{"id":"court_ctb_349_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":349,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-12","title":"EXHIBIT A Harbach Declaration","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT A**\n\nHarbach Declaration\n\n#### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK1\n\nChapter 11 Case No.\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtor.\n\nMay 12, 2022\n\n### **DECLARATION OF DAVID HARBACH IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S RESPONSE TO MEI GUO'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nI, David Harbach, declare:\n\n1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Texas and am a partner at the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, 1625 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, counsel for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"). I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of PAX's Response to Mei Guo's Motion for a Protective Order.\n\n2. In a good faith effort to reach agreement on the means by which PAX would conduct the May 16, 2022 depositions of Mei Guo and Hong Kong International Investments (USA) LLC (\"HKI Delaware\") or at least narrow the issues presented to the Court, on May 5, 2022 and May 6, 2022, PAX conferred via telephone with Aaron Romney.\n\n3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a May 5, 2022 email chain between Laura Aronsson, Aaron Romney, Stephen Kindseth, Peter Friedman, Aisling Murray, David Harbach, Makenzie Russo, Patrick Birney, Annecca Smith, and Stuart Sarnoff RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.).\n\n4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a January 31, 2022 Letter from\n\n1 The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\nLee Vartan to Hon. Barry R. Ostrager, New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division filed in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1170.\n\n5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a February 3, 2022 Letter from John Siegal to Hon. Barry R. Ostrager, New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division filed in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1173.\n\n6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a February 4, 2022 Order in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1174.\n\n7. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a March 18, 2022 Notice of Removal filed in *PAX v. Kwok*, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1.\n\n8. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Kwok's February 7, 2022 Post-Hearing Memorandum in Opposition to PAX's Contempt Motion filed in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1178.\n\nDated: May 12, 2022 Henrico, Virginia\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ David Harbach*\n\nDavid Harbach dharbach@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300\n\n*Attorney for Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 4 of 46\n\n## **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n### **Aronsson, Laura S.**\n\n| From: | Aronsson, Laura S. |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Sent: | Thursday, May 5, 2022 11:36 PM |\n| To: | 'Aaron A. Romney'; Friedman, Peter |\n| Cc: | Murray, Aisling; 'Stephen Kindseth'; Harbach, David; Russo, Makenzie B.; 'Birney, Patrick M.'; 'Smith, |\n| | Annecca H.'; Sarnoff, Stuart M. |\n| Subject: | RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.) |\n\nHi Aaron,\n\n Thank you for the call this morning. To memorialize our conversation, you noted that you anticipate substantial completion of document production by tomorrow or Monday. Either is fine on our end. You explained that although HKI does not intend to assert privilege over communications involving the Debtor, Brown Rudnick, or the firm representing Golden Spring, HKI does intend to assert privilege over communications with Aaron Mitchell concerning HKI's retention of Zeisler. You noted that Aaron Mitchell represents both HKI and Mei Guo in her personal capacity. We just ask that you produce a simple categorical privilege log that contains information about the nature of the withheld documents and communications, including the people involved in the documents or communications, the applicable dates, the document types, and the claim to privilege.\n\n We also talked about accommodations for the May 16 deposition of Ms. Guo. We hope that we can come to a mutual set of procedures that work for you and your client. As discussed, PAX proposes the following.\n\n- We will use a well-established industry vendor of your choice. We have used Transperfect and Veritext in the past, so we recommend one of those. Again, I'm happy to provide you with contact information for these vendors so that you can probe the technology.\n- Mei appears on video at all times to the questioning attorney and all O'Melveny attendees.\n- The rest of the participants to the deposition dial into the deposition, so they have no access to video. As discussed, you would have to talk to the US Trustee and the Committee to confirm they will agree to this condition.\n- The deposition is audio recorded, but not video recorded. We will agree to this condition provided that you will confirm that Ms. Guo will appear live at the May 25-26 hearing on PAX's motion to dismiss.\n\n Thanks, Laura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:44 PM **To:** 'Aaron A. Romney' ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n2:15 works. I will call you then.\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:26 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n\n**Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\n215 work for you? If so, please call my direct, 203-368-5473 or please send a dial in if it's more than just us. thanks\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:43 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nI am flexible this afternoon, so let me know what time is best for you and I will make it work on my end.\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:41 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nI'm jammed up on an unrelated matter. What time(s) work for you this afternoon?\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:34 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n\n**Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nAaron,\n\nI am still available today to discuss deposition logistics. I am happy to provide you with contact information for two established deposition vendors, Veritext and Transperfect. You can then select which one works for you and your client. But we cannot proceed with the deposition without using appropriate deposition software that allows for recording and exhibit share.\n\nAs for attendees, I can tell you that for PAX, the attendees will include some combination of the folks on this email chain. I do not know who, if anyone, will attend for the Committee, the Debtor, and the US Trustee. To the extent you do not have contact information for these entities, I can provide it.\n\nThanks, Laura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:02 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nI am happy to speak at 11am tomorrow. However, at minimum we cannot agree to any software until we know who owns it. For example, Zoom is a platform known not to be secure and we cannot agree to that.\n\nI'm happy to speak at 11am to discuss your positions below or I can circle back once I've discussed them with HKI/Mei and may be able to speak about them more intelligently.\n\nTo be clear, we are willing to present Mei (individually and as a rep for HKI) at 10am on 5/16 but if we can't agree on the reasonable parameters we will have to seek judicial intervention. We also cannot possibly obtain consent from various parties in interest on parameters until we know who those parties are.\n\nPlease let me know if you want to speak at 11am in hopes of narrowing these issues or if you prefer to wait until I've had an opportunity to discuss your position with out client.\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Wednesday, May 4, 2022 9:45 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nAaron,\n\nI am available to discuss logistics for the Mei Guo deposition tomorrow and 11am works. Here are our responses to your questions:\n\n- PAX will hire a neutral interpreter from the deposition vendor.\n- We cannot agree that the witness will turn off her camera once the court reporter has verified her identity in a private virtual room. The witness must be on video for questioning.\n- We plan to use the vendor's video software. I am happy to connect you to someone at the vendor so that you can understand the technology used. But we cannot proceed with the deposition without using appropriate deposition software through our vendor.\n- Finally, we have no issue with you reserving the right to limit delivery of the transcript to a smaller audience until you can seek court approval, but obviously you will need to seek consent from the other parties involved in the deposition.\n\n Thanks, Laura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Wednesday, May 4, 2022 4:18 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nYes, Mei will be the 30(b)(6) representative.\n\nAre you available sometime tomorrow to discuss some logistical issues related to the deposition? As of now I'm free after 1030am other than a meeting from 3-5pm. For the sake of being prepared or possibly addressing everything via email if that's just as easy:\n\n-we will need an interpreter for Mei. My understanding is that Mei can arrange for one on her own who is certified to interpret in the context of judicial proceedings, but we want to make sure there's no objection to doing so from your end.\n\n-we would like to discuss measures to ensure Mei's safety/privacy, which is complicated by the fact that there will likely be parties present in addition to us. Among them we request that (i) the remote means be facilitated through MS Teams or WebEx rather than Zoom; (ii) Mei be permitted to turn off her camera once a reporter has verified her identity in a private virtual room; and (iii) that we be permitted to reserve the right to limit delivery of the transcript to a small group of attorney's eyes only until/unless we consent to a wider audience or we are provided a reasonable time to seek judicial intervention on the issue.\n\nTo the extent these requests raise any concerns, hopefully we can figure out a way to address those concerns in a manner that does not infringe upon Mei's safety or privacy concerns.\n\nThanks\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Wednesday, May 4, 2022 2:48 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nAaron,\n\nWe served both a 30(b)(6) deposition notice and an individual notice on Mei Guo. Can you please confirm whether Mei Guo is the 30(b)(6) representative for HKI or will there be a separate 30(b)(6) deposition of HKI?\n\nThank you, Laura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:50 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nThe date works for us and Mei. I will confirm with Debtor's counsel.\n\nMei intends to appear by video so we are indifferent to the physical location.\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:47 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nWe will send a revised deposition notice with the confirmed date at 7 Times Square beginning at 10am ET. Please confirm this works.\n\nWe will alert the Committee counsel and the US Trustee of the deposition date.\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: laronsson@omm.com **From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:26 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nThanks. Have you confirmed who else may be attending and that the 16th works for them?\n\nAs of now I believe I should be able to get you documents before the end of the week as discussed last week.\n\nCan we speak later this week about protocols to protect Mei's safety/privacy during the depo?\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:19 PM **To:** Friedman, Peter ; Aaron A. Romney **Cc:** Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nConfirmed for May 16. Thanks, Aaron.\n\nLaura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Friedman, Peter **Sent:** Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:18 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney **Cc:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** Re: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nThanks. Laura - pls confirm date.\n\n202.383.5302 (office) (cell)\n\nOn May 3, 2022, at 1:12 PM, Aaron A. Romney wrote:\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nPeter-you may indicate HKI's consent to PAX's motion for an extension of time to respond to HKI's adversary complaint. 21 days after the court rules on the motion to dismiss is fine.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 11 of\n\n46\n\nI plan to extend the same courtesy to Debtor's counsel as well.\n\nHave you been able to confirm if 5/16 works for Mei's depo?\n\nThanks\n\n**From:** Friedman, Peter **Sent:** Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:48 AM **To:** Aaron A. Romney **Cc:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** Re: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n Thanks and we'll check.\n\n202.383.5302 (office) (cell)\n\nOn May 3, 2022, at 6:44 AM, Aaron A. Romney wrote:\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nPeter et al: I have a call at 230 after which I should be able to get back to you on the extension in the adversary proceeding.\n\nOn a separate note, does 5/16 work on your end for Mei's/HKI's deposition?\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Thursday, April 28, 2022 3:04 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth **Cc:** Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nI sent a dial in and an outlook invite. Here it is again for easy reference:\n\nMobile Friendly:\n\n Laura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M:\n\nlaronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:58 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth\n\n\n\n**Cc:** Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nNo problem. Do you want to call me or is there a dial in?\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:44 PM **To:** Aaron A. Romney ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth **Cc:** Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nThanks, Aaron. I think it makes sense to touch base just preliminarily this afternoon and we can agree to a reasonable timeline for production.\n\n Laura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Aaron A. Romney **Sent:** Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:26 PM **To:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth **Cc:** Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nI'm happy to jump on the call today at 430 as discussed but it will be more productive to speak after I've had a chance to get more info re witness availability, a better understanding of the universe of responsive documents and a realistic timeline for production.\n\nI will try to get that info as soon as possible, which should be today or tomorrow. In the meantime, can we agree that Monday is not a realistic date for production and discuss an alternate once I've received the info referenced above?\n\nAs I said, happy to be on the call if there is something else you would like to discuss but at this point it may not be an efficient use of our time.\n\n**From:** Aronsson, Laura S. **Sent:** Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:45 AM **To:** Murray, Aisling ; Aaron A. Romney ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth **Cc:** Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n All,\n\nWe are available today to meet and confer regarding the discovery served on Zeisler. I am wide open between 2pm and 6pm ET.\n\nPlease let me know when you are available.