{"id":"court_ctb_404_18","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":18,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 18 October 15, 2020 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 647","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 18**\n\nOctober 15, 2020 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 647\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of 29\n\n1 tav SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: TRIAL TERM PART 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, - against - KWOK 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 CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Index No. 652077/2017 October 15, 2020 Teams Proceeding B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Justice A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys at Law 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys at Law 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. (Appearances continued on next page.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 3 of\n\n| 1 | A P P E A R A N C E S:
(Continuing) |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC
Attorneys at Law |\n| 3 | 162 East 64th Street
New York, New York 10065 |\n| 4 | BY:
AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ. |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR |\n| 9 | Official Court Reporter |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | tav |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 4 of 29\n\n| | 3
Proceedings |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 2 | There are a few housekeeping matters that I want |\n| 3 | to address before we discuss the application for a temporary |\n| 4 | restraining order. |\n| 5 | If you are not speaking, please mute your |\n| 6 | microphone so we don't get static.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | So, as I started to say, there are a few |\n| 8 | housekeeping matters I want to resolve before we address the |\n| 9 | application for a temporary restraining order.
We are |\n| 10 | technically scheduled to discuss plaintiff's application for |\n| 11 | attorney's fees, and there's in the motion part a motion by |\n| 12 | the defendant to add an affirmative defense of failure to |\n| 13 | mitigate damages.
With respect to the latter issue, |\n| 14 | Mr. Moss, I would like you to stipulate that at trial we |\n| 15 | will conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at the |\n| 16 | trial, and because I addressed the mitigation of damage |\n| 17 | issue in my September 15th decision and order, and because |\n| 18 | that issue has always been at least peripherally in the |\n| 19 | case, I would like you to stipulate that that will be one of |\n| 20 | the issues that will be addressed at the plenary trial, and |\n| 21 | avoid the necessity of motion practice, and so I would like |\n| 22 | to mark that motion as withdrawn without prejudice on |\n| 23 | consent.
Is that acceptable to you? |\n| 24 | MR. MOSS:
Your Honor, I just -- I just would like |\n\n25\n\n# tav\n\nto understand, my understanding was that the Court was going\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n21\n\n# Proceedings\n\n4\n\nto make a determination on damages. You had ordered us to put our calculation in. I thought the mitigation issue had already been decided by the Court on summary judgment, and that there was not going to be a trial on damages, that this was going to be done so that you could get the calculation so that the Clerk of Court could issue the judgment. That's what was in the order, and so I did not understand that there was going to be a trial, and we do not believe that there are any issues of fact for a trial.\n\nTHE COURT: My understanding is that I granted you summary judgment on liability which is why you're privileged to make the 5229 application that you're making today, and we deferred the calculation of damages because there are issues of fact relating to the quantum of damages. I found that your proof was insufficient for me to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages. So that's something that's going to be addressed at the hearing which I believe we scheduled for January. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nMR. MOSS: So my understanding, your Honor, was that the January trial was on the veil piercing issues -- 19 20\n\nTHE COURT: It is, it is.\n\nMR. MOSS: -- and that the only defense on damages that Mr. Kwok has proffered, your Honor, is mitigation. Mitigation was something that the Court has already rejected as a matter of Hong Kong law on summary judgment. 22 23 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n# Proceedings\n\n5\n\nTHE COURT: I specifically referenced it in the September 15th decision. Now I referenced it in a manner suggesting that I thought it was a dubious claim, and I still think it's a dubious claim because I don't think it was incumbent upon your client post facto to purchase an apartment from the Communist Chinese Party at what would appear to be an above-market price, and that's what I said in my September 15, 2020, decision.\n\nSo there's a motion by the defendant to amend his answer to assert a defense of failure to mitigate damages. Whenever we get around to assessing damages, I'm going to hear the defendant on the mitigation issue. Now if you want him to make a motion, and you want me to decide the motion, there is nothing I can do other than allow him to make the motion, have you respond to the motion, and then decide the motion. And since any hearing that we have is one at which I'm going to conform the pleadings to the proof that's adduced at trial, I thought as a housekeeping matter we'd have the defendant withdraw that motion without prejudice and for you to be content with that state of play. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nMR. MOSS: Okay, that's fine. If your Honor is going to grant the motion anyway on the motion for leave to amend, we can stipulate to that. 21 22 23\n\nWe have a pending motion for damages, and they -- THE COURT: Yes. 24 25\n\n# tav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of 29\n\n6 Proceedings MR. MOSS: So how would your Honor like to resolve the damages issue? THE COURT: We are going to have a hearing on the damages issue and that hearing is not today. MR. MOSS: Yes. THE COURT: So at that hearing whatever the defendant wants to proffer in connection with this mitigation of damage theory which I strongly indicated in my September 15, 2020, decision and order is quite dubious, they will be permitted to adduce whatever evidence they have, if any, on that theory in connection with the damages hearing. Let me ask counsel for the defendant if we can mark the motion to amend the answer as withdrawn without prejudice in light of what is now on the transcript of proceedings of today? MR. SIEGAL: Yes, John Siegal, Baker Hostetler, for defendant Kwok. We certainly consent to that result, and will serve our Second Amended Answer following today and file it so it's of record and that's the basis on which we will proceed to the hearing. THE COURT: Fair enough. It's really not necessary for you to file a Second Amended Complaint, but I think it's very clear on the transcript of the proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n# Proceedings\n\n7\n\nof today that we are going to have a damages hearing, and at the damages hearing you will be able to adduce whatever testimony you wish or whatever documents you wish to introduce on the mitigation portion claim, and it's really just burdensome to the Court and burdensome to the plaintiff for you to file a Second Amended Complaint and for the plaintiff to have to respond to it.\n\nSo the record speaks for itself. I would just like a little cooperation from you and Mr. Moss here.\n\nMR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. We appreciate the Court allowing us the opportunity to adduce evidence on that issue, and we will be ready at the hearing, and we have had good cooperation with Mr. Moss since we have appeared in the case, and I'm sure we will continue to, and we look forward to that opportunity to try to convince your Honor, who we understand it's dubious, that on full examination there's a mitigation defense here that has a very substantial impact on the damages, so thank you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nWe will not have any Second Amended Complaint, and we are not going to have any motions, correct?\n\nMR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor, understood.\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nNow the second housekeeping matter that we have is attorney's fees. Since there are going to be further 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of 29\n\n8 Proceedings proceedings, it doesn't make any sense to address attorney's fees today because there will be more attorney's fees in connection with the two hearings that we are going to have, one on damages and the other that's been previously scheduled for January 15th. So with your consent, Mr. Moss, I would like to adjourn your application for attorney's fees to a more appropriate time. MR. MOSS: That's fine. That's fine, your Honor. I guess, you know, the attorney's fees are contract damages just like the principal and interest, and I would propose that we submit our evidence at the hearing or concurrently with the hearing. I guess we really wouldn't have any witnesses on the attorney's fees other than Mr. Lewis. I think we should do it at the hearing, your Honor, that would make the most sense to me, at the damages hearing, because they are really part of the damages. THE COURT: When all proceedings in this case are concluded you will be awarded whatever contractually entitled attorney's fees are due you. It's just not a today issue, it's an issue that awaits future resolution. All right. MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor. And do we have -- do you have a sense of when you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\n# tav\n\n#### 8 of 28\n\nwould like to conduct the hearing on damages?\n\n25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 10 of 29\n\n| | 9
Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
As soon as I can. |\n| 2 | Not for anything, you're all aware of the fact |\n| 3 | that Justice Scarpulla has been elevated to the Appellate |\n| 4 | Division, Justices Friedman and Sherwood are retiring in the |\n| 5 | near term, so there are only five Commercial Division judges |\n| 6 | who are currently in the wheel, and Justice Scarpulla's |\n| 7 | cases have been reallocated to the five justices who remain |\n| 8 | in the wheel.
