{"id":"court_ctb_2482_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2482,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-01-02","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":"听证会庭审笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2482（2024-01-02立案）。该文件记录了破产法院于 2023 年 12 月 21 日就受托人诉郭美（23-05008）及诉 Taurus Fund LLC（23-05017）两起兼连诉讼举行的听证程序。法庭听取了关于冻结与保全 JNFX 资金的初步禁令动议及证据保全动议的各方陈词并作出裁定。","summary_en":"Transcript of Hearing — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2482 (filed 2024-01-02). This official transcript covers the December 21, 2023 hearing before the Bankruptcy Court in adversary proceedings Despins v. Guo (No. 23-05008) and Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC (No. 23-05017). The hearing addressed the Trustee's emergency motions for a preliminary injunction regarding JNFX funds and for evidence preservation.","body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK AND GENEVER . HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND . (Jointly Administered) GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . . Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05008 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . MEI GUO, . . Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05017 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . TAURUS FUND LLC, SCOTT . Courtroom 123 BARNETT, as trustee of . TAURUS FUND LLC, and TAURUS . Courtroom 123 MANAGMENET LLC, as trustee . Brien McMahon Federal Building of TAURUS FUND, LLC, . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Defendant. . . Thursday, December 21, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:04 p.m. (CONTINUED) Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 1 of 67\n\n\n\n INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 1 Chapter 11 Trustee's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065 to Preserve Property of the Estate Court's Ruling: 53 Matter No. 2 Emergency Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee to Order Preservation of Evidence Court's Ruling: 62 Transcriptionists' Certificate 67 Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 3 of 67\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 12:04 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Adversary No. 23-05008 Despins v. Guo, and Adversary No. 23-05017 Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Mr. Moriarty. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for the defendant, Mei Guo in Adversary 23-05008. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon. THE COURT: Is anyone else going to be making an appearance this afternoon? None that you are aware of, Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. There is a matter on at twelve that involves Mr. Moriarty and a matter on at one that does not. The matter at one seems to have more consent then the matter on at twelve. Is that correct, Attorney Linsey? Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 4 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: You haven't talked –- there is no one that you are aware of that would be appearing at the one o'clock matter other than the people in this courtroom? MR. LINSEY: I can't say for sure that Mr. Conway would not appear. I can't even say for sure that counsel for the storage facility would not appear. I don't expect counsel for the storage facility to appear. THE COURT: Do you have the ability to ask someone in Your office if they can find out if Mr. Conway or counsel for the –- because I can take the –- I don't want to take the one o'clock matter first if there is a possibility someone is going to show up. MR. LINSEY: That is a good point. Could I just have one moment to make a call? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. (Pause in hearing) MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You, obviously, don't have an answer to Your question yet, but you made the inquiries. MR. LINSEY: I made the inquiry and I know that counsel from the storage company is not coming. We don't expect Mr. Conway to come; however, the HGA entity, which is the lessee or licensee with respect to storage facility, they\n\n 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are on notice. We don't –- it is –- I doubt it, but its possible that they could show up and try to make an objection. THE COURT: All right. Well, let's take the first matter then in Adversary 05008 –- MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- in Despins v. Guo. So, Mr. Linsey and Mr. Moriarty have noted their appearances for the record. So, Mr. Linsey, this is the Trustee's application for a temporary restraining order. I didn't study, but I know things have been filed in the last hour or so. So, go ahead and please tell me where things stand. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Since the last hearing, the Trustee's counsel has spoken with counsel for the defendant. The Trustee understands that the defendant consents to injunctive relief, but not to –- does not consent to moving the funds back to the United States and away from JNFX which is that foreign exchange operation where the funds have diminished substantially over the last ten months. Even after –- we understand from a call last night, even after defendant's counsel apparently spoke with JNFX they do not claim to know how the \\$1 million in principal was lost or why \\$500,000 in fees were charged. The defendant concedes that the existing injunction in the HK Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 6 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 case covers these funds and yet some substantial portion of them has clearly been dissipated while that injunction is in place. The existing injunction required the defendants funds to be preserved. The defendant's counsel say that Ms. Guo gave no explicit direction to do specific trades, but may have given instruction or permissions to trade on account prior to the entry of the injunction. Regardless, once the injunction entered, Ms. Guo had an affirmative obligation to make sure that her agent, the exchange was not dissipating the funds.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, the concession that the defendant instructed JNFX pre-injunction that they could trade her funds, assuming that is what occurred, nothing else really makes sense is totally inconsistent with the defendants Rule 2004 testimony that she did not know who held those funds. Fees for foreign exchange trading are typically charged or generated when trades are made and are based on the amounts traded. To generate \\$500,000 in fees there would need to be substantial trading on this account. There is also a \\$60,000 fee that is labeled a pharos fee, P-H-A-R-O-S. We have asked about these fees and why they were generated at Whitecroft's Rule 2004 –- I'm sorry, Whitecroft's 30(b)(6) deposition and the corporate representative improperly refused to answer those questions. THE COURT: Meaning Ms. Guo? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 The million-dollar loss, which is a little –- you know, the million dollar in principal, and I am separating that from the more then \\$500,000 in fees cannot be exchanged by fluctuations between the Euro and the dollar during the time period at issue. Those two currencies simply don't move against each other that much.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 So, you know, what we have here is \\$13.5 million sale price and now we have proceeds that we understand to be just above \\$10 million in remaining funds. It is very important to the Trustee that those funds be preserved, but we have not heard any principal reason why the funds should need to remain offshore. Again, this is a sale that took place in the US, a US buyer, funds were sent offshore. We have not heard any principal reasons why the funds should need to remain offshore. There is a substantial deficit in trust when it comes to what this JNFX operation is going to do, who they are taking orders from.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I want to be clear, Your Honor, this is not a brick-and-mortar bank. This is not from our brief review and investigation a brick and mortar anything. You know, this could be people operating out a garage somewhere for all the Trustee knows. The Truste does not know who they are aligned with. They are not in the US jurisdiction. These funds should be brought back to the US where they are safe and\n\n1 2 secure and in compliance with an injunction pending the Court's adjudication of this case.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Trustee's counsel has had conversations with the defendant's counsel. We have offered that the funds could be held by defendant's counsel in trust accounts who said pick an escrow agent and we will take a look. All we have heard is no, the defendant insists the funds stay offshore with this operation that Whitecroft refuses to answer questions about. We saw an email between Ms. Guo and someone at this operation where they say they received instructions from here that she agreed the terms and conditions. They can't provide us where those instructions were. They can't provide us a copy of those terms and conditions.\n\n15 16 17 18 Keeping these funds where they are is just, frankly, an unacceptable risk to the Trustee. So, I think it's a positive step that we have agreement that an injunction may enter, but it is –-\n\n19 THE COURT: A preliminary injunction.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor, a preliminary injunction. You know, I labeled it a preliminary injunction because we would not be in a posture where the parties would have to come back in fourteen days for a hearing is my understanding. It is substantially important to the trust. The Trustee is not trying to do anything more then make sure\n\n 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there is no further dissipation in these funds. So, that is the Trustee's position. I am happy to answer any questions. THE COURT: The exhibits that you attached to the temporary restraining order, now I have to find out which one it is so give me a second, please, okay. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: As you know, most of these documents were filed within the last day or two. So, it does take some time to review them. MR. LINSEY: Of course. THE COURT: So, 30-A, which is not a sealed document, to ECF No. 35 –- MR. LINSEY: I'm looking at it now, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- the first page of 30-A says JNFX at the top, the beginning of the address is covered by the ECF information, but then it says 75 King William Street, London, December 12th, 2023, to whom it may concern. Where did you get this document, Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: This document was produced by defendant's counsel. This is one of the documents that was produced approximately one hour before Whitecroft's deposition. Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 10 of 67\n\n 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. It doesn't have any stamp on it or anything, but you are telling me this was produced by defendant Guo's counsel. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: The deposition was held on what day? MR. LINSEY: On Friday, December 15th. THE COURT: On December 15th. So, on December 12th somehow this document –- well, this document is dated December 12th and it says to whom it may concern. We can confirm Whitecroft Shore Ltd., has the following balances with JNFX Ltd. The account had US dollar balance on 12/12/23 as below. Below it says 12/5/12, which is, obviously, 12/5, that there is a running balance of zero. MR. LINSEY: Well, we have been advised since receiving –- THE COURT: I can't hear you, Attorney Linsey. MR. LINSEY: I apologize, Your Honor. What we have been advised since having filed the TRO motion is that the –- the reason that this says a running balance of zero is that this is a statement of US dollar funds. THE COURT: Yes. Who advised you of that? MR. LINSEY: We have been advised by the defendant's counsel. We have also –- Paul Hasting's London office sent correspondence to JNFX advising that we were pursuing relief with the Court and that funds should not be Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 11 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 moved. Both the defendant and JNFX have advised the Trustee that there are –- that there is a Euro balance in the account of, I believe –- I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe it is \\$9.1 million. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Its \\$9.3. MR. LINSEY: \\$9.3 million in Euro which is just above \\$10 million equivalent in US dollars. THE COURT: Well, this document talks about above the 5/12/23 which is 12/5/23 in this country, right. It talks about US/Euro exchange. That is what FX is, right, an exchange? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, why does it have a zero balance on 12/5 when the other dates, which are not the same dates, meaning there aren't two transactions in one day changing from Euros to US dollars or US dollars to Euros, at least according to this statement. The only transaction that occurs on the same day in this statement is a credit on February 22nd, 2023 of \\$12,017,995.86 and it doesn't tell whether its in Euros of US dollars, number one. Number two, the next entry on that statement is a fee of \\$300,000 which is apparently a debit because above it is a credit. I assume that is what those things mean. Then there is this on March 3rd \\$60,000 debit again to a Ferris Capital and then there is another fee on July 3rd to JNFX.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Then nothing happens until there are these US dollar/Euro exchange on July 28th, 2023 and Euro to US dollar exchange on October 19th, 2023. Then on December 5th, 2023 it says US dollar to Euro debit, not credit, and it says zero. So, what information do you have. I am going to ask Mr. Moriarty the same question about what money –- what do you have in writing that shows that there are funds in this account –- that are being held, I should say, by JNFX? MR. LINSEY: We have an email from someone who purports to be affiliated with JNFX saying that there is a Euro balance in the account. I think Your Honor put the Court's finger on what is an issue of substantial frustration to the Trustee which is we have a lot of questions about this statement. So, at Whitecroft's deposition we asked a number of questions about the statement and were constantly met with invocations in the Fifth Amendment. THE COURT: Okay. What email are you talking about, that the Trustee received from JNFX? MR. LINSEY: That Trustee's counsel received from JNFX. I can probably pull it up on my phone. THE COURT: I don't need to see it necessarily. I want to understand the date of it, please. MR. LINSEY: My –- THE COURT: I would assume or, at least, hope that its after December 12th, 2023.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 14 of 67\n\n14\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: It was on December –- it was on Monday, because it was after we filed the TRO motion that we got this; otherwise, we would have told the Court in the TRO motion that we gotten that notice. THE COURT: I just want to understand –- MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: -- you are asking –- that's fine, parties are asking for a consent of a preliminary injunction, right. Under the rules I am supposed to state with specificity why there is a preliminary injunction entering. There is a document here that has been submitted that is not sealed. So, it is not subject to any asserted confidentiality or anything else in this case that shows a zero balance. If I am –- well, any person that would read this would think that there was somehow an exchange of US dollars to Euro and there was a debit or withdrawal of the dollar amount above that was in there on October 19th, 2023 that resulted in a zero balance. MR. LINSEY: I hope so, Your Honor, because that is what I thought when I saw this on Friday shortly before the deposition was supposed to begin. That is why we tried to organize a call with defendant's counsel. Those events are described in the TRO motion and we were told that, basically, defendant's counsel didn't know what this meant,\n\n 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was trying to find out. We tried to inquire about it at the Whitecroft deposition. THE COURT: No, I understand all that. So, you are telling me that there is an email to Paul Hastings or is it Your office? MR. LINSEY: Its to Paul Hastings –- one of Paul Hastings counsel in London. THE COURT: In London from someone purporting to act with authority from JNFX that says that Whitecroft Shore Ltd. has a balance with JNFX Ltd. in a Euro amount that is somehow –- that is equal to approximately \\$9. What million dollars? MR. LINSEY: I believe that the –- it is equivalent to a little bit more than \\$10 million. THE COURT: Oh, \\$10 million. Okay. MR. LINSEY: Its hard to be precise because the precise fluctuates by the day. THE COURT: I understand that. I am not asking you to be precise. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. If Your Honor would like, I think I can get the email. THE COURT: No, I don't need the email at the moment. You asked if I had any questions, that is my first question. MR. LINSEY: Understood. Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 15 of 67\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Then also 30-B and 30-C are unsealed |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | documents to the application for a temporary restraining |\n| 3 | order.
There are emails between the defendant's counsel, Mr. |\n| 4 | Vartan, and apparently –- oh, Mr. Romney is cc'd as well from |\n| 5 | Zeisler & Zeisler.
Apparently someone named James Sadoh, I |\n| 6 | don't know if am pronouncing his name properly, S-A-D-O-H, at |\n| 7 | JNFX cc'ing Julia Shaminy Chase (ph) at Gold Leaf BVI.com. |\n| 8 | Attorney Wernick and Attorney Romney about this account. |\n| 9 | Apparently, the statement that is 30-A dated |\n| 10 | December 12th, 2023, although it says to whom it may concern, |\n| 11 | but according to Attorney Vartan's email that statement was |\n| 12 | provided to Ms. Guo's BVI counsel.
Who is Ms. Guo's BVI |\n| 13 | counsel, Mr. Moriarty? |\n| 14 | MR. MORIARTY:
May I just look at Attorney |\n| 15 | Linsey's documents? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Sure.
We can pull up 30-A, and B, and |\n| 17 | C if you would like us to. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
I don't think that that is |\n| 19 | necessary.
So, its Julia Shaminy Chase who is cc'd on the |\n| 20 | emails. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So, that is Ms. Guo's BVI counsel? |\n| 22 | MR. MORIARTY:
It is Whitecroft Shore's BVI |\n| 23 | counsel and I believe also –- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Well, Your own colleagues said that |\n| 25 | Ms. Guo's BVI counsel, that is what Your own colleague wrote. |\n| | |\n\n 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORIARTY: I have no reason to disagree with what Attorney Vartan wrote, Your Honor. I can tell you that Julia Shaminy Chase is BVI counsel. THE COURT: BVI counsel to what? MR. MORIARTY: As far as I know to Whitecroft and to Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Is there a firm in the British Virgin Islands called Gold Leaf? MR. MORIARTY: I believe so. THE COURT: That is the law firm? MR. MORIARTY: I believe so. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the exhibits that are attached to Your declaration, Attorney Linsey, there is a declaration in support of the temporary restraining order, the emergency motion for temporary restraining order filed under seal in this adversary proceeding at ECF No. 73. Then there is a redacted version as well, but I am looking at the sealed version. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: The sealed version, as does the redacted version, list 32 exhibits in support of the temporary restraining order, request for a temporary restraining order. Then Your chart indicates whether they are sealed or unsealed. In the chart that I have reviewed the sealed documents that I see, every one of them are sealed Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 17 of 67\n\n 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because of an assertion that they are highly confidential, not that they are subject to a privileges order. MR. LINSEY: That is correct. In light of the pending motion, we intentionally excluded anything that was potentially privileged from this motion. THE COURT: Right. So my clarification is just what you just said. I wanted to ensure that my review of these exhibits, 1 through 32, none of those exhibits, not one, is subject of the motion that the Trustee filed in the main case seeking some relief in connection with the privileges order. MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. We are not going to file anything of that nature pending Your Honor's decision. THE COURT: I just want to make sure I have the record correct. So, when I look, and I have looked by the way, at all 32 of these exhibits, it took me some time as I'm sure you can appreciate, but I did look at these exhibits. The only thing that wasn't attached, and I don't know why, but it might have just been –- I don't know if it was in the redacted version, but it wasn't in the sealed version, was the final contempt decision in PAX v. Kwok Exhibit 1, for some reason that is not part of the sealed document. That is not a problem, I am familiar with it. So, I can find it if I need to find it. I have read it before.\n\n 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Sounds like that was an oversight. I apologize. THE COURT: No, that is what I said, it's not a problem. First of all, its unsealed and its already part of the record in the main Chapter 11 case and/or in some of the many related adversary proceedings. So, I am not at all concerned about that. I just wanted you to know, when I looked at Exhibit 73 –- excuse me, ECF No. 73, that for whatever reason wasn't there. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's all. Not a problem. There is no reason for you to refile it. MR. LINSEY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: With regard to the other exhibits that are from 2 through 32, I have reviewed those exhibits. I understand the information contained in those exhibits. The overwhelming majority of which I have not seen before this temporary restraining order, but now I have. So, I just wanted that to be clear that, number one, all of these documents, the 32 exhibits listed in ECF 73 that are presently under seal –- not all of the exhibits are under seal, you have clarified which are sealed and which are not sealed. I have reviewed all of the documents, whether they are unsealed or sealed, in connection with the request for a temporary restraining order because I, obviously, had Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 19 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 no idea whether or not there would be any form of consent to this application for a temporary restraining order prior to this hearing. So, when you ask about the issues related to the\n\n5 6 7 8 location of the funds the reason I asked the first question that I did ask about whether there really are any monies in the possession and, I don't even know if can say, control, but in the possession of JNFX.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 Attorney Moriarty, you agree with Attorney Linsey that there was some communication from JNFX after this temporary restraining order was filed in which they represent or it represents that it is holding funds on behalf of Whitecroft in an amount of approximately \\$10 million?\n\n14 15 MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, I don't know the exact time that the TRO application was filed.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: Well, you do because it's on the document. I can tell you exactly when it was filed. That is not hard. So, we can do that. That is not a problem. Just give me a minute and then I will be able to tell you exactly when it was filed.\n\nMR. MORIARTY: Sure.\n\n22 (Pause)\n\n21\n\n23 24 25 THE COURT: It was filed on December 18th –- I'm sorry, you just have to give me one more minute. I got the wrong screen.\n\n 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Pause) THE COURT: At ECF No. 74, December 18th –- I am not sure why this is continuing to –- oh, because its sealed. I apologize. I can't look at that one. MR. MORIARTY: I had the same issue, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a second, that is my mistake. (Pause) THE COURT: I am looking at the courtroom deputy. Can you see the time because this I sealed. So, the problem is the –- although, I am looking at 73 and it has the time on it. So, I don't know why 74 doesn't have the time on it. I guess because 73 is 74 and 75. So, 73 was filed, which is the sealed document with all the exhibits, Attorney Moriarty, and that was filed at 1:48 p.m. on the 18th of December. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, there is an email that I was copied on, it's from Jonathan Green at JN-FX.com and it is addressed to Luc A. Despins 1:46 p.m. on December 18th. It is in response to an email from the Trustee stating what is the amount held and the response is Euros \\$9,359,720.99. That is at 1:46 p.m. on December 18th. THE COURT: So, two minutes prior to the filing of the application for a temporary restraining order they said that, but we have no idea whether three minutes later there were any funds there. Is that accurate? Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 21 of 67\n\n| 1 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, I was on a phone call |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | yesterday with representatives of JNFX where they confirmed |\n| 3 | that that amount is still in the account.
