{"id":"court_ctb_250_18","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":250,"sub_number":18,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-04-22","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 18 Affidavit of Ho Wan Kwok filed in *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. USB AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Su","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 18**\n\nAffidavit of Ho Wan Kwok filed in *Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. USB AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (English), dated February 5, 2016\n\n| [FILED: | NEW | YORK
Case 22-50073 | 02/05/2016
07:09 Pij
COUNTY
CLERK
Doc 250-18
Filed 04/22/22
Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 | | INDEX NO.
Page 2 of | 653316/2015 |\n|-----------------|-----|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------------------|-------------|\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. | | 27 | 19 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: | | 02/05/2016 |\n\n### **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------x
ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED, | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|\n| | Plaintiff, | Index No. 653316/2015 (Bransten, J.) |\n| -v.- | | Motion Sequence No. 001 |\n| UBS AG, | | |\n| | Defendant. | |\n| | -------------------------------------------------------------x | |\n\n#### **AFFIDAVIT OF KWOK HO WAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT**\n\nKWOK HO WAN being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:\n\n1. I am the employer of Yong Yu, the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade\n\nHoldings Limited (\"Ace Decade\").\n\n2. I make this Affidavit based upon my personal knowledge.\n\n3. I first began having discussions with UBS AG (\"UBS\") about potential\n\ninvestments in 2010. I have been a client of UBS since July 2012.\n\n4. My main contact person at UBS has been Stephen Wong, who is a Managing\n\nDirector of the Wealth Management and Swiss Bank Department at UBS.\n\n5. I met Mr. Wong in May 2010. Since that time, Mr. Wong has advised me on\n\nnumerous matters relating to investments and financing on projects such as aircraft acquisitions.\n\nOver the years, I have depended and relied upon Mr. Wong's and UBS's knowledge and\n\nexpertise in making investment and financing decisions.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 3 of 19\n\n6. In addition, I have had an account at UBS since July 2012 for an investment vehicle that I control. Since then, I have opened other accounts at UBS for two other investment vehicles that I control and have obtained financing from UBS for two airplanes.\n\n7. In early to mid-2014, I began discussions with UBS regarding an investment opportunity (the \"Investment\") in an upcoming placement of H-shares (the \"Shares\") of Haitong Securities Co., Ltd. (\"Haitong\").\n\n8. From 2014, when I first began discussions with UBS, to May 13, 2015, when Ms. Yu and I authorized the final payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) to enter into this Investment, Mr. Wong and I communicated frequently through telephone calls, inperson meetings, and electronic messages. Throughout this period, including after January 9, 2015 when I moved to New Yark, Mr. Wong made numerous misrepresentations, which I relied upon in deciding to make this Investment.\n\n9. UBS was a joint global coordinator and placement agent for the Shares, and held itself out as knowledgeable and experienced in providing advice on this Investment.\n\n10. At the outset, Mr. Wong assured me that if UBS got my business, it would protect my interests and provide the best possible terms for a loan to finance part of the Investment. Mr. Wong told me that because of the size of the Investment that I was planning to make, senior executives from UBS globally would participate in structuring the deal. Mr. Wong told me that he would serve as my personal contact and as UBS's representative throughout the Investment but that he would be acting under the instructions of senior executives from UBS offices in the United States, Switzerland, England, and Hong Kong.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 4 of 19\n\n11. Based on these representations that senior executives at UBS globally would be involved in structuring and overseeing this Investment and that UBS would act in my best interests, I entrusted UBS to act as my advisor for the Investment.\n\n12. I have read Mr. Wong's affirmation submitted in support ofUBS's motion to dismiss Ace Decade's complaint. In it, he affirmed under penalty of perjury that \"[t]he first time I heard of Ace Decade was when I learned of this lawsuit in October 2015.\" (Affirmation of Stephen Wong~ 3.) I was astonished when I read this statement because it is false. To the contrary, Mr. Wong and UBS not only had previously heard of Ace Decade, but also they were the ones who advised me on which of my employees to appoint as sole shareholder and Director of Ace Decade, to utilize Ace Decade to enter into a side agreement with an intermediary entity that would hold legal title to the Shares, and how best to transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. In sum, Mr. Wong and UBS knew that the ultimate investor in the Investment was Ace Decade.