\n\nWERNICK 女士（韦尼克女士）：我——只是在作结案陈词，并重复此前在 Guo 女士的声明中提交的信息。已采取合理措施遵从传票。已将发现的对传票有响应的文件提交给受托人。根据法庭面前的记录，没有认定藐视法庭的依据。除此之外，我们将依书面材料提交，并理解受托人可能寻求以书面形式提交进一步申请，我们保留作出回应的权利。\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\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 22, 2023\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，我会简短陈述，因为今天已经很漫长了。当他们提交了一份声明，而 Guo 女士几乎无一例外地被指示就我向她提出的几乎每一个问题援引第五修正案权利时，他们采取了合理措施这一说法完全没有依据，至少——仅仅因为当我试图就其中大多数问题深入追问时，她援引了第五修正案。\n\n我认为，记录已非常清楚地表明，Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）——我们所见的每一份文件都表明其全资拥有 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）。Guo 女士多年来代表 Hudson Diamond New York 采取行动，包括提取资金、签署银行账户文件、签署公司文件。如今，他们拒绝提交有关 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的主张，即尽管所有证据均表明相反，Hudson Diamond Holdings 不是 Hudson Diamond New York 的所有人。\n\n我认为，非常清楚的是，他们并未采取合理措施试图遵从传票。由于我们为促使其遵从而必须持续追究的时间之长，他们已使破产财团花费了惊人的金额。我相信该传票于 December 送达。现在已是 August。\n\nof 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n我们已举行多次听证会，其中包括另外两次仅与他们是否甚至聘请了律师这一问题上的混乱有关。受托人一直勤勉尽责。而到头来，我们来到这里，即您听到 Guo 女士所说的，在她获准说话的范围内，她已提交两份文件。我们没有收到 Hudson Diamond New York 的任何文件。显然，大量资产正通过 Hudson Diamond New York 流转，因此必定已制作文件，无论是关于汽车所有权、房地产交易，还是数百万美元通过该账户流转。我们却毫无所得。\n\n所以他们——看，他们似乎乐于接受藐视法庭裁定。而且——我认为其想法是，不会有任何人可供我们对其强制执行。但是我们知道应当向谁强制执行。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。\n\n但我还要请求，因为我不认为他们迄今为止为此作出过任何努力，应当强制他们去寻找 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 女士的姓名不在该 Capital One 银行账户上的这项证词或说法显然不实。我们看到了该文件。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\n该账户显然不实。我们看到了该文件。\n\n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——而且我们确实需要这些文件。我请求强制他们提交 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，作简短反驳可以吗？\n\n法庭：简短。\n\nWERNICK 女士：好的。我们刚才从 Luft 先生的陈述中听到的，几乎完全没有涉及 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），即我们今天被强制为之出庭的实体。几乎完全涉及 Hudson Diamond New York，我相信该实体已就向该实体送达的另一份单独传票被认定藐视法庭。\n\n那不是本程序的标的。法官阁下已经就纽约实体作出了决定。再者，我们今天在场者无人代理纽约——\n\n法庭：嗯，Romney 先生（罗姆尼先生）仍然代理，除非且直至其撤回代理的动议获准。因此，这并不准确。\n\nWERNICK 女士：好的。抱歉，法官阁下。我当然不代理 Hudson Diamond——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\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与 Holdings 联系起来的非同寻常的大量证据时，我今天在本程序中所见的全部内容，只是一份显然由同一家律师事务所提交的文件；该律师事务所曾告知 Vartan 先生（瓦尔坦先生）和 Romney 先生，两者之间不存在关联。\n\n因此，当然，当法官阁下考虑该动议真正所关涉的事项，即试图将我并不代理、且 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）称 Guo 女士并非其成员的纽约实体重新纳入时，我们不能仅通过说有大量证据将两者联系起来，就以此规避他们的举证责任；事实上只有一份文件，而制作该文件的律师事务所表示这些实体并无关联。\n\n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 女士说她不代理 Hudson Diamond New York。如果您阅读 Romney 先生的声明，他非常明确地表示，Guo 女士聘请了 Vartan 律师和 Romney 先生两人。我不知道 Wernick 女士是否非常具体地表示，并非她——而是她的律师事务所未受聘，而只有 Vartan 先生受聘。但当然，Vartan 先生是从她的律师事务所受聘的。因此，他们不代理该实体的说法不实。\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所称的一份文件，但我们看到 Mei Guo（郭梅）为一份文件签字。我们看到她代表 Holdings——代表 New York 签署银行账户文件。