JNFX also |\n| 4 | confirmed that they agree that nothing will be done with |\n| 5 | those funds absent a further order of this Court or joint |\n| 6 | instructions from Ms. Guo and the Trustee. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Does the –- I don't think the |\n| 8 | preliminary injunction order that you submitted says that |\n| 9 | though.
That is one of the concerns that I had, Mr. |\n| 10 | Moriarty.
I don't think that this –- maybe I am wrong, by |\n| 11 | the way, because this just got filed in the last hour. So, I |\n| 12 | could have missed it.
So, when I say that understand I could |\n| 13 | be wrong, okay.
So hold on a second, let me see where I am. |\n| 14 | There is quite a lot of things that were filed.
That is |\n| 15 | fine, but I am just saying could I be wrong; yes, I could be |\n| 16 | wrong. |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
Give me a moment, |\n| 19 | Mr. Moriarty.
I may be wrong.
I might be looking at the |\n| 20 | wrong thing.
There were quite a flurry of things and that's |\n| 21 | fine. All right, here is Your proposed order.
Let me look at |\n| 22 | Your proposed order.
My understanding is you had redline –- |\n| 23 | you submitted something that said we will agree to –- I mean, |\n| 24 | you took their order and you marked it up, right? |\n| 25 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. So, hold on a second. Its taking a moment to open, so I'm sorry. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. I've got it now. So, I am looking at this order with Your redline comments and I don't see anywhere in here that JNFX agrees to be preliminarily enjoined. All I see is that Bombardier proceeds may not be transferred from or by JNFX except upon joint written instruction of Ms. Guo and the Trustee. It doesn't say that they're affirmatively agreeing to be enjoined and that is what I think it needs to say. MR. MORIARTY: I agree with you, Your Honor, that it does not say that and I have not had a discussion with anybody at JNFX where JNFX has indicated that they would agree to be enjoined. They have agreed that they would not transfer the funds, but as far as being enjoined and subject to this Court's jurisdiction that is not a discussion that I have had. THE COURT: Okay. When you talk about subject to this Court's jurisdiction I understand Your point; however, I think there has been a lot of decision that the Second Circuit has approved in the Madoff case where once an asset is –- once it is determined that there can be an interest in an asset regardless of whether its outside of this country that this Court has jurisdiction over it and I think the Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 23 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Second Circuit decisions in the Madoff case would support that. So, I understand what you are saying. You may not have had a discussion with them, but I think where we left this on Tuesday the two of you said if you couldn't agree you would submit Your competing orders which you have done, right? I will then enter whatever order I think is appropriate. That is what you agreed to. So, if I enter something you didn't consent to or JNFX didn't consent to that doesn't mean that you are still not bound by what you consented to. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, I agree that whatever order this Court enters binds whomever the Court has jurisdiction over. So –- THE COURT: It's not just whoever the Court has jurisdiction over, its whatever the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide with regard to an injunction which this order, I would specifically refer to, Rule 65(a) and Rule 65(c), I believe, that says who is bound by the order. The order, Rule 65 –- I'm sorry, its (d). It says: \"Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must state the reasons why it issued, state its terms specifically, and describe in reasonable detail and not by referring to the complaint or other document the acts or acts to be restrained. That is (d)(1).\n\n| | 25 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (d)(2) says: |\n| 2 | \"The order binds the following who receive actual |\n| 3 | notice of it by personal service or otherwise.
The parties, |\n| 4 | the parties officers, agents, servants, employees, and |\n| 5 | attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or in |\n| 6 | participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(a) or |\n| 7 | (b)\". |\n| 8 | So, it's not just jurisdiction, it's what the |\n| 9 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide. And as I stated, |\n| 10 | there are plenty of decisions in the Madoff case where the |\n| 11 | Second Circuit has held that the Trustee had the right to |\n| 12 | seek and obtain assets and relief for assets located outside |\n| 13 | of the United States because, as we know, property of estate |\n| 14 | is a broad term and it says all assets wherever located, |\n| 15 | right. It doesn't say within the United States. |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So, I don't think that Your |\n| 18 | jurisdiction thoughts are persuasive at this time. |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, just if I may clarify, |\n| 20 | I wasn't suggesting one way or another who would be bound, |\n| 21 | who wouldn't be bound.
When I spoke of jurisdiction, I |\n| 22 | agree, 65(d) specifically enumerates who is covered by an |\n| 23 | injunction.
There's a reference to Federal Rule of Civil |\n| 24 | Procedure 65(d) in the fourth ordered paragraph. |\n| 25 | And when I say \"jurisdiction,\" maybe I misspoke |\n| | |\n\n 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I should have said \"notice,\" because 65(d) is -- THE COURT: Well, it's not notice. That's not what the rule says. MR. MORIARTY: 65(d)(2)(c): \"Other persons who are in active concert or party or participation with anyone described in 65(d)(2)(a) or (b).\" THE COURT: Yes, but it says that you have to actually receive actual notice. So it's not notice, it's \"actual notice.\" MR. MORIARTY: Right. By certainly service or otherwise. THE COURT: Well, there's a big difference between \"notice\" and \"actual notice.\" All right. So let's talk about the marked-up order, Mr. Linsey and Mr. Moriarty, both of you. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So the second ordered paragraph, the debtors' -- excuse me -- the defendant's counsel has changed that ordered paragraph to say that the Bombardier proceeds may not be transferred, which, by the way, the Bombardier proceeds are not defined in this preliminary injunction order. But, in any event, may not be transferred from or by -- from or by JNFX. So if they're not restrained from Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 26 of 67\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 27 of 67\n\n27\n\n1 2 3 doing that, then what's the point of this order? What's the point of this paragraph? Or is the trustee comfortable with that language?\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. LINSEY: The trustee is decidedly not comfortable with the language, Your Honor. Your Honor put, again, the Court's finger on a point that is of a substantial concern to the trustee, which is that this language does not bind -- JNFX is not expressly agreeing to be bound by the order of the Court.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 But to take a step further from that, what we had originally drafted requires the funds to be returned to the U.S. and I want to be clear, returned to the U.S. The sale occurred in the U.S. There was a U.S. buyer. The defendant caused the money to be sent overseas. The trustee believes that the funds, pending the adjudication of this case, should be brought back.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 And the trustee has, you know, candidly, Your Honor, the trustee would have comfort with a reputable escrow agent holding funds. The trustee would even have comfort with Mr. Moriarty's firm holding the funds; however, we don't know who JNFX is.\n\n22 23 24 25 Even if they did say, Okay, we'll be bound, the trustee does not know who these people are. They're not within the United States and the trustee would be depending on the representations of people we don't know who they are.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 We don't know what assets they have that we could recover from to comply with the Court's order. Or, you know, to the extent that they're acting at the behest of the defendant, the debtor, or others, we'd be depending upon, you know, what word those people are going to give at any given time.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 And, respectfully, Your Honor, I don't mean to be needlessly argumentative, but the trustee certainly does not have confidence in the defendant or the debtor when it comes to comply with court orders. The entire reason this Bankruptcy Court case was filed is because the defendant and the debtor flouted Justice Ostrager's orders to return an asset to the United States for a year and racked up a contempt fine in excess of a hundred million dollars.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, unless the funds are held by an escrow agent, by someone the trustee has confidence they will respect this Court's orders -- not what the trustee says; just what the Court says they have to do -- the trustee is going to have no security in this regard. And the trustee's concern is not hypothetical. The trustee's concern is based on the fact that we had a sale that occurred with a purchase price of \\$13 and a half million. It's a little bit more than a year since the sale closed and we have -- we're now down almost \\$3 and a half million and we don't want to see it go down any further. Assuming that money is real, as Your Honor also pointed out, all we have is this email. I don't know who\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2482
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24
Page 29 of 67 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 29 |\n| 1 | Mr. Green is.
I've seen an email from someone named |\n| 2 | Mr. Green.
I'll be comfortable that there are funds when I |\n| 3 | hear from an escrow agent I can trust in the U.S. that they |\n| 4 | received those funds. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I don't recall, Attorney Linsey, |\n| 6 | because as I said, you know, these have all been filed in the |\n| 7 | last 48 hours, right, and there's a lot of documents to look |\n| 8 | at -- |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- as part of the 32 exhibits that you |\n| 11 | attached to the application for a temporary restraining |\n| 12 | order, is there a document that shows -- that establishes |\n| 13 | from the trustee's perspective -- and the defendant may |\n| 14 | disagree, but I'm asking you -- the disposition of the sale |\n| 15 | proceeds being deposited into an account in the United States |\n| 16 | before it went to London? |\n| 17 | MR. LINSEY:
Yeah.
What we have is an asset |\n| 18 | purchase agreement which reflects that the buyer was in the |\n| 19 | United States, so that is sufficient to us to indicate that |\n| 20 | the purchase price originated in the United States.
Our |\n| 21 | understanding based on circumstances -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
The aircraft purchase agreement -- |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
-- Exhibit 19? |\n| 25 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\n1\n\n25\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 MR. LINSEY: So, from the trustee's perspective, to the extent that defendant received the funds in the U.S. or sent them elsewhere or the defendant just told the buyer, Hey, send my sale proceeds overseas, it's the same thing. It's sale proceeds coming from the U.S. that the defendant has caused to be sent overseas.\n\n8 9 10 And let's be clear about why. It's to keep them away from the trustee. It's to conceal and remove property of the estate the trustee is trying to obtain.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: The asset purchase agreement that I'm looking at right now, which is Exhibit 19 of the trustee's exhibits, which is filed under seal, but is only designated as \"highly confidential.\" It was produced by Whitecroft or at least it has a Whitecroft Bates stamp on it. It says:\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 \"This aircraft purchase agreement is made and entered into as of August 2nd, 2022, the effective date by and between Whitecroft shore Ltd., seller, a British Virgin Islands corporation with its permanent legal address at care of Golden Spring New York Ltd., P.O. Box 2120, New York, New York, Golden Spring, who's already been found to be the alter-ego of the debtor, and ACASS USA, Inc., purchaser, a Delaware corporation, with a principal address at 601 Bayshore Boulevard, suite 700, Tampa, Florida.\"\n\nThe beginning of the agreement. Now let's go down\n\n 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to sale proceeds. Let's find out how that all works. The delivery location of the plane means Bradley, Connecticut, USA, or such other tax-friendly location, as mutually agreed upon by the parties. MR. LINSEY: And that's consistent with -- THE COURT: \"Deposit\" means the purchase money sum in the amount of \\$125,000 United States dollars. Upon execution of this agreement, the deposit or any part thereof currently held by the escrow agent, becomes immediately nonrefundable. The escrow agent is Insured Aircraft Title Service, LLC, whose address and contact information is listed in Section 8.12. Well, I have to go to 8.12, but we'll see where that is. Let's see. MR. LINSEY: It's page 14, Your Honor. THE COURT: If to seller, Whitecroft -- these are just notices. This doesn't give me the escrow agent. It just says -- wait a minute, let's go beyond that. Escrow agent, Joan Roberts, vice president, Insured Aircraft Title Service, LLC, 2 East Main Street, suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. So the definitions say the monies are deposited with the escrow agent whose address is in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. That's what the document, itself, says. Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 31 of 67\n\n 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: That's consistent -- THE COURT: And in terms of agreements of the escrow agent, are governed and construed by, in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Okay. So that's -- let's go back up to the definitions section. (Pause) THE COURT: Final payment in the definition section on page 2 means the purchase price minus the deposit received by the escrow agent, which we've just established is an entity in Oklahoma. I think I said Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I have to go back and look, but I think that's what it said. All payments under this agreement shall be payable by wire transfer in immediately available funds on the due date thereof. The purchase price is 13 million -- in the definitions -- the purchase price is \\$13,500,000 United States dollars. Purchaser shall pay additional conditions, 3.2. Upon execution of the agreement, purchaser shall pay the \\$100,000 United States dollars. Termination amount is set forth in the termination agreement between seller and KK Global Holdings, Inc. This termination amount is in addition to the purchase price. Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 32 of 67\n\n| 1 | Prior to the closing, purchaser will have made |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | arrangements with Bombardier, Bradley, Connecticut, for the |\n| 3 | upcoming calendar maintenance.
Any out of phase task, now |\n| 4 | completed.
The KA band upgrade to the aircraft allowing the |\n| 5 | purchaser to take assignment of the seller's deposit with |\n| 6 | Bombardier in the amount of \\$478,910 United States dollars |\n| 7 | and purchaser shall deliver the Bombardier deposit to the |\n| 8 | escrow agent, again, located in Oklahoma, prior to closing, |\n| 9 | in addition to the purchase price. |\n| 10 | Seller shall provide the purchaser with a document |\n| 11 | from Bombardier, confirming the transfer of rights to the |\n| 12 | Bombardier deposit from the seller to the purchaser. |\n| 13 | Final payment in the closing procedures, |\n| 14 | paragraph 8, Section 4.1.
At least one business day before |\n| 15 | the closing date, purchaser shall deliver the final payment |\n| 16 | to the escrow agent; again, the escrow agent located in |\n| 17 | Oklahoma.
The escrow agent shall confirm receipt of final |\n| 18 | payment by email to seller and purchaser. |\n| 19 | Closing, Section 4.5.
Closing shall occur within |\n| 20 | three business days and then it goes on. |\n| 21 | And then Section 5 point -- 4.5.3 says that on the |\n| 22 | closing date, the parties shall perform the following |\n| 23 | actions, which shall be coordinated by email in the order |\n| 24 | presented in which it collectively constitute the closing. |\n| 25 | And 4.5.3 is escrow agent shall confirm to the |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | parties that the escrow agent has all funds, documents, and |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | authorizations necessary to transfer, free and clear of all |\n| 3 | liens, title of the aircraft from seller to purchaser. |\n| 4 | If all of the above communications are given, |\n| 5 | 4.5.5, then the parties shall be deemed to have irrevocably |\n| 6 | instructed the escrow agent and the escrow agent will, |\n| 7 | without any further instruction, shall undertake the |\n| 8 | following actions, which shall be irrevocable once initiated. |\n| 9 | 4.5.5.1, release the purchase price to the seller, |\n| 10 | per the seller's instruction, plus the Bombardier deposit to |\n| 11 | the seller, per the seller's instruction, less shares of the |\n| 12 | escrow fees and provide evidence of such payments to the |\n| 13 | seller in the form of Fedwire confirmations. |\n| 14 | Seller's representations and buyer's |\n| 15 | representations, also, and Whitecroft is the seller.