\n\n13. UBS advised that because the planned Investment comprised greater than 5% of the outstanding H-shares of Haitong, ifl invested through Ace Decade directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\n\n14. UBS advised that ifl invested through an intermediary entity, with the intermediary entity holding legal title to the Shares, no such disclosure would be required.\n\n15. UBS recommended that I select Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd. (\"Haixia\") as the intermediary for the Investment. UBS said that it recommended Haixia because Haixia was best qualified to act for Ace Decade. UBS further stated that Haixia was independent of UBS and would protect my and Ace Decade's interests. Relying on these representations, I selected Haixia as the intermediary for the Investment.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 5 of 19\n\n16. At no time did UBS disclose that Haixia was controlled by its joint venture partner, State Development & Investment Corp. (\"SDIC\"). Nor did UBS disclose that Lu Bo, who served as the principal contact between UBS and Haixia, was previously the CFO of the joint venture between UBS and SDIC. I did not become aware ofHaixia's close relationship with UBS until July 21, 2015 (after Ace Decade had made the Investment and after UBS had liquidated the Shares), when Mr. Wong disclosed that relationship during a telephone call, which I took from my office in New York.\n\n17. Mr. Wong initially said that if we chose Haixia as the intermediary to make the Investment, we would not need to undergo Haixia' s Know Your Customer **(\"KYC\")** process. However, he later said that we needed to prepare some paperwork to undergo a background examination for Haixia, but he did not explain if this paperwork was for Haixia's KYC process. Mr. Wong asked to review the resumes of some of my employees to assess whose background would most likely satisfy Haixia's requirements so that such employee could be appointed as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. He reviewed these resumes and advised that Ms. Yu's resume and background was best suited to satisfy Haixia's requirements and thus, that I should appoint Ms. Yu as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. Mr. Wong said that he would provide comments on Ms. Yu's resume and asked her to send it to him. *(See* Ace Decade Exhibits 3 and 4.)\n\n18. Mr. Wong subsequently gave comments on Ms. Yu's resume to make it more likely to satisfy Haixia' s requirements.\n\n19. Mr. Wong and I also discussed on multiple occasions potential financing for the Investment. Mr. Wong stated that Ace Decade should obtain financing for part of the Investment\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 6 of 19\n\nthrough UBS rather than another bank because UBS would handle the financing on the most favorable terms to Ace Decade.\n\n20. During discussions about the loan financing, I told Mr. Wong that Ace Decade would not make the Investment unless the loan documents did not include any provisions that would permit UBS to demand repayment of the loan (a \"margin call\") based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and unless UBS represented that it would provide Ace Decade with adequate time (for example, five business days to pay the first 25%, 10 business days to pay the second 25%, and 20 business days to pay the remaining 50%) to meet any margin calls.\n\n21. Mr. Wong stated on more than one occasion in 2014 that the loan financing documents would be consistent with my requirements, specifically that there was no repayment or margin call trigger based on short term price fluctuations.\n\n22. Mr. Wong also stated on several occasions in 2014 and 2015 that UBS would work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls and UBS would not sell any of the Shares as a result of any margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time.\n\n23. Mr. Wong also stated numerous times in 2014 and 2015 that UBS had made a loan to a large shareholder of Ping An Insurance Group (\"Ping An\"). Mr. Wong explained that the Ping An shareholder's loan was substantially larger than Ace Decade's, but that UBS had never sold off any of the shares owned by that shareholder following a margin call. Mr. Wong stated that when a margin call had been triggered, UBS had worked with the Ping An shareholder to resolve the situation without selling any of his shares. Mr. Wong said repeatedly that UBS would give Ace Decade the same treatment as it gave to the Ping An shareholder and would work cooperatively to allow Ace Decade to meet any margin calls but in any event would not sell the Shares following a margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 7 of 19\n\n24. Throughout our discussions about the Investment, Mr. Wong repeatedly stated that I could trust him and UBS, and that he and UBS were always working in my best interests.\n\n25. On December 14, 2014, while discussing the Investment, Mr. Wong told me in a message on WhatsApp (a mobile messaging application for smart phones): \"Once I've promised General Manager Guo, I'll definitely make utmost efforts; I'm only hoping General Manager Guo will trust me.\" Later that day, he told me in another message: \"I have no reason not to strive for the best for General Manager Guo!