\n\nThanks, Laura\n\n Laura S. Aronsson O: +1-212-728-5841 M: laronsson@omm.com\n\n**From:** Murray, Aisling **Sent:** Monday, April 25, 2022 8:16 PM **To:** aromney@zeislaw.com; swenthen@zeislaw.com; SKindseth@zeislaw.com **Cc:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** RE: In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nCounsel:\n\nPlease see attached subpoenas requesting the production of documents and noticing the deposition of Mei Guo. Please confirm you accept service.\n\nBest, Aisling\n\nAisling Murray O: +1-212-728-5831 amurray@omm.com\n\n**From:** Murray, Aisling\n\n**Sent:** Friday, April 22, 2022 5:20 PM **To:** 'aromney@zeislaw.com' ; 'swenthen@zeislaw.com' ; 'SKindseth@zeislaw.com' **Cc:** Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. **Subject:** In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nCounsel:\n\nPlease see attached requests for production of documents and deposition notice.\n\nBest, Aisling\n\n## **O'Melveny**\n\n#### **Aisling Murray**\n\nAssociate amurray@omm.com O: +1-212-728-5831\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Website | LinkedIn | Twitter\n\n*This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 15 of 46\n\n## **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n46\n\n![](_page_15_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\nONE BOLAND DRIVE WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052\n\n**LEE VARTAN** lvartan@csglaw.com (O) 973.530.2107 (F) 973.530.2307\n\nJanuary 31, 2022\n\n**Via E-Filing**\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager, J.S.C. New York State Supreme Court New York County (Part 61) 60 Center Street, Room 629 New York, NY 10007\n\n## **Re:** *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok et al.***, Index No. 652077/2017**\n\nDear Justice Ostrager:\n\nThis firm represents non-parties HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and its sole member, Ms. Mei Guo. Ms. Guo is the daughter of Defendant Kwok Ho Wan. She is slated to testify at Wednesday's evidentiary hearing.\n\nAs Ms. Guo will testify to, she was twice detained by the Chinese Community Party (\"CCP\"), once for 10 days, and a second time for 40 days, during which she suffered physical and psychological torture. Even though present in the United States and seeking political asylum here, she is not beyond the reach of the CCP and its agents. Since arriving in the United States in May 2017, Ms. Guo has been the target of a concerted and coordinated attack on social media. Social media postings translated for me read, in sum and substance: \"if someone is raping Mei Guo, please count me in\"; \"I will stop by Miles Kwok's building today to wait for Mei – come and join me, I will be there around 2 p.m.\"; and \"if you don't rape Mei Guo tonight, you won't have food tomorrow.\" These are just a few of the messages threatening horrific violence against Ms. Guo.\n\nBecause of these continuing threats, Ms. Guo is incredibly circumspect in her personal life. She almost never takes photographs of herself, and does not have any social media presence (although fake accounts in her name abound). I have discussed Ms. Guo's real concerns about her safety with counsel for both parties. Specifically, I asked counsel if they would consent to\n\n![](_page_15_Picture_17.jpeg)\n\n46\n\nJustice Ostrager, J.S.C. January 31, 2022\n\nthe Court closing the virtual courtroom to all but the litigants and their counsel when Ms. Guo testifies at Wednesday's hearing. The parties agreed.1\n\nThere is ample caselaw permitting the Court to close the courtroom where a witness's safety would be jeopardized by her public testimony. This is true even in criminal cases where a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. *See, e.g.*, *[People v. Hinton](http)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0)*, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 75–76, 286 N.E.2d 265, 267 (1972) (recognizing the \"inherent discretionary power of the trial court to close the courtroom\" and noting that one of the \"unusual circumstances\" that necessitate closure is where a witness's public testimony would jeopardize the witness's life); *[People v. Jones](http)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0)*, 96 N.Y.2d 213, 214–15, 750 N.E.2d 524, 525 (2001) (\"When the People can establish an overriding interest that open-court testimony by an undercover officer would jeopardize the officer's safety, the Trial Judge may close the courtroom during the testimony of that witness.\").\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, and with both parties' consent, we ask that Your Honor close the virtual courtroom to all but the litigants and their counsel during Ms. Guo's testimony and prevent any litigant or attorney from photographing or videotaping the screen during her testimony.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\ns/ Lee Vartan\n\nLEE VARTAN\n\n1 Although Plaintiff consents to Ms. Guo's request to close the courtroom during her testimony, Plaintiff takes no position on the facts set forth in this letter.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 18 of 46\n\n## **EXHIBIT 3**\n\n#\n\nJohn Siegal direct dial: 212.589.4245 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com\n\nFebruary 3, 2022\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager Justice of the Supreme Court Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York 60 Centre Street, Room 629 New York, NY 10007\n\n*Re: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund. L.P. v. Kwok, et al. (Index No. 652077/2017)*\n\nDear Justice Ostrager:\n\nI write on behalf of Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Mr. Kwok\") in the above-captioned action to request that the Court maintain its sealing order (NYSCEF Doc. 1171) as applied to yesterday's evidentiary hearing and the transcript thereof until its determination of the motion. As per discussions with Stuart Sarnoff, Esq., Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund. L.P does not oppose this application. .\n\nSincerely,\n\n*/s/ John Siegal* John Siegal\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 20 of 46\n\n## **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/04/2022 02:40 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1174 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 21 of 46\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------|\n| | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND | | |\n| L.P., | | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 |\n| | Plaintiff, | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE | |\n| | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN | | |\n| | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a | MOTION SEQ. NO. | |\n| | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a | | |\n| | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and | ORDER --
OTHER | |\n| | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, | | |\n| | Defendants. | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | |\n\n#### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nThe Court held a hearing on February 2, 2022 to determine whether several conditional orders of contempt with accompanying monetary sanctions should, in accordance with the provisions of the CPLR, be confirmed as a permanent order of contempt. With the consent of the plaintiff movant, the Court denied access to the press during the testimony of Ms. Guo, the daughter of the defendant. The Court took this extraordinary step because Ms. Guo has asserted that she was previously detained and tortured by the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") and has a concern for her safety if her whereabouts became known to the CCP while she seeks asylum in the United States. As reflected in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, there was no objection by the parties when the Court stated during and at the conclusion of the hearing that Ms Guo's whereabouts were not disclosed during the contempt trial and that the Court would therefore authorize the filing of a completely redacted transcript of the hearing on February 7, 2022 when the transcript is available. Counsel for Mr. Kwok Ho Wan has renewed his request that the testimony of Ms. Guo remain sealed for which there is no basis other than counsel's request.\n\nDated: February 4, 2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 22 of 46\n\n## **EXHIBIT 5**\n\n### **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n### PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nvs.\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCivil Action No.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,\n\nDefendants.\n\n## **NOTICE OF REMOVAL**\n\n### **TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that on this date, defendant Ho Wan Kwok (\"Mr. Kwok\") by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027, removing this entire action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (the \"New York State Court\") to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Court\" or the \"New York District Court\"), the abovecaptioned case brought by plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (the \"Plaintiff\") in the New York State Court. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 1334(e).\n\nIn support of this Notice of Removal, Mr. Kwok states as follows:\n\n1. On April 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil action numbered 652077/2017 (the \"Action\"). Numerous aspects of the Action are currently on appeal. At present, the Plaintiff in\n\nthe Action seeks to enforce an order to compel Mr. Kwok to move a boat (the \"Lady May\") that he is alleged to own or control into the jurisdiction of the State of New York, and to otherwise exercise control over purported assets of Mr. Kwok to satisfy a judgment. *See Motion of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. For Entry of an Order Confirming The Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay Or, In The Alternative, Relief From The Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code*, Case No. 22-50073, Docket No. 57, at ¶ 12 (Bankr. D. Conn 2022) (noting that plaintiff is seeking in this Action the enforcement of an order \"requiring the return of the Lady May to New York\").\n\n2. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), Mr. Kwok (\"Mr. Kwok\") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division (the \"CT Bankruptcy Court\"), and was assigned Case No. 22- 50073 (JAM), (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"). Accordingly, the time for removal prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(2) has not expired.\n\n3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) \"[a] party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action . . . to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or action under § 1334 of this Title[.]\"\n\n4. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), this Court has jurisdiction to hear all civil proceedings that \"aris[e] under title 11, or aris[e] in or [are] related to cases under title 11\" of the United States Code, the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n5. As of the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, the CT Bankruptcy Court has \"exclusive jurisdiction\" over \"all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate[.]\" 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) Accordingly, the Civil Action presently impinges on the exclusive jurisdiction of the CT Bankruptcy Court to determine what is\n\n(or is not) property of the estate, and to exercise jurisdiction over such property. *See In re AE Liquidation, Inc.*, 435 B.R. 894, 904 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (determination whether property is property of the estate falls within the bankruptcy court's exclusive jurisdiction); *In re 245 Assocs., LLC*, 188 B.R. 743, 749 fn. 6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995), corrected (Nov. 9, 1995) (\"The commencement of the bankruptcy case vests the district court with exclusive jurisdiction over property of the debtor and the estate.\").\n\n6. Accordingly, as of the filing of the Chapter 11 Case, any action seeking to determine what is (or is not) the property of Mr. Kwok or his estate is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 541 and, thus, the Action is an action \"arising in\" the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n7. This case also is \"related to\" the Chapter 11 Case because it has a close nexus to the bankruptcy proceedings and seeks to determine issues regarding Mr. Kwok's ownership and/or control (or lack thereof) of property and to exercise control over certain assets that are alleged to be within his ownership or control, 1 as well as actions he is alleged to have taken with respect to his creditors.\n\n8. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County is within the Southern District of New York, and accordingly removal to the Southern District of New York is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Following removal, Mr. Kwok anticipates seeking to transfer venue to the District of Connecticut and referral to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut based on the ongoing Chapter 11 Case, rather than seeking referral to a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York.\n\n1 The New York State Court has issued orders that contain factual findings with respect to these issues, including determining that the most relevant purported asset (the Lady May yacht) is within Mr. Kwok's beneficial ownership. That finding is on appeal and Mr. Kwok does not waive his objections to that factual finding or any others that are on appeal.\n\n9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(c), a copy of this Notice\n\nof Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and a copy of this Notice of Removal will be served upon counsel for the Plaintiff.\n\n10. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(1), Mr. Kwok consents to the entry of a final order by the Bankruptcy Court with respect to any non-core claim within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).\n\n**WHEREFORE**, Mr. Kwok removes the entire action now pending in the Supreme\n\nCourt of New York, New York County to this Court.\n\nDated: March 18, 2022\n\n### **BROWN RUDNICK LLP**\n\nBy: */s/ William R. Baldiga* William R. Baldiga, Esq. Bennett S. Silverberg, Esq. Uriel Pinelo, Esq. Seven Times Square New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com Email: bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com Email: upinelo@brownrudnick.com\n\n*Proposed Counsel for Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 27 of 46\n\n## **EXHIBIT 6**\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 28 of 46\n\n#### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nvs.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, et al.,\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot. Seq. 019\n\n## **DEFENDANT MR. KWOK HO WAN'S POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO A FINAL ORDER OF CONTEMPT**\n\n## **BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP**\n\nJohn Siegal Melissa Carvalho Tracy Cole Erica Barrow 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com tcole@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com ebarrow@bakerlaw.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*\n\n#### **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 29 of 46\n\n| I. | THE
LADY | RECORD
ESTABLISHES
THAT
MR.
KWOK
HAS
NEVER
OWNED
THE
MAY
4 |\n|------|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| II. | KWOK | PLAINTIFF
HAS
FAILED
TO
MEET
ITS
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
THAT
MR.
CONTROLS
THE
LADY
MAY

5 |\n| | A. | The
Relevant
Standard
Is
Control,
Not
A
Beneficial
Interest,
And
Plaintiff
Meets
Neither
5 |\n| | B. | Ms.
Mei
Guo's
Testimony
That
Her
Brother
And
Not
Her
Father
Gifted
And
Funds
The
Lady
Mei
Is
Unrebutted
7 |\n| | C. | There
Is
No
Evidence
That
Mr.
Kwok
Controlled
Any
Movements
Of
The
Lady
May
At
Any
Time
During
The
Period
Of
Alleged
Contempt

8 |\n| | | 1.
The
Evidence
Proffered
At
The
Hearing
Is
Insufficient
To
Show
Control

8 |\n| | | 2.
Miles
Kwok
Is
Not
A
Missing
Witness
On
Control
So
No
Adverse
Inference
Can
Be
Imposed
10 |\n| | D. | Evidence
That
Mr.