So we are all a little busy now. |\n| 9 | MR. MOSS:
Yes, your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
You have a January 15th date on your |\n| 11 | other issue.
We will try and find a convenient time to |\n| 12 | resolve damages and attorney's fees. |\n| 13 | So now let's get to the only thing that I want to |\n| 14 | deal with this morning which is your application under CPLR |\n| 15 | 5229 for a restraining order that extends to Mr. Kwok's |\n| 16 | assets, and which you believe should be extended to entities |\n| 17 | that he controls whether they be single purpose LLCs or |\n| 18 | family members like his son. |\n| 19 | So I will hear you, Mr. Moss. |\n| 20 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | Your Honor, as far as the relief goes under 5229, |\n| 22 | I don't think Mr. Kwok disputes that we are entitled to some |\n| 23 | relief.
He does not contest that Pacific Alliance meets the |\n| 24 | standard.
He does not dispute our contention that he |\n| 25 | intends to dissipate his assets, a process that has already |\n| | |\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 11 of 29\n\n10\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | begun with this sham bankruptcy proceeding. |\n| 2 | The Court has suggested that there's a showing |\n| 3 | necessary beyond the fact of just prevailing on the |\n| 4 | judgment.
We have submitted that all you need to do is |\n| 5 | prevail on summary judgment.
The Court suggested that there |\n| 6 | might be a an additional showing necessary so we did set |\n| 7 | that forth in our papers. |\n| 8 | There's a clear and significant risk here that if |\n| 9 | left unchecked Mr. Kwok will continue to do everything in |\n| 10 | his power to shield assets and render this judgment |\n| 11 | uncollectible whether it's committing perjury, whether it's |\n| 12 | disobeying Court orders or whether it's making this sham |\n| 13 | bankruptcy petition.
We have been saying this judge for |\n| 14 | years.
It's why we requested the attachment.
We also knew |\n| 15 | what was going to happen.
We would win because Mr. Kwok had |\n| 16 | no legitimate defense, and then Mr. Kwok would evade the |\n| 17 | judgment, and that he would do whatever he can do to ensure |\n| 18 | that my client is left holding the bag. |\n| | |\n\nSo the two issues specifically before the judge on the 5229, there are two arguments that Mr. Kwok makes to sort of limit the relief that we are requesting. So I will deal with it, what I think is the easier one first.\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nFirst, Mr. Kwok does not dispute that we are entitled to depose him and to discovery into him, but he argues that the discovery should only be into assets that we 23 24 25\n\n# tav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 12 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n11\n\n# Proceedings\n\nhave not sought discovery for, that we have not gotten discovery for. The only asset related to discovery in this case was during the attachment phase, and Mr. Kwok and his prior counsel vehemently and consistently refused to provide any discovery into any assets other than the Sherry-Netherland residence. I think we are all in agreement, actually, that all of the other assets are fair game.\n\nAs for the apartment, the residence, there's no reason to limit the discovery on that. This is the only asset we have identified that Mr. Kwok has in New York. It seems to be the largest asset that he has in this country, and it's perhaps the largest asset he has anywhere that has not been frozen by the Chinese government. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nNow, Mr. Kwok's prior counsel denigrated us, they said we were hysterical, we were afraid of the merits because we kept seeking to attach the apartment. We knew who we were dealing with and we knew we would end up here, that this asset was our best chance to collect.\n\nWe are entitled to discovery into that asset. There's no appreciable burden associated with this discovery, and we have not taken any discovery on the apartment for two years.\n\nThere are new arguments, there are new things to discover. For example, Mr. Kwok is now claiming in his 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 13 of 29\n\n12\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | bankruptcy petition that there's another company, not just |\n| 2 | the New York company owned by the BVI company, the two |\n| 3 | Genever entities, there's a new company, a new shell company |\n| 4 | called Bravo Luck, and that's really the beneficial owner of |\n| 5 | the apartment, and that has been paying the expenses, and |\n| 6 | that is owned wholly by his son.
So his argument in the |\n| 7 | bankruptcy is not that he has any legitimate creditors, it's |\n| 8 | that the apartment is held in trust for his son, and his son |\n| 9 | should take priority over Pacific Alliance. |\n| 10 | It's all a shell game.
We are entitled to explore |\n| 11 | that and whatever else had is happening in the last few |\n| 12 | years.
They put the apartment on the market, and then they |\n| 13 | took it off the day of the attachment proceeding so that |\n| 14 | they could argue to you in court, hey, it's not on the |\n| 15 | market any more, you shouldn't attach it.
We are entitled |\n| 16 | to that discovery, and that's what CPLR 5229 is intended to |\n| 17 | give us, giving the judgment creditor precisely the |\n\ninformation of who owns the assets, where they are located.\n\n18\n\nThe second issue that they raise, your Honor, and that's the one that you started this conversation with, is what should be the scope here, should the restraining order relate only to Mr. Kwok's assets, to Mr. Kwok's assets that he indirectly and directly owns? What they are trying to say here is that it should only pertain to assets he \"owns directly.\" That is an exception that would swallow the rule 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 14 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n23\n\n13\n\n# Proceedings\n\nbecause Mr. Kwok does not hold any assets directly. That is his MO. He holds assets through multiple layers of family members, multiple layers of shell companies precisely for this reason so creditors like us can't reach them.\n\nMr. Kwok admitted it in his deposition in another case. He said, he testified under oath, we quote this, \"In reality I don't have any assets under the law. I'm penniless.\" He makes those claims because of the way he structures his holdings like the apartment. I told you, for example, shell company, shell company that he now says his son owns, and this is a company, Bravo Luck, that he says his son owns even though he used to hold it, 50 percent of it, and apparently says now he sold it to his son for a dollar based on documents he didn't produce in this case, backdated, forged documents. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nThis entire thing is a sham, that his 20-something year old son at the time was really the one to pay \\$70 million for the apartment, he's the rightful owner of the apartment? It's all a game to make sure we are unable to collect.\n\nThere's also a 30 million-dollar yacht. That one is held by a Hong Kong company. 21 22\n\nTHE COURT: I thought it was \\$27 million.\n\nMR. MOSS: I'm sorry, I was rounding up. I was rounding up. 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 15 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n14\n\n# Proceedings\n\nThere's a 27 million-dollar yacht held by a Hong Kong company, and once we are allowed to take discovery we will find more assets held by more shell companies of which Mr. Kwok or one of his children is the sole owner.\n\nHere's the issues: If they ask you to only enjoin him from dissipating his assets that he holds directly, that would exclude everything, and it would exclude everything even though Mr. Kwok has said that these are his assets.\n\nHe submitted an affidavit to this Court saying he owned the apartment. He submitted, he filed a complaint last month in New York saying that the yacht was \"his yacht.\" These are his assets, and it's permitted by the statute, CPLR 5229, to have a restraining order that applies to assets held directly and indirectly. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nCPLR 5229 provides that a plaintiff can have prejudgment restraint in the same way it can have post-judgment restraint. Post-judgment restraint is governed by CPLR 5222, and that says that the restraints apply to property in which he or she, meaning the judgment debtor, \"has an interest.\" It doesn't say direct interest, it says an interest. Mr. Kwok has already testified, he's already submitted evidence in this case that he owns the apartment, and he has judicial admissions that he owns the yacht.\n\nSo their cases that they cite for the proposition\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of 29\n\n15\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that CPLR 5229 and 5222 only apply to direct assets are |\n| 2 | completely inapposite because none of them involve a |\n| 3 | situation whereas here the defendant has actually claimed |\n| 4 | that he owns these assets. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Moss, I understand your argument. |\n| 6 | Let me hear from Mr. Siegal. |\n| 7 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 8 | MS. CARVALHO:
Good morning.