\" (General Manager Guo is what Mr. Wong called me.)\n\n26. Also on December 14, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message, stating that during the negotiations over the Investment \"General Manager Guo' s interests must be guaranteed,\" and that he had involved top UBS management from offices around the world to assist.\n\n27. On December 15, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message stating that he was working on the terms of the Investment in order to \"protect [me].\"\n\n28. On December 19, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message stating: \"General Manager Guo, you can rest absolutely assured, and I will completely protect your interests.\"\n\n29. As a result, I believed that Mr. Wong and UBS were acting in Ace Decade's best interests and I trusted that the representations Mr. Wong made about the loan financing documents were true and that UBS would not sell the Shares without working with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls.\n\n30. On January 9, 2015, while I was still negotiating the terms of the Investment with UBS, I moved to New York with Ms. Yu and other employees with the intention of expanding my business projects to New York and to find investors interested in investing in Ace Decade.\n\n31. I first discussed this plan to move to New York to find investors for Ace Decade with Mr. Wong in December 2014. I subsequently had multiple discussions with Mr. Wong about finding investors for Ace Decade by telephone from New York in March, May, and June 2015.\n\n32. On February 9, 2015, Ace Decade signed a Memorandum of Understanding (the \"MOU\"), governed by U.S. law, with China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited (\"Golden Spring Hong Kong\"). The MOU provided that Ace Decade would acquire Haitong Shares and Golden Spring Hong Kong would establish a branch in New York to find investors for projects relating to the Haitong Shares.\n\n33. In furtherance of the MOU, Golden Spring Hong Kong formed a company called Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring New York\"), which was incorporated in March 2015 in Delaware and registered to do business in New York. Golden Spring New York is wholly owned by Golden Spring Hong Kong.\n\n34. Shortly thereafter, Golden Spring New York signed a lease for part of the 46th Floor of the General Motors Building at 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153. Ms. Yu and I conduct business relating to Ace Decade from our offices at 767 Fifth Avenue.\n\n35. Not only had I discussed with UBS my plans to move to New York and to operate my business projects out of New York in December 2014, I also asked for UBS's help in setting up my operations in New York. In March 2015, Mr. Wong and others at UBS, including Agnes Fu and Liz Lam, arranged to transfer funds from one of my accounts at UBS to my personal JPMorgan Chase account in New York.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 9 of 19\n\n36. In April 2015, Mr. Wong, Ms. Fu, and Ms. Lam assisted me with setting up Golden Spring New York by transferring funds from one of my accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account in New York.\n\n37. UBS also submitted reference letters on my behalf in connection with my purchase of an apartment in a New York cooperative building. In a letter dated February 18, 2015 from Mr. Wong to the building's board of directors, Mr. Wong wrote, \"I have known Miles for about five years since he first began working with UBS AG.\" (Miles is my English name.) Mr. Wong also stated, \"Over the years, Miles has earned his credibility in our bank. He is very reliable and always fulfills his repayment obligations. For this reason, our bank is happy to have him as our long-term client.\" (Ace Decade Exhibit 1.)\n\n38. Mr. Wong and Tommy Cheung, also a UBS Managing Director, submitted another reference letter on my behalf to the board of the apartment building on February 23, 2015, stating: \"Kwok Ho Wan has been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012.\" (Ace Decade Exhibit 2.)\n\n39. On March 6, 2015, I purchased an apartment in this building. I, along with Ms. Yu and other employees and representatives of Ace Decade and Golden Spring New York, have lived in the apartment since the purchase.\n\n40. During this period of time after I had moved to New York, Mr. Wong and I communicated frequently through telephone calls and voice and instant messages. Mr. Wong spoke to me by telephone while I was in New York dozens of times and sent numerous electronic messages to me while I was in New York. Ms. Yu joined me on some of the calls with Mr. Wong. At a minimum, Mr. Wong spoke to me by telephone while I was in New York on the following dates:\n\n- January 26, 2015 (three calls)\n- January 28, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 2, 2015\n- March 4, 2015 (three calls)\n- March 5, 2015\n- March 13, 2015\n- March 15, 2015\n- March 16, 2015 (six calls)\n- March 17, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 18, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 24, 2015\n- March 31, 2015\n- April 28, 2015 (three calls)\n- April 30, 2015 (five calls)\n- May 6, 2015 (two calls)\n- May 11, 2015 (three calls)\n- June 23, 2015 (two calls)\n- July 21, 2015\n\n41. During these calls in 2015, which I participated in from New York, Mr. Wong and I discussed the Investment and the UBS loan on numerous occasions. On one or more of these calls, Mr. Wong and I also discussed my concerns about the loan, including a margin call trigger based upon the loan-to-value ratio (\"LTV ratio\"), the size of the loan, the interest rate on\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 11 of 19\n\nthe loan, and the issuance price of the Haitong shares. Mr. Wong and I also discussed the status of my efforts to seek investors in New York for Ace Decade.