Kwok
Used
And
Directed
Local
Movements
Of
The
Lady
May
Prior
To
The
Period
Of
Alleged
Contempt
Are
Insufficient
To
Establish
That
He
Controls
The
Asset
10 |\n| III. | THIS
MEDIA | COURT
SHOULD
EXCLUDE
THE
PHOTOGRAPHS
AND
SOCIAL
POSTINGS
OFFERED
BY
PLAINTIFF
11 |\n| | A. | All
Of
Plaintiff's
Proffered
Evidence
Is
Outside
The
Relevant
Time
Frame
And
Has
No
Probative
Value
11 |\n| | B. | Plaintiff's
Evidence
Pre-Dates
March
15,
2021

11 |\n| | C. | Plaintiff's
Proffered
Evidence
Is
Inadmissible

12 |\n| | D. | Plaintiff's
Proffered
Evidence
Cannot
Be
Authenticated,
As
Conceded
By
Plaintiff's
Own
Witness
12 |\n| | E. | Plaintiff's
Proffered
Evidence
Amounts
To
Circumstantial
Puffery
13 |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 30 of 46\n\n#### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n| Cases | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| AV By Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace S.P.A,
279 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)6 | |\n| Blanchard v. Lifegear,
45 A.D.3d 1258 (2d Dep't 2007)12 | |\n| Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.,
62 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Cty 2018.)7 | |\n| Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Com.,
21 N.Y.3d 55 (2013)6 | |\n| DeBonis v. Corbisiero,
155 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 1989)
13 | |\n| Douglas v. Kingston Income Partners %2C87,
2 A.D.3d 1079 (3d Dep't 2003)10 | |\n| Gliklad v. Chernoi,
129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)
7 | |\n| Matter of Joan Moran Tr.,
166 A.D.3d 1176 (3d Dep't 2018)10 | |\n| Lisogor v. Nature's Delight, Inc.,
189 A.D.3d 1386 (2d Dep't 2020)6 | |\n| Penn-Dixie Indus., Inc. v. Castle,
77 A.D.2d 844 (1st Dep't 1980)
6 | |\n| People v. Hemrie,
252 A.D.2d 593 (2d Dep't 1998)10 | |\n| People v. Price,
29 N.Y.3d 472 (2017)12, 13 | |\n| People v. Primo,
96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001)13 | |\n| Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
2013 WL 1155576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)7 | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 31 of 46\n\n| | Reich v. Mitrani Plasterers Co., |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 13 | 268 A.D.2d 256 (1st Dep't 2000) |\n| | |\n| | St. Owner, L.P. v. Novog, |\n| 13 | 31 Misc. 3d 680, 921 N.Y.S.2d 814 (Civ. Ct., NY Cty 2011) |\n\n![](_page_31_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nOn Plaintiff's initial contempt motion, this Court found that Plaintiff had not met its burden to establish contempt with the evidence previously proffered to this Court, stating \"I don't believe that [Plaintiff] has met . . . [its] burden on the record that's presently before the Court for a final court order of civil contempt, because there is an issue about the ownership of the ship.\" [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 898, Tr. 13: 2–8, July 21, 2021 ). The Appellate Division agreed, remanding the matter for this Court to conduct an \"evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht.\" Order on Plaintiff's Motion for A Final Order of Contempt, Appellate Division, First Department, November 4, 2021, [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 953).\n\nAs detailed below, the hearing, held on February 2, 2022, established that:\n\n(1) Mr. Kwok does not own—and has never owned—the *Lady May*.\n\n(2) At all times since Mei Guo escaped China in June 2017, she has both owned and controlled her namesake boat, the *Lady May*.\n\n(3) Qiang Guo (\"Mileson Guo\"), Ms. Guo's brother and Mr. Kwok's son, gifted the yacht to his sister and pays for its upkeep through the family's family office entities, which it is undisputed he owns. Plaintiff made no attempt to try to show that Mileson Guo's actions should be ascribed to the father when the son has a widely-known business life of his own. Thus, there is no basis on which this Court can treat those entities as alter egos and, in effect, pierce the corporate veil.\n\n(4) There is no evidence that the Defendant Mr. Kwok has been aboard the *Lady May* or had anything to do with its whereabouts at any time since before either this Court's first restraining order referencing the *Lady May* or the subsequent conditional contempt order directing the vessel's return to New York.\n\n(5) The affirmative evidence that Plaintiff attempted to introduce—most of which is\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 33 of 46\n\ninadmissible, unauthenticated hearsay—establishes only the always undisputed fact that during the several year period prior to this Court's orders affecting the *Lady May*, Mr. Kwok was often aboard the vessel as a specifically authorized guest of Ms. Mei Guo's but without authority to relocate the vessel beyond local movements during his use and enjoyment of it.\n\nNone of this meets Plaintiff's burden of establishing through *clear and convincing evidence* that Mr. Kwok owns and controls the *Lady May*, which is required before there is a basis for imposing a final order of contempt. Therefore, as detailed below and in the hearing record, Plaintiff's motion for a final order of contempt must be denied.1\n\n#### **PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT**\n\nThe record evidence establishes the following facts:\n\n1. On February 26, 2015, the *Lady May* was purchased by Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited (\"HKI HK\"), the sole member of which was Ms. Qu Guojiao.\n\n[\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶8; Plaintiff's Ex. 16).\n\n2. Ms. Qu was a business partner of Ms. Guo's brother. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162), and Ms. Guo testified that her brother purchased the *Lady May* for her. (H'rg Tr. 44: 4-17, Feb. 2, 2021 [Hereinafter \"Tr.\"]).\n\n3. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Kwok funded the purchase of the Lady May and Mei Guo testified that he did not. (*Id*.)\n\n4. On June 27, 2017, after Ms. Guo escaped China, Ms. Qu transferred the shares of HKI HK and resulting ownership of the *Lady May* to Ms. Guo. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶10;\n\n1 In the event that the Court disagrees and is inclined to enter a final order of contempt, Mr. Kwok maintains that the contempt penalty set forth in the conditional order of contempt constitutes an unlawful and unconstitutional excessive penalty, tantamount to a criminal order, that exceeds the Court's authority and is disproportionate to precedent in this State's jurisprudence. (*See* Mr. Kwok's Pre-Hearing Memorandum In Opposition To A Final Order Of Contempt, Point III, [NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1166).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 34 of 46\n\nPlaintiff's Exhibit 16).\n\n5. Mr. Kwok was videotaped on the *Lady May*, on a video that was uploaded to YouTube in 2019.\n\n5. On April 17, 2020, Ms. Guo transferred ownership of the *Lady May* from HKI HK to HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. [1162](http) at ¶11; Plaintiff's 16). Ms. Guo is likewise the sole owner of HK USA. (JX- 3).\n\n6. The costs of maintaining and operating the vessel have been paid through the family's family office, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\") [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶13). Ms. Guo testified that Golden Spring is owned by her brother, Mileson Guo. (Tr. 56:13- 15.) That testimony is unrebutted. Ms. Guo further testified that she understands that the payments for the upkeep of the *Lady May* have been made at her brother's behest, included as part of his gift of the boat. (Tr. 56:16-19.)\n\n7. Mr. Kwok was present on the *Lady May* during the summer of 2020, as a guest of Ms. Guo and with her permission.\n\n7. The *Lady May* sailed from New York in early October 2020. Plaintiff suggested it was October 9, 2020, but the Captain recalls it was the first week of October 2020. [NYSCEF](http) Doc. [1158](http) at ¶16. Regardless, it is undisputed that the boat left New York before the October 15, 2020 order restraining \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, 'the *Lady May*' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"\n\n[\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 630; [NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶14; [NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1158 at ¶16.)\n\n8. It was the usual practice of the *Lady May* to leave New York for warmer waters at the end of the summer season. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1158 at ¶14.)\n\n9. No evidence was adduced at the hearing to suggest that Mr. Kwok was involved\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 35 of 46\n\nin directing the *Lady May* to leave New York in October 2020. (Tr. 53:14- 55:10.) Ms. Guo directed the boat's captain, via Golden Spring, to relocate the *Lady May* for the winter season. (NYSCF Doc. 1162 at 14.)\n\n10. The *Lady May* was out of commission on dry dock for repair for about five months, from on or about January 2021 until May 2021. (Tr. 91: 18-92:9).\n\n11. This Court issued the conditional contempt order on March 15, 2021 (\"Conditional Contempt Order\"), ordering Mr. Kwok specifically to return the *Lady May* to New York. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 728).\n\n12. Ms. Guo first learned of the orders pertaining to the *Lady May* in early 2021 through her counsel. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶20; Tr.59: 5-9; 63: 3-8).\n\n13. After the vessel's repairs were complete, Ms. Guo conferred with counsel and instructed that the *Lady May* sail to Europe, as had been originally planned. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. [1162](http) at ¶16).\n\n14. Ms. Guo's testimony that she made the decision not to return the *Lady May* to New York, and that Mr. Kwok was not involved in that decision (*Id*. at ¶20), is unrebutted.\n\n15. Plaintiff has produced no competent evidence establishing that Mr. Kwok owned or controlled the *Lady May* such that he could have complied with this Court's Conditional Contempt Order.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT MR. KWOK HAS NEVER OWNED THE** *LADY MAY*\n\nPlaintiff concedes in its papers that Mr. Kwok does not own—and has never owned—the *Lady May*. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1172). The evidence adduced at the hearing confirmed that at all times relevant to compliance with this Court's Conditional Order of Contempt, the *Lady May* has\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 36 of 46\n\nbeen owned by a special purpose entity, HKI US, a Delaware limited liability corporation that is 100 percent owned and controlled by Mei Guo, the adult daughter of Mr. Kwok who is herself an emigre from the Peoples Republic of China seeking political asylum in the United States.\n\nWhen the *Lady May* was purchased back in 2015, far before this action was commenced or the *Lady May* became at issue, the individual that owned the shares to HKI HK that made the purchase was not Mr. Kwok, but rather a business partner of Ms. Guo's brother. As discussed below, while Plaintiff has repeatedly asserted that Mr. Kwok bought the *Lady May*, it has failed to offer any competent evidence in support of this statement. And even if Mr. Kwok had purchased the *Lady May* back in 2015, it was transferred to and owned by his adult daughter in mid-2017. It therefore is established and cannot be disputed that Mr. Kwok does not own the *Lady May*.\n\n#### **II. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT MR. KWOK CONTROLS THE** *LADY MAY*\n\n#### **A. The Relevant Standard Is Control, Not A Beneficial Interest, And Plaintiff Meets Neither**\n\nPlaintiff continues to erroneously argue this case under the inapplicable CPLR [5225\\(b\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) standard for a turnover. The correct standard required for a final order of contempt is \"control\" of the *Lady May*, as the Appellate Division has held. Plaintiff has failed to adduce competent evidence sufficient to make the required showing that Mr. Kwok clearly and convincingly controls the *Lady May*. Plaintiff itself acknowledges, as it must, the First Department's direction that Mr. Kwok's complete affirmative defense regarding his ability to comply with the order must be factually determined based on whether Mr. Kwok owned or controlled the *Lady May*. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1172; [NYSCEF](http) Doc. 953.)\n\nYet instead of seeking to meet its burden, Plaintiff attempted to shift it. Plaintiff's argument at the hearing was that Mr. Kwok had a beneficial interest in the *Lady May* such that\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 37 of 46\n\nPlaintiff would be entitled to turnover, so Plaintiff was prejudiced; therefore, Plaintiff asserts, it has satisfied its *prima facie* burden on contempt. But while Mr. Kwok does not concede Plaintiff satisfied its *prima facie* showing, the First Department's remand instructed that the *prima facie* elements—including prejudice—had been decided and remanded for the specific purpose of addressing Mr. Kwok's affirmative defense. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 953.)\n\nWhere a movant has satisfied the *prima facie* elements for contempt, the alleged contemnor may then offer as a defense his inability to comply with the order. *Lisogor v. [Nature's](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1387) Delight, Inc.*, 189 A.D.3d 1386, [1387–88](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1387) (2d Dep't 2020)*.* At that point*, the burden then shifts back to the movant to prove the alleged contemnor's ability to comply*. *[Penn-Dixie](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Indus., Inc. v. Castle*, 77 [A.D.2d](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 844 (1st Dep't 1980); *see also AV By [Versace,](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_351) Inc. v. Gianni Versace S.P.A*, 279 F. Supp. 2d 341, 351 [\\(S.D.N.Y.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_351) 2003) (contempt is not strict liability). Plaintiff continues to focus on its the initial burden for contempt because it fails to meet the burden it is required to meet now; that is, to rebut Mr. Kwok's affirmative defense that he could not comply with the Conditional Contempt Order.\n\nThe Court of Appeals has clearly and expressly held that the beneficial interest standard applicable to the issue of turnover is separate and distinct from the relevant standard for control. *See [Commonwealth](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_63) of N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Com*., 21 N.Y.3d 55, 63 [\\(2013\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_63) (holding that the turnover statute does not encompass the issue of control). Moreover, even if the turnover statute did have bearing on the test for control for contempt, that statute expressly requires the judgment creditor have both (1) possession or custody of the asset *and* (2) beneficial interest.2 The secondary source on which Plaintiff relies likewise teaches that \"[i]t is\n\n2 [CPLR](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 5225 (a) states: \"Property in the possession of judgment debtor. Upon motion of the judgment creditor, . . . where it is shown that the judgment debtor is in *possession or custody* of money or other personal property in which he has an interest, the court shall order that the judgment debtor . . . deliver any other personal property, or so much of it as is of sufficient value to satisfy the judgment, to a designated sheriff\" (emphasis added).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 38 of 46\n\nessential, however, that the judgment debtor have an interest in . . . property other than a mere possessory or custodial interest.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. At best, Plaintiff established Mr. Kwok possessed access to the *Lady May* (albeit with Ms. Guo's permission). Even if \"beneficial interest\" were the correct legal standard (which it is not), this would not prove that the \"property [is] belonging to [Mr. Kwok]\" as is required under the turnover statute to prove beneficial interest. *Id.*\n\nPlaintiff's turnover cases are inapposite, because the judgment debtors therein made inconsistent legal statements about their ownership of the assets within the litigations themselves. *See Colfin Bulls [Funding](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.,* 62 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Cty [2018.\\);](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) *Gliklad v. [Chernoi](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015); *[Peterson](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) v. Islamic Republic of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576 [\\(S.D.N.Y.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Mar. 13, 2013). Mr. Kwok has never averred in this litigation that he owned or controlled the *Lady May*. In fact, this Court issued the order restraining the *Lady May* over Mr. Kwok's objection that relief should be limited to assets held by him individually. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 599).\n\nIn order to obtain relief under the turnover statute, it is critical that the \"judgment debtor's interest [must] exist[] at the time of the motion.\" *Id.* As discussed, the record is devoid of any evidence regarding Mr. Kwok's custody and control of the *Lady May* now or at any point at or after the time that the Conditional Contempt Order was issued.\n\n#### **B. Ms. Mei Guo's Testimony That Her Brother And Not Her Father Gifted And Funds The Lady Mei Is Unrebutted**\n\nThe unrebutted evidence has shown that the *Lady May* was purchased by HKI HK on February 26, 2015, when the sole member of HKI HK was Ms. Qu Guojiao. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. [1162](http) at ¶8; Plaintiff's 16). Ms. Guo testified that Ms. Qu was a trusted business partner of her brother, as well as of her uncles and cousins. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162). Ms. Guo further clarified\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 39 of 46\n\nthat her brother bought the *Lady May* and that her father, Mr. Kwok, did not purchase the *Lady May*. (Tr. 44: 4-17 \"Q. Your father provided the money, didn't he? A. Not my father.\") Then, on June 27, 2017, after Ms. Guo was no longer in the Peoples Republic of China, Ms. Qu transferred the shares of HKI HK and resulting ownership of the *Lady May* to Ms. Guo. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶10; Plaintiff's Ex. 16). Indeed, the *Lady May* was named after Ms. Mei Guo, as it was always intended to be her boat. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶9). On April 17, 2020, Ms. Guo transferred ownership of the *Lady May* from HKI HK to HK USA. (NYSCEF [Doc.](http) [1162](http) at ¶11; Plaintiff's 16). Ms. Guo is likewise the sole owner of HK USA. (JX- 3).\n\nPlaintiff has proffered no evidence, other than mere accusations, that Mr. Kwok paid for the *Lady May*'s maintenance and operation. The maintenance and operation of the *Lady May* was paid for by Golden Spring and recently by Lamp Capital LLC. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶12). Both entities are owned by Ms. Guo's brother, Mileson Guo. (Tr. 56:13-15; [NYSCEF](http) Doc. 936 at ¶6, 14) Ms. Guo's brother gifted the *Lady May* to Ms. Guo and part of that gift included his agreeing to incur the costs of maintaining and operating the vessel. (Tr. 56:16-19.) Plaintiff has elicited no testimony and proffered no admissible evidence linking Mr. Kwok to the *Lady May*'s financial upkeep. Nor has Plaintiff even attempted to establish that any action by Mileson Guo should be attributed to his father, Mr. Kwok. These are not assumptions that can simply be asserted or assumed in a court of law. Nor can corporate formalities simply be disregarded absent proof warranting piercing a corporate veil, which is completely lacking on this record.\n\n### **C. There Is No Evidence That Mr. Kwok Controlled Any Movements Of The** *Lady May* **At Any Time During The Period Of Alleged Contempt**\n\n#### **1. The Evidence Proffered At The Hearing Is Insufficient To Show Control**\n\nThere is zero competent evidence on the record before this Court that Mr. Kwok controlled the *Lady May* at or after the Conditional Contempt Order ordering the return of the\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 40 of 46\n\n*Lady May* to New York was issued on March 15, 2021, or even as far back as when the restraining order referencing the *Lady May* was first issued against Mr. Kwok on October 15, 2020. To the contrary, Ms. Guo testified that where the *Lady May* travels and when it travels is her decision. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶18). Ms. Guo specifically explained that her father, Mr. Kwok, does not control the *Lady May*'s movements. (*Id*.). Mr. Kwok does not dispute that he had been a guest on the *Lady May* prior to the entries of the relevant orders. (*See e.g.*, Tr. 86: 13- 25 (Captain Heaslop clarified on cross examination that Mr. Kwok was not a guest on the *Lady May* in October 2020 or for the remainder of the season). Any inadmissible evidence (discussed below) regarding Mr. Kwok's association with the *Lady May* was published years or months before the asset became at issue in this litigation and thus has no probative value on whether Mr. Kwok controlled the *Lady May* during the alleged contumacious period.\n\nThe evidence establishes that the *Lady May* set sail from New York in early October 2020, before the October 15, 2020 restraining order first mentioning the *Lady May* was issued in this action. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶14; [NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1158 at ¶16.; *see generally* Tr. 85: 22- 86:12). The *Lady May* was then out of commission on dry dock for repair for about five months, from on or about January 2021 until May 2021. (Tr. 91:18 - 92:9.) During this time, when \"no one could move the boat even if they wanted to\" (Tr. 92: 4-5), this Court issued the Conditional Contempt Order on March 15, 2021, ordering Mr. Kwok to return the *Lady May* to New York. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 728). Ms. Guo learned of the orders pertaining to the *Lady May* in early 2021 through her counsel. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶20; Tr.59: 5-9; 63: 3-8). After the vessel's repairs were complete, Ms. Guo conferred with counsel and instructed that the *Lady May* sail to Europe, as had been originally planned. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1162 at ¶16). Plaintiff has offered no evidence refuting Ms. Guo's testimony that it was her decision alone not to return the *Lady May* to New\n\nYork. There is no evidence in the record on this motion establishing any involvement by Mr. Kwok in that decision. (*Id*. at ¶20).\n\n### **2. Miles Kwok Is Not A Missing Witness On Control So No Adverse Inference Can Be Imposed**\n\nMr. Kwok's invocation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination does not relieve Plaintiff of its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok controls the *Lady May* in order to warrant a contempt finding. *Matter of Joan Moran Tr.,* 166 [A.D.3d](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1179) 1176, 1179 (3d Dep't [2018\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1179) Plaintiff's bald \"speculative assertions\" do not rebut Mr. Kwok's affirmative defense. *Id*. Ms. Guo provided testimonial evidence regarding her exclusive ability to control the *Lady May*. Plaintiff is not entitled to a missing witness charge because it \"failed to demonstrate that this witness [Mr. Kwok] could testify to any noncumulative information concerning a material issue in the case.\" *Douglas v. [Kingston](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1082) Income Partners %2C87*, 2 A.D.3d 1079, 1082 (3d Dep't [2003\\);](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1082) *see People v. [Hemrie](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_593)*, 252 A.D.2d 593, 593 (2d Dep't 1998)\n\n(denying missing witness charge because the movant did not carry his burden of proof).