Melissa Carvalho |\n| 9 | from Baker & Hostetler for Mr. Kwok. |\n| 10 | I just want to begin by saying we have repeatedly |\n| 11 | heard this morning Mr. Moss saying \"Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy.\" |\n| 12 | The bankruptcy petition that was filed was not Mr. Kwok's. |\n| 13 | We have been made aware of it as the Court has been made |\n| 14 | aware of it.
On its face it says that it's filed by an |\n| 15 | entity, one of the entities who has counsel here present |\n| 16 | today.
So if any questions or issues are arising relating |\n| 17 | to the bankruptcy, I cannot speak to it, but Mr. Mitchell |\n| 18 | certainly can. |\n| 19 | So on CPLR 5229 the relief being sought by |\n| 20 | plaintiff in the TRO and order to show cause is far broader |\n| 21 | than that provided under CPLR 5229.
Plaintiff seeks to |\n| 22 | enjoin and restrain defendant Kwok with respect to \"any |\n| 23 | property in which he has an interest,\" but CPLR 5229's |\n| 24 | application is limited to Mr. Kwok, the adverse party. |\n| 25 | CPLR 5229 specifically states that \"the trial |\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n16\n\n# Proceedings\n\njudge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment.\" Courts have strictly construed the language of CPLR 5229. The adverse party is Mr. Kwok, and the Court's decision and order on summary judgment is limited to him individually.\n\nPlaintiffs have spent a lot of time in their reply seeking to continue to poison the well against Mr. Kwok, but that is simply because plaintiff cannot present authority to support its unilateral expansion of CPLR 5229.\n\nPlaintiff presented the Court with various categories of cases where CPLR 5229 relief has been granted, but that goes to the Court's discretion to grant this relief. The statute says the Court \"may order relief under 5229,\" and we are not disputing that. Yes, a Court can award CPLR 5229 relief in many different fact patterns, but the relief is still limited to what is provided in CPLR 5229, and plaintiff has not shown any basis supporting its unilateral expansion of the statute besides it's just what they want. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nThe cases cited by plaintiff, in fact, do not expand the scope of CPLR 5229. The APF case, Gallegos case, Safeco case, Unex case and Leser case all limit the relief to the specific adverse party and not to any \"interest\" that party may have. In the Eastern District of New York in the 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 18 of 29\n\n17\n\n# Proceedings Leser v. U.S. Bank case the Court specifically stated, \"Plaintiff is correct, however, that the scope of the order should be limited to the restraint on the assets of plaintiff Leser.\" USB had originally sought restraints against \"plaintiff Leser and any person, company or other entity controlled by him,\" but then USB conceded during argument that it was only seeking restraint as to plaintiff Leser, and the Court found that appropriate and proper. Nothing plaintiff says can change that. The statute only provides the relief that it provides. So let's look at the statute. The statute provides for examination and restraints. Examination: Here Mr. Kwok's assets have already been addressed in discovery. Mr. Kwok has been deposed three times in this matter, on October 3rd, 2018, November 25, 2019, and December 11, 2019. Mr. Kwok has produced over 14 pages of documents. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to sufficiently examine Mr. Kwok, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nand, in fact, if you look at plaintiff's second set of document requests attached to my affirmation you see that they were, in fact, targeting assets.\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nNow plaintiff argues that passed discovery is insufficient, but the record shows that there was, in fact, disclosure. Objections were certainly made based on the scope. There were questions asked of Mr. Kwok such as, 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 19 of 29\n\n18\n\nProceedings \"Were any of your assets received by the Chinese government,\" but by not allowing fishing expeditions that does not mean that discovery was not sufficient. I also note there were disputes in the past, and those discovery disputes have been resolved, but creating confusion by making these broad-sweeping statements, and attaching e-mails without original letters that they are responding to does not change that. Now turning to the second part that the statute allows restraint, but restraint is limited to CPLR 5229 and is distinguishable from the restraint provided under CPLR 5222. The relief sought here pursuant to 5229 is applicable before a judgment has been entered so unlike post-judgment devices which are available against third-parties, the restraining powers under CPLR 5229 can only be used against \"the adverse party.\" However, at any posture restraint is always limited to property in which Mr. Kwok has a direct and actual interest. Restraint will not apply to indirect interests including interest held in a corporation, proceeds of property, or even assets of an alter ego until alter ego status has been adjudicated and liability has been determined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nPlaintiff also cannot use CPLR 5229 as an end run under the requirements for prejudgment attachment statutes. Here plaintiff's application relies ad nauseam and we have\n\ntav\n\n#### 18 of 28\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 20 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n19\n\n# Proceedings\n\nheard his counsel repeat this morning and admit that the sole focus here is on the ownership of the residence at the Sherry. Plaintiff himself says Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. The Court has acknowledged and stated Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. And even though Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry, he agreed on consent to a court order where he would provide plaintiff with immediate written notice of any contract to sell, assign, pledge or transfer any assets of the respective defendant entity to any third-party. So plaintiff has received broader relief on subsequent than it would have been entitled on this instant publication under CPLR 5229 so, therefore, there's no concern with respect to dissipation of the Sherry.\n\nNow plaintiff argues that Mr. Kwok is trying to weaken the relief that they are seeking, but in actuality we are adhering to the statute and the powers that the Court has given under the statute. Plaintiff is relying on statements allegedly made by Mr. Kwok regarding his ownership of assets. Mr. Kwok can say anything he wants to, ownership is a factual legal issue. If he does not own it, he does not own it, period. That is not enough to give you broader relief under CPLR 5229. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nDiscovery has been conducted. The plaintiff's focus here is solely on the Sherry, as we have repeatedly 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 21 of 29\n\n20\n\nProceedings heard this morning. Any further examination is a waste of time and money. The subject is already -- the Sherry is already subject to an order and it's restrained. None of plaintiff's arguments change the application of CPLR 5229 here. That's it. Now importantly relief under 5229 rests within the sound discretion of the Court, absolutely, but Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and any further examination should be limited to assets and topics not previously addressed in discovery. Redundant and duplicative discovery are not authorized under CPLR 5229. And the transfer of the Sherry, as we have already mentioned several times, it's already been restricted, and any further restraints should be denied. We have a consent order in place that Mr. Kwok has agreed to, and Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry. So Mr. Kwok requests that this Court vacate the TRO, deny plaintiff's motion for CPLR 5229 relief as it far exceeds the scope of CPLR 5229. Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and his assets have already been discovered and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nrestrained by this Court, but should this Court be inclined to grant plaintiff's relief under CPLR 5229, Mr. Kwok would request that this Court use its discretion to modify such relief to Mr. Kwok's assets in his individual capacity as\n\ntav\n\n#### 20 of 28\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 22 of 29\n\n21\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the \"adverse party,\" and Mr. Kwok's assets not previously |\n| 2 | the subject of prior discovery and court orders relating to |\n| 3 | a transfer. |\n| 4 | Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Does anybody from Genever want |\n| 6 | to say anything? |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL:
No, your Honor.