\n\n42. During this period of time in 2015, I did not raise with Mr. Wong again my concerns about repayment triggers conditioned on short term price fluctuations of the Shares because Mr. Wong had previously told me that there were no such triggers.\n\n43. However, during several of these calls in March, April, and May 2015, Mr. Wong and I discussed the topic of margin calls generally, and specifically the LTV ratio trigger. Mr. Wong said that I did not have to worry because UBS would act in my best interests, that UBS would give Ace Decade adequate time to meet any margin calls, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls. He also reminded me several times during this period that UBS had never sold the shares of the Ping An shareholder following a margin call on its loan, and stated that Ace Decade would receive the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder.\n\n44. While I was in New York, Mr. Wong also sent me numerous WhatsApp messages about the Investment and the UBS loan. For example, on March 21 and 22, 2015, Mr. Wong and I exchanged a series of WhatsApp messages in which we discussed the UBS loan for the Investment. I told Mr. Wong that some ofUBS's proposed conditions, such as the margin call trigger based upon the LTV ratio for the UBS loan, were \"definitely not okay\" and \"we would rather not do it than agree to your clauses.\" Had I not been relying upon Mr. Wong's prior representations that the loan financing documents did not contain repayment triggers based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares, I would have raised that issue again with Mr. Wong and not focused our discussions solely on the margin call trigger based on the LTV ratio.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 12 of 19\n\n45. Mr. Wong replied that he understood my concerns about potential margin calls, and told me: \"You rest assured! ... I'm working for General Manager Guo! Don't worry.\" I relied upon Mr. Wong's representations that he and UBS were looking out for my interests. All of these discussions occurred while I was in New York.\n\n46. On May 8, 2015, Haitong announced that it had obtained the shareholder and regulatory approvals necessary (in February and May, respectively) to issue the Shares, which was expected to occur on May 15. Haitong also announced that because the trading price of Haitong's shares during the 30 trading days prior had surpassed a pre-agreed threshold, the subscription price would be increased.\n\n47. After this announcement, I had several discussions with Mr. Wong, by telephone and WhatsApp messages, in order to finalize the terms of the Investment. Among the topics we discussed were the fact that the loan would have to be increased to reflect the increase in the per share price of Haitong's shares, the amount of the payment required, the LTV ratio, the interest rate, and the method by which we should exchange U.S. dollars for the Hong Kong dollars required for the payment.\n\n48. During one of our discussions after May 8, Mr. Wong stated yet again that Ace Decade would receive the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder with respect to any margin calls.\n\n49. Relying on these representations, I decided to make the Investment. I discussed with Mr. Wong during telephone conversations on May 11 how best to transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. Mr. Wong said that I first needed to exchange the funds from U.S. dollars to Hong Kong dollars in my UBS account. He also gave instructions not to transfer the funds from my UBS account\n\ndirectly to the Ace Decade account, but rather to transfer the funds from my UBS account to an account at another bank and then to transfer the funds from that account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n50. Relying upon Mr. Wong's advice, I decided to transfer the funds from my UBS account first to an account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch (\"China Minsheng Account\") and then to transfer the funds from the China Minsheng Account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n51. On May 11, 2015, Ms. Fu sent an e-mail to Ms. Yu, copying Mr. Wong and Ms. Lam, and asked Ms. Yu to obtain my signature on a payment instruction document that UBS had prepared. The document contained a request to transfer HK \\$860 million (approximately US \\$111 million) from my UBS account to the China Minsheng Account that Mr. Wong had instructed me to use.\n\n52. In reliance upon Mr. Wong's representations about the Investment and the UBS loan, I signed the document authorizing the wire transfer.\n\n53. Later that day, Ms. Lam sent an e-mail to Ms. Yu, copying Mr. Wong and Ms. Fu, attaching a confirmation of the outgoing transfer from my UBS account.