ACASS |\n| 16 | is the purchaser.
So the seller's representations that begin |\n| 17 | in Section -- Article 5, representations and warranties. |\n| 18 | This is 5.1:
seller's representations and warranties. |\n| 19 | Seller is duly formed, validly existing, and in |\n| 20 | good standing of the laws of the British Islands, having the |\n| 21 | capacity to sue and be sued in its own name, having full |\n| 22 | power or legal right and authority to carry on its business |\n| 23 | as currently conducted and to execute, deliver, and perform |\n| 24 | the provisions of this agreement. |\n| 25 | The execution, delivery, and performance by seller |\n\n| 1 | of this agreement and the sale of the aircraft, having been |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | duly authorized by all necessary action on behalf of seller, |\n| 3 | and do not conflict with or result in any breach of any terms |\n| 4 | or constitute a default under any document, instrument, or |\n| 5 | agreement, to which the seller is a party. |\n| 6 | 5.1.3, the person executing this agreement on |\n| 7 | behalf of the seller has full power and authority to do so. |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
And what happened with the closing, |\n| 9 | specifically, the receipt of the funds by the escrow agent in |\n| 10 | Oklahoma City -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Which provision are you looking at? |\n| 12 | MR. LINSEY:
Actually, I was going to refer the |\n| 13 | Court to Exhibit 24, which is the escrow agent's confirmation |\n| 14 | receipt of funds. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Let me finish this and we'll |\n| 16 | get there. |\n| 17 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | Notices as to Whiteshore [sic] Ltd. are supposed |\n| 20 | to go to, according to -- on page 14 of the agreement, to |\n| 21 | attention Max Krasner at maxk@gnsyus.com, which is Golden |\n| 22 | Spring New York U.S. dot com, who's already been found to be |\n| 23 | the alter-ego of the debtor. |\n| 24 | Seller, signature, in witness hereof, the |\n| 25 | undersigned parties have caused this aircraft purchase |\n| | |\n\n| | 36 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | agreement to be executed, delivered, and effective as of the |\n| 2 | date first written above, which is August 2nd, 2022. |\n| 3 | Page 17, signatures:
Seller, Whitecroft Shore |\n| 4 | Ltd. by Mei Guo; title, owner. |\n| 5 | And it's already been established in the record in |\n| 6 | the main case and possibly in this adversary proceeding, but |\n| 7 | in others, that the defendant has already testified that the |\n| 8 | aircraft was sold post-petition in August of 2022, prior to |\n| 9 | any deposition, in which the defendant attempted to invoke |\n| 10 | her Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination -- against |\n| 11 | self-incrimination, I should say. |\n| 12 | So you want me to go to 24, is that what you're |\n| 13 | telling me, Attorney Linsey? |\n| 14 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me a minute, please. |\n| 16 | It'll take a little bit of time to get there. |\n| 17 | (Pause) |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Do you know what?
Hold on, I might |\n| 19 | have just -- I'm sorry, give me -- there's quite a few |\n| 20 | exhibits, so I'm almost there. |\n| 21 | (Pause) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Exhibit 24, which is attached to the |\n| 23 | application, the emergency application for a temporary |\n| 24 | restraining order is a document entitled \"Insured Aircraft |\n| 25 | Title Services, LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, confirmation of |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 funds re Bombardier, Inc. BD-700-1A11, serial number 9189 from Anna Stafford, October 19, 2022, page 1. To whom it may concern, this will confirm Insured Aircraft Title Services, LLC is holding proceeds in the amount of \\$12,032,995.86 in escrow for the benefit of Whitecroft Shore, Ltd. with respect to the sale of the abovereferenced aircraft. Best regards, Anna Stafford, escrow agent. Signed, subject to IATS terms and conditions. So that's the confirmation of the proceeds being held by the escrow agent, who's holding monies in U.S. dollars and whose offices and business is in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. And then Exhibit 25 shows what happens next. THE COURT: Exhibit 25 attached to the emergency application for a temporary restraining order is a Whitecroft Shore, Ltd. incorporated under the BVI Business Companies Act with company number 1969460, the company, written resolutions of the sole director of the company made in accordance with the company's articles of association, dated the twenty-first day of December. The undersigned, being the sole director of the company, a company incorporated and existing under the laws of the British Islands, BVI, does hereby consent to the adoption of the following resolutions. It starts by saying,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \"It was noted that,\" and then there are several paragraphs, 1.1 through 1.10. 1.5, noting that there was an escrow agent confirmation of the -- that the escrow agent was holding proceeds related to the purchase price of the aircraft in the amount of \\$12,032,995.88 in escrow for the benefit of the company Whitecroft and that, further, to Clause 4.5.5.1 of the asset purchase agreement, the APA, the purchase price may be released by the escrow agent to the seller, pursue the seller's instructions.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 So two months after the escrow agent confirmed its -- that it was holding the proceeds in U.S. dollars for the benefit of Whitecroft, according to Note 1.7, the company has opened an account with JNFX, Ltd. of 75 King William Street, London, EC4N7BE, (\"JNFX\"), to facilitate the purchase price -- to facilitate -- excuse me, I read that wrong -- to facilitate receipt of the purchase price. JNFX is authorized and regulated by the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority, reference 574489, and is also registered with the United Kingdom's HM Revenue and Customs, money laundering Registration Number 12277592.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 The next note, the company provides account details for a Whitecroft bank account and then the next note, 1.9, says the company desires to instruct the escrow agent to remit the purchase price into the Whitecroft bank account. And the next note says, The company's agents or\n\n1 2 authorized representative must provide the company's instructions to the escrow agent.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Now we get to the resolution. Now, therefore, it is resolved that in 1.1, it was in the best interests of the company, the company that was described above in Notes 1.1 through 1.3, as a pure equity holding company, its only purpose being to hold the title and ownership of the aircraft. Consequently, the Company did not maintain a bank account or hold any other assets and for this reason, never deemed it necessary or commercially practical to open or maintain a bank account.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 So the first resolution is that it was in the best interests of the company to open the Whitecroft bank account for the purpose of receiving the purchase price, which is owed and outstanding to the company as of the day of this resolution.\n\n17 18 19 20 The second resolution is the company, 1.2, authorizes, instructs the escrow agent to act on this resolution to remit the purchase price to the Whitecroft bank account.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 1.3, all previous actions of the company or its duly authorized agents, including, but not limited to Max Krasner, legal accountant counsel [sic] and consultants of the company engage to insist with the opening of the Whitecroft bank account are hereby ratified.\n\n1 2 And 1.4, these resolutions may be signed by electronic signature or transition.\n\n3 4 5 6 7 8 Below this, the 1.1 through 1.4 resolutions on this Exhibit 25 is typed the names Mei Guo, sole director, and then there's a signature line with a signature and the date underneath it of 12/21/2022. It appears to be the same signature of Mei Guo that appears in other documents that we've already discussed on the record today.\n\n9 10 11 12 Now, what about Exhibit 20, Attorney Linsey? There's an email introducing Max Krasner and then Exhibit 21, there's an email from the buyer, ACASS, to Yvette Wang and Max Krasner.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. These exhibits were included to show that Golden Spring, the debtors' alter-ego orchestrated the sale of the aircraft. Max Krasner and -- Max Krasner having identified himself as the director of operations of Golden Spring, Jetlaw having testified that Max Krasner, in such capacity, was their contact for the \"seller\" and then the ACASS letter of interest reflects that they were addressing their letter of interest -- letter of intent, I should say, they were addressing their LOI to Yvette Wang and Max Krasner both, at Golden Spring email addresses.\n\n23 24 THE COURT: I just need a minute to get to those exhibits.\n\n25 (Pause)\n\n 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I'm sorry, somehow I've lost my place. You'll have to bear with me for a moment. (Pause) THE COURT: I don't know why, but I'm having trouble locating 20 and 21 on this document. And maybe I'm skipping over it improperly, but I'm not seeing it on this document. I've looked at it, but I must be in the wrong document. MR. LINSEY: I believe in our sealed filings -- THE COURT: That's what I thought I was in. MR. LINSEY: No, no, we only filed the sealed exhibits and I believe those are unsealed -- THE COURT: Oh, they are unsealed. That's why they're not -- MR. LINSEY: Yeah, so that's why they're omitted. THE COURT: I'm looking at the wrong version, then. Okay. I'm sorry. MR. LINSEY: No, it's confusing. It's confusing to figure out the right way to do it, so we try our best. THE COURT: I understand. All right. So I should be able to see those two exhibits, then, in a different document, because I did look at it. Yes, I think they're in this document. I think they're in 75. Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 41 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Obviously, we didn't have these documents ready to pull up the same way we would before an evidentiary hearing, but I do think it's important to note these two documents that are not sealed. THE CLERK: I think it's page 277. THE COURT: 277? THE CLERK: I think so. THE COURT: Okay, thank you -- THE CLERK: You're welcome. THE COURT: -- very much. There we go, 277 in ECF Number 75, it's an unsealed exhibit, which is an email introducing Max Krasner, and it's dated January 25th, 2022, Whitecroft, in care of Gold Spring, New York, attention Yvette Wang or Max Krasner. This is a letter of intent to purchase the aircraft, the Bombardier Global XRS Aircraft, Serial Number 9189, which is the same number we read in the asset purchase agreement and other documents that have already been described on the record during this hearing. And it does say -- the letter is addressed to Whitecroft Shore Limited, in care of Golden Spring, New York, New York, 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, attention Yvette Wang or Max Krasner, both of whom's email addresses is GSNYUS, Golden Spring, New York U.S., which the Court has already found that Golden Spring is the alter ego of the\n\n| | 43 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | debtor. |\n| 2 | And then we go to Exhibit 21 -- |\n| 3 | MR. LINSEY:
I believe that is Exhibit -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
That was 21, I'm sorry.
I meant 20 is |\n| 5 | what I wanted to look at.
I apologize, I went too far. |\n| 6 | Exhibit 20 is an email from Kent Jackson to |\n| 7 | Valerie Ericson, dated December 29, 2021, regarding Jetlaw |\n| 8 | engagement, Global Express sale.
It says, \"Valerie, good |\n| 9 | morning.
Yes, I did send out a new engagement letter, here |\n| 10 | it is signed, and we just received the \\$10,000 wire.
Please |\n| 11 | enter into time slips and let Max know we received their |\n| 12 | wire.
Thanks, Kent.\" |\n| 13 | And then there's an email below from Max Krasner |\n| 14 | to Christian Deputy at Liberty Jet, Kent Jackson at Jetlaw, |\n| 15 | and Julian Schulman at Liberty Jet, re T7GTUMPA.
Attached is |\n| 16 | a signed engagement letter.
And Max Krasner's email is |\n| 17 | maxk@gsnyus.com, Golden Spring, New York, U.S.
Attached is |\n| 18 | the signed engagement letter of confirmed wire instructions |\n| 19 | with Valerie and the payment will be processed today. |\n| 20 | Looking forward to working with you. |\n| 21 | And then there is an email below that from |\n| 22 | Christian Deputy at Liberty Jet to Mr. Jackson at Jetlaw, |\n| 23 | CCing Mr. Krasner and Julian Schulman at Liberty Jet.
It |\n| 24 | says, good morning, gents.
I wanted to write you this short |\n| 25 | email to introduce Mr. Krasner, Max Krasner, to you, Kent. |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Krasner is the direct contact between all parties involved in the sale of T7-GQM and the principal. I will work with Max to get your engagement letter back. And then a most -- there is now a redacted portion of that email. And then it just says Mr. Krasner is on vacation and might be able to obtain some emails -- might be able to entertain some emails, so expect the pace to be slow. From Christian Deputy, President, Liberty Jet. So those are the two other exhibits that are not sealed that, Mr. Linsey, I think the trustee is relying on in connection with the assertion that the funds were in the United States, they were controlled by Whitecroft through Golden Spring and that the trustee would like the preliminary injunction to enjoin JNFX and to require the defendant to cause the funds to be returned to the United States and placed in escrow; correct? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Moriarty, do you have any response? MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, you had asked me a little bit ago before we got into the documents how JNFX would be bound by this order. If the Court were to enter the order that the defendant has proposed whereby the funds could not be transferred except upon the joint written instruction of the defendant and the trustee or further order of the\n\n1 2 3 Court, one, the defendant is certainly going to be bound by the order, and if we read 65 -- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 --\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: The defendant has asserted her right against self-incrimination with regard to every question asked of her regarding Whitecroft, including whether or not she's the principal of Whitecroft. So I heard what you just said, but what difference will that make? She's just going to assert her -- she's already asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege, so she'll be what? She'll be what? She'll be in violation of an order and then what?\n\n12 13 14 MR. MORIARTY: I don't anticipate that she'll be in violation of an order, Your Honor, and obviously I don't know, I can't predict the future. What I do know is that --\n\n15 16 THE COURT: Well, she's your client. So I'm sure you've counseled her as to what that means; haven't you?\n\n17 18 MR. MORIARTY: I'm not going to discuss what I've discussed with my client or haven't discussed --\n\n19 THE COURT: I'm not asking you --\n\n25\n\n20 21 22 23 24 MR. MORIARTY: -- with my client, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- to discuss specifically. You have an obligation to the Court to explain whether or not you've explained to your client what it means to be bound by this order, Mr. Moriarty.\n\nMR. MORIARTY: I agree, Your Honor, and that has\n\n 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been done. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: Okay? So JNFX would be bound by this order as somebody in active concert with the defendant. THE COURT: So you're consenting that -- you're saying that JNFX is in active concert with your client? MR. MORIARTY: I'm saying that JNFX controls these funds. As far as I know, the only one that they can take direction to as of -- from right now is Ms. Guo. So I believe that they -- THE COURT: Well, you said as far as you know, but all these documents talk about Yvette Wang and Max Krasner. Nobody seems to know where Mr. Krasner is. MR. MORIARTY: I agree with you, Your Honor, and we do know where Ms. Wang is, she's in federal lockup. I'm telling you that, as far as I know, the only person on this account who can give instructions is Ms. Guo. To the extent -- so I'm going to shift, Your Honor -- to the extent -- THE COURT: Well, shift to what? MR. MORIARTY: To the extent the Court is inclined to grant the order that the trustee is proposing, which is to have the funds brought back into the U.S., I have no authority to consent to that, but what I would ask is, if the Court is going to do that, that the Court give more than five Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 46 of 67\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 business days to effectuate that transfer, only because Christmas Day is Monday, Boxing Day in the UK is on Tuesday, we have New Year's Day on January 1st. I don't know if that can be accomplished in five days, which is what the trustee is asking for. THE COURT: Okay, I understand that point. MR. MORIARTY: So JNFX has agreed that they will not do anything with these funds. THE COURT: Well, you can say that, but there's no proof in this record that they have -- MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: -- okay? MR. MORIARTY: I appreciate that, Your Honor. So if I may just -- THE COURT: I mean, if you have proof, that's different, but you don't. There's nothing that I can rely on that says that they've agreed not to do anything. MR. MORIARTY: I have an email, Your Honor, to -- THE COURT: But we don't -- I don't know who they are, right? It's not -- MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: -- there's nothing -- I mean, I could write that email. And I'm not suggesting you -- that's not what I'm saying, Attorney Moriarty. I'm saying, for purposes of proof, right, and establishing who they are, I don't have\n\n 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any proof in this record. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, all I have is email correspondence -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. MORIARTY: -- that's all I have. THE COURT: I understand. MR. MORIARTY: So if I may move on to two other points in the order that we've redlined and just identify -- THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. MORIARTY: -- it for the Court? So we've redlined the third ordered paragraph and that's only out because that would require Ms. Guo's counsel to file something on the docket indicating that the funds had been transferred and, since we were proposing something that wouldn't require the funds to be transferred, that's the reason why that -- THE COURT: Understood. MR. MORIARTY: -- would be out. The fourth ordered paragraph refers to Federal Rule 65(d) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065. The proposed changes here are solely to have the order comply with Rule 65(d) -- and when I say comply I mean read the same way Rule 65(d) does. So the trustee's proposed language would say persons in active concert with the defendant and/or the Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 48 of 67\n\n| debtor.
And, as I read 65(d), in its active concert with the |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| parties, the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, |\n| and attorneys.
I don't know that the debtor would fall into |\n| any of those categories.
So to say the defendant and/or the |\n| debtor, and then those in active concert, I don't know that |\n| that would be enforceable, maybe it would be.
I don't want |\n| to be in a position where something happens and it's -- and |\n| I'm not saying anything is going to, but I don't want to be |\n| in a position where something happens and there's an order |\n| that's broader than maybe it should be. |\n| THE COURT:
Well, what about waterfall, Max |\n| Krasner, and Ms. Yvette Wang, given what we just read in the |\n| record? |\n| MR. MORIARTY:
I believe, Your Honor, that -- and |\n| I shouldn't say I believe -- to the extent they're in active |\n| concert with Ms. Guo, they're covered.