I think that was |\n| 8 | well said.
I join Ms. Carvalho in her argument. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 10 | Look, this is a 2017 case.
We've had multiple |\n| 11 | motions relating to Mr. Kwok's assets.
The Court believes, |\n| 12 | as reflected in the September 15, 2020, order that Mr. Kwok |\n| 13 | has attempted to mislead the Court.
The Court believes that |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game |\n| 15 | with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court |\n| 16 | orders, the spirit of court orders.
This is going to come |\n| 17 | to an end on or shortly after January 15, 2021, when we have |\n| 18 | the trial on the alter ego issue, but between now and the |\n| 19 | commencement of the January 15, 2021, trial Mr. Kwok and any |\n| 20 | entities that he directly or indirectly controls are |\n| 21 | restrained from alienating or transferring any property that |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok has a direct or indirect interest including most |\n| 23 | specifically the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel |\n| 24 | which was the subject of 2018 discovery and a consent order |\n| 25 | to which counsel for Mr. Kwok referenced, and also the yacht |\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n22\n\n25\n\n22\n\n# Proceedings\n\nwhich Mr. Kwok has at various times claimed ownership of. So the net result is that I exercise my discretion under CPLR 5229 to restrain any further transfers of the Sherry-Netherland apartment which Mr. Kwok once owned, and the 27 million-dollar yacht which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned.\n\nSo we are not going to have any more shell games. Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside, and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.\n\nIn the interim, between now and the January 15, 2021 trial on the alter ego issues, the plaintiff can conduct discovery of any of the entities that claim to own the Sherry-Netherland apartment or the yacht, and counsel for Genever and counsel for Mr. Kwok are directed to forthwith provide counsel for the plaintiff with information identifying the record owners of those two assets. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThat's the order of the Court.\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Your Honor, could I ask for some clarification? 23 24\n\nWe understand the order of the Court today,\n\n# tav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n25\n\n23\n\nProceedings however, I am confused where it comes to indirect ownership because, I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, there could be entities that will be restrained from conducting regular and ordinary business, and to what extent can someone decide that something would be an indirect interest and prevent ordinary transfers? I mean, I don't know how far this goes with other independent autonomous companies.\n\nTHE COURT: It goes this far: There is no ordinary course transfer of a 70 million-dollar apartment at the Sherry-Netherland. There is no ordinary course transfer of a 27 million-dollar yacht. If Mr. Kwok wants to get a haircut or if Mr. Kwok wants to buy a newspaper or if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, that would be ordinary course, but I think everybody on this Microsoft Teams platform understands that there's been a lot of moving around of these two assets that have an aggregate value of at least \\$75 million, and the plaintiff is entitled to ascertain the entity that presently has title to these assets, how those entities came to have title to those assets, and any intermediate transfers that were made between the time Mr. Kwok was the record owner of these assets and the time that the present record owner came into possession of these assets. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Understood.\n\n$$\\tan$$\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 25 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n24\n\n# Proceedings\n\nSo the assets specifically are the Sherry and the yacht, but the position, just to make sure I understand it, is that with respect to other autonomous corporations, they can continue in the ordinary course, there's no ceasing or stopping of business for other legally autonomous entities.\n\nTHE COURT: It's not clear to me what other business and what other entities Mr. Kwok has formed. The intent here which is very clear and specific is that in this 2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a great deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders, I want to know if any transaction is going to take place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something other than an ordinary course of business transaction. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\n> MS. CARVALHO: Okay. I think we understand. Thank you, your Honor.\n\nMR. MOSS: Your Honor, if I may, just two points. Number one, in terms of the assets, we know that\n\nthere are also shell companies in Connecticut that own Greenwich real estate that he just bought for like \\$7 million. I think the most efficient -- and we don't know what we don't know. I think the most efficient way to proceed would be for us to be able to serve some sort of interrogatory at the outset, what are the assets and what are the entities that hold them, and then we can proceed to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of 29\n\nProceedings\n\n25\n\ndepose Mr. Kwok and those entities if they are entities or Mr. Kwok as the 30(b)(6) for those entities. I want to do this efficiently and with minimal burden, and rather than just asking him questions that he is going to say he does not know the answer to, I think the most efficient way would be to try to use written discovery to get a list of what the actual assets are. THE COURT: Look, I'm not going to tell you how to practice law. You have the transcript of today's proceedings. I think I've made it very clear what you can do. You can conduct discovery of any assets -- you can conduct discovery of any entity that you have a good faith basis for believing Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly controls. It can be written discovery, it can be oral discovery. I'm not going to play schoolyard monitor while you jockey back and forth with discovery disputes about the scope of what you can do. I think Mr. Kwok's counsel and I think Genever's counsel full understand what is reflected in the transcript of proceedings. We are dealing with a telescoped period of time here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThere's a restraining order that's been entered with respect to two specific assets, and only two specific assets, and there's an alter ego trial that's scheduled for January 15, 2021, and there's a damages hearing that's going 22 23 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 27 of 29\n\n| | 26
Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to take place sometime before or in conjunction with the |\n| 2 | alter ego trial. |\n| 3 | Again, this is a 2017 case, and it's occupied a |\n| 4 | considerable amount of the Court's time.
It's resulted in |\n| 5 | several written decisions.
While orders of the Court are |\n| 6 | either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and |\n| 7 | while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have |\n| 8 | misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going |\n| 9 | to have closure in this case in January of 2021. |\n| 10 | So the court reporter will give you her e-mail |\n| 11 | address.
You will order a copy of the transcript.