\n\n54. Following Mr. Wong's instructions, I then authorized the transfer of the funds from the China Minsheng Account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n55. After the funds reached the Ace Decade account, on May 13, 2015, Ms. Yu and I authorized a payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) from Ace Decade's account to an account held by Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\"), a special purpose vehicle and wholly-owned subsidiary of a Haixia fund, to fund the Investment of the Shares to be issued on May 15. Prior to this, I had authorized an initial down payment of approximately US \\$250\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 14 of 19\n\nmillion from Ace Decade's account, through Dawn State, to a UBS security account. That payment would have been returned to Ace Decade had the Investment not been completed.\n\n56. All of the steps I took to make the Investment, including requesting the wire transfers of approximately HK \\$860 million (approximately US \\$111 million) from one of my UBS accounts to the China Minsheng Account and ultimately to the Ace Decade account and authorizing the payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) from the Ace Decade account to Dawn State's account on May 13, 2015, occurred from my office or my apartment in New York.\n\n57. I would not have made the Investment or authorized this payment in May 2015 had I known that UBS had lied that the loan financing documents did not contain repayment triggers based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and that UBS would refuse to work with Ace Decade to meet any margin calls and would sell off Ace Decade's Shares immediately if a margin call were made.\n\n58. Under the terms of an agreement between Ace Decade and Haixia, Haixia was required to transfer Dawn State (the entity that held legal title to the Shares) to Ace Decade after July 13, 2015 upon Ace Decade's request.\n\n59. However, on the morning of July 6, 2015 New York time-just a week before Haixia would have had to transfer Dawn State to Ace Decade-I learned that UBS was demanding that I repay approximately US \\$200 million in less than 24 hours due to short-term price fluctuation of the Shares.\n\n60. Had I known that it was possible for UBS to demand payment in such a short period of time and that UBS had lied about providing adequate time to meet any margin calls, I would have ensured that Ace Decade had sufficient funds available to make such payment.\n\n61. Before UBS's deadline, Ace Decade informed UBS that we could obtain the necessary funds quickly, but not before UBS's deadline.\n\n62. However, on July 6, 2015, Mr. Wong stated that UBS would not give Ace Decade any additional time. Mr. Wong stated that UBS had already identified buyers for the Shares and would make a substantial profit by selling the Shares instead of allowing Ace Decade to make the payment.\n\n63. On July 7th, I sent Mr. Wong a WhatsApp message telling him that UBS's margin call was \"illegal.\" Mr. Wong did not disagree with me or deny that he had told me that there were no repayment triggers based upon short term price fluctuations of the Shares. Instead, he said that he had told senior management to cancel the sale of the Shares and said that he would ask UBS to return the Shares to me. Mr. Wong told me that the Shares were still under UBS' s control and he promised to come up with a plan for their repurchase. Mr. Wong reassured me: \"I've always been standing by General Manager Guo.\"\n\n64. On July 9th, Mr. Wong stated that the decision to sell the shares was made by UBS executives outside of Hong Kong and China.\n\n65. On July 17th, I reminded Mr. Wong that he had said on numerous prior occasions that \"there would never be\" a margin call based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and the many times he had stated that UBS had not sold off the shares of a large Ping An shareholder following a margin call.\n\n66. In another message on July 17, I said to Mr. Wong: \"I told you, it was since last year that I've come to the U.S. for better opportunities, didn't I? All the information I sent you from the U.S., my requirements, you know them all. ... Under these circumstances, all were\n\nhanded over to you, [I] all listened to you. It was you who introduced Haixia . . . . It turned out to be messed up like this now.\"\n\n67. Mr. Wong did not deny that he had made these misrepresentations and in fact replied that he understood.\n\n68. In another message on July 17, I said to Mr. Wong: \"You told me several times that you UBS would not liquidate assets like that; otherwise how I would trust you.\" I also told him: \"If it weren't for you to tell me that margin call was like Ping An, it would not be like that. There would be reasonable time to get some assets to deal with it.\"\n\n69. On July 17, I also said to Mr. Wong: \"You said UBS signed the agreement with them [Haixia] to permit UBS to sell all the shares within 24 hours of the margin call. How was that signed? How did they implement that? It's not fair. You told me back then that was not the case.\"\n\n70. Mr. Wong replied \"I've always been firmly opposing them, but they ignored me and told me it was an order by the Swiss CEO.