The way that this -- |\n| THE COURT:
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the |\n| Court can't delineate that.
There's nothing in the rule that |\n| says the Court can't delineate people based upon the evidence |\n| that's been submitted to the Court in support of an |\n| application for a temporary restraining order. |\n| MR. MORIARTY:
I agree, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. MORIARTY:
The reason for this change is |\n| because the way that this order reads, it's that Ms. Guo is |\n| |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in active concert with these individuals today. So to the extent the Court finds that Whitecroft, Ms. Guo was in active concert with these individuals in January of 2023 or August of 2022 or earlier for purposes of the sale of the jet, they would fall under the active concert language. There's an implication by including them that they are in active concert today, that's the reason for that change. And then if I can just give the Court the last proposed change and then, Attorney Linsey, I'll sit down. The next ordered paragraph, it's ordered that no assets subject to the order, including the JNFX assets, shall be reduced, spent, or otherwise diminished. So, on behalf of our client, we added some language because the funds are currently held in Euros. If they're going to be -- THE COURT: Well, we don't know that, but that's what you believe to be true. MR. MORIARTY: Based on the representations that have been made to both -- THE COURT: Right -- MR. MORIARTY: -- the trustee, his counsel, and myself. THE COURT: -- a representation that has no bearing because it's not based in any evidence before this Court, but I understand -- all I'm saying to you is, go ahead and say whatever you're going to say, but there's nothing\n\n1 2 3 to -- I don't even have anything in front of me that proves that there's any money being held by this entity anyway. But, regardless, go ahead.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. MORIARTY: All right. So I'm going to make an assumption that there's money there, okay? And with that assumption, assuming that those funds are held in Euros, if they're going to be transferred onshore, they're going to have to be converted to U.S. dollars. So that conversion could result in fees --\n\n10 11 12 13 THE COURT: You don't know that. You don't know that, number one; number two, you don't know that they're going to have to be converted here or there; number three, you don't know what the fee structure is upon conversion.\n\n14 15 So I don't agree with that statement at all because you don't know any of that.\n\nMR. MORIARTY: Your Honor --\n\n16\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: You can -- funds can be converted in different currency to a U.S. bank, it happens all the time. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, the only thing that I'm trying to say is I don't want my client to be in a situation where there are fees or there is a downward fluctuation due to the exchange rate and the client is in violation of this order because there has been a reduction in the account value. That's all that this language is intended to do. To the extent that there's a conversion that has to be done if\n\n1 2 3 4 the Court orders the funds into the U.S., and that conversion results in fees and/or downward movement in the account because of conversion rates, that's not a violation of the order.\n\n5 6 THE COURT: Attorney Linsey, what's your position on that language?\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MR. LINSEY: We are happy to talk with the defendant about a workable mechanism to transfer the funds back. If we're talking about a commercially reasonable transaction fee that is, you know, from our perspective commercially reasonable, then I don't anticipate that would be an issue. If we're talking about JNFX fees of \\$300,000 or \\$180,000, that is in no way commercially reasonable and that would be a violation of the injunction from the trustee's perspective.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And we have -- and I'm not -- you know, the defendant's position is what the defendant's position is coming in here today, so I'm not faulting Mr. Moriarty for not having the conversation with me about specifics of how the plumbing on this would work. We're prepared to have a conversation with the defendant about how to make this work in a way so that this is not -- she's not unintentionally falling into a trap of violating by compliance with the order, that's not the intent. The intent is to safeguard the funds.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2482
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24
Page 53 of 67 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 53 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anything further? |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
Nothing from the defendant, Your |\n| 3 | Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | MR. LINSEY:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I've looked at the orders |\n| 6 | and I -- I'm not going to enter the order in the manner in |\n| 7 | which the defendant has marked it up, although I will -- I |\n| 8 | think you understand, Attorney Moriarty, that I think JNFX |\n| 9 | needs to be bound by this order, they need to be constrained, |\n| 10 | whether they consent or not, and that with regard to the |\n| 11 | joint instructions, it's not going to be any joint |\n| 12 | instructions, it's going to be further order of this Court. |\n| 13 | With regard to the people acting in active concert |\n| 14 | with the defendant, I'm going to think about that a little |\n| 15 | bit, but I see no reason -- or I see every reason to include |\n| 16 | Whitecroft, Max Krasner, and Ms. Wang as one of those parties |\n| 17 | based upon the evidence that's been submitted to this Court, |\n| 18 | and you haven't submitted any evidence to the contrary. |\n| 19 | With regard to your issue about conversion and not |\n| 20 | being in violation because of a fee, I think that's an issue |\n| 21 | that can be addressed after today, and I'm going to instruct |\n| 22 | the parties to try to come up with an agreed-upon manner in |\n| 23 | which the funds will be transferred at some point in the |\n| 24 | future, but soon, to the United States, and that they be |\n| 25 | transferred in such a way that these fees that we don't even |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand how they were calculated could then just be automatically deducted from the amounts that are in -- that are apparently in the possession of JNFX at this moment. And then I will have to figure -- we'll have to figure out when you're going to report back on that issue and how you're going to report back on that issue. So I think we should move on to the other issue because this order is going to have to enter today. The court is not open tomorrow, the court is not open on Monday, so this has got to enter today. Anything further? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor, the trustee is prepared to appear before Your Honor again or to file a written report regarding a conference with the defendant at any date that the Court would like. The trustee is not trying to force a transaction on an unworkable time frame, but we do believe there's exigency in light of the unknowns here. THE COURT: Mr. Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: I have nothing to add, Your Honor, other than happy holidays and Happy New Year to everybody. THE COURT: You as well. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. THE COURT: So now we're going to move on to the Adversary 5017, which involves the Taurus Fund and the motion\n\n 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to preserve evidence. So, Mr. Moriarty, you do not have to remain unless you choose to. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. All right, go ahead, Attorney Linsey, with regard to the -- MR. LINSEY: Just a quick drink, please. THE COURT: -- sure -- with regard to the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding. I did see the order that was submitted, I believe, earlier this morning -- oh, no, it was late last night, I'm sorry, on the issue of the preservation of evidence, and I see the agreement that has been made with the Taurus Fund, Mr. Barnett, and the other clients represented by Mr. Conway, and I see that you have an agreement with, I'm not going to call it the Westy Storage Facility, although I know they have a corporate name. And then the only party that hasn't consented to this is HGA Property Management, but I have seen from the documents that you've submitted that the registered agent for HGA Property, which was not HGA Property, was apparently created on April 18, 2023; is that correct, Attorney Linsey? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: The member and manager and the Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 55 of 67\n\n| 1 | registered agent is an individual who has been the subject of |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | evidence submitted in this main case and possibly in related |\n| 3 | adversary proceedings.
I don't recall specifically, but I |\n| 4 | recognize the name.
Is that correct? |\n| 5 | MR. LINSEY:
That's also correct, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And that person has at some |\n| 7 | point in time been shown to be physically present in the |\n| 8 | debtor's apartment in the Sherry-Netherland, correct? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And were there other examples of this |\n| 11 | individual being with the debtor? |\n| 12 | MR. LINSEY:
Not that occur off the top of my |\n| 13 | head.
I can -- I would have to inquire with colleagues about |\n| 14 | further evidence, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Was this defendant -- I'm sorry, I |\n| 16 | apologize, the person isn't a defendant -- was the member of |\n| 17 | HGA Property Management in any of the photographs in the |\n| 18 | Mahwah mansion? |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:
I believe that she was in a video |\n| 20 | that we watched in connection with the HCHK proposed |\n| 21 | intervenors' motion. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right, so how would you |\n| 23 | like to proceed then with regard to this order that you've |\n| 24 | submitted that -- where you have everyone's consent other |\n| 25 | than the HGA entity? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 57 of 67\n\n57\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: I'll just give a very brief outline of what we're doing. THE COURT: Go ahead, please. MR. LINSEY: The Court is aware from the emergency motion, obviously, that the trustee recently learned of the storage facility in New Jersey, approximately a ten-minute drive away from the Mahwah mansion. The storage units in question were initially leased to Scott Barnett, who is the debtor's bodyguard and driver, and who is also allegedly or nominally the manager of the Taurus Fund defendant. Shortly after the FBI arrested the defendant, Mr. Barnett signed an ownership change addendum assigning all of the rights with respect to the storage facility to HGA Property Operation. The trustee understands that the owner and manager of HGA Property Operation, as we've discussed, are prominent supporters of the debtor. We understand that the monthly rent or fee with respect to the storage facility is \\$7,000. The trustee has been in touch with the owner of the storage facility, has gotten some color. This is a large -- these units are large, it's apparently a suite of four rooms. We know that they are designed to survive bomb blasts and that they are guarded by electronic security systems. In short, this is a facility that's designed to protect very valuable property. The trustee has issued subpoenas to the owner of\n\n1 2 3 the storage facility and to HGA. The purpose of the trustee's motion is to make sure that these storage units are secured pending the completion of the trustee's inspection.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The facts known to the trustee suggest that the reason these storage units exist is to conceal property that was removed from the Greenwich mansion and the Sherry-Netherland apartment, and potentially also the Mahwah mansion. There's every reason to think that the debtor's associates would do the same thing with respect to what's in these units now that they know that we know about their existence, and they do know that because we've issued the subpoena and because we have made the efforts that are outlined in the notice to make sure that they have actual notice of this hearing.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The trustee understands that based on the notice that the owner of the storage facility has received, the owner of the storage facility has, pending this hearing, taken efforts to secure the storage units. So really what we'd be talking about is maintenance of the status quo for a sufficient time for the trustee to complete that inspection. The trustee is going to begin that inspection on Friday. So I don't think we're talking about a very long\n\n24 25 report back to the Court when the inspection is completed. That's all I have, Your Honor, but I'm happy to\n\ntime for the inspection to be completed, the trustee will\n\n 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer any questions. THE COURT: You're going to try to inspect the property tomorrow; is that right? MR. LINSEY: We're going to begin the inspection tomorrow. THE COURT: And Mr. Conway is going to be there, is my recollection; correct? He stated that on the record the other day. MR. LINSEY: We've certainly offered him the opportunity to be there, I can't speak for him -- THE COURT: I think he said he was going to be there. MR. LINSEY: Yes. THE COURT: Let me just take a look one moment. (Pause) THE COURT: So you haven't made any changes to the form of proposed order then, it's the same proposed order that you submitted the other day? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor, the same one with the original emergency motion. THE COURT: Okay. Then if you would just give me one second, please. MR. LINSEY: Of course. THE COURT: The one other thing I will say with regard to the other matter that we just addressed, can you Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 59 of 67\n\n 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submit -- can you have someone from your office submit that order in Word to the Courtroom Deputy email box, please? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. I can actually do it right now -- THE COURT: That probably makes sense while I'm looking for this. Okay? MR. LINSEY: We sent it to Mr. Moriarty so he can make his redline. THE COURT: Yes. (Pause) THE COURT: In the proposed order that was submitted, Attorney Linsey, granting this emergency motion to preserve evidence -- MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- the proposed order has some redactions in it, the location of the storage units and some other -- I'm not sure how you want that handled. MR. LINSEY: I'm looking at the sealed version, so mine is unredacted. I apologize, I didn't print out the redacted version, so unfortunately -- is there any way it could go up on screen what has been redacted? I apologize for that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. It's ECF Number 83 in 5017. (Pause) THE COURT: Do you see where I am, Attorney Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 60 of 67\n\n 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Linsey? MR. LINSEY: Oh, it's right in front of me. THE COURT: So, see, the address is redacted. Then if you'd go to the next page -- (Pause) THE COURT: I think those are the people that - do you see that? MR. LINSEY: I do, Your Honor. (Pause) MR. LINSEY: I apologize, Your Honor. I'm filling in for someone and I had prepared, but I don't have an answer on that. Could I either have a moment or could I report back to the Court? THE COURT: Yeah. I mean, I think we just need to -- I need to know what you want -- how you want that handled. I mean, is that going to be still redacted or -- MR. LINSEY: Well, I don't think that the Court's order could be redacted -- THE COURT: I don't think it can either -- MR. LINSEY: -- if it were to be -- THE COURT: -- but I'm not sure -- MR. LINSEY: -- if it were to be effective, and I believe that some -- THE COURT: And I think the order needs to be changed anyway because you have to say you have the consent Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 61 of 67\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 62 of 67\n\n 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 of the Taurus Fund and all the defendants and of the Westy - and, again, I'm sorry, I don't remember their corporate name -- right? MR. LINSEY: Yeah, it starts with an A. I know. So, with the Court's indulgence, could we do this: Could I -- could I submit -- or Paul Hastings submit a revised order that includes noting that we had the hearing today and the consent of the defendants and the consent of the owner of the storage facility? And we will address the redaction issue in that revised order that we submit. THE COURT: Yeah, because they're consenting to all that. They're consenting to not modify, remove, empty, dispose of, and all that, that's what needs to be said, right? MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor.\n\n16 17 18 THE COURT: And that the only party that's not consenting is HGA, and then you'll have to deal with that somehow.\n\n19 20 MR. LINSEY: We will note their consent in the revised form of order.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. And because I'm prepared to grant this motion and enter this order because Mr. Conway, who was here the other day, the 19th, I believe, when we had the first conference, stated on the record that he was going to -- believed he was going to consent, and he asked me did\n\n1 2 3 he have to appear if he consented and I said no. And you have his consent, so he's not here, and he represents all of the defendants in the adversary proceeding.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Your notice that you filed this morning -- or last night, I'm sorry, states that you have the consent of the corporate entity of the storage unit and that the only party who doesn't consent is HGA, which you've shown me in this notice of additional information, ECF 89, that was filed last night that the HGA Property Management, LLC was created, as I've already stated on the record, on April 18, 2023, and that Mr. Barnett transferred the interest in the storage units to this entity, and that this entity is managed and has a member of an individual whom we've seen in the main case and/or in related adversary proceedings having communications with the debtor, Mr. Kwok. In any event, I'm prepared to do that, but the order has to be revised. Okay? MR. LINSEY: So, please -- I feel like we've imposed more than enough on the Court and its staff this week -- please tell me when we need to get you an order by in\n\n21 order for it to be useful today and I'll make sure it\n\n23 24 THE COURT: Well, the staff is going to be gone by 5 o'clock.\n\nMR. LINSEY: Okay.\n\n22\n\nhappens.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So if you can get it here between - by 4:00ish, that would be very helpful. The Word document on the other one, I'm sure you can get that here earlier because all you have to do is have someone submit it by Word, okay? MR. LINSEY: I sent it from my phone while we -- THE COURT: Okay, thank you. And then the only other matter that we didn't discuss today and you -- I'm asking you to report this to Mr. Moriarty because I should have when he was here and I had forgotten to -- is I'm not in a position to rule on the trustee's motion regarding the privileges order that was filed in the main case that impacts your summary judgment motion that needs to be filed by tomorrow. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So you need to go ahead and file your summary judgment motion and then -- in the adversary 5008, the Bombardier adversary -- MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and then we will go from there. MR. LINSEY: So, to be clear, in the version we file tomorrow, we won't include that other evidence -- THE COURT: That is correct. MR. LINSEY: -- pending the Court's order? Understood. THE COURT: That is correct.\n\n 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. I'll report that to Mr. Moriarty as well. THE COURT: Yes, please. I forgot to say that when he was here, so that was my mistake and I -- MR. LINSEY: I appreciate the notice, Your Honor. So we're -- right now we made a draft and we were just waiting to hear, so -- THE COURT: No, I understand. MR. LINSEY: -- thanks. THE COURT: We've been attempting to review all the documents -- MR. LINSEY: Understood. THE COURT: -- as best we can that have been filed in the last 48 hours -- MR. LINSEY: Sure. THE COURT: -- Okay? MR. LINSEY: Understood. THE COURT: So I think then, Mr. Linsey, that takes care of everything today -- MR. LINSEY: It does, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- in these adversary proceedings? MR. LINSEY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Then we will look for the orders and then, obviously, tomorrow the court is closed, but electronic filing is available. So you'll file your motion Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 65 of 67\n\n and then we'll -- in the 5008 for summary judgment and we will proceed accordingly with regard to the schedule that's in place with regard to that motion. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. And I'll echo Mr. Moriarty to say happy holidays to Your Honor and everyone here. THE COURT: Same to you. Thank you very much. All right, that takes care of all the matters on today's calendar. So Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 1:57 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 66 of 67\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2482
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24
Page 67 of 67 | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | 67 |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | |\n| 2 | We certify that the foregoing is a correct | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of our | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | /s/ William J. Garling
December 26, 2023 | |\n| 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | |\n| 10 | For Reliable | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | /s/ Mary Zajaczkowski
December 26, 2023 | |\n| 13 | Mary Zajaczkowski, CET-531 | |\n| 14 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | |\n| 15 | For Reliable | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | /s/ Tracey J. Williams