I can't |\n| 12 | be any clearer than I've been on this transcript. |\n| 13 | If any party or any counsel disregards the orders |\n| 14 | of the Court, there will be serious sanctions. |\n| 15 | Are we all clear? |\n| 16 | MR. MOSS:
Yes. |\n| 17 | Your Honor, may I just -- one question on the |\n| 18 | damages motion. |\n| 19 | We filed our motion, they opposed.
I understand |\n| 20 | the Court is going to have a hearing as soon as possible on |\n| 21 | this issue.
May we reply because there are some things we |\n| 22 | would like to put before the Court given that they have |\n| 23 | opposed and we have not yet replied? |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
If you wish.
I have explained to you |\n| 25 | that I am backed up with trials and motions.
I have carved |\n| | tav |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 28 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n25\n\n27\n\n# Proceedings\n\nout a January 15th date. That's chiseled in stone. We will have the alter ego trial on January 15, 2021, if we can get to the damages hearing before, then we will, but there's not a lot of time between now and January 15th, and you, Mr. Moss, are probably going to be quite busy.\n\nMR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor.\n\nMR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, one last question regarding the order here today just because, as you're aware, Genever New York has filed bankruptcy. I doubt that any assets within the bankruptcy estate would be sold or anything between now and January 15th, but I want to make sure that myself particularly or any party to the action wouldn't draw the ire of a potential sanction for whatever happens in the bankruptcy court.\n\nTHE COURT: No, I cannot -- I have no jurisdiction over any entity that's in bankruptcy. That doesn't mean applications can't be made by Mr. Moss to the bankruptcy court. It doesn't mean that Mr. Moss can't refer in any proceedings before the bankruptcy court to the transcript of the proceedings here today, but I well understand the automatic stay of the bankruptcy court with respect to entities that have filed for bankruptcy. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nMR. MITCHELL: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 23 24\n\nTerry, can you give the parties your e-mail\n\ntav\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 29 of 29\n\n| | 28
Proceedings |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | address from which they can order a copy of the transcript |\n| 2 | which will be so ordered and e-filed? |\n| 3 | Thank you very much. |\n| 4 | Have a nice day everyone. |\n| 5 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 6 | *** |\n| 7 | C E R T I F I C A T E |\n| 8 | I, Terry-Ann Volberg, C.S.R., an official court reporter of |\n| 9 | the State of New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing |\n| 10 | is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes. |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | _______________________ |\n| 13 | Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR
Official Court Reporter |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | tav |","body_zh":"证物 PAX 18\n\n2020年10月15日庭审记录，PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 Kwok（郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），Dkt. 647\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of 29\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县：审判庭第61庭\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n原告，\n— 诉 —\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 CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），\n被告。\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\n2020年10月15日\n\nTeams 远程庭审\n\n审判长：\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n律师\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n代理律师：\nSTUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），ESQ.\nEDWARD MOSS（爱德华·莫斯），ESQ.\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n律师\n45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor\nNew York, New York 10111\n代理律师：\nJOHN SIEGAL（约翰·西格尔），ESQ.\nMELISSA CARVALHO（梅利莎·卡瓦略），ESQ.\nERICA BARROW（埃丽卡·巴罗），ESQ.\n\n（出庭人员续见下一页。）