\" He did not deny my assertion that he had previously stated that the loan agreement would not permit UBS to sell the Shares within 24 hours of the margin call.\n\n71. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that UBS would treat Ace Decade the same as the Ping An shareholder.\n\n72. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that the loan documents would not contain repayment triggers based on short-term price fluctuations of the Shares.\n\n73. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that UBS would work with Ace Decade and provide it adequate time to meet any margin call.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 17 of 19\n\n74. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that UBS had engaged in misconduct.\n\n75. Mr. Wong told me that on July 7, 2015, UBS sold all of the Shares belonging to Ace Decade at HK \\$11.12, a 20% discount off the closing price of Haitong stock on July 7.\n\n76. As a result of losing the Haitong shares, Ace Decade lost New York investors, whom I had met with after I had relocated to New York in 2015 and who had been interested in investing in Ace Decade. For example, on four occasions in New York in April through June 2015, my representatives and/or I met with a co-founder of a private investment firm based in New York. The firm expressed significant interest in investing in Ace Decade. However, following UBS's sale of the Haitong Shares belonging to Ace Decade, Ace Decade lost this potential investor.\n\nI swear that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n[Signature of Kwok Ho Wan on Chinese version] Kwok Ho Wan\n\n[Notarization on Chinese version]\n\nCITY OF Meservey COUNTY OF Cerro Gordo ) ) ) ss.:\n\nI, Liming Pals , being duly sworn, depose and say that I am fluent in both the English and Chinese languages. I hereby certify that the attached document is an accurate translation of the Chinese version of\"Aflidavit of **Kwok** Ho **Wan.\"**\n\n· Sworn to before me this\n\n\\_-5' day of Ma:) 28i5 i::-e.1,or ...,.\\_\\_p..,r *;J ,Gl..OI* ~\n\n~ Notary Public b-sl ✓\n\n•\n\n","body_zh":"PAX 18号证物\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）在 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（十年王牌控股有限公司）诉 UBS AG（瑞银集团）案中提交的宣誓书，案号 653316/2015（纽约州最高法院）（英文），日期为 February 5, 2016\n\n[已提交：纽约\n案号 22-50073 02/05/2016\n07:09 下午\n县\n书记员\n文件 250-18\n提交于 04/22/22\n录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 索引号\n第 2 页，共 653316/2015 页\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 27 19 NYSCEF 收件日期： 02/05/2016\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n\nACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED（十年王牌控股有限公司），\n\n原告， 索引号 653316/2015（Bransten 法官）\n-诉- 动议序号 001\nUBS AG（瑞银集团），\n被告。\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）为支持原告反对被告驳回起诉书动议而提交的宣誓书\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）经依法宣誓后，特此陈述如下：\n\n1. 我是 Yong Yu（余勇）的雇主；Yong Yu 是 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（“Ace Decade”）的董事兼唯一股东。\n\n2. 我根据本人亲身所知作出本宣誓书。\n\n3. 我于 2010 年首次开始与 UBS AG（“UBS”）讨论潜在投资事项。自 July 2012 起，我一直是 UBS 的客户。\n\n4. 我在 UBS 的主要联系人一直是 Stephen Wong（黄斯蒂芬），其为 UBS 财富管理及瑞士银行部的董事总经理。\n\n5. 我于 May 2010 与 Wong 先生相识。此后，Wong 先生就与飞机购置等项目有关的投资及融资事项向我提供建议。在这些年中，我在作出投资及融资决定时，一直依赖 Wong 先生及 UBS 的知识和专业能力。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 3 页，共 19 页\n\n6. 自 July 2012 起，我在 UBS 为我控制的一项投资载体持有账户。此后，我又在 UBS 为我控制的另外两项投资载体开立账户，并从 UBS 获得了两架飞机的融资。\n\n7. 于 2014 年初至年中，我开始与 UBS 就海通证券股份有限公司（Haitong Securities Co., Ltd.，“Haitong”）即将进行的 H 股（“股份”）配售中的一项投资机会（“该投资”）进行讨论。\n\n8. 自 2014 年我首次开始与 UBS 讨论起，至 May 13, 2015 我与 Yu 女士授权支付最终的 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）以进行该投资时止，我与 Wong 先生通过电话、当面会谈及电子信息频繁沟通。在此期间，包括在 January 9, 2015 我迁居纽约之后，Wong 先生作出了多项虚假陈述，我在决定进行该投资时依赖了这些陈述。\n\n9. UBS 是该等股份的联合全球协调人及配售代理，并自称具备就该投资提供建议的知识和经验。\n\n10. 一开始，Wong 先生向我保证，如 UBS 获得我的业务，其将保护我的利益，并就为该投资的一部分提供融资的贷款提供尽可能最优的条款。Wong 先生告诉我，由于我计划进行的投资规模，UBS 全球的高级管理人员将参与安排该交易。Wong 先生告诉我，在整个投资期间，他将担任我的个人联系人及 UBS 的代表，但其将按照 UBS 位于美国、瑞士、英国及香港办事处高级管理人员的指示行事。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 4 页，共 19 页\n\n11. 基于 UBS 全球高级管理人员将参与安排及监督该投资、且 UBS 将以我的最佳利益行事的这些陈述，我委托 UBS 担任该投资的顾问。\n\n12. 我已阅读 Wong 先生为支持 UBS 驳回 Ace Decade 起诉书的动议而提交的确认书。其中，他在伪证处罚的前提下确认：“我第一次听说 Ace Decade，是在 2015 年 October 得知本诉讼时。”（Stephen Wong 确认书第 3 段。）我读到该陈述时感到震惊，因为该陈述不实。相反，Wong 先生和 UBS 不仅此前听说过 Ace Decade，而且正是他们建议我应指定我的哪一位雇员担任 Ace Decade 的唯一股东及董事，建议利用 Ace Decade 与将持有该等股份法定所有权的中介实体订立一份附带协议，以及建议如何最好地将进行该投资所需的资金从我的一个 UBS 账户转入 Ace Decade 账户。总之，Wong 先生和 UBS 知道该投资的最终投资者是 Ace Decade。\n\n13. UBS 建议，由于计划中的投资超过 Haitong 已发行 H 股的 5%，如我通过 Ace Decade 直接投资，适用的信息披露要求将要求提交某些申报文件。\n\n14. UBS 建议，如我通过中介实体进行投资，并由该中介实体持有该等股份的法定所有权，则无需作出此类披露。\n\n15. UBS 建议我选择 Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.（海峡汇富资产投资与基金管理有限公司，“Haixia”）作为该投资的中介机构。UBS 表示，其推荐 Haixia 是因为 Haixia 最有资格代表 Ace Decade 行事。UBS 进一步表示，Haixia 独立于 UBS，且将保护我和 Ace Decade 的利益。基于这些陈述，我选择 Haixia 作为该投资的中介机构。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 5 页，共 19 页\n\n16. UBS 从未披露 Haixia 由其合资伙伴 State Development & Investment Corp.（国家开发投资公司，“SDIC”）控制。UBS 也未披露，担任 UBS 与 Haixia 之间主要联系人的 Lu Bo（卢博）此前曾任 UBS 与 SDIC 合资企业的首席财务官。直至 July 21, 2015，即 Ace Decade 已进行该投资且 UBS 已清算该等股份之后，我才得知 Haixia 与 UBS 的密切关系；当时 Wong 先生在一次电话通话中披露了该关系，而我是在纽约办公室接听该电话的。\n\n17. Wong 先生最初表示，如果我们选择 Haixia 作为进行该投资的中介机构，我们无需接受 Haixia 的“了解你的客户”（“KYC”）程序。然而，他后来表示，我们需要准备一些文件以接受 Haixia 的背景审查，但他未说明这些文件是否用于 Haixia 的 KYC 程序。