我们看到（原文如此）她以 Holdings 的唯一成员身份为 New York 签字。并且我们听取了无数证词，其中 Guo 女士援引第五修正案。\n\n我本应更早说明这一点，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。我们今天来到这里是为了获取信息。这正是 Guo 女士来到这里的目的，即了解某些情况。相反，我们被第五修正案阻挠。\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 女士此前提出同一异议时，可能已经就此作出过 19 次裁定。如法官阁下已向他们指出的，以及如我所展示的，对 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的传票定义显然包括所有关联方以及我们使用的所有其他术语，而这些术语显然包括 Hudson Diamond New York。\n\nof 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023\n\nNew York。\n\nHudson Diamond Holdings 是母公司。其有义务提交文件——确保其子公司遵从。它们显然是关联方。它们本应提交这些文件。因此，我的异议并不不当，而且——基于我们未从 New York 收到任何文件而请求就 Holdings 认定藐视法庭，完全切合我们送达的传票。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n好的。法庭面前的事项，即出庭说明理由命令，我们——我今天已听取辩论。并且就 Guo 女士个人而言，出现了对第五修正案的援引。我在听证期间指出，如受托人希望提交文件说明该项援引第五修正案是否适当，你们有权这样做。你们可以这样做。我不会设定任何期限，因为你们须订购庭审记录并确定你们想要采取何种行动。\n\n至于 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是否将被认定藐视法庭，法庭将对此事项保留裁定。\n\n法庭今天没有其他事项。我不会——是的。我今天不会处理任何其他事项。受托人一方尚有一些未决事项，与本事项无关，包括一项我——而你们只需——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。你们正在寻求一项——关于一份传票的命令；该传票中已经规定了向外国被告送达的具体期限。但是有人请求作出命令。我不知道你们是否需要该项请求。因此，我们将作出某项命令，你们随后可以答复是否确实需要命令，或者是否可以自行依赖该传票——他们自己（原文如此）。\n\nLINSEY 先生（林赛先生）：我相信已提交一项动议，请求就 Golden Spring（黄金泉）实体设定答辩期限。\n\n法庭：而传票中已有该时间范围。\n\nLINSEY 先生：传票——这是——我所指的是对 Golden Spring 对抗程序起诉状的答辩——\n\n法庭：而我认为答辩——传票中有该时间范围——\n\nLINSEY 先生：哦，您的意思是传唤令中有该期限吗？\n\nof 139\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nEntered 10/26/23 20:46:12\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：我们整天都在谈论传票。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：我们会查阅该事项，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：我们一直在谈论——\n\nLINSEY 先生：是的。明白。\n\n法庭：——一份传票。我道歉。好的。那么法庭今天没有其他事项。谢谢各位。休庭。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：全体起立。休庭。\n\n（程序于 6:04 p.m. 结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2292-55\nFiled 10/26/23\nof 139　Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023　137\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的庭审记录员、认证电子记录员及记录誊写员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确庭审记录。\n\nSeptember 5, 2023\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2292-55　Filed 10/26/23\nof 139　Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12　Page 139\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 22, 2023　138\n索引\n证人\n受托人方：直接询问　交叉询问　重新直接询问　再次交叉询问\nMei Guo　--　9\n\n7　受托人证据材料：\n\n编号　收到\n\n9　1　传票　16　17\n\n10　2　Mei Guo（梅国）声明　40　41\n\n11　3　Hudson Diamond New York（纽约哈德逊钻石）唯一成员同意书　45　50\n\n13　4　Caldwell Banker（考德威尔·班克）房地产协议　70　72","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1988,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":34996,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-10-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-10-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:54:15"}