\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 3 of\n\n出庭人员：\n（续）\n\nLAWALL & MITCHELL LLC（劳尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n律师\n162 East 64th Street\nNew York, New York 10065\n代理律师：\nAARON A. MITCHELL（亚伦·A·米切尔），ESQ.\n\nTerry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔伯格），CSR，CRR\n官方法庭记录员\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 4 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\n法庭：\n早上好。\n\n在我们讨论临时限制令申请之前，有几项程序性事项我想先处理。\n\n如您未发言，请将麦克风静音，以免出现杂音。谢谢。\n\n如我刚才开始所说，在我们处理临时限制令申请之前，有几项程序性事项我想先解决。我们在程序上原定讨论原告关于律师费的申请，而在动议庭中，被告提出了一项动议，请求增列未减轻损失这一积极抗辩。关于后一问题，Moss 先生，我希望您约定，在审判时我们将根据审判中提出的证据使诉辩状与之相符；鉴于我已在9月15日的决定及命令中处理了减轻损失问题，且该问题至少一直是本案的边缘问题，我希望您约定，这将是完整审判中将处理的问题之一，从而避免动议程序。因此，我希望经同意将该动议标记为无损权利地撤回。您能接受吗？\n\nMOSS 律师：\n法官阁下，我只是——我只是想了解一下；我的理解是，法庭将就损害赔偿作出裁定。您曾命令我们提交计算结果。我认为减轻损失问题已由法庭在简易判决中裁决，并且不会就损害赔偿进行审判；将如此处理，是为了让您取得计算结果，以便法院书记官能够作出判决书。这是命令中所载内容，因此我并不理解还会进行审判，而且我们认为不存在任何需要审判的事实争议。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\n法庭：\n我的理解是，我已就责任问题向你方作出简易判决，这也是你方有资格提出今天所提 5229 申请的原因；我们推迟了损害赔偿数额的计算，因为与损害赔偿数额有关的事实存在争议。我认定你方证据不足，无法让我就损害赔偿问题作出简易判决。因此，这将在我认为我们安排于1月举行的听证会上处理。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n因此，法官阁下，我的理解是，1月的审判是关于揭开公司面纱问题的——\n\n法庭：\n是的，是的。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n——而 Kwok 先生提出的唯一损害赔偿抗辩，法官阁下，就是减轻损失。法庭已在简易判决中根据香港法律驳回了减轻损失这一事项。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\n法庭：\n我在9月15日的决定中专门提到了该问题。我提及它的方式表明，我认为它是一项可疑的主张；我现在仍然认为它是一项可疑的主张，因为我不认为事后要求你方当事人以看似高于市场价格的价格向中国共产党购买一套公寓是其应尽义务，这正是我在2020年9月15日决定中所说的。\n\n因此，被告提出动议，请求修正其答辩状以主张未减轻损失的抗辩。无论何时我们着手评估损害赔偿，我都会就减轻损失问题听取被告意见。现在，如果你希望他提出动议，并希望我裁决该动议，那么除了允许他提出动议、让你对该动议作出回应，然后裁决该动议之外，我无能为力。既然我们举行的任何听证会都将是我根据审判中提出的证据使诉辩状与之相符的听证会，我认为，作为一项程序性事项，我们应当让被告无损权利地撤回该动议，并让你接受这一现状。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n好的，这没有问题。如果法官阁下无论如何都会准许其请求许可修正的动议，我们可以对此作出约定。\n\n我们有一项关于损害赔偿的待决动议，而他们——\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\nMOSS 律师：\n那么，法官阁下希望如何解决损害赔偿问题？\n\n法庭：\n我们将就损害赔偿问题举行听证会，而该听证会不是今天。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n因此，在该听证会上，被告希望就这一减轻损失理论提出的任何内容——我在2020年9月15日的决定及命令中已强烈表示该理论颇为可疑——他们将获准就与损害赔偿听证会有关的该理论提出其所拥有的任何证据，如有的话。让我询问被告律师，鉴于今天现已载入庭审记录的内容，我们能否将修正答辩状的动议标记为无损权利地撤回？\n\nSIEGAL 律师：\n是的，我是代表被告 Kwok 的 Baker Hostetler 律师事务所的 John Siegal。我们当然同意该结果，并将在今天之后送达并提交我们的第二份修正答辩状，使其成为案卷记录的一部分；我们将据此进行听证会。\n\n法庭：\n可以。这实际上并不需要你们提交第二份修正起诉状，但我认为，今天的庭审记录已非常清楚地表明，我们将举行损害赔偿听证会；并且在损害赔偿听证会上，你们将能够就减轻损失部分的主张提出你们希望提出的任何证言，或你们希望提交的任何文件。你们提交第二份修正起诉状、并由原告必须对此作出回应，确实只会增加法庭和原告的负担。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\n因此，记录本身已说明一切。我只是希望你和 Moss 先生在此给予一些配合。\n\nSIEGAL 律师：\n是，法官阁下。我们感谢法庭允许我们有机会就该问题提出证据；我们将在听证会上做好准备。自我们出庭参与本案以来，我们一直与 Moss 先生保持良好合作，我相信我们将继续如此；我们期待有机会说服法官阁下——我们理解您认为该主张可疑——在全面审查后，本案中存在一项对损害赔偿具有非常重大影响的减轻损失抗辩。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n我们不会有任何第二份修正起诉状，也不会有任何动议，对吗？\n\nSIEGAL 律师：\n是的，法官阁下，明白。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n现在，我们要处理的第二项程序性事项是律师费。既然还会有进一步程序，今天处理律师费没有意义，因为将就我们要举行的两次听证会产生更多律师费，其中一次是关于损害赔偿，另一次是此前安排在1月15日举行的听证会。因此，经你同意，Moss 先生，我希望将你方关于律师费的申请延期至更合适的时间。\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\nMOSS 律师：\n可以。可以，法官阁下。我想，您知道，律师费和本金及利息一样，都是合同损害赔偿；我建议我们在听证会上或与听证会同时提交证据。我想除 Lewis 先生外，我们实际上不会就律师费提出任何证人。我认为我们应当在听证会上处理，法官阁下；在损害赔偿听证会上处理，对我而言最有意义，因为它们确实是损害赔偿的一部分。\n\n法庭：\n待本案所有程序均告结束后，你方将获判你方依合同有权获得的任何应付律师费。只是这不是今天要处理的问题，而是有待将来解决的问题。好的。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n是，法官阁下。我们是否——您是否大致知道您希望何时举行损害赔偿听证会？\n\n提交：纽约县书记官，11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收件日期：11/10/2020　Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 10 of 29\n\n庭审程序\n\n法庭：\n我会尽快。\n\n并非别的原因，你们都知道，Scarpulla法官（斯卡普拉法官）已获擢升至Appellate Division（上诉庭），Friedman法官（弗里德曼法官）和Sherwood法官（舍伍德法官）不久将退休，因此目前轮值的Commercial Division（商事审判庭）法官只有五位，而斯卡普拉法官的案件已重新分配给仍在轮值的五位法官。\n\n因此，我们现在都有些忙。\n\nMOSS先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n你们的另一事项定在January 15th。我们将尽力找一个合适的时间解决损害赔偿和律师费问题。\n\n那么，现在让我们处理今天上午我唯一想处理的事项，即你们根据CPLR 5229提出的申请，要求作出一项限制令，延及Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的资产，并且你们认为该限制令应延及其控制的实体，无论是单一目的有限责任公司还是其儿子等家庭成员。\n\n那么，Moss先生，我听你陈述。\n\nMOSS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法官阁下，关于5229项下的救济，我认为郭先生并不争议我们有权获得某种救济。他不争议Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）符合该标准。