\n\n## **D. Evidence That Mr. Kwok Used And Directed Local Movements Of The** *Lady May* **Prior To The Period Of Alleged Contempt Are Insufficient To Establish That He Controls The Asset**\n\nPlaintiff spent its case in chief proving a point that Mr. Kwok does not contest and even offered to include in a stipulation; namely, that he was a guest on the *Lady May* at various times prior to the issuance of the orders in this action regarding the *Lady May*. Captain Heaslop confirmed that while Mr. Kwok was a guest on the *Lady May*, he directed the boat's local movements just \"the same for any of the guests on the both [sic].\"(Tr. 96: 7-8; Tr. 95:12-96:8). Captain Heaslop testified that Mr. Kwok did not have the authority to direct, and did not direct, the *Lady May* to travel outside the specific area in which the vessel was already located. (Tr. 95: 12-24.; [NYSCEF](http) Doc 1162 at ¶¶ 16, 20). Similarly, Ms. Guo testified that Mr. Kwok needed\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 42 of 46\n\nMs. Guo's permission to board the *Lady May* and that Mr. Kwok would communicate to Ms. Guo the proposed travel itinerary in advance. (Tr. 52:4-11). As an example, Ms. Guo testified that hypothetically if the itinerary contemplated a trip from Manhattan to Long Island, then Mr. Kwok would be free to make a stop along the way; however, he would need Ms. Guo's permission to go to Palm Beach, Florida. (Tr. 53: 7-13). Any instructions on relocation of the *Lady May* beyond its locality came from a representative of HK USA. [\\(NYSCEF](http) Doc. 1158 at ¶21.) Mr. Kwok never took the *Lady May* out without Ms. Guo's permission. (Tr. 53: 14-16.)\n\n### **III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS OFFERED BY PLAINTIFF**\n\n### **A. All Of Plaintiff's Proffered Evidence Is Outside The Relevant Time Frame And Has No Probative Value**\n\nDetermination of \"ownership or control of the yacht\" must be made as of the time that Plaintiff alleges Mr. Kwok \"violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court,\" that is, on or after March 15, 2021, when this Court entered its Conditional Order of Contempt.\n\n#### **B. Plaintiff's Evidence Pre-Dates March 15, 2021**\n\nIn support of Plaintiff's burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok allegedly owns or controls the yacht, Plaintiff offers unauthenticated YouTube videos, a news story and associated irrelevant video (which contain irrelevant statements about Mr. Kwok), and unauthenticated Twitter and Instagram posts. As a threshold matter, each piece of evidence is of no probative value and is thus irrelevant to the ownership or control inquiry at hand.\n\nThe YouTube videos offered by Plaintiff are dated October 14, 2017 and July 28, 2019. (Plaintiff's Ex. 2, 20). Plaintiff also offers segments from a Vice News Video, dated November 2017, once again pre-dating the relevant period. (Plaintiff's Ex. 19). In a similar vein, Plaintiff offers tweets and Instagram posts that likewise far pre-date the relevant time frame. The tweets are dated May 10, 2017 and August 27, 2017, respectively, and the Instagram post is dated\n\n![](_page_42_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nAugust 21, 2018. (Plaintiff's Ex. 1, 25). The evidence Plaintiff has offered purports to show nothing more than that Mr. Kwok may have been on the yacht before the relevant time frame, reducing even further any potential probative value of unreliable, unauthentic evidence that appears to refer to \"his\" boat.\n\n#### **C. Plaintiff's Proffered Evidence Is Inadmissible**\n\nPlaintiff's evidence purporting to show ownership or control of the *Lady May* is not only non-probative and thus of no relevance, but also inadmissible due to the lack of authentication and high prejudicial value it offers. *People v. Price*, 29 [N.Y.3d](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_476) 472, 476 (2017). Even where evidence is authenticated, any minimal probative value can be outweighed by the evidence's prejudicial effect. *See, e.g.*, *[Blanchard](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1260) v. Lifegear*, 45 A.D.3d 1258, 1260 (2d Dep't 2007).\n\n#### **D. Plaintiff's Proffered Evidence Cannot Be Authenticated, As Conceded By Plaintiff's Own Witness**\n\nPlaintiff's own witness, Nat Francis, testified that he did not know who had or has control over the Instagram account purporting to be associated with Guo Wei. (Tr. 19:15-17). Likewise, Plaintiff's witness could not testify as to who has access to the account (Tr. 19:18-19), when any of the Instagram Posts were actually posted (Tr. 20:12-13), who posted it (Tr. 20:14-15), or the circumstances under which it was posted (Tr. 20:16-18). Plaintiff's witness also conceded that the YouTube video at issue, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, could not be authenticated. (Tr.25: 9-12.) Mr. Francis could not confirm when or where the video was recorded, under which circumstances it was recorded, its creator, the purpose of its creation, or any other information associated with the name attached to the account (Tr. 21:18-22:8). Plaintiff's witness was also unable to testify to the authenticity of the tweets, conceding that he did not know who posted them, whether there was unauthorized account use, and that he had not traced the account to a device held by Mr. Kwok. (Tr. 30:2-11).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 44 of 46\n\nMr. Francis conceded that as to \"any of the exhibits,\" he could only testify as to where he located them, *and* not that they are \"genuine and accurate and portray what they purport to portray,\" the evidentiary foundational requirement to be deemed admissible. (Tr. 25:20-26:3). This testimony fails to meet the requirement that a party must offer \"proof that the offered evidence is genuine and that there has been no tampering with it\" to establish authenticity. *People v. Price*, 29 [N.Y.3d](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_476) at 476 (internal citations omitted).\n\nNor may Plaintiff rely on an adverse inference to transform unreliable, inadmissible media into competent evidence. The adverse inference may be applied when a party fails to rebut probative evidence offered against it. Plaintiff's argument that evidence can be \"probative\" even if only minimally relevant, *People v. Primo*, 96 [N.Y.2d](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_355) 351, 355 (2001), misses the point. Plaintiff's evidence here is not probative both because it is irrelevant and because it is not competent evidence; Plaintiff concededly cannot prove that its evidence is what Plaintiff purports it to be. As the authority that Plaintiff relies on holds, a finding against a party cannot be based solely on an adverse inference; there must be affirmative evidence as well. *[DeBonis](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_376) v. [Corbisiero](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_376)*, 155 A.D.2d 299, 376 (1st Dep't 1989); *see also St. [Owner,](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7050_694) L.P. v. Novog*, 31 Misc. 3d 680, [694\\(Civ.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7050_694) Ct., NY Cty 2011) (landlord who had no evidence that tenant had been selling drugs in building could not rely solely on tenant's assertion of fifth amendment privilege as proof).\n\n#### **E. Plaintiff's Proffered Evidence Amounts To Circumstantial Puffery**\n\nEven if this Court were to find that the evidence offered by Plaintiff is probative, authenticated, not unfairly prejudicial, and admissible, any statement on social media or YouTube purported to be attributed to Mr. Kwok is mere puffery and not indicative of ownership or control of the *Lady May*. *See e.g.*, *Reich v. Mitrani [Plasterers](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_256) Co*., 268 A.D.2d 256, 256 (1st Dep't [2000\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_256) (finding representations were \"mere opinion or puffery and not actionable\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 09:48 AM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 45 of 46\n\nrepresentations of fact\"). It is common knowledge that not everything one sees on the internet is true. Users commonly use social media platforms to present an image of themselves that is glorified or even fake; social media imagery does not meet the standards of precision and comprehensive meaning required for evidence in this Court of law. This Court is not a teenager looking at social media posts and clicking on \"like\" based on the sensational or entertaining nature of the post. This proceeding was remanded for fact-finding based on competent admissible evidence that must meet the exacting standard of clear and convincing evidence on the issues of ownership and control. The social media postings offered by Plaintiff fail to meet the applicable legal standards and should therefore be excluded.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor all of these reasons, Mr. Kwok respectfully requests that this Court: (1) exclude Plaintiff's inadmissible evidence; (2) deny Plaintiff's motion for a final order of contempt; or (3) if this Court were to ultimately grant Plaintiff's Motion (which it should not), then limit the penalties or schedule a jury trial.\n\nDated: February 7, 2022\n\n#### **BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP**\n\nBy: */s/ John Siegal*\n\nJohn Siegal (jsiegal@bakerlaw.com) 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 (212) 589-4200\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*\n\n![](_page_45_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **Certificate of Word Count**\n\nAs required by Rule 17 of the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, I certify\n\nthat this affirmation was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this\n\naffirmation, exclusive of the caption, title and signature block, is 4,601 words.\n\nDated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\n## February 7, 2022 **BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP**\n\n*\\_/s/ \\_John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_*\n\nJohn Siegal 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 JSiegal@bakerlaw.com *Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan*","body_zh":"附件 A\n\nHarbach Declaration（哈巴赫声明）\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）1\n\n第 11 章案件编号\n\n22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\nMay 12, 2022\nDAVID HARBACH（大卫·哈巴赫）为支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）对 MEI GUO（郭美）保护令动议之答复而作的声明\n\n本人 David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫），声明如下：\n\n1. 本人是一名获准在 Texas（得克萨斯州）执业的律师，并且是 O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）的合伙人，该律所地址为 1625 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006，担任 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“PAX”）的律师。本人谨提交本声明，以支持 PAX 对 Mei Guo（郭美）保护令动议之答复。\n\n2. 为本着善意就 PAX 将如何进行 May 16, 2022 对 Mei Guo（郭美）及 Hong Kong International Investments (USA) LLC（香港国际投资（美国）有限责任公司，以下简称“HKI Delaware”）的证言录取达成协议，或至少缩小提交法院审理的争议范围，PAX 于 May 5, 2022 和 May 6, 2022 通过电话与 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）进行了协商。\n\n3. 随附的附件 1 是 Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松）、Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）、Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）、Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）、Aisling Murray（艾斯琳·默里）、David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）、Makenzie Russo（麦肯齐·鲁索）、Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼）、Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯）和 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）之间关于 In re Ho Wan Kwok（关于郭文贵案）, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.) 的 May 5, 2022 电子邮件往来之真实、准确副本。\n\n4. 随附的附件 2 是 Lee Vartan（李·瓦坦）致 Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（尊敬的巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）、New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院商事部）的 January 31, 2022 函件之真实、准确副本，该函件提交于 PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵案）, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1170。\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位数字为 9595。\n\n5. 随附的附件 3 是 John Siegal（约翰·西格尔）致 Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（尊敬的巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）、New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division（纽约州最高法院商事部）的 February 3, 2022 函件之真实、准确副本，该函件提交于 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1173。