December 26, 2023 | |\n| 18 | Tracey J. Williams, CET-914 | |\n| 19 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | |\n| 20 | For Reliable | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court）\n康涅狄格联邦地区（District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分院（Bridgeport Division）\n\n关于：\n第11章\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever Holdings公司）及\n（合并管理）\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司），\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘），第11章受托人，\n对抗程序\n案号 23-05008 (JAM)\n原告，\n诉\nMEI GUO（郭梅），\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘），第11章受托人，\n对抗程序\n案号 23-05017 (JAM)\n原告，\n诉\nTAURUS FUND LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）、SCOTT BARNETT（斯科特·巴内特），以 TAURUS FUND LLC 受托人身份，以及 TAURUS MANAGMENET LLC（Taurus Managmenet有限责任公司），以 TAURUS FUND, LLC 受托人身份，\n第123法庭\n第123法庭\nBrien McMahon联邦大楼\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n被告。\n星期四，December 21, 2023\n12:04 p.m.\n（续）\n案号 22-50073，文书 2482，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第1页，共67页\n\n目录\n动议：页码\n事项第1项 第11章受托人依据《联邦破产程序规则》7065提出的紧急动议，请求签发临时限制令及初步禁令，以保全破产财产\n法院裁定：53\n事项第2项 第11章受托人请求责令保全证据的紧急动议\n法院裁定：62\n书记员证明书 67\n案号 22-50073，文书 2482，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第3页，共67页\n\n（程序于12:04 p.m.开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：对抗程序案号23-05008，Despins v. Guo，以及对抗程序案号23-05017，Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC。\n\n法官：下午好。请先由第11章受托人的律师作出庭记录。\n\n林西先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），第11章受托人的律师。\n\n法官：下午好。莫里亚蒂先生。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好，法官阁下。James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（Zeisler & Zeisler律师事务所），代表对抗程序23-05008中的被告 Mei Guo（郭梅）。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好。\n\n法官：今天下午还有其他人会出庭吗？林西律师，据您所知，没有其他人吗？\n\n林西先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。好的。十二点有一项涉及莫里亚蒂先生的事项，一点有一项不涉及他的事项。一点的事项似乎比十二点的事项获得了更多同意。对吗，林西律师？\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 2482，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第4页，共67页\n\n林西先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：您没有谈过——据您所知，除本法庭内的人之外，没有其他人会在一点的事项中出庭？\n\n林西先生：我不能肯定 Conway先生不会出庭。我甚至不能肯定仓储设施的律师不会出庭。我预计仓储设施的律师不会出庭。\n\n法官：您能否请您办公室里的某人查明 Conway先生或——因为我可以先审理——如果有人可能出现，我不想先审理一点的事项。\n\n林西先生：这是个好建议。我能否稍作片刻打个电话？\n\n法官：可以。\n\n林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（听证暂停）\n\n林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：显然，您尚未得到您所问问题的答复，但您已经作了查询。\n\n林西先生：我已作了查询，并且我知道仓储公司的律师不会来。我们预计 Conway先生不会来；但是，HGA实体，即就该仓储设施而言的承租人或被许可人，已收到通知。我们不——这——我对此表示怀疑，但他们有可能会出现并试图提出异议。\n\n法官：好的。那么我们先审理对抗程序05008中的第一项事项——\n\n林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：——即 Despins v. Guo 一案。因此，林西先生和莫里亚蒂先生已为记录说明其出庭身份。林西先生，这是受托人请求签发临时限制令的申请。我尚未研读，但我知道在过去一小时左右已经提交了一些文件。因此，请继续并告诉我目前情况如何。\n\n林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。自上次听证以来，受托人的律师已与被告律师交谈。受托人了解到，被告同意禁令救济，但不同意——不同意将资金移回美国，并从 JNFX（JNFX外汇交易机构）转出；该外汇交易机构中的资金在过去十个月中已大幅减少。即使在——我们从昨晚的一次通话中了解到，即使在被告律师显然已与 JNFX 交谈之后，他们仍声称不知道 $1 million 本金如何损失，或为何收取 $500,000 费用。被告承认，HK案中现有的禁令涵盖该等资金，但在该禁令生效期间，其中相当大一部分显然已被耗散。现有禁令要求保全被告的资金。被告律师称，Guo女士没有就进行具体交易作出明确指示，但可能在禁令签发前曾就账户交易作出指示或许可。无论如何，一旦禁令签发，Guo女士即有积极义务确保其代理人，即该交易所，并未耗散该等资金。\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 2482，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第6页，共67页\n\n因此，假设确实发生了该情况，被告承认其在禁令签发前指示 JNFX 可以交易她的资金；否则确实没有其他合理解释。这与被告依据规则2004所作证言完全不一致，即她不知道谁持有该等资金。外汇交易费用通常在进行交易时收取或产生，并以交易金额为基础。要产生 $500,000 的费用，该账户必须进行了大量交易。另有一笔标注为 pharos fee 的 $60,000 费用，P-H-A-R-O-S。我们在 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）的规则2004——抱歉，Whitecroft的30(b)(6)证词中询问过这些费用以及其产生原因，而公司代表不当拒绝回答这些问题。\n\n法官：指 Guo女士吗？\n\n林西先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n该 $1 million 损失——即 $1 million 本金，我将其与超过 $500,000 的费用区分开来——无法用争议期间欧元与美元之间的汇率波动来解释。这两种货币之间的相对汇率根本不会出现如此大的变动。\n\n因此，我们目前有 $13.5 million 的出售价格，而现在我们了解到剩余资金仅略高于 $10 million。对受托人而言，保全该等资金极其重要，但我们没有听到任何主要理由说明该等资金为何必须留在境外。再次说明，这是在美国进行的一项出售，由美国买方购买，资金被汇往境外。我们没有听到任何主要理由说明该等资金为何必须留在境外。对于该 JNFX 机构将会做什么、他们正从谁那里接受指令，存在严重的信任缺失。\n\n我想明确说明，法官阁下，这不是一家实体银行。根据我们的初步审查和调查，这甚至不是任何实体机构。据受托人所知，这可能只是一些人在某处车库里运作。受托人不知道他们与谁结盟。他们不受美国司法管辖。该等资金应当被带回美国，在那里它们是安全的，并且在本案由法院裁判期间遵守禁令。\n\n受托人的律师已与被告律师交谈。我们提出，资金可以由被告律师在信托账户中持有；对方称，选定一名托管代理人，我们会考虑。我们所听到的只有“不”，被告坚持要求资金留在境外，由 Whitecroft 拒绝就其回答问题的该机构持有。我们看到了 Guo女士与该机构某人的一封电子邮件，其中他们称收到来自这里的指示，她同意条款和条件。他们无法向我们提供这些指示在哪里。他们无法向我们提供该等条款和条件的副本。\n\n坦率地说，将该等资金留在目前所在地，对受托人而言是不可接受的风险。因此，我认为，我们达成允许签发禁令的协议是积极的一步，但这——\n\n法官：初步禁令。\n\n林西先生：是的，法官阁下，初步禁令。我将其称为初步禁令，因为据我理解，这样当事人就无需在十四天后返回参加听证。对信托而言，这极其重要。受托人并不试图做任何超过确保该等资金不再进一步耗散的事情。因此，这就是受托人的立场。我很乐意回答任何问题。\n\n法官：您附于临时限制令的证据材料，现在我得查明是哪一份，所以请给我一点时间，好吗。\n\n林西先生：好的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：如您所知，这些文件中的大多数是在过去一两天内提交的。因此，审阅它们确实需要一些时间。\n\n林西先生：当然。\n\n法官：因此，30-A，其并非密封文件，附于 ECF No. 35——\n\n林西先生：我正在查看，法官阁下。\n\n法官：——30-A的第一页顶部写着 JNFX，地址开头部分被 ECF 信息遮住了，但之后写着 75 King William Street, London, December 12th, 2023, to whom it may concern。林西律师，您从何处获得这份文件？\n\n林西先生：该文件由被告律师提供。这是大约在 Whitecroft的证词记录前一小时提供的文件之一。\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 2482，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第10页，共67页\n\n法官：好的。文件上没有任何印章或其他标记，但您告诉我，这是由被告 Guo的律师提供的。\n\n林西先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：证词记录在哪一天进行？\n\n林西先生：在星期五，December 15th。\n\n法官：在 December 15th。因此，在 December 12th，这份文件以某种方式——嗯，这份文件的日期是 December 12th，并写着 to whom it may concern。我们可以确认 Whitecroft Shore Ltd.（Whitecroft Shore有限公司）在 JNFX Ltd.（JNFX有限公司）拥有以下余额。该账户截至 12/12/23 的美元余额如下。下方写着 12/5/12，显然是12/5，显示余额为零。\n\n林西先生：嗯，自我们收到——\n\n法官：我听不见您说话，林西律师。\n\n林西先生：抱歉，法官阁下。自我们提交临时限制令动议以来，我们获告知——这显示余额为零的原因是，这是一份美元资金对账单。\n\n法官：是。谁告知您这一点？\n\n林西先生：被告律师告知我们。我们还——Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的伦敦办事处向 JNFX 发出函件，告知我们正在向法院寻求救济，且资金不应当被——\n\n案号 22-50073，文书 2482，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第11页，共67页\n\n已转移。被告和 JNFX 均已告知受托人，账户中有一笔欧元余额——我相信——我手边没有账号，但我相信是 \\$9.1 million。身份不明的发言人：是 \\$9.3 million。林赛先生（Linsey）：\\$9.3 million 欧元，按美元折算略高于 \\$10 million。法庭：那么，这份文件提到 5/12/23 之后的情况，也就是本国的 12/5/23，对吗？它提到美元/欧元兑换。那就是 FX 的含义，对吗，即兑换？林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：那么，为什么它在 12/5 显示余额为零，而其他日期并非同一天，这意味着一天内没有两笔交易将欧元兑换成美元或将美元兑换成欧元，至少根据这份对账单是如此。这份对账单中唯一在同一天发生的交易，是 2023 年 2 月 22 日一笔 \\$12,017,995.86 的贷记，而且它没有说明是欧元还是美元，这是第一点。第二点，该对账单上的下一项是一笔 \\$300,000 的费用，显然是一笔借记，因为其上方是一笔贷记。我假定这些标记是这个意思。随后，3 月 3 日又有一笔 \\$60,000 的借记给 Ferris Capital（费里斯资本），之后 7 月 3 日又有一笔给 JNFX 的费用。\n\n随后一直没有任何事项发生，直到 2023 年 7 月 28 日出现这些美元/欧元兑换，以及 2023 年 10 月 19 日欧元兑换美元。之后在 2023 年 12 月 5 日，它写的是美元兑换欧元借记，而不是贷记，并且显示为零。那么，你掌握什么信息？我将向莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty）提出同样的问题：关于这笔钱——你有什么书面材料表明该账户中存在资金——我应当说，存在由 JNFX 持有的资金？林赛先生：我们有一封来自自称与 JNFX 有关联的人士的电子邮件，称该账户中有欧元余额。我认为法官阁下指出了令受托人深感困扰的一个问题，即我们对这份对账单有很多疑问。因此，在 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）的证言录取中，我们就该对账单提出了若干问题，但不断遭到援引第五修正案的回应。法庭：好的。你说的是哪封电子邮件，即受托人从 JNFX 收到的电子邮件？林赛先生：是受托人的律师从 JNFX 收到的。我大概可以在手机上调出来。法庭：我不一定需要看它。我想了解它的日期，请告知。林赛先生：我的——法庭：我会假定，或者至少希望，它是在 2023 年 12 月 12 日之后。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482 提交于 01/02/24 登记于 01/02/24 07:52:24 第 14 页，共 67 页\n\n林赛先生：是在 12 月——是在星期一，因为我们是在提交临时限制令动议后才收到这份材料；否则，我们本会在临时限制令动议中告知法庭我们已收到该通知。法庭：我只是想了解——林赛先生：当然。法庭：——你们请求——这没问题，各方是在请求同意签发初步禁令，对吗？根据规则，我应当具体说明为何签发初步禁令。这里提交了一份未密封文件。因此，它不受本案中任何主张的保密性或其他事项约束，该文件显示余额为零。如果我是——那么，任何阅读这份文件的人都会认为，不知何故发生了一笔美元兑换欧元，且 2023 年 10 月 19 日其中的上述美元金额被借记或提取，从而导致余额为零。林赛先生：我希望如此，法官阁下，因为这是我在周五、证言录取原定开始前不久看到该文件时的理解。这就是我们试图安排与被告律师通话的原因。这些事件已在临时限制令动议中说明，而我们被告知，基本上，被告律师不知道这意味着什么，\n\n并正试图查明。我们试图在 Whitecroft 的证言录取中就此进行询问。法庭：不，我明白所有这些。那么，你是告诉我，有一封电子邮件发送给 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），还是发送给你们的办公室？林赛先生：是发给 Paul Hastings——伦敦的其中一名 Paul Hastings 律师。法庭：是在伦敦，由某个自称获 JNFX 授权行事的人发出，称 Whitecroft Shore Ltd.（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）在 JNFX Ltd.（JNFX 有限公司）有一笔欧元余额，该余额不知何故——相当于大约 \\$9。多少 million dollars？林赛先生：我相信——其等值略高于 \\$10 million。法庭：哦，\\$10 million。好的。林赛先生：很难精确，因为具体数额每天都在波动。法庭：我明白。我并未要求你精确。林赛先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。如果法官阁下愿意，我想我可以取得该电子邮件。法庭：不，我目前不需要该电子邮件。你问我是否有任何问题，这就是我的第一个问题。林赛先生：明白。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482 提交于 01/02/24 登记于 01/02/24 07:52:24 第 15 页，共 67 页\n\n法庭：此外，30-B 和 30-C 是为申请临时限制令而提交的未密封文件。被告律师瓦尔坦先生（Vartan）与——显然，罗姆尼先生（Romney）也被抄送——Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）之间有电子邮件。显然，JNFX 的一名叫 James Sadoh（詹姆斯·萨多）的人——我不知道我的发音是否正确，S-A-D-O-H——在电子邮件中抄送了 Gold Leaf BVI.com（金叶英属维尔京群岛网站）的 Julia Shaminy Chase（朱莉娅·沙米尼·蔡，音译），以及韦尼克律师（Wernick）和罗姆尼律师，内容涉及该账户。显然，编号为 30-A、日期为 2023 年 12 月 12 日的对账单，尽管其中写着“致有关人士”，但根据瓦尔坦律师的电子邮件，该对账单已提供给郭女士（Guo）的英属维尔京群岛律师。莫里亚蒂先生，谁是郭女士的英属维尔京群岛律师？莫里亚蒂先生：我可以看一下林赛律师的文件吗？法庭：当然。若你们愿意，我们可以调出 30-A、B 和 C。莫里亚蒂先生：我认为没有必要。因此，是在电子邮件中被抄送的 Julia Shaminy Chase。法庭：那么，她是郭女士的英属维尔京群岛律师？莫里亚蒂先生：她是 Whitecroft Shore 的英属维尔京群岛律师，我相信也是——法庭：嗯，你自己的同事说她是郭女士的英属维尔京群岛律师，这正是你自己的同事所写的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我没有理由不同意瓦尔坦律师所写的内容。我可以告诉您，Julia Shaminy Chase 是英属维尔京群岛律师。法庭：谁的英属维尔京群岛律师？莫里亚蒂先生：据我所知，是 Whitecroft 和郭女士的律师。法庭：英属维尔京群岛是否有一家名为 Gold Leaf（金叶）的律所？莫里亚蒂先生：我相信有。法庭：那是一家律师事务所？莫里亚蒂先生：我相信是。法庭：好的。关于附于你声明的证据材料，林赛律师，有一份支持临时限制令的声明，即在本对抗诉讼中以密封方式提交、支持紧急临时限制令动议的声明，载于 ECF No. 73。还有一份删节版本，但我现在看的是密封版本。林赛先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：密封版本以及删节版本均列有 32 份支持临时限制令、请求临时限制令的证据材料。随后，你的清单表明它们是否已密封或未密封。在我审阅的清单中，我看到的密封文件，每一份均因主张其为高度机密而被密封，而非因其受特权命令约束。林赛先生：正确。鉴于待决动议，我们有意从本动议中排除任何可能享有特权的材料。法庭：对。因此，我的澄清就是你刚才所说的。我想确认，在我审阅这些证据材料 1 至 32 时，其中没有任何一份——一份也没有——是受托人在主案中提出、请求就特权命令获得某种救济的动议所涉对象。林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。在法官阁下作出决定之前，我们不会提交任何该性质的材料。法庭：我只是想确保记录准确。因此，当我查看时——顺便说一句，我已经查看了这 32 份证据材料中的全部内容——这花费了我一些时间，我相信你们能够理解，但我确实查看了这些证据材料。唯一未附上的材料，我不知道原因，但可能只是——我不知道它是否在删节版本中，但它并不在密封版本中——是 PAX v. Kwok（PAX 诉 Kwok）证据材料 1 中关于藐视法庭的最终裁定；出于某种原因，它不是密封文件的一部分。这不是问题，我熟悉该文件。因此，如有需要，我可以找到它。我此前读过它。\n\n林赛先生：听起来那是一次疏忽。我表示歉意。法庭：不，我说过了，这不是问题。首先，它是未密封的，并且已经是主 Chapter 11 案件和/或众多相关对抗诉讼中一些案件记录的一部分。因此，我对此完全不担心。我只是想让你知道，当我查看证据材料 73——抱歉，ECF No. 73——时，由于某种原因，该文件不在那里。林赛先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：就这样。不是问题。你没有理由重新提交它。林赛先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：关于其他编号为 2 至 32 的证据材料，我已审阅这些证据材料。我了解其中所载的信息。其中绝大多数在本次临时限制令之前我从未见过，但现在我已经见过。因此，我只是想澄清：第一，ECF 73 中列出的 32 份目前处于密封状态的证据材料——并非所有证据材料均已密封；你已澄清哪些已密封、哪些未密封。我已审阅与临时限制令请求有关的全部文件，无论它们是未密封还是密封的，因为显然，在本次听证会之前，我完全不知道是否会有任何形式的同意支持这项临时限制令申请。\n\n因此，当你询问与资金所在地有关的问题时，我提出第一个问题的原因，是询问是否确实存在任何款项由 JNFX 占有，并且，我甚至不知道能否说由其控制，但至少由 JNFX 占有。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师，你同意林赛律师的说法，即在提交本临时限制令后，JNFX 有过某种沟通，其中其表示或该机构表示，其正代表 Whitecroft 持有约 \\$10 million 的资金？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我不知道临时限制令申请提交的确切时间。\n\n法庭：不，你知道，因为文件上有。我可以准确告诉你它何时提交。这并不难。所以，我们可以查明。这不是问题。请给我一分钟，然后我就能准确告诉你它何时提交。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：当然。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：它是在 12 月 18 日提交的——抱歉，你们还得再给我一分钟。我打开了错误的屏幕。\n\n（停顿）\n\n法庭：关于 ECF No. 74，12月18日——我不确定为什么这还在继续——哦，因为它被密封了。抱歉。我无法查看那一份。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生（MR. MORIARTY）：我也遇到了同样的问题，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等，那是我的错误。\n\n（停顿）\n\n法庭：我正在看法庭书记员。你能看到时间吗，因为这个我已密封。因此，问题是——不过，我正在看 73，而上面有时间。所以，我不知道为什么 74 上没有时间。我想是因为 73 是 74 和 75。因此，73 已提交，也就是附有全部证据材料的密封文件，莫里亚蒂律师，而且该文件于 12月18日下午 1:48 提交。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，有一封我被抄送的电子邮件，来自 Jonathan Green（乔纳森·格林），地址为 JN-FX.com，发送给 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），时间为 12月18日下午 1:46。该邮件是对受托人所发电子邮件的回复，受托人询问所持金额是多少，回复是 Euros $9,359,720.99。该邮件时间为 12月18日下午 1:46。\n\n法庭：因此，在提交临时限制令申请前两分钟，他们是这么说的，但我们不知道三分钟后那里是否还有任何资金。准确吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482 于 01/02/24 提交 于 01/02/24 07:52:24 登记 第 21 页，共 67 页\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我昨天与 JNFX（JN外汇）的代表进行了一次电话通话，他们确认该金额仍在该账户中。JNFX 还确认，除非本院作出进一步命令，或郭女士与受托人共同作出指示，否则不会对该等资金采取任何处置。\n\n法庭：你们提交的初步禁令命令——我认为其中并没有这样说。这是我所担忧的问题之一，莫里亚蒂先生。我认为这——顺便说一句，也许我是错的，因为这份文件刚在过去一小时内提交。因此，我可能漏看了。所以，当我这么说时，请理解我可能是错的，好吗？请稍等，让我看看我看到哪里了。提交的文件相当多。这没问题，但我只是说我可能错了吗；是的，我可能错了。\n\n（停顿）\n\n法庭：好的。给我一点时间，莫里亚蒂先生。我可能错了。我可能看错了文件。刚才提交了相当多的文件，这没问题。好的，这是你们拟议的命令。让我看看你们拟议的命令。我的理解是，你们作了红线修改——你们提交了一份文件，说我们将同意——我的意思是，你们拿了他们的命令并进行了标注，对吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等。它需要一点时间打开，所以抱歉。\n\n（停顿）\n\n法庭：好的。我现在看到了。因此，我正在查看这份附有你们红线意见的命令，我没有看到其中任何地方说 JNFX 同意受初步禁令约束。我所看到的只是，庞巴迪（Bombardier）所得款项不得由 JNFX 转出或从 JNFX 转出，除非郭女士与受托人共同作出书面指示。该命令没有说他们明确同意受禁令约束，而我认为这正是它需要说明的内容。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我同意您的看法，法官阁下，其中没有这样说，而且我没有与 JNFX 的任何人讨论过 JNFX 是否表示同意受禁令约束。他们已同意不转移资金，但至于是否受禁令约束以及是否受本院管辖，这不是我曾进行过的讨论。\n\n法庭：好的。当你谈到受本院管辖时，我理解你的观点；但是，我认为在麦道夫（Madoff）案中，第二巡回法院已认可许多判决，即一旦确定某项资产可能存在权益，无论其是否位于本国境外，本院均对其享有管辖权，而且我认为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482 于 01/02/24 提交 于 01/02/24 07:52:24 登记 第 23 页，共 67 页\n\n麦道夫案中第二巡回法院的判决将支持这一点。