他不争议我方的主张，即他意图转移其资产，而这一过程已经随着这项虚假的破产程序开始。\n\ntav\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记员）11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 11 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n法庭曾表示，除刚刚在判决中胜诉这一事实外，还需要作出某种证明。我方已提交材料表明，你们所需要做的只是获得简易判决胜诉。法庭表示可能还需要额外的证明，因此我们确实在书面材料中列明了该等证明。\n\n这里存在明显且重大的风险：如不加限制，郭先生将继续竭尽所能隐匿资产并使该判决无法执行，无论是作伪证、违反法院命令，还是提出这项虚假的破产申请。我们多年来一直在向您说这一点，法官阁下。这就是我们请求扣押的原因。我们也知道将会发生什么。我们会胜诉，因为郭先生没有任何正当抗辩；随后郭先生会逃避该判决，并且他会尽其所能确保我的当事人一无所获。\n\n因此，法官阁下目前就5229项下事项审理的两个具体问题，是郭先生为限制我们所请求的救济而提出的两项论点。因此，我将先处理我认为较容易的一项。第一，郭先生不争议我们有权对其进行宣誓询问并对其进行证据开示，但他主张证据开示应仅限于我们尚未寻求或尚未获得证据开示的资产。本案中唯一与资产有关的证据开示发生在财产扣押阶段，而郭先生及其先前的律师坚决且一贯拒绝就Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）住宅以外的任何资产提供任何证据开示。我认为，实际上我们所有人都同意，所有其他资产均可进行查明。\n\ntav\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 12 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n至于该公寓，即该住宅，没有理由限制就此进行的证据开示。这是我们已识别出的郭先生在纽约拥有的唯一资产。它似乎是他在本国拥有的最大资产，并且可能是其在任何地方拥有、尚未被中国政府冻结的最大资产。\n\n现在，郭先生先前的律师贬低我们，他们说我们歇斯底里，说我们因不断寻求扣押该公寓而害怕案件实体问题。我们知道自己面对的是谁，也知道最终会走到这一步，即该资产是我们收回款项的最佳机会。\n\n我们有权就该资产进行证据开示。与该证据开示相关的负担并不显著，而且我们已有两年未就该公寓进行任何证据开示。\n\n存在新的论点，也有新的事项有待查明。例如，郭先生现在在其破产申请中主张，除由BVI（英属维尔京群岛）公司拥有的纽约公司、两个Genever实体外，还有一家新公司，即一家名为Bravo Luck（好运）的新空壳公司，而该公司才是该公寓的实益所有人，一直在支付相关费用，并且完全由其儿子所有。因此，他在破产案中的论点并非他有任何正当债权人，而是该公寓系为其儿子以信托形式持有，其儿子应优先于太平洋联盟受偿。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 13 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n这一切都是空壳公司把戏。我们有权查明该等情况以及过去几年发生的任何其他事情。他们曾将该公寓挂牌出售，随后在财产扣押程序当日将其撤下，以便能够在法庭上向您主张：嘿，它已经不再挂牌出售了，你不应扣押它。我们有权获得该等证据开示，而这正是CPLR 5229旨在赋予我们的，即向判决债权人准确提供谁拥有资产、资产位于何处的信息。\n\n法官阁下，他们提出的第二个问题，也是您开始这场讨论时提到的那个问题，是这里的范围应当是什么：限制令是否应仅涉及郭先生的资产，涉及郭先生直接和间接拥有的资产？他们在此试图主张的是，它应仅涉及他“直接拥有”的资产。这一例外将吞没规则，因为郭先生并不直接持有任何资产。这正是他的一贯做法。他通过多层家庭成员、多层空壳公司持有资产，正是为了这个原因，以便像我们这样的债权人无法触及这些资产。\n\ntav\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 14 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n郭先生在另一案件中的证言中承认了这一点。他说，他在宣誓后作证称，我们引用这段话：“实际上，从法律上说我没有任何资产。我身无分文。”他之所以作出这些主张，是因为他以该公寓那样的方式构建其持有结构。我刚才告诉过您，例如，空壳公司、他现在称由其儿子拥有的空壳公司，以及这家公司Bravo Luck，他称其儿子拥有该公司，尽管他过去曾持有该公司50%的权益，并且显然现在称其根据本案中未提交的文件，以一美元将其出售给其儿子，这些文件是倒签日期的伪造文件。\n\n整个事情都是虚假的：其当时二十多岁的儿子才是真正支付$70 million购买该公寓的人，他才是该公寓的合法所有人？这全都是为了确保我们无法收回款项的把戏。\n\n还有一艘价值30 million-dollar的游艇。那艘游艇由一家Hong Kong（香港）公司持有。\n\n法庭：\n我以为是$27 million。\n\nMOSS先生：\n抱歉，我是向上取整了。我是向上取整了。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 15 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n有一艘价值27 million-dollar的游艇由一家香港公司持有，而一旦获准进行证据开示，我们将会发现更多由更多空壳公司持有的资产，郭先生或其子女之一是这些空壳公司的唯一所有人。\n\n问题在于：如果他们请求您仅禁止他转移其直接持有的资产，那将排除一切；而且即使郭先生已表示这些是其资产，也将排除一切。\n\n他向本院提交了一份宣誓书，称其拥有该公寓。他上个月在纽约提交了一份起诉状，称该游艇是“他的游艇”。这些是他的资产，而且法规CPLR 5229允许作出一项适用于直接和间接持有资产的限制令。\n\nCPLR 5229规定，原告可以与其获得判决后限制同样的方式获得判决前限制。判决后限制受CPLR 5222管辖，而该条规定，限制适用于其“拥有权益”的财产，其中“其”系指判决债务人。它并未说直接权益，而是说某种权益。郭先生已经作证，他已在本案中提交证据证明其拥有该公寓，并且他已作出其拥有该游艇的司法承认。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n因此，他们为主张CPLR 5229和5222仅适用于直接资产而援引的案件完全不适用，因为其中没有任何案件涉及像本案这样的情形，即被告实际主张其拥有这些资产。\n\n法庭：\nMoss先生，我理解你的论点。让我听听Siegal先生（西格尔先生）的意见。\n\nMOSS先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCARVALHO女士：\n早上好。我是Baker & Hostetler（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）的Melissa Carvalho（梅丽莎·卡瓦略），代理郭先生。我想先说明，今天上午我们已多次听到Moss先生说“郭先生的破产”。所提交的破产申请并非郭先生的。我们已获悉此事，正如法庭已获悉此事一样。该申请表面上表明它是由一个实体提交的，该实体之一的律师今天在场。因此，如就该破产案产生任何问题或争议，我无法就此发言，但Mitchell先生（米切尔先生）当然可以。\n\n因此，关于CPLR 5229，原告在临时限制令和说明理由令中请求的救济，远超CPLR 5229规定的救济。原告寻求就“其拥有权益的任何财产”禁止和限制被告郭先生，但CPLR 5229的适用范围仅限于郭先生，即对方当事人。CPLR 5229明确规定，“审判法官可以命令对对方当事人进行审查，并命令限制其行为，其效力与判决后向其送达限制通知相同。”法院对CPLR 5229的措辞作了严格解释。对方当事人是郭先生，而法院就简易判决作出的决定和命令仅限于其个人。\n\ntav\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of 29\n庭审记录\n\n原告在其答复中花费了大量时间，试图继续使法庭对郭先生产生不利先入之见，但这仅仅是因为原告无法提出任何权威依据来支持其单方面扩大CPLR 5229的适用范围。\n\n原告向法庭提交了CPLR 5229救济获准的各种案件类别，但那涉及法庭准予该救济的裁量权。法规规定，法庭“可以根据5229作出救济命令”，而我们并不争议这一点。是的，法院可以在许多不同的事实情形下授予CPLR 5229救济，但该救济仍限于CPLR 5229规定的范围，而原告除声称这就是其想要的内容外，未能表明任何支持其单方面扩大该法规的依据。\n\n原告援引的判例实际上并未扩大 CPLR 5229 的适用范围。APF 案、Gallegos 案、Safeco 案、Unex 案和 Leser 案均将救济限制于特定的不利当事人，而非该当事人可能拥有的任何“权益”。在 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）审理的 Leser v. U.S. Bank 案中，法院明确指出：“然而，原告是正确的，即该命令的范围应限于对原告 Leser 资产的限制。”USB 起初寻求对“原告 Leser 以及由其控制的任何个人、公司或其他实体”实施限制，但 USB 后来在辩论中承认，其仅寻求对原告 Leser 实施限制，法院认为该做法适当且妥当。