\n\n6. 随附的附件 4 是 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1174 中 February 4, 2022 裁定之真实、准确副本。\n\n7. 随附的附件 5 是提交于 PAX v. Kwok, No. 1:22-cv-02258-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 1 的 March 18, 2022 移送通知之真实、准确副本。\n\n8. 随附的附件 6 是 Kwok 于 February 7, 2022 提交于 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1178 的、反对 PAX 藐视法庭动议的听证后备忘录之真实、准确副本。\n\n日期：May 12, 2022　Henrico, Virginia\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ David Harbach\n\nDavid Harbach\ndharbach@omm.com\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n1625 Eye Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20006\n电话：(202) 383-5300\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 349-1 Filed 05/12/22 Entered 05/12/22 08:22:01 Page 4 of 46\n附件 1\nAronsson, Laura S.（劳拉·S·阿伦松）\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S.（劳拉·S·阿伦松）\n\n发送时间：Thursday, May 5, 2022 11:36 PM\n收件人：'Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）'; Friedman, Peter（彼得·弗里德曼）\n抄送：Murray, Aisling（艾斯琳·默里）；'Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）'; Harbach, David（大卫·哈巴赫）；Russo, Makenzie B.（麦肯齐·B·鲁索）；'Birney, Patrick M.（帕特里克·M·伯尼）'; 'Smith,\nAnnecca H.（安妮卡·H·史密斯）'; Sarnoff, Stuart M.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）\n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n你好，Aaron：\n\n感谢今天上午的通话。为记录我们的谈话内容，你指出，你预计将在明天或周一基本完成文件提交。我们这边两者均可。你解释说，虽然 HKI 不打算就涉及债务人、Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）或代表 Golden Spring（黄金之泉）的律所的通信主张特权，但 HKI 确实打算就其与 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）关于 HKI 聘请 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的通信主张特权。你指出，Aaron Mitchell 同时代表 HKI 和 Mei Guo 的个人身份。我们仅要求你提交一份简单的分类特权清单，其中包含关于被扣留文件和通信性质的信息，包括参与文件或通信的人员、适用日期、文件类型以及特权主张。\n\n我们还谈及为 May 16 对 Guo 女士的证言录取作出的安排。我们希望能够达成一套对你和你的客户均适用的共同程序。如所讨论，PAX 提出如下建议。\n\n• 我们将使用由你选择的一家业界成熟服务商。我们过去曾使用 Transperfect 和 Veritext，因此建议使用其中一家。再次说明，我很乐意向你提供这些服务商的联系信息，以便你了解该技术。\n\n• Mei 将始终以视频方式向提问律师及所有 O'Melveny 出席人员出庭。\n\n• 证言录取的其余参与者通过电话接入证言录取，因此他们无法观看视频。如所讨论，你必须与 US Trustee（美国受托人）和 Committee（委员会）沟通，以确认其同意该条件。\n\n• 证言录取将进行音频录制，但不进行视频录制。只要你确认 Guo 女士将在 May 25-26 就 PAX 驳回动议举行的听证会上现场出庭，我们将同意该条件。\n\n谢谢，\nLaura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson\nO: +1-212-728-5841\nM: laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S.\n发送时间：Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:44 PM\n收件人：'Aaron A. Romney' ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n2:15 可以。我届时给你打电话。\n\nLaura S. Aronsson\nO: +1-212-728-5841\nM: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney \n发送时间：Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:26 PM\n收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n\n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n2:15 对你方便吗？如果方便，请拨打我的直线电话 203-368-5473；如果不止我们两人，请发送拨入信息。谢谢。\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. \n发送时间：Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:43 PM\n收件人：Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n我今天下午时间灵活，因此请告知何时对你最方便，我会配合安排。\n\nLaura S. Aronsson\nO: +1-212-728-5841\nM: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney \n发送时间：Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:41 PM\n收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n我被一项无关事务占住了。今天下午什么时间对你方便？\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. \n发送时间：Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:34 PM\n收件人：Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n\n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nAaron：\n\n我今天仍可就证言录取的后勤安排进行讨论。我很乐意向你提供两家成熟的证言录取服务商 Veritext 和 Transperfect 的联系信息。之后你可选择其中一家适合你和你客户的服务商。但如不使用允许录制和共享证物的适当证言录取软件，我们无法进行证言录取。\n\n关于出席人员，我可以告诉你，就 PAX 而言，出席人员将包括本邮件链中人员的某些组合。我不知道委员会、债务人和美国受托人将由谁出席，或是否会有人出席。如果你没有这些实体的联系信息，我可以提供。\n\n谢谢，\nLaura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson\nO: +1-212-728-5841\nM: + laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney \n发送时间：Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:02 PM\n收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n我很乐意明天上午 11 点通话。然而，至少在我们知道该软件由谁所有之前，我们无法同意使用任何软件。例如，Zoom 是一个已知不安全的平台，我们不能同意使用它。\n\n我很乐意在上午 11 点通话，以讨论你在下文中的立场；或者，我可以在与 HKI/Mei 讨论后再回复，届时或许能够更明智地谈论这些问题。\n\n为明确起见，我们愿意于 5/16 上午 10 点安排 Mei（以个人身份及作为 HKI 代表）出庭，但如果无法就合理参数达成一致，我们将不得不寻求司法介入。在我们知道相关当事人是谁之前，我们也不可能获得各利益相关方对参数的同意。\n\n请告知你是否希望于上午 11 点通话，以期缩小这些争议，还是你希望等到我有机会与我们的客户讨论你的立场之后。\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. \n发送时间：Wednesday, May 4, 2022 9:45 PM\n收件人：Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. ; Birney, Patrick M. ; Smith, Annecca H. \n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nAaron：\n\n我明天可以讨论 Mei Guo 证言录取的后勤安排，上午 11 点可以。以下是我们对你问题的答复：\n\n• PAX 将从证言录取服务商处聘请一名中立口译员。\n\n• 我们不能同意在法庭记录员于私密虚拟房间核实证人身份后，证人关闭其摄像头。证人必须以视频方式接受询问。\n\n• 我们计划使用服务商的视频软件。我很乐意将你与该服务商的人员联系，以便你了解所使用的技术。但如不通过我们的服务商使用适当的证言录取软件，我们无法进行证言录取。\n\n• 最后，对于你保留在寻求法院批准前将笔录交付范围限制于较小受众的权利，我们没有异议，但显然你需要寻求参与证言录取的其他当事人的同意。\n\n谢谢，\nLaura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson\nO: +1-212-728-5841\nM: laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney \n发送时间：Wednesday, May 4, 2022 4:18 PM\n收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter \n抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. \n主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n是的，Mei 将担任 30(b)(6) 代表。\n\n您明天是否有时间讨论一些与证言录取有关的后勤问题？目前除下午 3-5pm 有会议外，我在 1030am 之后都有空。为做好准备，或者如果通过电子邮件处理所有事项同样方便：\n\n-我们将需要一名为 Mei（郭梅）提供服务的口译员。据我了解，Mei 可以自行安排一名具备司法程序口译认证的口译员，但我们希望确保贵方对此不持异议。\n\n-我们希望讨论确保 Mei 的安全/隐私的措施；鉴于除我们之外可能还会有其他当事方出席，情况较为复杂。就此，我们请求：(i) 远程方式应通过 MS Teams 或 WebEx 而非 Zoom 进行；(ii) 在书记员于私人虚拟房间内核实 Mei 的身份后，应允许 Mei 关闭其摄像头；以及 (iii) 应允许我们保留权利，在我们同意向更广泛的受众提供证言笔录之前，或者在就此问题寻求司法干预获得合理时间之前，将证言笔录的交付限制为仅供少数律师阅览。\n\n如果这些请求引起任何疑虑，希望我们能够找到一种解决这些疑虑的方式，同时不侵犯 Mei 对安全或隐私的关切。\n\n谢谢\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S.（劳拉·S.·阿伦森） 发送时间：Wednesday, May 4, 2022 2:48 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A.·罗姆尼） ; Friedman, Peter（彼得·弗里德曼） 抄送：Murray, Aisling（艾斯林·默里） ; Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思） ; Harbach, David（大卫·哈巴赫） ; Russo, Makenzie B.（马肯齐·B.·鲁索） 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok（关于郭文贵）, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\nAaron，\n\n我们已向 Mei Guo（郭梅）送达一份 30(b)(6) 证言录取通知和一份个人通知。请您确认，Mei Guo 是否为 HKI 的 30(b)(6) 代表，还是将对 HKI 另行进行一次 30(b)(6) 证言录取？\n\n谢谢，Laura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson 办公电话：+1-212-728-5841 手机：+ laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney 发送时间：Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:50 PM 收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter 抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n该日期对我们和 Mei 均可行。我将向债务人律师确认。\n\nMei 打算通过视频出席，因此我们对实际地点没有偏好。\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. 发送时间：Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:47 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney ; Friedman, Peter 抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n我们将发送一份修订后的证言录取通知，其中载明已确认的日期，以及东部时间 10am 开始在 7 Times Square 进行。请确认这是否可行。\n\n我们将告知 Committee（委员会）律师和 US Trustee（美国受托人）证言录取日期。\n\nLaura S. Aronsson 办公电话：+1-212-728-5841 手机：laronsson@omm.com 发件人：Aaron A. Romney 发送时间：Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:26 PM 收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter 抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n谢谢。您是否已确认还有谁可能出席，以及 16 日对他们是否可行？\n\n目前，我相信我应能如上周讨论的那样，在本周末前向您提供文件。\n\n我们本周晚些时候能否就保护 Mei 在证言录取期间的安全/隐私的程序进行沟通？\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. 发送时间：Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:19 PM 收件人：Friedman, Peter ; Aaron A. Romney 抄送：Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n确认日期为 May 16。谢谢，Aaron。\n\nLaura S. Aronsson 办公电话：+1-212-728-5841 手机：laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Friedman, Peter 发送时间：Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:18 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney 抄送：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n谢谢。Laura——请确认日期。\n\n202.383.5302（办公室）（手机）\n\nOn May 3, 2022, at 1:12 PM，Aaron A. Romney 写道：\n[外部邮件]\n\nPeter——您可以表示 HKI 同意 PAX 就延长答复 HKI 对抗程序起诉状期限所提出的动议。在法院就驳回动议作出裁定后 21 天即可。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交于 05/12/22 登记于 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 11 页，共\n我也计划向债务人律师给予同样的宽限。\n\n您是否已能确认 5/16 是否适合 Mei 的证言录取？\n\n谢谢\n\n发件人：Friedman, Peter 发送时间：Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:48 AM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney 抄送：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Stephen Kindseth ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n谢谢，我们会核实。\n\n202.383.5302（办公室）（手机）\n\nOn May 3, 2022, at 6:44 AM，Aaron A. Romney 写道：\n[外部邮件]\n\nPeter 等人：我在 230 有一个电话会议，之后我应当能够就对抗程序中的延期事宜回复您。\n\n另请问，5/16 对贵方而言是否适合进行 Mei/HKI 的证言录取？\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. 发送时间：Thursday, April 28, 2022 3:04 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen（桑德拉·温森） ; Stephen Kindseth 抄送：Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n我已发送电话拨入信息和 Outlook 邀请。为便于查阅，现再次附上：\n\n适合移动设备：\n\nLaura S. Aronsson 办公电话：+1-212-728-5841 手机：\n\nlaronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney 发送时间：Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:58 PM 收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth\n\n\n\n抄送：Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n[外部邮件]\n\n没问题。您希望打给我，还是有拨入方式？\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. 发送时间：Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:44 PM 收件人：Aaron A. Romney ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth 抄送：Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n谢谢，Aaron。我认为今天下午先进行初步沟通是合理的，随后我们可以就提交材料商定一个合理的时间表。\n\nLaura S. Aronsson 办公电话：+1-212-728-5841 手机：+ laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Aaron A. Romney 发送时间：Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:26 PM 收件人：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Murray, Aisling ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth 抄送：Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n[外部邮件]\n\n如所讨论，我很愿意在今天 430 加入电话会议，但在我有机会获取更多有关证人可出席情况的信息、对需回应文件的范围有更好的了解，以及获得一个现实的提交时间表之后再沟通，会更有成效。\n\n我将尽快获取该等信息，应当在今天或明天取得。同时，我们能否同意 Monday 不是提交材料的现实日期，并在我收到上述信息后讨论一个替代日期？\n\n如我所说，如果您有其他希望讨论的事项，我很愿意参加电话会议；但目前这可能并非对我们时间的有效利用。\n\n发件人：Aronsson, Laura S. 发送时间：Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:45 AM 收件人：Murray, Aisling ; Aaron A. Romney ; Sandra Wenthen ; Stephen Kindseth 抄送：Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n各位：\n\n我们今天可就向 Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所）送达的证据开示事项进行会谈协商。我在东部时间 2pm 至 6pm 之间均有空。\n\n请告知您何时有空。\n\n谢谢，Laura\n\nLaura S. Aronsson 办公电话：+1-212-728-5841 手机：laronsson@omm.com\n\n发件人：Murray, Aisling 发送时间：Monday, April 25, 2022 8:16 PM 收件人：aromney@zeislaw.com; swenthen@zeislaw.com; SKindseth@zeislaw.com 抄送：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：回复：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n律师：\n\n请见随附传票，要求提交文件并通知对 Mei Guo 进行证言录取。请确认您接受送达。\n\n此致，Aisling\n\nAisling Murray 办公电话：+1-212-728-5831 amurray@omm.com\n\n发件人：Murray, Aisling\n\n发送时间：Friday, April 22, 2022 5:20 PM 收件人：'aromney@zeislaw.com' ; 'swenthen@zeislaw.com' ; 'SKindseth@zeislaw.com' 抄送：Aronsson, Laura S. ; Friedman, Peter ; Harbach, David ; Russo, Makenzie B. 主题：In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn.)\n\n律师：\n\n请见随附文件提交请求和证言录取通知。\n\n此致，Aisling\nO'Melveny（奥麦律师事务所）\nAisling Murray\n\n律师助理 amurray@omm.com 办公电话：+1-212-728-5831\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦律师事务所） Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 网站　LinkedIn　Twitter\n\n*本邮件及任何附随文件含有来自 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 律师事务所的信息，该等信息可能具有保密性和/或受律师—客户特权保护。如您并非预定收件人，您不得阅读、复制、传播或使用该等信息。如您误收本传输内容，请立即通过回复电子邮件通知发件人，然后删除本邮件。*\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交于 05/12/22 登记于 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 15 页，共 46 页\n证物 2\nONE BOLAND DRIVE WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052\n\nLEE VARTAN（李·瓦尔坦） lvartan@csglaw.com (办公) 973.530.2107 (传真) 973.530.2307\n\nJanuary 31, 2022\n\n通过电子提交\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager, J.S.C.（尊敬的巴里·R.·奥斯特拉格法官） New York State Supreme Court New York County (Part 61)（纽约州最高法院纽约郡（第 61 庭）） 60 Center Street, Room 629 New York, NY 10007\n事由：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业） v. Kwok et al.