因此，我理解你所说的。你可能没有和他们讨论过，但我认为我们在星期二结束时所达成的是，你们二人说如果无法达成一致，你们将提交各自相互竞争的命令，而你们已经这样做了，对吗？随后，我将作出我认为适当的命令。这是你们同意的。因此，如果我作出一项你们未同意或 JNFX 未同意的命令，并不意味着你们仍然不受你们已同意事项的约束。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我同意，本院作出的任何命令均约束本院有管辖权的任何人。因此——\n\n法庭：这不仅仅是本院对谁有管辖权的问题，而是《联邦民事诉讼规则》就禁令所规定的内容；就本命令而言，我特别指的是 Rule 65(a) 和 Rule 65(c)，我认为，该规则规定了谁受该命令约束。该命令，Rule 65——抱歉，是 (d)。其规定：“每一项准予禁令的命令和每一项限制令，均必须说明其作出的理由，具体说明其条款，并以合理的详细程度描述，而不得通过援引起诉状或其他文件的方式描述，应受限制的行为或各项行为。这是 (d)(1)。\n\n(d)(2) 规定：\n\n“通过个人送达或其他方式实际收到通知的下列人员，受该命令约束：当事人、当事人的高级职员、代理人、雇员、工作人员及律师，以及与 Rule 65(d)(2)(a) 或 (b) 所述任何人积极共同行动或参与行动的其他人员。”\n\n因此，这不仅仅是管辖权问题，而是《联邦民事诉讼规则》的规定。正如我所说，麦道夫案中有大量判决认定，受托人有权寻求并取得位于美国境外的资产以及与该等资产有关的救济，因为，如我们所知，破产财产是一个宽泛术语，其指位于任何地点的全部资产，对吗。它并没有说位于美国境内。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，我认为你们关于管辖权的看法目前并不具有说服力。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，如允许我澄清一下，我并非在暗示谁会受约束、谁不会受约束。当我谈到管辖权时，我同意，65(d) 明确列举了哪些人受禁令涵盖。第四项命令段落中提及了《联邦民事诉讼规则》65(d)。当我说“管辖权”时，也许我用词不当——\n\n也许我应当说“通知”，因为 65(d) 是——\n\n法庭：嗯，不是通知。这并非该规则所说的内容。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：65(d)(2)(c)：“与 65(d)(2)(a) 或 (b) 所述任何人积极共同行动、共同作为或参与行动的其他人员。”\n\n法庭：是的，但它规定你必须实际收到通知。因此，不是通知，而是“实际通知”。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：对。通过个人送达或其他方式。\n\n法庭：嗯，“通知”与“实际通知”之间存在重大区别。好的。那么，让我们谈谈标注修改后的命令，林赛先生（MR. LINSEY）和莫里亚蒂先生，你们两位。\n\n林赛先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，第二项命令段落中，债务人——抱歉——被告的律师已修改该命令段落，规定庞巴迪所得款项不得转移，顺便说一下，庞巴迪所得款项在本初步禁令命令中并未定义。但无论如何，不得由——由 JNFX 转出或从 JNFX 转出。因此，如果他们未被限制这样做，那么这项命令有什么意义？这段话有什么意义？还是受托人对该措辞感到满意？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482 于 01/02/24 提交 于 01/02/24 07:52:24 登记 第 26 页，共 67 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482 于 01/02/24 提交 于 01/02/24 07:52:24 登记 第 27 页，共 67 页\n\n林赛先生：受托人明确对该措辞不满意，法官阁下。法官阁下，您再次指出了受托人极为担忧的一点，即该措辞并不具有约束力——JNFX 并未明确同意受本院命令约束。\n\n但更进一步说，我们最初起草的文本要求将资金返还至美国，我想明确说明，是返还至美国。该出售发生在美国。有一名美国买方。被告使该笔款项被汇往海外。受托人认为，在本案裁决作出之前，该等资金应被带回。\n\n而且，受托人，您知道，坦率地说，法官阁下，如果由信誉良好的托管代理人持有资金，受托人会感到安心。即使由莫里亚蒂先生的律所持有资金，受托人也会感到安心；然而，我们不知道 JNFX 是谁。\n\n即使他们确实说，好，我们将受其约束，受托人也不知道这些人是谁。他们不在美国境内，受托人将不得不依赖我们不知道是谁的人的陈述。\n\n我们不知道他们拥有哪些资产，可供我们追偿以遵守本院命令。或者，您知道，如果他们是按照被告、债务人或其他人的授意行事，我们将不得不依赖，您知道，那些人在任何特定时间会作出何种承诺。\n\n而且，恭敬地说，法官阁下，我并非意图作无谓争辩，但在遵守法院命令方面，受托人当然并不信任被告或债务人。提起本破产法院案件的全部原因，就是因为被告和债务人一年间藐视 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）的命令，拒不将一项资产返还至美国，并累计产生超过一亿美元的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n因此，除非资金由托管代理人、由受托人确信会尊重本院命令的人持有——不是受托人所说的话；只是法院说他们必须做什么——否则受托人在这方面将毫无保障。受托人的担忧并非假设性的。受托人的担忧基于以下事实：我们有一笔成交价为 $13 and a half million 的出售。自该出售完成以来已略超过一年，而我们——现在已减少了近 $3 and a half million，我们不希望看到它再进一步减少。假定该笔资金真实存在，正如法官阁下也指出的，我们所拥有的仅是这封电子邮件。我不知道是谁\n\n格林先生是。我看过一封来自名为格林先生之人的电子邮件。只有当我从一名我在美国可以信赖的托管代理人处获悉其已收到那些款项时，我才会确信资金确已到位。\n\n法庭：林赛律师，因为正如我所说，你知道，这些文件都是在过去48小时内提交的，对吧，而且有很多文件需要审阅——\n\n林赛先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——作为你附在临时限制令申请中的32份证据的一部分，是否有一份文件表明——从受托人的角度证实——被告可能不同意，但我是在问你——出售所得在汇往伦敦之前已存入美国账户这一处置情况？\n\n林赛先生：有。我们有一份资产购买协议，其中反映买方位于美国，因此这足以使我们认定购买价款源自美国。我们根据情况的理解是——\n\n法庭：飞机购买协议——\n\n林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——证据19？\n\n林赛先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n林赛先生：因此，从受托人的角度来看，无论被告是在美国收到该等资金，还是将其汇往其他地方，抑或被告只是告诉买方：“嘿，把我的出售所得汇往海外”，都是一回事。这是来自美国的出售所得，被告促使其被汇往海外。\n\n而且，让我们明确其原因。这是为了使该等款项不被受托人取得。这是为了隐匿并转移受托人正试图取得的破产财产。\n\n法庭：我现在所查看的资产购买协议，是受托人证据中的证据19，系密封提交，但仅被指定为“高度机密”。它由Whitecroft Shore Ltd.（Whitecroft Shore有限公司）出示，或者至少带有Whitecroft的贝茨编号。其载明：\n\n“本飞机购买协议由Whitecroft Shore Ltd.作为卖方与ACASS USA, Inc.（ACASS USA股份有限公司）作为买方，于2022年8月2日，即生效日，订立并生效。Whitecroft Shore Ltd.是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，其永久法定地址为care of Golden Spring New York Ltd.（Golden Spring New York有限公司），P.O. Box 2120, New York, New York；Golden Spring已被认定为债务人的另一个自我。ACASS USA, Inc.是一家特拉华州公司，其主要地址为601 Bayshore Boulevard, suite 700, Tampa, Florida。”\n\n这是协议的开头。现在我们来看出售所得。让我们弄清楚这一切是如何运作的。飞机的交付地点是美国康涅狄格州布拉德利，或者双方共同商定的其他税务优惠地点。\n\n林赛先生：这与——一致。\n\n法庭：“定金”系指金额为$125,000 United States dollars的购机款项。在签署本协议后，目前由托管代理人持有的定金或其任何部分立即变为不可退还。托管代理人为Insured Aircraft Title Service, LLC（保险飞机产权服务有限责任公司），其地址和联系信息列于第8.12节。好，我得去看第8.12节，但我们会看看它在哪里。让我看看。\n\n林赛先生：在第14页，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：如向卖方Whitecroft发送——这些只是通知。这并没有给我托管代理人的信息。它只是写道——等一下，让我们继续往后看。托管代理人，Joan Roberts（琼·罗伯茨），副总裁，Insured Aircraft Title Service, LLC，2 East Main Street, suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma。因此，定义条款称，款项存入托管代理人处，该代理人的地址在Oklahoma City, Oklahoma。这就是文件本身所载明的内容。案件 22-50073，文件 2482，提交于 01/02/24，登记于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第 31 页，共 67 页。\n\n林赛先生：这是一致的——\n\n法庭：而且，就托管代理人的协议而言，受俄克拉何马州法律管辖并依其解释。好的。因此，让我们回到定义条款。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：第2页定义条款中的最终付款，系指购买价格减去托管代理人收到的定金；我们刚才已经确定，该托管代理人是俄克拉何马州的一家实体。我想我说的是Oklahoma City, Oklahoma。我得回去看看，但我想文件是这么说的。本协议项下所有付款均应于到期日以即时可用资金的电汇方式支付。购买价格是1,300万——在定义条款中——购买价格为$13,500,000 United States dollars。买方应支付附加条件，第3.2节。在签署协议后，买方应支付$100,000 United States dollars。终止金额载于卖方与KK Global Holdings, Inc.（KK Global Holdings股份有限公司）之间的终止协议中。该终止金额为购买价格之外的额外金额。案件 22-50073，文件 2482，提交于 01/02/24，登记于 01/02/24 07:52:24，第 32 页，共 67 页。\n\n在交割前，买方将已与Bombardier（庞巴迪）位于Bradley, Connecticut的机构作出安排，以进行即将到来的日历维护。任何不同步的任务现已完成。对飞机进行KA波段升级，使买方得以承接卖方在Bombardier处金额为$478,910 United States dollars的定金；买方应在交割前，除购买价格外，将该Bombardier定金交付给托管代理人，该托管代理人再次位于Oklahoma。\n\n卖方应向买方提供Bombardier出具的文件，确认Bombardier定金的权利已由卖方转让给买方。\n\n交割程序中的最终付款，第4.1节第8段。在交割日前至少一个营业日，买方应将最终付款交付给托管代理人；该托管代理人再次位于Oklahoma。托管代理人应通过电子邮件向卖方和买方确认收到最终付款。\n\n交割，第4.5节。交割应在三个营业日内发生，随后文本继续规定。\n\n随后，第4.5.3节规定，在交割日，双方应按所列顺序通过电子邮件协调完成下列行为，该等行为共同构成交割。\n\n第4.5.3节规定，托管代理人应向双方确认，托管代理人已拥有将飞机所有权从卖方转让给买方所必需的全部资金、文件和授权，并使该所有权不附带任何留置权。\n\n如已作出上述全部通知，根据第4.5.5节，双方应被视为已不可撤销地指示托管代理人，托管代理人无须任何进一步指示，即应采取下列行动；该等行动一经启动即不可撤销。\n\n第4.5.5.1节，按照卖方的指示向卖方释放购买价格，并按照卖方的指示向卖方释放Bombardier定金，扣除托管费用的分摊部分，并以Fedwire确认书的形式向卖方提供该等付款的证据。\n\n卖方的陈述和买方的陈述也是如此，而Whitecroft是卖方。ACASS是买方。因此，卖方的陈述始于第5条，即陈述与保证。这是第5.1节：卖方的陈述与保证。\n\n卖方依英属群岛法律正式设立、有效存续且处于良好状态，具有以其自身名义起诉和被起诉的能力，并拥有经营其目前所经营业务以及签署、交付和履行本协议条款的完全权力、合法权利和权限。\n\n卖方对本协议的签署、交付和履行以及对飞机的出售，均已获得代表卖方采取的一切必要行动的适当授权，且不与卖方作为一方当事人的任何文件、文书或协议的任何条款相冲突、不导致违反该等条款，也不构成该等文件、文书或协议项下的违约。\n\n第5.1.3节，代表卖方签署本协议之人拥有作出该等签署的完全权力和权限。\n\n林赛先生：关于交割所发生的情况，具体而言，托管代理人在Oklahoma City收到资金一事——\n\n法庭：你在看哪一条规定？\n\n林赛先生：实际上，我本来要请法庭参阅证据24，即托管代理人对收到资金的确认书。\n\n法庭：好的。让我先完成这一部分，然后我们会看那里。\n\n林赛先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n根据协议第14页的规定，向Whiteshore [原文如此] Ltd.发出的通知应发送给Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），收件人为maxk@gnsyus.com，即Golden Spring New York U.S. dot com；Golden Spring已被认定为债务人的另一个自我。\n\n卖方签字栏，兹证明，下列签署方已促使本飞机购买协议于上文首次载明的日期，即2022年8月2日签署、交付并生效。\n\n第17页，签字：卖方，Whitecroft Shore Ltd.，签署人为Mei Guo（郭梅）；职务，所有人。\n\n而且，在主案以及可能在本对抗程序中、但在其他程序中，记录已经确定，被告已经作证称，该飞机是在2022年8月、在申请破产之后出售的，且早于被告在任何讯问中试图援引其第五修正案免于自证其罪的权利——我应该说，是免于被迫自证其罪。\n\n所以，你是要我看24，是这个意思吗，林赛律师？\n\n林赛先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一点时间。找到那里需要一点时间。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：你知道吗？等一下，我可能刚刚——抱歉，请给我——证据相当多，所以我快找到了。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：附于紧急临时限制令申请的证据24，是一份题为“Insured Aircraft Title Services, LLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, confirmation of funds re Bombardier, Inc. BD-700-1A11, serial number 9189”的文件，由Anna Stafford（安娜·斯塔福德）于2022年10月19日出具，第1页。致有关人士：兹确认，Insured Aircraft Title Services, LLC为Whitecroft Shore, Ltd.的利益，就上述飞机的出售，以托管方式持有金额为$12,032,995.86的出售所得。谨致问候，Anna Stafford，托管代理人。已签署，但须遵守IATS的条款和条件。因此，这确认了出售所得由托管代理人持有，该代理人持有以美元计价的款项，其办公地点和业务所在地在Oklahoma City, Oklahoma。\n\n林赛先生：是，法官阁下。然后，证据25显示接下来发生了什么。\n\n法庭：附于紧急临时限制令申请的证据25，是Whitecroft Shore, Ltd.的一份文件；该公司根据BVI Business Companies Act注册成立，公司编号为1969460，以下简称“公司”。该文件为公司唯一董事根据公司章程作出的书面决议，日期为12月21日。下列签署人作为公司唯一董事，该公司系根据英属群岛、BVI法律注册成立并存续的公司，特此同意通过下列决议。文件开头写道：\n\n据载，随后有若干段，即 1.1 至 1.10。1.5 载明，托管代理人确认其正为 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）公司的利益，以托管方式持有与该飞机购买价款相关的所得款项，金额为 $12,032,995.88；并且，根据资产购买协议（APA）第 4.5.5.1 条，托管代理人可依照卖方指示将购买价款支付给卖方。\n\n因此，在托管代理人确认其——即其正为 Whitecroft 的利益持有以美元计的所得款项两个月后，根据说明 1.7，公司已在位于 75 King William Street, London, EC4N7BE 的 JNFX, Ltd.（JNFX有限公司，以下简称“JNFX”）开立账户，以便利购买价款——以便利——抱歉，我读错了——以便利收取购买价款。JNFX 获英国金融行为监管局授权并受其监管，参考编号为 574489，同时亦在英国税务海关总署登记，反洗钱登记编号为 12277592。\n\n下一项说明中，公司提供了 Whitecroft 银行账户的账户详情；其后的说明 1.9 则称，公司希望指示托管代理人将购买价款汇入 Whitecroft 银行账户。下一项说明称，公司的代理人或获授权代表必须向托管代理人提供公司的指示。\n\n现转至该决议。因此，兹决议：在 1.1 中，开立 Whitecroft 银行账户符合公司的最佳利益；该公司即上述说明 1.1 至 1.3 所述的公司，是一家纯股权控股公司，其唯一目的在于持有该飞机的所有权及产权。因此，公司既未维持银行账户，也未持有任何其他资产，且基于该原因，从未认为开立或维持银行账户是必要或具有商业可行性的。\n\n第一项决议为，为收取截至本决议作出之日应付且尚未支付给公司的购买价款，开立 Whitecroft 银行账户符合公司的最佳利益。\n\n第二项决议为，公司在 1.2 中授权并指示托管代理人依照本决议行事，将购买价款汇入 Whitecroft 银行账户。\n\n1.3，公司或其正式授权代理人此前采取的一切行动，包括但不限于 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、公司的法律会计师顾问 [原文如此] 及顾问为坚持开立 Whitecroft 银行账户而采取的行动，特此予以追认。\n\n以及 1.4，这些决议可通过电子签名或传输方式签署。\n\n在本证物 25 所载的上述 1.1 至 1.4 项决议下方，打印有 Mei Guo（郭美）作为唯一董事的姓名，随后有一条签名栏，其中载有签名，签名下方日期为 12/21/2022。该签名看来与我们今日已在庭审记录中讨论的其他文件上出现的 Mei Guo 签名相同。\n\n那么，Linsey 律师，证物 20 呢？其中有一封介绍 Max Krasner 的电子邮件；另有证物 21，其中有一封来自买方 ACASS（ACASS公司）致 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）和 Max Krasner 的电子邮件。\n\nLINSEY 律师：是的，法官阁下。提交这些证物是为了表明，Golden Spring（黄金泉）作为债务人的另我，策划了该飞机的出售。Max Krasner——Max Krasner 自称为 Golden Spring 的运营总监；Jetlaw（杰特洛）已作证称，Max Krasner 以该身份是其与“卖方”的联系人；而且 ACASS 的意向函反映，其将意向函——我是说意向书——寄给 Yvette Wang 和 Max Krasner 两人，地址均为 Golden Spring 的电子邮件地址。\n\n法庭：我需要一点时间找到那些证物。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：抱歉，不知何故我找不到位置了。请稍候片刻。（暂停）法庭：我不知道为什么，但我在这份文件中找不到 20 和 21。也许是我不当地跳过了它们，但我在这份文件中没有看到。我查看过它，但我一定是打开了错误的文件。LINSEY 律师：我相信在我们密封提交的文件中——法庭：我以为我看的正是那个。LINSEY 律师：不，不，我们仅提交了密封证物，我相信那些是未密封的——法庭：哦，它们是未密封的。这就是它们没有——LINSEY 律师：是的，所以它们被省略了。法庭：那么我看的版本不对。好的。抱歉。LINSEY 律师：不，这很容易混淆。要弄清正确的做法很混乱，所以我们尽力而为。法庭：我明白。好。那么我应当能在另一份文件中看到那两份证物，因为我确实看过它。是的，我认为它们在这份文件中。我认为它们在 75 号文件中。Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 41 of 67\n\n显然，我们没有像在证据听证会前那样准备好调出这些文件，但我确实认为，注意到这两份未密封文件是重要的。书记员：我想是在第 277 页。法庭：277？书记员：我想是。法庭：好的，非常感谢。书记员：不客气。法庭：找到了，ECF 编号 75 的第 277 页，这是一份未密封证物，是一封介绍 Max Krasner 的电子邮件，日期为 January 25th, 2022，Whitecroft，转交 Gold Spring（黄金泉），New York，收件人为 Yvette Wang 或 Max Krasner。这是一封购买飞机的意向书，即 Bombardier Global XRS Aircraft（庞巴迪环球 XRS 飞机），序列号 9189；该号码与我们在资产购买协议以及本次听证会期间已在庭审记录中描述的其他文件中所读到的号码相同。该函确实称——该函寄给 Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司），转交 Golden Spring，New York, New York，162 East 64th Street, New York, New York，收件人为 Yvette Wang 或 Max Krasner；两人的电子邮件地址均为 GSNYUS，即 Golden Spring, New York U.S.，而法庭此前已认定 Golden Spring 是债务人的另我。\n\n随后我们看证物 21——LINSEY 律师：我相信那是证物——法庭：那是 21，抱歉。我想看的其实是 20。我道歉，我看得太后面了。证物 20 是一封由 Kent Jackson（肯特·杰克逊）发给 Valerie Ericson（瓦莱丽·埃里克森）的电子邮件，日期为 December 29, 2021，事由为 Jetlaw 聘用、Global Express 出售。邮件称：“Valerie，早上好。是的，我确实发出了一封新的聘用函，现已签署，我们刚刚收到 $10,000 电汇。请录入工时记录，并告知 Max 我们已收到他们的电汇。谢谢，Kent。”下方还有一封由 Max Krasner 发给 Liberty Jet（自由喷气）的 Christian Deputy（克里斯琴·德普蒂）、Jetlaw 的 Kent Jackson，以及 Liberty Jet 的 Julian Schulman（朱利安·舒尔曼）的电子邮件，事由为 T7GTUMPA。附件为已签署的聘用函。Max Krasner 的电子邮件地址为 maxk@gsnyus.com，即 Golden Spring, New York, U.S。附件为与 Valerie 确认的电汇指示所附已签署的聘用函，付款将于今日处理。期待与各位合作。下方还有一封由 Liberty Jet 的 Christian Deputy 发给 Jetlaw 的 Jackson 先生、抄送 Krasner 先生及 Liberty Jet 的 Julian Schulman 的电子邮件。邮件称，诸位早上好。我想写这封简短电子邮件，向您介绍 Krasner 先生，即 Max Krasner，Kent。\n\nKrasner 先生是参与 T7-GQM 出售的所有各方与委托人之间的直接联系人。我将与 Max 合作，取回你们的聘用函。随后——大部分内容——该电子邮件现有一部分被遮盖。之后仅称，Krasner 先生正在休假，可能能够查阅一些电子邮件——可能能够处理一些电子邮件，因此预计进展会较慢。发件人为 Christian Deputy，自由喷气公司总裁。因此，这就是另外两份未密封的证物；Linsey 律师，我认为受托人正依赖这些证物，以支持如下主张：资金位于美国，由 Whitecroft 通过 Golden Spring 控制，且受托人希望初步禁令禁止 JNFX 行事，并要求被告促使将资金返还美国并存入托管；对吗？LINSEY 律师：正确，法官阁下。法庭：好的。Moriarty 律师，您有什么回应吗？\n\nMORIARTY 律师：法官阁下，在我们审阅文件之前，您刚才曾问我 JNFX 将如何受该命令约束。如果法庭作出被告所提议的命令，即除非经被告和受托人共同书面指示，或经法庭进一步命令，否则不得转移资金，第一，被告当然将受该命令约束；而且，如果我们阅读 65——《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 65 条——\n\n法庭：被告就向其提出的有关 Whitecroft 的每一个问题，包括其是否为 Whitecroft 的委托人，均主张其不受自证其罪权利的保护。因此，我听到了您刚才所说的话，但这会有什么差别？她只会主张她的——她已经主张了她的第五修正案特权，那么她会怎样？她会怎样？她会违反一项命令，然后又会怎样？\n\nMORIARTY 律师：法官阁下，我预计她不会违反命令，显然我不知道，我无法预测未来。