Wong 先生要求审阅我的一些雇员的简历，以评估谁的背景最有可能满足 Haixia 的要求，从而可以指定该雇员担任 Ace Decade 的董事兼唯一股东。他审阅了这些简历，并建议 Yu 女士的简历和背景最适合满足 Haixia 的要求，因此我应指定 Yu 女士担任 Ace Decade 的董事兼唯一股东。Wong 先生表示，他会对 Yu 女士的简历提出意见，并要求她将简历发送给他。（见 Ace Decade 证物 3 和 4。）\n\n18. Wong 先生随后对 Yu 女士的简历提出意见，以使其更有可能满足 Haixia 的要求。\n\n19. Wong 先生和我还多次讨论该投资的潜在融资。Wong 先生表示，Ace Decade 应通过 UBS 而非另一家银行获得该投资部分资金的融资，因为 UBS 将以对 Ace Decade 最有利的条款处理该融资。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 6 页，共 19 页\n\n20. 在讨论贷款融资期间，我告诉 Wong 先生，除非贷款文件不包含任何允许 UBS 基于该等股份短期价格波动要求偿还贷款（“追缴保证金通知”）的条款，且除非 UBS 陈述其将给予 Ace Decade 充足时间（例如，五个营业日支付首个 25%，10 个营业日支付第二个 25%，以及 20 个营业日支付剩余的 50%）以满足任何追缴保证金通知，否则 Ace Decade 不会进行该投资。\n\n21. Wong 先生于 2014 年不止一次表示，贷款融资文件将符合我的要求，具体而言，不会存在基于短期价格波动的还款或追缴保证金通知触发条件。\n\n22. Wong 先生还于 2014 年和 2015 年多次表示，UBS 将与 Ace Decade 合作，使其能够满足任何追缴保证金通知，且 UBS 不会因任何追缴保证金通知而出售任何股份，除非给予 Ace Decade 充足时间。\n\n23. Wong 先生还于 2014 年和 2015 年多次表示，UBS 曾向 Ping An Insurance Group（平安保险集团，“Ping An”）的一名大股东提供贷款。Wong 先生解释称，该平安股东的贷款金额远高于 Ace Decade 的贷款，但 UBS 从未在追缴保证金通知后出售该股东持有的任何股份。Wong 先生表示，在触发追缴保证金通知时，UBS 曾与该平安股东合作，在不出售其任何股份的情况下解决该情形。Wong 先生反复表示，UBS 将给予 Ace Decade 与给予该平安股东相同的待遇，并将合作使 Ace Decade 能够满足任何追缴保证金通知；但无论如何，UBS 不会在追缴保证金通知后出售该等股份，除非给予 Ace Decade 充足时间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 7 页，共 19 页\n\n24. 在我们关于该投资的讨论期间，Wong 先生反复表示，我可以信任他和 UBS，且他和 UBS 始终以我的最佳利益行事。\n\n25. 于 December 14, 2014，在讨论该投资时，Wong 先生通过 WhatsApp（一种智能手机移动消息应用程序）向我发送信息称：“一旦我向郭总作出承诺，我一定会尽最大努力；我只希望郭总能够信任我。”当天晚些时候，他在另一条信息中告诉我：“我没有理由不为郭总争取最好的结果！”（郭总是 Wong 先生对我的称呼。）\n\n26. 同样于 December 14, 2014，Wong 先生给我留下语音信息，表示在就该投资进行的谈判中，“郭总的利益必须得到保证”，且他已让来自世界各地办事处的 UBS 最高管理层参与协助。\n\n27. 于 December 15, 2014，Wong 先生给我留下语音信息，表示他正在就该投资的条款开展工作，以“保护[我]”。\n\n28. 于 December 19, 2014，Wong 先生给我留下语音信息称：“郭总，您完全可以放心，我将完全保护您的利益。”\n\n29. 因此，我相信 Wong 先生和 UBS 是以 Ace Decade 的最佳利益行事，并相信 Wong 先生就贷款融资文件所作的陈述是真实的，且 UBS 不会在不与 Ace Decade 合作使其能够满足任何追缴保证金通知的情况下出售该等股份。\n\n30. 于 January 9, 2015，当我仍在与 UBS 谈判该投资条款时，我与 Yu 女士及其他雇员迁居纽约，意图将我的商业项目拓展至纽约，并寻找有意投资 Ace Decade 的投资者。\n\n31. 我于 December 2014 首次与 Wong 先生讨论迁居纽约以为 Ace Decade 寻找投资者的计划。其后，我于 2015 年 March、May 和 June 从纽约通过电话与 Wong 先生多次讨论为 Ace Decade 寻找投资者的事宜。\n\n32. 于 February 9, 2015，Ace Decade 与 China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited（中国金泉集团（香港）有限公司，“Golden Spring Hong Kong”）签署了一份受美国法律管辖的谅解备忘录（“MOU”）。该谅解备忘录规定，Ace Decade 将收购 Haitong 股份，而 Golden Spring Hong Kong 将在纽约设立分支机构，以为与 Haitong 股份有关的项目寻找投资者。\n\n33. 为推进该谅解备忘录，Golden Spring Hong Kong（香港金泉）成立了一家名为 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring New York”）的公司，该公司于 March 2015 在 Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，并获准在 New York（纽约州）开展业务。Golden Spring New York 由 Golden Spring Hong Kong 全资拥有。\n\n34. 此后不久，Golden Spring New York 签署了一份租约，承租位于 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153 的 General Motors Building（通用汽车大厦）第 46 层的部分区域。Yu 女士和我在位于 767 Fifth Avenue 的办公室处理与 Ace Decade（艾斯迪凯德）有关的业务。\n\n35. 我不仅于 December 2014 与 UBS（瑞银）讨论过我搬至 New York 并在 New York 开展我的商业项目的计划，我还请求 UBS 协助我在 New York 建立运营机构。于 March 2015，Wong 先生及 UBS 的其他人士，包括 Agnes Fu（傅艾格尼丝）和 Liz Lam（林莉兹），安排将资金从我在 UBS 的一个账户转入我在 New York 的个人 JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）账户。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 9 页，共 19 页\n\n36. 于 April 2015，Wong 先生、Fu 女士和 Lam 女士通过将资金从我在 UBS 的一个账户转入 Golden Spring New York 在 New York 的 JPMorgan Chase 银行账户，协助我设立 Golden Spring New York。\n\n37. UBS 还就我购买 New York 一栋合作公寓楼内的一套公寓，代表我提交了推荐信。在一封日期为 February 18, 2015、由 Wong 先生致该楼董事会的信中，Wong 先生写道：“自 Miles 首次开始与 UBS AG 合作以来，我认识他约五年了。”（Miles 是我的英文名字。）Wong 先生还表示：“多年来，Miles 已在我行赢得信誉。他非常可靠，并且始终履行其还款义务。因此，我行很高兴将他作为我们的长期客户。”（Ace Decade Exhibit 1。）\n\n38. Wong 先生和同为 UBS 董事总经理的 Tommy Cheung（张汤米）于 February 23, 2015 向该公寓楼董事会代表我提交了另一封推荐信，信中称：“Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）自 July 2012 起一直通过一家个人投资公司成为我们的客户。”（Ace Decade Exhibit 2。）\n\n39. 于 March 6, 2015，我购买了该楼内的一套公寓。自购买该公寓以来，我与 Yu 女士以及 Ace Decade 和 Golden Spring New York 的其他雇员和代表一直居住在该公寓内。\n\n40. 在我搬至 New York 后的这一期间，Wong 先生和我通过电话、语音信息和即时信息频繁沟通。在我身处 New York 期间，Wong 先生数十次通过电话与我交谈，并向我发送了大量电子信息。Yu 女士参加了我与 Wong 先生之间的部分通话。至少在以下日期，在我身处 New York 期间，Wong 先生曾通过电话与我交谈：\n\n— January 26, 2015（三次通话）\n— January 28, 2015（两次通话）\n— March 2, 2015\n— March 4, 2015（三次通话）\n— March 5, 2015\n— March 13, 2015\n— March 15, 2015\n— March 16, 2015（六次通话）\n— March 17, 2015（两次通话）\n— March 18, 2015（两次通话）\n— March 24, 2015\n— March 31, 2015\n— April 28, 2015（三次通话）\n— April 30, 2015（五次通话）\n— May 6, 2015（两次通话）\n— May 11, 2015（三次通话）\n— June 23, 2015（两次通话）\n— July 21, 2015\n\n41. 在 2015 年的这些通话中，我从 New York 参加通话，Wong 先生和我多次讨论了该投资及 UBS 贷款。在其中一次或多次通话中，Wong 先生和我还讨论了我对该贷款的担忧，包括基于贷款价值比率（“LTV ratio”）的追加保证金通知触发条件、贷款金额、贷款利率以及 Haitong（海通）股份的发行价格。Wong 先生和我还讨论了我在 New York 为 Ace Decade 寻找投资者的努力进展。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 11 页，共 19 页\n\n42. 在 2015 年这一期间，我没有再次向 Wong 先生提出我对以股份短期价格波动为条件的还款触发条件的担忧，因为 Wong 先生此前告诉我，不存在此类触发条件。\n\n43. 然而，在 March、April 和 May 2015 期间的数次通话中，Wong 先生和我讨论了追加保证金通知这一话题，尤其是 LTV ratio 触发条件。Wong 先生表示，我无需担心，因为 UBS 会以我的最佳利益为行事准则，UBS 会给予 Ace Decade 足够时间应对任何追加保证金通知，并且 UBS 会尽一切努力与 Ace Decade 合作，使其能够应对任何追加保证金通知。他在此期间还多次提醒我，UBS 从未在 Ping An（平安）股东因其贷款收到追加保证金通知后出售该股东的股份，并表示 Ace Decade 将获得与该平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n44. 在我身处 New York 期间，Wong 先生还向我发送了大量关于该投资及 UBS 贷款的 WhatsApp 信息。例如，于 March 21 和 22, 2015，Wong 先生和我交换了一系列 WhatsApp 信息，其中讨论了该投资的 UBS 贷款。我告诉 Wong 先生，UBS 提议的某些条件，例如 UBS 贷款中基于 LTV ratio 的追加保证金通知触发条件，“绝对不可接受”，并且“我们宁可不做，也不愿同意你们的条款。”