（郭等人）, Index No. 652077/2017\n\n尊敬的奥斯特拉格法官：\n\n本所代理非当事人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）及其唯一成员 Mei Guo 女士。Guo 女士为被告 Kwok Ho Wan 之女。她计划在周三的证据听证会上作证。\n\n如Guo女士（郭美）将作证所述，她曾两次被Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，以下简称“CCP”）拘押：一次10天，第二次40天，期间她遭受了身体和心理上的折磨。尽管身在美国并在此寻求政治庇护，她仍未脱离CCP及其代理人的触及范围。自2017年5月抵达美国以来，Guo女士一直是社交媒体上一场有组织、有协调攻击的目标。翻译给我的社交媒体帖子，其概括内容为：“如果有人正在强奸郭美，请算我一个”；“我今天会去Miles Kwok（郭文贵）大楼附近等郭美——来加入我吧，我大约下午2点到那里”；以及“如果你今晚不强奸郭美，明天你就没有饭吃。”这些只是威胁对Guo女士实施骇人暴力的几条信息。\n\n由于这些持续的威胁，Guo女士在个人生活中极为谨慎。她几乎从不拍摄自己的照片，也没有任何社交媒体账号（尽管以她名义设立的虚假账号比比皆是）。我已与双方代理律师讨论了Guo女士对其安全的真实担忧。具体而言，我询问双方代理律师，是否同意\nOstrager法官，J.S.C. 2022年1月31日\n\n在Guo女士于周三的听证会上作证时，法院将虚拟法庭对除诉讼当事人及其代理律师以外的所有人关闭。双方当事人均表示同意。1\n\n有充足判例法允许法院在证人的安全将因其公开证言而受到危害时关闭法庭。即使在被告人享有第六修正案规定的公开审判权的刑事案件中，也是如此。参见，例如，People v. Hinton，31 N.Y.2d 71, 75–76, 286 N.E.2d 265, 267 (1972)（承认“审判法院关闭法庭的固有自由裁量权”，并指出需要关闭法庭的“异常情形”之一，是证人的公开证言会危及该证人的生命）；People v. Jones，96 N.Y.2d 213, 214–15, 750 N.E.2d 524, 525 (2001)（“当控方能够证明卧底警官的公开法庭证言将危及该警官安全这一压倒性利益时，审判法官可以在该证人作证期间关闭法庭。”）。\n\n基于上述理由，并经双方当事人同意，我们请求阁下在Guo女士作证期间，将虚拟法庭对除诉讼当事人及其代理律师以外的所有人关闭，并禁止任何诉讼当事人或律师在她作证期间拍照或录制屏幕视频。\n\n谨致敬意，\n\ns/ Lee Vartan\n\nLEE VARTAN\n\n1 尽管原告同意Guo女士在其作证期间关闭法庭的请求，原告对本函所述事实不持立场。\n\n案件22-50073 文件349-1 提交日期05/12/22 录入日期05/12/22 08:22:01 第18页，共46页\n附件3\nJohn Siegal直线电话：212.589.4245 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com\n\n2022年2月3日\n\n尊敬的Barry Ostrager法官\n纽约州最高法院法官\n纽约州纽约县最高法院\n60 Centre Street，629室\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n事由：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉Kwok等（案号652077/2017）\n\n尊敬的Ostrager法官：\n\n本人代表上述案件中的被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，以下简称“Kwok先生”）致函，请求法院在对动议作出裁定之前，维持其适用于昨日证据听证会及其笔录的密封命令（NYSCEF文件1171）。根据与Stuart Sarnoff律师的讨论，原告Pacific Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.不反对此项申请。.\n\n谨致敬意，\n\n/s/ John Siegal John Siegal\n\n案件22-50073 文件349-1 提交日期05/12/22 录入日期05/12/22 08:22:01 第20页，共46页\n附件4\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/04/2022 02:40 PM 案号652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号1174 NYSCEF接收日期：02/04/2022 案件22-50073 文件349-1 提交日期05/12/22 录入日期05/12/22 08:22:01 第21页，共46页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席：尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER 第IAS MOTION 61EFM庭\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），　案号　652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉　动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN\nGUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名　动议序号\nWAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名\nHAOYUN GUO，GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER：控股有限责任公司），及　命令 --\n其他\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER控股公司），\n被告。\n\n尊敬的BARRY R. OSTRAGER法官\n\n法院于2022年2月2日举行听证会，以确定数项附带金钱制裁的附条件藐视法庭命令是否应依照CPLR的规定确认为永久性藐视法庭命令。经提出动议的原告同意，法院在被告之女Guo女士作证期间拒绝媒体进入。法院采取此项非常措施，是因为Guo女士主张其此前曾遭CCP拘押和折磨，并担心在其于美国寻求庇护期间，如CCP得知其下落，其安全将受到威胁。如2022年2月2日庭审笔录所反映，在法院于听证会期间及结束时表示，Guo女士的下落未在藐视法庭审理中披露，因而法院将授权于2022年2月7日在笔录可供取得时提交经完全删节的听证会笔录，双方当事人均未提出异议。Kwok Ho Wan先生的代理律师再次请求对Guo女士的证言予以密封，但除该代理律师的请求外并无其他依据。\n\n日期：2022年2月4日\n\n案件22-50073 文件349-1 提交日期05/12/22 录入日期05/12/22 08:22:01 第22页，共46页\n附件5\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n诉\n\n原告，\n\n民事诉讼案号\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名KWOK HO，又名GWO WEN GUI，又名GUO WENGUI，又名GUO WEN-GUI，又名WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名MILES KWOK，又名HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER：控股有限责任公司），以及GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER控股公司），\n\n被告。\n移送通知\n致上述法院书记官\n\n特此通知，被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“Kwok先生”）通过其下列署名律师，于本日依据28 U.S.C. § 1452及Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027提交本移送通知，将原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（以下简称“原告”）在纽约州法院提起的上述案件，整体自纽约州纽约县最高法院（以下简称“纽约州法院”）移送至美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（以下简称“本法院”或“纽约地区法院”）。本法院依据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)及1334(e)对本事项具有初始管辖权。\n\n为支持本移送通知，Kwok先生陈述如下：\n\n1. 2017年4月18日，原告提起案号为652077/2017的民事诉讼（以下简称“本案”）。本案的诸多方面目前正在上诉中。目前，原告在本案中寻求执行一项命令，要求Kwok先生将据称由其拥有或控制的一艘船（“Lady May”）移入纽约州管辖范围，并以其他方式控制Kwok先生的据称资产，以满足一项判决书。参见Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.提出的关于作出命令确认自动中止不适用，或备选地，依据《破产法》第362(d)(2)条解除自动中止的动议，案件22-50073，案卷编号57，第¶ 12段（Bankr. D. Conn 2022）（指出原告在本案中寻求执行一项“要求将Lady May返还纽约”的命令）。\n\n2. 2022年2月15日（以下简称“申请日”），Kwok先生（“Kwok先生”）在康涅狄格州布里奇波特分院依据《破产法》第11章自愿提交破产救济申请（以下简称“康涅狄格州破产法院”），并获分配案件22-50073 (JAM)（以下简称“第11章案件”）。因此，28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)及Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(2)规定的移送期限尚未届满。\n\n3. 根据28 U.S.C. § 1452(a)，“[一]方当事人可以将民事诉讼中的任何请求或诉因……移送至该民事诉讼正在审理所在地区的地区法院，前提是该地区法院根据本编§ 1334对该请求或诉讼具有管辖权[。]”\n\n4. 根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)，本法院有管辖权审理所有“根据《美国法典》第11编产生、在第11编案件中产生或与第11编案件有关”的民事程序，即《破产法》。\n\n5. 自提交第11章案件之日起，康涅狄格州破产法院对“案件开始时债务人的所有财产，无论位于何处，以及破产财产的财产[，]”拥有“专属管辖权”。28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) 因此，本民事诉讼目前侵犯康涅狄格州破产法院确定何者是（或不是）破产财产并对该等财产行使管辖权的专属管辖权。参见In re AE Liquidation, Inc., 435 B.R. 894, 904 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)（确定财产是否属于破产财产属于破产法院的专属管辖权）；In re 245 Assocs., LLC, 188 B.R. 743, 749 fn. 6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995), corrected (Nov. 9, 1995)（“破产案件的开始使地区法院对债务人及破产财产的财产享有专属管辖权。”）。\n\n6. 因此，自提交第11章案件之日起，任何寻求确定何者是（或不是）Kwok先生或其破产财产的财产的诉讼均受11 U.S.C. § 541管辖，因而本案是在第11章案件中“产生”的诉讼。\n\n7. 本案亦与第11章案件“有关”，因为其与破产程序具有密切联系，并寻求确定有关Kwok先生对财产的所有权和/或控制权（或不存在该等所有权和/或控制权）的问题，并寻求控制据称由其拥有或控制的某些资产，1 以及其据称就其债权人采取的行动。\n\n8. 纽约州纽约县最高法院位于纽约南区，因此根据28 U.S.C. § 1452(a)，移送至纽约南区是适当的。移送后，Kwok先生预计将基于正在进行的第11章案件，申请将审理地点移转至康涅狄格地区并移交康涅狄格地区破产法院，而非寻求移交纽约南区的破产法院。\n\n1 纽约州法院已作出包含有关这些问题事实认定的命令，包括认定最相关的据称资产（Lady May游艇）处于Kwok先生的受益所有权之内。该认定正在上诉中，Kwok先生不放弃其对该事实认定或任何其他正在上诉中的事实认定提出异议的权利。\n\n9. 根据28 U.S.C. § 1446(d)及Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(c)，本移送通知副本将向纽约州纽约县最高法院书记官提交，本移送通知副本将送达原告代理律师。\n\n10. 根据Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(1)，Kwok先生同意破产法院就28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)所指的任何非核心请求作出终局命令。\n\n因此，Kwok先生将目前正在纽约州纽约县最高法院审理的整个诉讼移送至本法院。\n\n日期：2022年3月18日\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ William R. Baldiga\nWilliam R. Baldiga，Esq.\nBennett S. Silverberg，Esq.\nUriel Pinelo，Esq.\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n电话：(212) 209-4800\n传真：(212) 209-4801\n电子邮箱：wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com\n电子邮箱：bsilverberg@brownrudnick.com\n电子邮箱：upinelo@brownrudnick.com\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）债务人的拟任代理律师\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 27 页，共 46 页\n附件 6\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 28 页，共 46 页\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）等，\n\n被告。\n\n案号 652077/2017\n\nBarry Ostrager 法官\n\n第 61 审判庭\n\n动议序号 019\n被告郭文贵先生反对作出最终藐视法庭命令的听证后备忘录\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n\nJohn Siegal\nMelissa Carvalho\nTracy Cole\nErica Barrow\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n212-589-1400\njsiegal@bakerlaw.com\ntcole@bakerlaw.com\nmcarvalho@bakerlaw.com\nebarrow@bakerlaw.com\n\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan 的代理律师\n目录\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 29 页，共 46 页\n\nI. 记录表明郭先生从未拥有过 Lady May（“Lady May”号）\n\nII. 原告未能履行其举证责任，证明郭先生控制 Lady May 号\n\nA. 相关标准是控制权，而非受益权益；原告两者均未证明\n\nB. Mei Guo（郭美）关于其兄长而非其父亲赠与并资助 Lady May 号的证言未遭反驳\n\nC. 没有证据表明郭先生在被指称藐视法庭期间的任何时候控制过 Lady May 号的任何航行\n\n1. 听证会上提出的证据不足以证明控制权\n\n2. Miles Kwok 并非关于控制权的缺席证人，因此不得作出不利推定\n\nD. 有关郭先生在被指称藐视法庭期间之前使用并指挥 Lady May 号进行本地航行的证据，不足以证明其控制该资产\n\nIII. 本法院应排除原告提出的照片及社交媒体帖文\n\nA. 原告提出的全部证据均在相关时间范围之外，且不具有证明价值\n\nB. 原告的证据早于 March 15,\n\nC. 原告提出的证据不可采纳\n\nD. 原告提出的证据无法认证，原告自身证人亦已承认\n\nE. 原告提出的证据仅属间接的夸大宣传\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 30 页，共 46 页\n引用文献目录\n\n案例\n\nAV By Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace S.P.A,\n279 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)6\n\nBlanchard v. Lifegear,\n45 A.D.3d 1258 (2d Dep't 2007)12\n\nColfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.,\n62 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Cty 2018.)7\n\nCommonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Com.,\n21 N.Y.3d 55 (2013)6\n\nDeBonis v. Corbisiero,\n155 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 1989)\n\nDouglas v. Kingston Income Partners %2C87,\n2 A.D.3d 1079 (3d Dep't 2003)10\n\nGliklad v. Chernoi,\n129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)\n\nMatter of Joan Moran Tr.,\n166 A.D.3d 1176 (3d Dep't 2018)10\n\nLisogor v. Nature's Delight, Inc.,\n189 A.D.3d 1386 (2d Dep't 2020)6\n\nPenn-Dixie Indus., Inc. v. Castle,\n77 A.D.2d 844 (1st Dep't 1980)\n\nPeople v. Hemrie,\n252 A.D.2d 593 (2d Dep't 1998)10\n\nPeople v. Price,\n29 N.Y.3d 472 (2017)12, 13\n\nPeople v. Primo,\n96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001)13\n\nPeterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran,\n2013 WL 1155576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)7\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 31 页，共 46 页\n\nReich v. Mitrani Plasterers Co.,\n13　268 A.D.2d 256 (1st Dep't 2000)\n\nSt. Owner, L.P. v. Novog,\n13　31 Misc. 3d 680, 921 N.Y.S.2d 814 (Civ. Ct., NY Cty 2011)\n\n初步陈述\n\n在原告最初提出的藐视法庭动议中，本法院认定，原告未能基于此前向本法院提出的证据履行其证明藐视法庭的举证责任，并称：“我不认为[原告]已根据目前提交本法院的记录……履行其获得民事藐视法庭最终法院命令的举证责任，因为船舶的所有权存在争议。” [\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 898, Tr. 13: 2–8, July 21, 2021 )。上诉庭对此表示同意，并将该事项发回本法院，以进行“证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权及控制权的争议”。原告关于最终藐视法庭命令的动议裁定，上诉庭第一部门，November 4, 2021，[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. 953)。\n\n如下文所详述，于 February 2, 2022 举行的听证确立了以下事实：\n\n(1) 郭先生不拥有——且从未拥有——Lady May 号。\n\n(2) 自 Mei Guo 于 June 2017 逃离中国以来的所有期间，她一直拥有并控制以其名字命名的船舶 Lady May 号。\n\n(3) Qiang Guo（Mileson Guo，郭强），郭女士的兄长及郭先生的儿子，将该游艇赠与其妹妹，并通过其无争议由其拥有的家族办公室实体支付该游艇的维护费用。原告未曾试图证明，在儿子拥有众所周知的独立商业生活的情况下，Mileson Guo 的行为应归属于父亲。因此，本法院没有任何依据将该等实体视为另一个自我，并实际上揭开公司面纱。\n\n(4) 没有证据表明，自本法院首次提及 Lady May 号的限制令或随后指示将该船返回纽约的附条件藐视法庭命令之前以来，被告郭先生曾登上 Lady May 号，或曾在任何时候与其所在地点有关。\n\n(5) 原告试图提交的积极证据——其中大部分为不可采纳、未经认证的传闻证据——仅确立了一项始终无争议的事实：在本法院作出影响 Lady May 号的命令之前数年期间，郭先生经 Mei Guo 女士特别授权，经常作为宾客登上该船，但无权在其使用和享受该船期间，令该船除进行本地航行外迁往其他地点。\n\n上述任何内容均未达到原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明郭先生拥有并控制 Lady May 号的举证责任；在此之前，不存在作出最终藐视法庭命令的依据。因此，如下文及听证记录所详述，原告关于最终藐视法庭命令的动议必须予以驳回。1\n\n拟议事实认定\n\n案卷证据确立以下事实：\n\n1. 于 February 26, 2015，Lady May 号由 Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（“HKI HK”）购得，其唯一成员为 Qu Guojiao（屈国娇）女士。\n\n[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶8; Plaintiff's Ex. 16)。\n\n2. Qu 女士是郭女士兄长的商业伙伴。[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162)，且郭女士作证称，其兄长为她购买了 Lady May 号。(H'rg Tr. 44: 4-17, Feb. 2, 2021 [Hereinafter \"Tr.\"])。\n\n3. 案卷中没有证据表明郭先生资助购买 Lady May 号，且 Mei Guo 作证称其并未资助。(Id.)。\n\n4. 于 June 27, 2017，在郭女士逃离中国后，Qu 女士将 HKI HK 的股份及由此产生的 Lady May 号所有权转让给郭女士。[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶10;\n\n1. 如本法院不同意并倾向于作出最终藐视法庭命令，郭先生主张，附条件藐视法庭命令所规定的藐视法庭处罚构成非法且违宪的过度处罚，等同于刑事命令，超出本法院权限，且与本州判例法中的先例不成比例。（见郭先生反对最终藐视法庭命令的听证前备忘录，第 III 点，[NYSCEF] Doc. 1166）。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 34 页，共 46 页\n\n原告证据 16)。\n\n5. 郭先生在 Lady May 号上的画面被录像，该视频于 2019 年上传至 YouTube。\n\n5. 于 April 17, 2020，郭女士将 Lady May 号的所有权从 HKI HK 转让给 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. [1162] at ¶11; Plaintiff's 16)。郭女士同样是 HK USA 的唯一所有人。(JX- 3)。\n\n6. 维护及运营该船的费用一直通过该家族的家族办公室 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）支付。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶13)。郭女士作证称，Golden Spring 由其兄长 Mileson Guo 所有。(Tr. 56:13- 15.)。该证言未遭反驳。郭女士进一步作证称，她了解 Lady May 号维护费用的付款系按其兄长指示作出，作为其赠与该船的一部分。(Tr. 56:16-19.)。\n\n7. 郭先生于 2020 年夏季作为郭女士的宾客并经其许可在 Lady May 号上。\n\n7. Lady May 号于 2020 年 10 月初从纽约启航。原告称日期为 October 9, 2020，但船长记得是 October 2020 的第一周。[NYSCEF] Doc. [1158] at ¶16。无论如何，无争议的是，该船在 October 15, 2020 作出限制“郭先生及／或……游艇‘Lady May’号……的登记所有人出售、让与、转让或干扰该等资产，或促成上述行为”的命令之前离开纽约。\n\n[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 630; [NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶14; [NYSCEF] Doc. 1158 at ¶16.)。\n\n8. Lady May 号的惯常做法是在夏季结束时离开纽约，前往较温暖水域。[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1158 at ¶14.)。\n\n9. 