我所知道的是——\n\n法庭：嗯，她是您的当事人。因此，我确信您已就那意味着什么向她提供过建议；不是吗？\n\nMORIARTY 律师：我不会讨论我曾与我的当事人讨论过什么，或未曾讨论过什么——\n\n法庭：我不是要求您——\n\nMORIARTY 律师：——与我的当事人讨论的具体内容，法官阁下。法庭：——具体讨论。您有义务向法庭说明，您是否已向您的当事人解释受该命令约束意味着什么，Moriarty 律师。\n\nMORIARTY 律师：我同意，法官阁下，且已经这样做了。法庭：好的。MORIARTY 律师：好的？因此，JNFX 将作为与被告积极共同行动的人而受该命令约束。法庭：所以您同意——您的意思是 JNFX 正与您的当事人积极共同行动？MORIARTY 律师：我的意思是 JNFX 控制这些资金。据我所知，截至——从现在起，他们唯一可以接受指示的人是 Guo 女士。因此，我相信他们——法庭：嗯，您说据您所知，但所有这些文件都提到 Yvette Wang 和 Max Krasner。似乎没有人知道 Krasner 先生在哪里。MORIARTY 律师：法官阁下，我同意您的看法，而且我们知道 Wang 女士在哪里，她被联邦羁押。我告诉您，据我所知，该账户上唯一能够发出指示的人是 Guo 女士。在此范围内——因此我要转换话题，法官阁下——在此范围内——法庭：嗯，转换到什么？MORIARTY 律师：如果法庭倾向于准许受托人所提议的命令，即要求将资金带回美国，我无权同意该项命令；但我请求的是，如果法庭将这样做，请法庭给予超过五天的时间。Case 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 46 of 67\n\n用25个工作日完成该项转移，仅仅是因为圣诞节是星期一，英国的节礼日是星期二，1月1日是元旦。我不知道能否在五天内完成，这正是受托人所要求的期限。法庭：好的，我理解这一点。莫里亚蒂律师：因此，JNFX 已同意不会对这些资金采取任何行动。法庭：嗯，您可以这么说，但本案记录中没有证据证明他们已经——莫里亚蒂律师：好的。法庭：——好的？莫里亚蒂律师：我明白，法官阁下。那么，如果允许我——法庭：我的意思是，如果您有证据，那就不同，但您没有。没有任何我可以据以认定他们已同意不采取任何行动的材料。莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，我有一封电子邮件，向——法庭：但我们并不——我不知道他们是谁，对吧？这并不是——莫里亚蒂律师：好的。法庭：——没有任何——我的意思是，我也可以写那封电子邮件。我并不是暗示您——我不是这个意思，莫里亚蒂律师。我是说，就证明目的而言，对吧，以及确定他们的身份而言，我没有\n\n任何本案记录中的证据。莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，我所拥有的只是电子邮件往来——法庭：我明白。莫里亚蒂律师：——就只有这些。法庭：我明白。莫里亚蒂律师：那么，如果允许我转到我们已作红线修改的命令中的另外两点，并向法庭说明——法庭：请继续。莫里亚蒂律师：——以供法庭审阅？因此，我们对命令第三段作了红线修改，仅是因为该段会要求郭女士的律师向案卷提交某项文件，说明资金已经转移；而由于我们提出的方案不要求转移资金，所以该段——法庭：明白。莫里亚蒂律师：——将被删除。命令第四段提及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(d)条和《联邦破产程序规则》第7065条。这里提出的修改仅为使该命令符合第65(d)条——我所说的符合，是指其表述方式与第65(d)条相同。因此，受托人拟议的措辞会写为与被告和/或债务人积极协同行动的人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482\n提交日期 01/02/24\n登记日期 01/02/24 07:52:24\n第 48 页，共 67 页\n\n而且，按照我对第65(d)条的理解，其所称积极协同行动的人，是当事人、当事人的高级职员、代理人、雇员、职工及律师。我不知道债务人是否会归入其中任何一个类别。因此，称被告和/或债务人，然后再称积极协同行动的人，我不知道那是否可以执行，或许可以。我不想处于这样一种境地，即发生了某件事情，而该命令——我并不是说任何事情会发生——但我不想处于这样一种境地，即发生了某件事情，而该命令的范围可能比应有的更广。法庭：那么，根据我们刚刚在记录中所读到的内容，Waterfall（瀑布）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）和 Yvette Wang 女士（王燕）呢？莫里亚蒂律师：我认为，法官阁下——我不该说我认为——只要他们与郭女士积极协同行动，他们就受到约束。这个——法庭：是的，但这并不意味着法庭不能明确列出这一点。规则中没有任何规定称，法庭不得根据为支持临时限制令申请而向法庭提交的证据明确列出人员。莫里亚蒂律师：我同意，法官阁下。法庭：好的。莫里亚蒂律师：作出这一修改的原因是，因为按照该命令的表述，郭女士目前正与这些个人积极协同行动。\n\n因此，若法庭认定 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）、郭女士在2023年1月、2022年8月或更早期间，为出售该飞机之目的而与这些个人积极协同行动，则他们将受“积极协同行动”措辞的约束。将他们列入其中，意味着他们目前正在积极协同行动，这就是作出该修改的原因。然后，如果我可以向法庭说明最后一项拟议修改，林赛律师，我就坐下。下一命令段落规定，受该命令约束的任何资产，包括 JNFX 资产，不得被减少、支出或以其他方式减损。因此，代表我方当事人，我们增加了一些措辞，因为这些资金目前以欧元持有。如果它们将被——法庭：嗯，我们不知道这一点，但这是您认为属实的事情。莫里亚蒂律师：根据已向——法庭：对——莫里亚蒂律师：——受托人、其律师和我本人所作的陈述。法庭：——一项没有任何证明力的陈述，因为它并非基于本法庭面前的任何证据，但我明白——我只是对您说，继续说您要说的任何内容，但没有任何\n\n——我甚至没有任何材料证明该实体无论如何持有任何资金。但是，无论如何，请继续。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：好的。因此，我将假定那里有资金，好吗？在该假定下，假定这些资金以欧元持有，如果它们将被转移至境内，就必须兑换成美元。因此，该兑换可能产生费用——\n\n法庭：您不知道这一点。第一，您不知道这一点；第二，您不知道它们是否必须在这里或那里兑换；第三，您不知道兑换时的费用结构。\n\n因此，我完全不同意该陈述，因为您对此一无所知。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：资金可以以不同货币兑换后转入美国银行，这种情况一直都有。莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，我唯一想说的是，我不希望我的当事人因存在费用或因汇率导致下跌波动，而处于违反本命令的境地，因为账户价值有所减少。这正是该措辞的全部意图。如果法庭命令将资金转入美国，并且必须进行兑换，而该兑换因费用和/或兑换汇率导致账户价值下降，这不构成违反该命令。\n\n法庭：林赛律师，您对该措辞的立场是什么？\n\n林赛律师：我们很乐意与被告讨论可行的机制，将资金转回。如果我们谈论的是从我们的角度看属商业合理的交易费用，那么我预计这不会成为问题。如果我们谈论的是 JNFX 收取的 \\$300,000 或 \\$180,000 费用，那绝不属于商业合理，并且从受托人的角度看将违反禁令。\n\n而且我们已经——我并不是——您知道，被告的立场就是被告今天来到这里时的立场，所以我并不责怪莫里亚蒂律师没有就此项安排的具体运作方式与我进行讨论。我们准备与被告讨论如何以一种方式使此事得以实施，从而使她不会因遵守命令而无意中陷入违反命令的陷阱，这并非意图所在。意图是保障该等资金。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2482\n提交日期 01/02/24\n登记日期 01/02/24 07:52:24\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？\n莫里亚蒂律师：被告没有其他事项，法官阁下。谢谢。\n林赛律师：没有，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。那么，我已经审阅了这些命令，而且我——我不会按照被告所作红线修改的方式签发该命令，尽管我将——我想您明白，莫里亚蒂律师，我认为 JNFX 必须受本命令约束，它们必须受到限制，无论其是否同意；至于共同指示，不会有任何共同指示，而将是本法庭进一步命令。关于与被告积极协同行动的人员，我会再考虑一下，但根据向本法庭提交的证据，我看不出任何理由——或者说，我看到充分理由——不将 Whitecroft、Max Krasner 和王女士列为该等当事人之一，而您没有提交任何相反证据。关于您提出的兑换问题以及因费用而不构成违反命令的问题，我认为这是今日之后可以处理的问题；我将指示各方设法就未来某一时间、但应尽快将资金转移至美国的双方同意方式达成一致，并且应以使这些我们甚至不了解其计算方式的费用能够从目前显然由 JNFX 持有的金额中自动扣除的方式进行转移。随后，我必须确定——我们必须确定您们何时就该问题报告，以及如何就该问题报告。因此，我认为我们应当转向另一个问题，因为该命令必须在今天签发。法庭明天不开庭，法庭星期一不开庭，因此必须在今天签发。还有其他事项吗？林赛律师：没有，法官阁下。受托人准备在法庭希望的任何日期再次出庭，或就与被告举行的会议提交书面报告。受托人并非试图在不可行的时间框架内强迫完成交易，但鉴于此处存在的不确定性，我们确实认为情况紧急。法庭：莫里亚蒂先生？莫里亚蒂律师：我没有补充，法官阁下，只祝大家节日愉快、新年快乐。法庭：您也是。谢谢。莫里亚蒂律师：谢谢。法庭：那么现在我们将转到对抗程序 5017，该程序涉及 Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）以及证据保全动议。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生，除非您选择留下，否则无需继续留在这里。莫里亚蒂律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的，谢谢。好了，林赛律师，请就——林赛律师：请允许我快速喝口水。法庭：——当然——就 Taurus Fund 对抗程序而言。我确实看到了据我所知是在今天凌晨较早时候提交的命令——哦，不，是昨晚很晚提交的，对不起——该命令涉及证据保全问题；我看到已与 Taurus Fund、Barnett 先生（巴内特）以及由 Conway 先生（康威）代理的其他当事人达成的协议；我也看到您与——我不会称其为 Westy Storage Facility（韦斯蒂仓储设施），尽管我知道他们有一个公司名称——达成了协议。唯一尚未同意此事的当事人是 HGA Property Management（HGA 物业管理），但我从您提交的文件中看到，HGA Property 的注册代理人——其并非 HGA Property——显然于2023年4月18日设立；这是否正确，林赛律师？林赛律师：正确，法官阁下。法庭：成员、管理人和\n\n注册代理人是一名一直是……对象的个人。\n\n在本主案及可能相关的对立程序中提交的证据。我不具体记得，但我认得这个名字。对吗？\n\nLINSEY律师（林赛）：这也正确，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。并且，该人在某个时间点曾被证实实际在债务人位于 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）的公寓中出现过，对吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法官：还有其他该人与债务人在一起的例子吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：我一时想不起来。我可以——我需要向同事询问是否有进一步证据，法官阁下。\n\n法官：这名被告——抱歉，我道歉，该人不是被告——HGA Property Management（HGA物业管理公司）的成员是否出现在 Mahwah mansion（马瓦庄园）的任何照片中？\n\nLINSEY律师：我相信她出现在我们就 HCHK（HCHK）拟介入人动议所观看的一段视频中。\n\n法官：好的。好，那么，对于你们提交的这份命令——除 HGA 实体外已获得各方同意的命令——你们希望如何推进？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 57 of 67\n\nLINSEY律师：我将非常简要地概述一下我们正在做的事情。\n\n法官：请讲。\n\nLINSEY律师：显然，法院已从紧急动议中知悉，受托人最近得知 New Jersey（新泽西州）有一处仓储设施，距离 Mahwah mansion 约十分钟车程。涉案仓储单元最初租给 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特），他是债务人的保镖和司机，也据称或名义上是 Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）被告的管理人。联邦调查局（FBI）逮捕被告后不久，Barnett 先生签署了一份所有权变更附录，将与该仓储设施有关的全部权利转让给 HGA Property Operation（HGA物业运营公司）。受托人了解到，如我们所讨论的，HGA Property Operation 的所有人和管理人均为债务人的知名支持者。我们了解到，该仓储设施的月租金或费用为 $7,000。受托人已与该仓储设施的所有人取得联系，并获得了一些情况说明。这是一处大型设施——这些单元很大，显然由四个房间组成。我们知道它们被设计为能够承受炸弹爆炸，并由电子安保系统守卫。简而言之，这是一个旨在保护极高价值财产的设施。受托人已向该仓储设施的所有人和 HGA 发出传票。受托人动议的目的，是确保在受托人完成检查之前，这些仓储单元得到妥善保护。\n\n受托人已知的事实表明，设立这些仓储单元的原因，是为了隐藏从 Greenwich mansion（格林威治庄园）和 Sherry-Netherland 公寓移走的财产，以及可能也从 Mahwah mansion 移走的财产。完全有理由认为，既然债务人的关联人已经知道我们知悉这些单元的存在，他们就会对这些单元内目前的物品做同样的事情；而他们确实知道，因为我们已经发出传票，并且已经作出通知中概述的努力，以确保他们实际知悉本次听证。\n\n受托人了解到，根据仓储设施所有人收到的通知，该所有人在本次听证待决期间已采取措施保护仓储单元。因此，我们真正要讨论的是维持现状足够长的时间，以便受托人完成该项检查。受托人将于周五开始检查。因此，我认为完成检查所需时间不会很长；检查完成后，受托人将向法院报告。这就是我的全部陈述，法官阁下，但我很乐意回答任何问题。\n\n法官：你们将尝试于明天检查该财产，对吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：我们将于明天开始检查。\n\n法官：据我记得，Conway先生（康韦）也会在那里，对吗？他前几天已在记录中这样陈述。\n\nLINSEY律师：我们当然已向他提供了到场的机会，但我不能代他发言——\n\n法官：我想他曾说他会到场。\n\nLINSEY律师：是的。\n\n法官：请让我看一下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：那么，你们没有对拟议命令的格式作任何修改；仍是你们前几天提交的同一份拟议命令吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：正确，法官阁下，与原紧急动议一并提交的同一份。\n\n法官：好的。那么，请给我一秒钟。\n\nLINSEY律师：当然。\n\n法官：关于我们刚才处理的另一事项，我还要说的一点是，你能否请你们办公室的人员将那份命令的 Word 版本提交至法庭书记员的电子邮箱？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 59 of 67\n\nLINSEY律师：可以，法官阁下。我实际上现在就可以提交——\n\n法官：在我寻找这份文件时，这样做大概合适。好吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：我们已将其发送给 Moriarty先生（莫里亚蒂），以便他制作修订痕迹版本。\n\n法官：是的。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：Linsey律师，在所提交的拟议命令中，即准许这项为保全证据而提出的紧急动议的命令——\n\nLINSEY律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：——该拟议命令中有一些删节内容，包括仓储单元的位置以及其他一些内容——我不确定你希望如何处理。\n\nLINSEY律师：我正在看密封版本，因此我的版本未作删节。我很抱歉，我没有打印删节版本，所以很遗憾——是否可以在屏幕上显示被删节的内容？我对此表示抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法官：当然。它是 5017 案中的 ECF Number 83。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：Linsey律师，你看到我所指的位置了吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 60 of 67\n\nLINSEY律师：哦，就在我面前。\n\n法官：所以，你看，地址被删节了。然后，请翻到下一页——\n\n（暂停）\n\n法官：我认为那是那些人——你看到了吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：看到了，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\nLINSEY律师：我很抱歉，法官阁下。我是在代替他人出席，而且我已作准备，但我没有答案。我是否可以稍候片刻，或者向法院报告？\n\n法官：可以。我的意思是，我认为我们只需要——我需要知道你希望如何处理。我的意思是，那些内容是否仍将被删节，还是——\n\nLINSEY律师：嗯，我认为法院的命令不能被删节——\n\n法官：我也认为不能——\n\nLINSEY律师：——如果它要——\n\n法官：——但我不确定——\n\nLINSEY律师：——如果它要有效，而且我相信有一些——\n\n法官：而且我认为该命令无论如何都需要修改，因为你必须说明你已取得 Taurus Fund 和所有被告以及 Westy——再次抱歉，我不记得其公司名称——的同意，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 61 of 67\n\nLINSEY律师：是的，它以 A 开头。我知道。因此，经法院宽容，我们能否这样做：我能否——或者 Paul Hastings（保尔·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）提交一份修订命令，载明我们今天举行了听证，并且获得被告及仓储设施所有人的同意？我们将在所提交的该修订命令中处理删节问题。\n\n法官：可以，因为他们同意所有这些事项。他们同意不修改、移走、清空、处置，等等；这就是需要说明的内容，对吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法官：并且，唯一不同意的一方是 HGA，然后你们必须以某种方式处理该问题。\n\nLINSEY律师：我们将在修订后的命令格式中注明其同意。\n\n法官：好的。而且，因为我准备准许这项动议并签发该命令，因为前几天，即我相信是 19 日我们举行首次会议时，在场的 Conway 先生曾在记录中陈述，他将会——他相信他会同意；他问我，如果他同意，他是否必须出席，而我说不必。你们已有他的同意，因此他没有到场，而且他代表对立程序中的所有被告。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2482 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:52:24 Page 62 of 67\n\n你们今天上午——或者昨晚，抱歉——提交的通知称，你们已获得仓储单元公司实体的同意，唯一不同意的一方是 HGA；而你们在昨晚提交的补充信息通知 ECF 89 中向我证明，HGA Property Management, LLC（HGA物业管理有限责任公司）于 April 18, 2023 成立，并且 Barnett 先生将仓储单元中的权益转让给该实体；该实体由一名个人管理，且该个人为其成员，我们已在主案和/或相关对立程序中见到该人与债务人 Kwok先生（郭文贵）有通信往来。无论如何，我准备这样做，但命令必须修改。好吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：那么，请告诉我——我觉得本周我们已给法院及其工作人员增添了太多负担——请告诉我，为使该命令今天能发挥作用，我们最迟需要在何时向您提交，我会确保办妥。\n\n法官：嗯，工作人员将在 5 o'clock 前离开。\n\nLINSEY律师：好的。\n\n法官：因此，如果你们能在 4:00ish 左右之前提交，将非常有帮助。至于另一份的 Word 文档，我相信你们可以更早提交，因为你们只需让某人以 Word 形式提交即可，好吗？\n\nLINSEY律师：我们在——期间已从我的手机发送了。\n\n法官：好的，谢谢。然后，今天我们未讨论的唯一另一事项是——我要求你将此事报告给 Moriarty先生，因为我本应在他在场时提出，但我忘记了——我目前无法就主案中提出的、涉及特权命令的受托人动议作出裁定；该动议影响你们必须于明天提交的简易判决动议。\n\nLINSEY律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：因此，你们需要继续提交你们的简易判决动议，然后——在第 5008 号对立程序，即 Bombardier（庞巴迪）对立程序中——\n\nLINSEY律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：——然后我们将据此继续处理。\n\nLINSEY律师：那么，为明确起见，在我们明天提交的版本中，我们不会纳入其他证据——\n\n法官：正确。\n\nLINSEY律师：——等待法院命令？明白。\n\n法官：正确。\n\n65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 林西先生（Mr. Linsey）：明白，法官阁下。我也会向莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty）报告此事。法庭：是的，请这样做。我忘了在他在场时说这件事，所以这是我的疏忽，而且我——林西先生：感谢您的告知，法官阁下。所以我们——目前我们已经起草了一份草案，正等待收到消息，所以——法庭：不，我明白。林西先生：——谢谢。法庭：我们一直在尽力审阅——林西先生：明白。法庭：——过去48小时内提交的所有文件——林西先生：当然。法庭：——好吗？林西先生：明白。法庭：那么，林西先生，我认为这就处理完了今天——林西先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：——这些对抗程序中的所有事项？林西先生：是。法庭：好的。那么我们将等待命令，然后，显然，明天法院休庭，但电子提交可用。因此，您将提交您的动议。案件 22-50073 文件 2482 提交于 01/02/24 录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24 第 65 页，共 67 页\n\n然后我们将在5008案中就简易判决提出动议，并将按照就该动议已确定的日程相应进行。好吗？林西先生：是的，法官阁下。我也附和莫里亚蒂先生，祝法官阁下及在场各位节日快乐。法庭：也祝您节日快乐。非常感谢。好了，这就处理完了今日日程表上的所有事项。因此，现宣布休庭。（庭审于下午1:57结束。）案件 22-50073 文件 2482 提交于 01/02/24 录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24 第 66 页，共 67 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2482\n提交于 01/02/24\n录入于 01/02/24 07:52:24\n\n1 证明\n\n2 我们证明，据我们所知及所能，前述内容为以上述事项庭审程序电子录音制作的正确文字记录。\n\n7 /s/ William J. Garling\nDecember 26, 2023\n8 William J. Garling, CET-543\n9 认证法庭文字记录员\n10 代表 Reliable\n\n12 /s/ Mary Zajaczkowski\nDecember 26, 2023\n13 Mary Zajaczkowski, CET-531\n14 认证法庭文字记录员\n15 代表 Reliable\n\n17 /s/ Tracey J. Williams\nDecember 26, 2023\n18 Tracey J. Williams, CET-914\n19 认证法庭文字记录员\n20 代表 Reliable","key_entities":["Guo","Je","CIPA","Despins","Paul Hastings","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":35,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":73,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":74,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":89,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":16600,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-01-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-01-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:42:50"}