如果我当时并非依赖 Wong 先生此前关于贷款融资文件未包含基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件的陈述，我本会再次向 Wong 先生提出该问题，而不会仅将我们的讨论集中于基于 LTV ratio 的追加保证金通知触发条件。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 12 页，共 19 页\n\n45. Wong 先生答复说，他理解我对可能发生追加保证金通知的担忧，并告诉我：“你放心！……我是为郭总经理办事的！别担心。”我依赖 Wong 先生关于他和 UBS 会维护我利益的陈述。所有这些讨论均发生在我身处 New York 期间。\n\n46. 于 May 8, 2015，Haitong 宣布，其已获得发行股份所需的股东和监管批准，分别于 February 和 May 获得，该股份预计将于 May 15 发行。Haitong 还宣布，由于此前 30 个交易日期间 Haitong 股份的交易价格超过预先约定的门槛，认购价格将会提高。\n\n47. 在该公告之后，我通过电话和 WhatsApp 信息与 Wong 先生进行了数次讨论，以最终确定该投资的条款。我们讨论的议题包括：为反映 Haitong 每股股份价格上涨，贷款必须增加；所需付款金额；LTV ratio；利率；以及我们应如何将美元兑换为付款所需港元的方法。\n\n48. 在 May 8 之后我们的一次讨论中，Wong 先生再次表示，关于任何追加保证金通知，Ace Decade 将获得与平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n49. 依赖这些陈述，我决定进行该投资。我在 May 11 的电话交谈中与 Wong 先生讨论了如何最好地将该投资所需资金从我在 UBS 的一个账户转入 Ace Decade 账户。Wong 先生表示，我首先需要在我的 UBS 账户中将资金从美元兑换为港元。他还指示不要将资金从我的 UBS 账户直接转入 Ace Decade 账户，而是将资金从我的 UBS 账户转入另一家银行的账户，然后再将该账户中的资金转入 Ace Decade 账户。\n\n50. 依赖 Wong 先生的建议，我决定先将资金从我的 UBS 账户转入 China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行，以下简称“China Minsheng Account”）的一个账户，然后将资金从 China Minsheng Account 转入 Ace Decade 账户。\n\n51. 于 May 11, 2015，Fu 女士向 Yu 女士发送电子邮件，并抄送 Wong 先生和 Lam 女士，要求 Yu 女士取得我在 UBS 准备的一份付款指示文件上的签字。该文件载有一项请求，即将 HK $860 million（approximately US $111 million）从我的 UBS 账户转入 Wong 先生指示我使用的 China Minsheng Account。\n\n52. 依赖 Wong 先生关于该投资及 UBS 贷款的陈述，我签署了授权该电汇的文件。\n\n53. 当日稍后，Lam 女士向 Yu 女士发送电子邮件，并抄送 Wong 先生和 Fu 女士，附上从我的 UBS 账户汇出的转账确认书。\n\n54. 按照 Wong 先生的指示，我随后授权将资金从 China Minsheng Account 转入 Ace Decade 账户。\n\n55. 资金到达 Ace Decade 账户后，于 May 13, 2015，Yu 女士和我授权从 Ace Decade 账户支付 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）至 Dawn State Limited（曙光州有限公司，以下简称“Dawn State”）持有的账户。Dawn State 是 Haixia（海峡）基金的一个特殊目的载体及全资子公司，该付款用于为将于 May 15 发行的股份投资提供资金。在此之前，我已授权从 Ace Decade 账户经由 Dawn State 向一个 UBS 证券账户支付约 US $250 million 的首期定金。如果该投资未完成，该笔付款本应返还给 Ace Decade。\n案号 22-50073 文件 250-18 提交于 04/22/22 录入于 04/22/22 16:59:37 第 14 页，共 19 页\n\n56. 我为进行该投资所采取的全部步骤，包括请求将约 HK $860 million（approximately US $111 million）从我在 UBS 的一个账户电汇至 China Minsheng Account，并最终转入 Ace Decade 账户，以及授权于 May 13, 2015 将 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）从 Ace Decade 账户支付至 Dawn State 账户，均在我位于 New York 的办公室或公寓内进行。\n\n57. 如果我知道 UBS 曾谎称贷款融资文件未包含基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件，并且 UBS 会拒绝与 Ace Decade 合作以应对任何追加保证金通知，且一旦发出追加保证金通知即会立即出售 Ace Decade 的股份，我就不会于 May 2015 进行该投资或授权该付款。\n\n58. 根据 Ace Decade 与 Haixia 之间协议的条款，Haixia 应在 July 13, 2015 之后，依 Ace Decade 的请求，将 Dawn State（持有该等股份法定所有权的实体）转让给 Ace Decade。\n\n59. 然而，于 July 6, 2015 New York 时间上午——就在 Haixia 必须将 Dawn State 转让给 Ace Decade 的一周前——我得知，UBS 正要求我在不足 24 小时内偿还约 US $200 million，理由是股份的短期价格波动。\n\n60. 如果我知道 UBS 可能在如此短的期限内要求付款，并且 UBS 曾谎称会给予足够时间应对任何追加保证金通知，我本会确保 Ace Decade 有足够可用资金作出该等付款。\n\n61. 在 UBS 的截止期限前，Ace Decade 告知 UBS，我们能够迅速获得所需资金，但无法在 UBS 的截止期限前获得。\n\n62. 然而，于 July 6, 2015，Wong 先生表示 UBS 不会给予 Ace Decade 任何额外时间。Wong 先生表示，UBS 已经为该等股份确定买家，并且 UBS 将通过出售该等股份而非允许 Ace Decade 付款获得可观利润。\n\n63. 7月7日，我向Wong先生（黄先生）发送了一条WhatsApp消息，告诉他UBS（瑞银）的追加保证金通知是“非法的”。Wong先生没有反驳我，也没有否认他曾告诉我，基于股份短期价格波动不存在任何还款触发条件。相反，他说他已告知高级管理层取消出售股份，并称他会要求UBS将股份返还给我。Wong先生告诉我，股份仍在UBS的控制之下，并承诺会制定股份回购方案。Wong先生向我保证：“我一直都站在郭总身边。”\n\n64. 7月9日，Wong先生称，出售股份的决定是由香港和中国以外的UBS高管作出的。\n\n65. 7月17日，我提醒Wong先生，他此前多次表示，基于股份短期价格波动“绝不会”发出追加保证金通知；他还多次表示，在对一名持有大量Ping An（平安）股份的股东发出追加保证金通知后，UBS并未出售该等股份。\n\n66. 在7月17日的另一条消息中，我对Wong先生说：“我告诉过你，我自去年起就来到美国寻求更好的机会，不是吗？我从美国发给你的所有信息、我的要求，你都知道。……在这种情况下，一切都交给了你，[我]都听你的。是你介绍了Haixia（海峡）……结果现在却弄得一团糟。”\n\n67. Wong先生没有否认他作出过这些虚假陈述，实际上还回复说他理解。\n\n68. 在7月17日的另一条消息中，我对Wong先生说：“你多次告诉我，UBS不会那样清算资产；否则我怎么会信任你。”我还告诉他：“如果不是你告诉我追加保证金通知会像平安那样，事情不会变成这样。会有合理的时间筹措一些资产来应对。”\n\n69. 7月17日，我还对Wong先生说：“你说UBS与他们[Haixia]签订了协议，允许UBS在发出追加保证金通知后24小时内出售全部股份。这是怎么签的？他们是怎么执行的？这不公平。你当时告诉我情况不是这样。”\n\n70. Wong先生回复：“我一直坚决反对他们，但他们无视我，并告诉我这是瑞士CEO的命令。”他没有否认我所称其此前曾表示，贷款协议不会允许UBS在发出追加保证金通知后24小时内出售股份。\n\n71. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示UBS会以对待Ping An股东的相同方式对待Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。\n\n72. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示贷款文件不会包含基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件。\n\n73. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认他曾表示UBS会与Ace Decade合作，并给予其充足时间以满足任何追加保证金通知。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 250-18 Filed 04/22/22 Entered 04/22/22 16:59:37 Page 17 of 19\n\n74. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong先生从未否认UBS曾有不当行为。\n\n75. Wong先生告诉我，2015年7月7日，UBS以HK $11.12出售了属于Ace Decade的全部股份，该价格较7月7日Haitong（海通）股票的收盘价折让20%。\n\n76. 由于失去Haitong股份，Ace Decade失去了纽约投资者；我于2015年迁居纽约后曾与这些投资者会面，他们曾有意投资Ace Decade。例如，2015年4月至6月期间，我的代表和/或我曾四次在纽约会见一家总部位于纽约的私募投资公司的联合创始人。该公司对投资Ace Decade表达了浓厚兴趣。然而，在UBS出售属于Ace Decade的Haitong股份后，Ace Decade失去了这名潜在投资者。\n\n我宣誓，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n[Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）在中文版本上的签名] Kwok Ho Wan\n\n[中文版本上的公证]\n\nMeservey市 Cerro Gordo县 ) ) ) ss.:\n\n本人Liming Pals（李明·帕尔斯），经正式宣誓后陈述并说明，本人精通英语和中文两种语言。本人特此证明，所附文件系《Kwok Ho Wan宣誓书》中文版本的准确译本。\n\n于此在本人面前宣誓\n\n\\_-5' day of Ma:) 28i5 i::-e.1,or ...,.\\_\\_p..,r ;J ,Gl..OI ~\n\n~ 公证人 b-sl ✓\n\n•","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4948,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-04-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-04-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:34:26"}