听证会上没有提出任何证据表明郭先生参与指示 Lady May 号于 October 2020 离开纽约。(Tr. 53:14- 55:10.)。郭女士通过 Golden Spring 指示该船船长将 Lady May 号迁往冬季停泊地点。(NYSCF Doc. 1162 at 14.)。\n\n10. Lady May 号因维修而在干船坞停用约五个月，自约 January 2021 起至 May 2021 止。(Tr. 91: 18-92:9)。\n\n11. 本法院于 March 15, 2021 作出附条件藐视法庭命令（“Conditional Contempt Order”），特别命令郭先生将 Lady May 号返回纽约。[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. 728)。\n\n12. 郭女士于 2021 年初首次通过其律师得知有关 Lady May 号的命令。[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶20; Tr.59: 5-9; 63: 3-8)。\n\n13. 在该船维修完成后，郭女士与律师商议，并指示 Lady May 号按原计划驶往欧洲。[ \\(NYSCEF] Doc. [1162] at ¶16)。\n\n14. 郭女士关于其作出不将 Lady May 号返回纽约的决定、且郭先生未参与该决定的证言（Id. at ¶20），未遭反驳。\n\n15. 原告未提出任何有资格的证据证明郭先生拥有或控制 Lady May 号，以致其能够遵守本法院的附条件藐视法庭命令。\n\n论证\n\nI. 记录表明郭先生从未拥有过 Lady May 号\n\n原告在其书面文件中承认，Kwok 先生并不拥有——且从未拥有——Lady May 号游艇。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1172)。在听证会上提出的证据证实，在与遵守本院有条件藐视法庭命令相关的所有期间内，Lady May 号游艇一直\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 36 页，共 46 页\n\n由特殊目的实体 HKI US（HKI 美国）所有；该实体是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，由 Kwok 先生的成年女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅）百分之百拥有及控制。郭梅本人系来自中华人民共和国、正在美国寻求政治庇护的移民。\n\nLady May 号游艇于 2015 年购入时，远早于本案提起或 Lady May 号游艇成为争议事项之前，拥有实施该项购买的 HKI HK（HKI 香港）股份的个人并非 Kwok 先生，而是郭梅之兄的一名商业伙伴。如以下所述，尽管原告一再声称 Kwok 先生购买了 Lady May 号游艇，但其未能提出任何支持该陈述的合格证据。即使 Kwok 先生确曾于 2015 年购买 Lady May 号游艇，该游艇亦于 2017 年年中转让给并由其成年女儿拥有。因此，可以确定且无可争议的是，Kwok 先生并不拥有 Lady May 号游艇。\n\nII. 原告未能履行其证明 Kwok 先生控制 Lady May 号游艇的举证责任\n\nA. 相关标准是控制，而非受益权益；原告两者均未证明\n\n原告继续错误地依据不适用的 CPLR 5225(b) 交付标准主张本案。正如上诉分院已经裁定，作出最终藐视法庭命令所要求的正确标准是对 Lady May 号游艇的“控制”。原告未能提出足以清楚且令人信服地证明 Kwok 先生控制 Lady May 号游艇所需的合格证据。原告本身亦承认，且其必须承认，第一司法部门指示，关于 Kwok 先生遵守该命令能力的完整积极抗辩，必须基于 Kwok 先生是否拥有或控制 Lady May 号游艇作出事实认定。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1172；[NYSCEF] Doc. 953。）\n\n然而，原告没有设法履行其举证责任，反而试图转移该责任。原告在听证会上的论点是，Kwok 先生对 Lady May 号游艇享有受益权益，因此原告有权取得交付，故原告受到损害；原告据此主张，其已经履行了藐视法庭的表面证明责任。但是，虽然 Kwok 先生并不承认原告已完成其表面证明，第一司法部门的发回重审指令指出，表面证明要件——包括损害——已经得到裁决，而发回重审的具体目的在于处理 Kwok 先生的积极抗辩。[NYSCEF] Doc. 953。）\n\n当动议方已满足藐视法庭的表面证明要件时，被指控藐视法庭者可继而提出其无法遵守命令作为抗辩。Lisogor v. Nature's Delight, Inc., 189 A.D.3d 1386, 1387–88 (2d Dep't 2020)。此时，举证责任转回动议方，由其证明被指控藐视法庭者具有遵守命令的能力。Penn-Dixie Indus., Inc. v. Castle, 77 A.D.2d 844 (1st Dep't 1980)；另见 AV By Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace S.P.A, 279 F. Supp. 2d 341, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)（藐视法庭并非严格责任）。原告继续关注其对藐视法庭所负的初始举证责任，因为其未能满足现时须履行的举证责任；即反驳 Kwok 先生提出的、其无法遵守有条件藐视法庭命令的积极抗辩。\n\n上诉法院已清楚且明确地裁定，适用于交付问题的受益权益标准，与控制的相关标准相互独立且截然不同。见 Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Com., 21 N.Y.3d 55, 63 (2013)（认定交付法条不涵盖控制问题）。此外，即使交付法条确实与藐视法庭中控制的检验标准有关，该法条亦明确要求判决债权人同时具有：(1) 对该资产的占有或保管；以及 (2) 受益权益。2 原告所援引的二手资料同样指出：“然而，至关重要的是，判决债务人必须对……财产享有权益，而非仅有占有或保管权益。”\n\n2 CPLR 5225(a) 规定：“判决债务人占有的财产。经判决债权人动议，……如证明判决债务人占有或保管其享有权益的金钱或其他动产，法院应命令判决债务人……将任何其他动产，或其中足以清偿判决的相应价值部分，交付给指定的治安官。”（着重号为原文所加。）\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 38 页，共 46 页\n\nWeinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。原告至多证明 Kwok 先生可以使用 Lady May 号游艇（尽管经郭梅许可）。即使“受益权益”是正确的法律标准（而事实并非如此），这也不能证明交付法条为证明受益权益所要求的“该财产属于 [Kwok 先生]”。同上。\n\n原告所援引的交付案件并不适用，因为该等案件中的判决债务人在诉讼本身就其对资产的所有权作出了前后不一致的法律陈述。见 Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 62 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., NY Cty 2018)；Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)；Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)。Kwok 先生从未在本诉讼中宣誓陈述其拥有或控制 Lady May 号游艇。事实上，本院是在 Kwok 先生提出异议、即有关救济应限于由其个人持有的资产之后，作出限制 Lady May 号游艇的命令。[NYSCEF] Doc. 599)。\n\n为获得交付法条项下的救济，关键在于“判决债务人的权益必须在提出动议时存在”。同上。如前所述，案卷中完全没有任何证据表明 Kwok 先生现时或在作出有条件藐视法庭命令之时或之后，对 Lady May 号游艇具有保管和控制权。\n\nB. Mei Guo 女士关于其兄长而非其父亲赠与并资助 Lady May 号游艇的证言未被反驳\n\n未被反驳的证据表明，Lady May 号游艇由 HKI HK 于 February 26, 2015 购买，当时 HKI HK 的唯一成员是 Qu Guojiao 女士。[NYSCEF] Doc. [1162] at ¶8；原告证物 16）。郭梅作证称，Qu 女士是其兄长以及其叔父和堂表兄弟姐妹所信赖的商业伙伴。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1162）。郭梅进一步澄清\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1178 NYSCEF 收件日期：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第 39 页，共 46 页\n\n，其兄长购买了 Lady May 号游艇，而其父亲 Kwok 先生并未购买 Lady May 号游艇。（庭审记录 44:4-17：“问：你父亲提供了钱，不是吗？答：不是我父亲。”）随后，于 June 27, 2017，在郭梅已不在中华人民共和国之后，Qu 女士将 HKI HK 的股份及由此产生的 Lady May 号游艇所有权转让给郭梅。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶10；原告证物 16）。事实上，Lady May 号游艇以郭梅命名，因为该游艇始终意图归她所有。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶9）。于 April 17, 2020，郭梅将 Lady May 号游艇的所有权从 HKI HK 转让给 HK USA（HKI 美国）。（NYSCEF [Doc.] [1162] at ¶11；原告证物 16）。郭梅同样是 HK USA 的唯一所有人。（JX-3）。\n\n除单纯指控外，原告未提出任何证据表明 Kwok 先生支付了 Lady May 号游艇的维护和运营费用。Lady May 号游艇的维护和运营由 Golden Spring（金泉）支付，近期则由 Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）支付。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶12)。两实体均由郭梅的兄长 Mileson Guo（郭迈尔森）拥有。（庭审记录 56:13-15；[NYSCEF] Doc. 936 at ¶6, 14）郭梅的兄长将 Lady May 号游艇赠与郭梅，而该赠与的一部分包括其同意承担维护和运营该船舶的费用。（庭审记录 56:16-19。）原告未引出任何证言，亦未提出任何将 Kwok 先生与 Lady May 号游艇财务维护联系起来的可采证据。原告甚至未尝试证明 Mileson Guo 的任何行为应归属于其父亲 Kwok 先生。在法庭上，这些并非可以简单主张或假定的事项。在没有足以支持揭开公司面纱的证据时，公司形式亦不得被简单忽视；而本案案卷中完全缺乏该等证据。\n\nC. 没有证据表明 Kwok 先生在被指控藐视法庭期间的任何时候控制过 Lady May 号游艇的任何航行\n\n1. 听证会上提出的证据不足以证明控制\n\n本院面前的案卷中完全没有任何合格证据表明，Kwok 先生在 March 15, 2021 作出命令 Lady May 号游艇返回纽约的有条件藐视法庭命令之时或之后，甚至在 October 15, 2020 首次针对 Kwok 先生作出提及 Lady May 号游艇的限制命令之时，即控制了 Lady May 号游艇。相反，郭梅作证称，Lady May 号游艇前往何处以及何时航行由她决定。[NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶18）。郭梅明确说明，其父亲 Kwok 先生并不控制 Lady May 号游艇的航行。（同上。）Kwok 先生不否认在相关命令作出之前，他曾是 Lady May 号游艇上的宾客。（例如，见庭审记录 86:13-25（Heaslop 船长在交叉询问中澄清，Kwok 先生在 October 2020 或该航季余下期间并非 Lady May 号游艇上的宾客）。任何关于 Kwok 先生与 Lady May 号游艇关联的不可采证据（如下文所述）均发表于该资产成为本案争议事项前数年或数月，因此对于 Kwok 先生是否在被指控藐视法庭期间控制 Lady May 号游艇不具有证明价值。\n\n证据表明，Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）于2020年10月上旬自纽约启航，早于本案中首次提及Lady May的2020年10月15日限制令作出之时。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶14; [NYSCEF] Doc. 1158 at ¶16.; see generally Tr. 85: 22- 86:12)。此后，Lady May自约2021年1月至2021年5月期间在干船坞停航维修约五个月。(Tr. 91:18 - 92:9.) 在此期间，“即使有人想要移动该船，也无人能够移动”(Tr. 92: 4-5)，本院于2021年3月15日作出附条件藐视法庭命令，命令Kwok先生将Lady May返还纽约。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 728)。Guo女士于2021年初通过其律师获悉与Lady May有关的命令。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶20; Tr.59: 5-9; 63: 3-8)。船舶维修完成后，Guo女士与律师商议，并指示Lady May驶往欧洲，正如原先计划。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1162 at ¶16)。原告未提出任何证据反驳Guo女士的证词，即不将Lady May返还纽约完全是由其本人作出的决定。就本动议而言，案卷中没有任何证据证明Kwok先生参与了该决定。(Id. at ¶20)。\n\n2. Miles Kwok（郭文贵）并非就控制权问题的缺席证人，故不得作出不利推定\n\nKwok先生援引其免于自证其罪的宪法权利，并不免除原告以清楚且令人信服的证据证明Kwok先生控制Lady May、从而支持作出藐视法庭认定的举证责任。Matter of Joan Moran Tr., 166 A.D.3d 1176, 1179 (3d Dep't 2018). 原告空泛的“推测性主张”并未反驳Kwok先生的积极抗辩。Id. Guo女士就其对Lady May的专属控制能力提供了证言证据。原告无权获得缺席证人指示，因为其“未能证明该证人[Kwok先生]能够就本案中的重要争点作出任何非重复性信息的证言。”Douglas v. Kingston Income Partners, 2 A.D.3d 1079, 1082 (3d Dep't 2003); see People v. Hemrie, 252 A.D.2d 593, 593 (2d Dep't 1998)\n\n（驳回缺席证人指示，理由是动议方未能履行其举证责任）。\n\nD. 关于Kwok先生在被指控藐视法庭期间之前使用及指挥Lady May当地移动的证据，不足以证明其控制该资产\n\n原告在其本诉举证中试图证明一个Kwok先生并不争议、且甚至曾提出纳入约定的事实；即，在本案就Lady May作出命令之前，Kwok先生曾多次作为Lady May上的宾客。Heaslop船长（希斯洛普）确认，Kwok先生作为Lady May上的宾客期间，其仅如同“船上任何宾客一样”指挥该船的当地移动。[原文如此](Tr. 96: 7-8; Tr. 95:12-96:8)。Heaslop船长证称，Kwok先生无权且事实上也未曾指挥Lady May驶离该船当时已经所在的特定区域。(Tr. 95: 12-24.; [NYSCEF] Doc 1162 at ¶¶ 16, 20)。同样，Guo女士证称，Kwok先生须经Guo女士许可方可登上Lady May，且Kwok先生会预先向Guo女士告知拟议的航行行程。(Tr. 52:4-11)。例如，Guo女士证称，假设行程计划从曼哈顿前往长岛，则Kwok先生可以自由地在途中停靠；但如欲前往佛罗里达州棕榈滩，则须取得Guo女士的许可。(Tr. 53: 7-13)。关于将Lady May迁移至其所在地以外的任何指示，均来自HK USA（HK USA公司）的一名代表。[\\(NYSCEF] Doc. 1158 at ¶21.) Kwok先生从未未经Guo女士许可而将Lady May驶离。(Tr. 53: 14-16.)\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号 1178 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文档 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第42页，共46页\n\nIII. 本院应排除原告提交的照片及社交媒体帖文\n\nA. 原告提交的全部证据均不在相关时间范围内，且不具有证明价值\n\n对“游艇的所有权或控制权”的认定，必须以原告指称Kwok先生“违反法院合法、明确命令”之时为准，即本院作出附条件藐视法庭命令的2021年3月15日或之后。\n\nB. 原告的证据早于2021年3月15日\n\n为履行其以清楚且令人信服的证据证明Kwok先生据称拥有或控制该游艇的举证责任，原告提交了未经认证的YouTube视频、一则新闻报道及相关的无关视频（其中载有关于Kwok先生的无关陈述），以及未经认证的Twitter和Instagram帖文。作为门槛问题，每项证据均不具有证明价值，因而与目前的所有权或控制权调查无关。\n\n原告提交的YouTube视频日期分别为2017年10月14日和2019年7月28日。(Plaintiff's Ex. 2, 20)。原告还提交了Vice News Video的片段，日期为2017年11月，再次早于相关期间。(Plaintiff's Ex. 19)。同样，原告提交的推文和Instagram帖文也远早于相关时间范围。推文日期分别为2017年5月10日和2017年8月27日，Instagram帖文日期为\n\n2018年8月21日。(Plaintiff's Ex. 1, 25)。原告提交的证据至多声称表明Kwok先生可能在相关时间范围之前曾在该游艇上，这进一步降低了该等看来提及“他的”船只的不可靠、未经认证证据可能具有的任何证明价值。\n\nC. 原告提交的证据不可采纳\n\n原告旨在证明Lady May所有权或控制权的证据不仅不具有证明价值，因而不具相关性，而且由于缺乏认证及其具有高度不公平的偏见性而不可采纳。People v. Price, 29 N.Y.3d 472, 476 (2017)。即使证据已经认证，其任何微小的证明价值亦可能被该证据的偏见效果所抵销。See, e.g., Blanchard v. Lifegear, 45 A.D.3d 1258, 1260 (2d Dep't 2007)。\n\nD. 如原告自身证人所承认，原告提交的证据无法获得认证\n\n原告自身的证人Nat Francis（内特·弗朗西斯）证称，他不知道何人曾经或目前控制据称与Guo Wei（郭薇）有关联的Instagram账户。(Tr. 19:15-17)。同样，原告证人无法就何人可访问该账户作证(Tr. 19:18-19)、任何Instagram帖文实际发布的时间(Tr. 20:12-13)、发布者为何人(Tr. 20:14-15)，或其发布时的情形(Tr. 20:16-18)。原告证人还承认，涉案YouTube视频，即原告证据2，无法获得认证。(Tr.25: 9-12.) Francis先生无法确认该视频录制的时间或地点、录制情形、创作者、制作目的，或与附于该账户名称的任何其他信息有关的事项。(Tr. 21:18-22:8)。原告证人亦无法就推文的真实性作证，承认其不知道何人发布该等推文、是否存在未经授权使用账户的情形，且其未将该账户追溯至Kwok先生持有的设备。(Tr. 30:2-11)。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/07/2022 09:48 AM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文档编号 1178 NYSCEF 收悉：02/07/2022 案件 22-50073 文档 349-1 提交日期 05/12/22 登记日期 05/12/22 08:22:01 第44页，共46页\n\nFrancis先生承认，就“任何证物”而言，他只能就其发现该等证物的地点作证，而不能证明其“真实、准确，并且呈现其所声称呈现的内容”；后者是被认定为可采纳证据所需的证据基础要求。(Tr. 25:20-26:3)。该证词未满足为确立真实性而必须提出“所提交证据真实且未遭篡改的证明”这一要求。People v. Price, 29 N.Y.3d at 476 (internal citations omitted)。\n\n原告亦不得依赖不利推定，将不可靠、不可采纳的媒体材料转化为适格证据。当一方未能反驳针对其提出的具有证明价值的证据时，可以适用不利推定。原告主张即使证据仅具最低限度的相关性，也可以具有“证明价值”，People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 355 (2001)，未能抓住要点。原告在此提交的证据不具有证明价值，既因其不相关，也因其并非适格证据；原告承认其无法证明其证据确如原告所声称。正如原告所援引的判例所认定，对一方作出不利认定不得仅基于不利推定；还必须存在积极证据。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 A.D.2d 299, 376 (1st Dep't 1989); see also St. Owner, L.P. v. Novog, 31 Misc. 3d 680, 694 (Civ. Ct., NY Cty 2011)（没有任何证据证明承租人在楼宇内贩卖毒品的房东，不得仅依赖承租人援引第五修正案特权的主张作为证明）。\n\nE. 原告提交的证据构成间接夸大宣传\n\n即使本院认定原告提交的证据具有证明价值、已经认证、不构成不公平偏见且可采纳，任何据称归属于Kwok先生的社交媒体或YouTube陈述亦仅属夸大宣传，并不表明其拥有或控制Lady May。See e.g., Reich v. Mitrani Plasterers Co., 268 A.D.2d 256, 256 (1st Dep't 2000)（认定相关陈述“仅为意见或夸大宣传，而非可诉的事实陈述”）。众所周知，并非在互联网上看到的一切都是真实的。用户通常利用社交媒体平台呈现其被美化甚至虚假的形象；社交媒体图像不符合本法庭证据所要求的精确性及完整含义标准。本院并非基于帖文的耸动性或娱乐性浏览社交媒体帖文并点击“喜欢”的青少年。本程序被发回以根据适格、可采纳的证据进行事实认定，而该等证据在所有权及控制权问题上必须符合清楚且令人信服证据的严格标准。原告提交的社交媒体帖文未能符合适用的法律标准，故应予排除。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述全部理由，Kwok先生谨请求本院：(1) 排除原告不可采纳的证据；(2) 驳回原告要求作出最终藐视法庭命令的动议；或(3) 如本院最终准许原告的动议（其不应准许），则限制处罚或安排陪审团审判。\n\n日期：February 7, 2022\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ John Siegal\n\nJohn Siegal（约翰·西格尔，jsiegal@bakerlaw.com） 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 (212) 589-4200\n\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）的代理律师\n字数证明\n\n根据 Supreme Court（最高法院）Commercial Division（商事庭）规则第17条的要求，本人证明\n\n本确认书使用 Microsoft Word 编制，本确认书中的总字数，\n\n不包括抬头、标题和签名栏，为 4,601 字。\n\n日期：New York, New York 谨此提交，\nFebruary 7, 2022 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP\n\n\\_/s/ \\_John Siegal\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nJohn Siegal（约翰·西格尔） 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 JSiegal@bakerlaw.com 被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）的代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Murray","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":599,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":898,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":936,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":953,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1158,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1162,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1166,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1170,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1171,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1172,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1173,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1174,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1178,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":11359,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-12 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-12","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:35:57"}