原告所言无法改变这一点。该法条仅提供其所提供的救济。因此，让我们看看该法条。该法条规定了调查和限制。调查：在本案中，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）的资产已在证据开示中得到处理。Kwok 先生已于 2018 年 10 月 3 日、2019 年 11 月 25 日和 2019 年 12 月 11 日在本案中三次接受宣誓讯问。Kwok 先生已提交超过 14 页文件。原告已有多次充分调查 Kwok 先生的机会。\n\n事实上，如果查看附于本人宣誓陈述的原告第二组文件请求，便可见其实际上针对的是资产。现在，原告主张先前的证据开示不足，但记录显示实际上已进行了披露。当然，基于范围提出过异议。曾向 Kwok 先生提出诸如“您的任何资产是否被中国政府取得”之类的问题，但不允许进行钓鱼式调查，并不意味着证据开示不充分。我还注意到，过去曾有争议，而这些证据开示争议已经解决；但通过作出这些宽泛的陈述并附上电子邮件、却不附上其所回复的原始信件来制造混乱，无法改变这一点。现转向法条允许的第二部分，即限制，但该限制受 CPLR 5229 约束，并可与 CPLR 5222 所规定的限制相区别。此处依据 5229 请求的救济适用于判决作出之前，因此不同于可针对第三方使用的判决后措施，CPLR 5229 规定的限制权力只能针对“不利当事人”使用。然而，无论处于何种程序阶段，限制始终仅限于 Kwok 先生拥有直接且实际权益的财产。限制不适用于间接权益，包括在公司中持有的权益、财产收益，甚至是另我实体的资产，除非另我地位已经裁定且责任已经确定。\n\n原告也不能利用 CPLR 5229 规避判决前扣押法条的要求。原告在此的申请不厌其烦地援引，而我们今天上午也听到其律师反复陈述并承认，此处唯一的焦点是位于 Sherry 的住所的所有权。原告本人称 Kwok 先生并非 Sherry 的所有人。法院已经确认并说明，Kwok 先生并非 Sherry 的所有人。尽管 Kwok 先生对位于 Sherry 的住所不拥有直接权益，但他同意接受一项法院命令，依该命令，他将就各被告实体向任何第三方出售、让与、质押或转让任何资产的任何合同，立即向原告提供书面通知。因此，原告在后续程序中获得的救济范围，比其在本次依据 CPLR 5229 提出的申请中本应有权获得的救济更广，故对于 Sherry 的耗散不存在担忧。\n\n现在，原告主张 Kwok 先生试图削弱其寻求的救济，但实际上，我们是在遵循法条以及法院根据该法条所赋予的权力。原告依赖于 Kwok 先生据称就其资产所有权作出的陈述。Kwok 先生可以说任何他想说的话；所有权是一个事实和法律问题。如果他不拥有该财产，他就不拥有，句号。这不足以使你们依据 CPLR 5229 获得更广泛的救济。\n\n已进行了证据开示。如我们今天上午反复听到的，原告在此仅聚焦于 Sherry。任何进一步调查都是浪费时间和金钱。该标的已经——Sherry 已经受一项命令约束并受到限制。原告的任何论点均不改变 CPLR 5229 在此的适用。这就是全部。重要的是，依据 5229 的救济完全属于法院的合理裁量权，绝对如此；但 Kwok 先生已被调查，任何进一步调查应限于此前证据开示中未处理的资产和事项。CPLR 5229 不授权重复或累积性的证据开示。如我们已多次提及，Sherry 的转让已受到限制，任何进一步限制均应被驳回。我们已有一项 Kwok 先生同意的同意命令，而且 Kwok 先生对位于 Sherry 的住所不拥有直接权益。因此，Kwok 先生请求本院撤销 TRO（临时限制令），驳回原告关于 CPLR 5229 救济的动议，因为该动议远超 CPLR 5229 的范围。Kwok 先生已接受调查，其资产已被发现并受到本院限制；但若本院倾向于批准原告依据 CPLR 5229 提出的救济，Kwok 先生请求本院行使裁量权，将该救济修改为仅针对作为“不利当事人”的 Kwok 先生以其个人身份拥有的资产，以及此前证据开示和有关转让的法院命令未曾涉及的 Kwok 先生资产。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。Genever（吉尼弗）方面有人想说什么吗？\n\nMitchell 先生（米切尔）：没有，法官阁下。我认为刚才说得很好。我加入 Carvalho 女士（卡瓦略）的论辩。\n\n法官：好的。你看，这是一个 2017 年的案件。我们已就 Kwok 先生的资产审理过多项动议。正如 2020 年 9 月 15 日命令所反映的，法院认为 Kwok 先生曾试图误导法院。法院认为，如原告所主张，Kwok 先生在其资产上玩弄障眼法，并且即使没有违反法院命令的文字规定，也违反了法院命令的精神。这将在 2021 年 1 月 15 日或其后不久终止，届时我们将就另我问题进行审判；但在现在至 2021 年 1 月 15 日审判开始期间，禁止 Kwok 先生及其直接或间接控制的任何实体让与或转让 Kwok 先生拥有直接或间接权益的任何财产，包括尤其是位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）的公寓，该公寓曾是 2018 年证据开示和 Kwok 先生律师提及的同意命令的标的，以及 Kwok 先生曾在不同时期主张拥有所有权的游艇。\n\n因此，最终结果是，我行使依据 CPLR 5229 的裁量权，限制进一步转让 Kwok 先生曾拥有的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，以及 Kwok 先生曾主张拥有的价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇。\n\n因此，我们不会再有任何障眼法。无论这些资产由何处持有，它们将继续由其目前所在地持有；如果确定目前被列为这些资产所有人的实体是 Kwok 先生的另我实体，或完全受 Kwok 先生支配和控制，则这些资产将可用于满足原告获得的任何判决。\n\n在此期间，即从现在至 2021 年 1 月 15 日就另我问题进行审判期间，原告可以对任何主张拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓或该游艇的实体进行证据开示，并命令 Genever 的律师和 Kwok 先生的律师立即向原告律师提供识别该两项资产登记所有人的信息。\n\n这就是本院的命令。\n\nCarvalho 女士：法官阁下，我能否请求一些澄清？\n\n我们理解本院今天的命令；但是，对于间接所有权，我感到困惑，因为我只是即兴想到，这些实体可能会被限制开展正常和日常经营，而在何种程度上某人可以认定某物构成间接权益并阻止正常转让？我的意思是，我不知道这对其他独立自主公司的影响会有多大。\n\n法官：影响范围仅限于此：不存在在正常经营过程中转让价值 70 million-dollar 的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓之事。不存在在正常经营过程中转让价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇之事。如果 Kwok 先生想理发，或者 Kwok 先生想买一份报纸，或者 Kwok 先生想在冠状病毒疫情期间度假，那将属于正常经营过程；但我认为，这个 Microsoft Teams 平台上的每个人都明白，这两项总价值至少为 $75 million 的资产一直在被大量转移，原告有权查明目前拥有这些资产所有权的实体、这些实体如何取得这些资产的所有权，以及在 Kwok 先生作为这些资产的登记所有人与现任登记所有人取得这些资产占有之间所进行的任何中间转让。\n\nCarvalho 女士：明白。\n\n因此，具体资产是 Sherry 和游艇，但为了确保我理解正确，贵院的立场是，对于其他独立自主的公司，它们可以在正常经营过程中继续经营，其他法律上独立的实体无需停止或中止业务。\n\n法庭：我不清楚Kwok先生已成立了哪些其他业务和哪些其他实体。此处非常明确且具体的意图是，在本2017年案件中，已出现大量策略性操作、大量掩饰，以及对法院命令的一些公然无视；我希望知道，如有任何交易将要发生，而Kwok先生是其主导者，且该交易并非正常经营过程中的交易。6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nCARVALHO女士：好的。我想我们明白了。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMOSS先生：法官阁下，如可容许，我只有两点。第一，关于资产，我们知道\n\n在康涅狄格州还有一些空壳公司，它们拥有他刚以约$7 million购得的格林尼治房地产。我认为最有效率的方式——而且我们不知道我们所不知道的事情——我认为最有效率的推进方式，是让我们能够在一开始就送达某种书面质询：有哪些资产以及持有这些资产的是哪些实体，然后我们便可以继续进行。19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：647 NYSCEF收到日期：11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of 29\n\n庭审记录\n\n讯问Kwok先生以及该等实体；如果它们是实体，则讯问该等实体，或由Kwok先生作为该等实体的30(b)(6)代表接受讯问。我希望高效且以最小负担完成此事；与其仅向他提问而他将称自己不知道答案，我认为最有效率的方式是尝试使用书面证据开示来取得实际资产的清单。法庭：听着，我不会告诉你们如何执业。你们有今天庭审的记录。我认为我已非常清楚地说明你们可以做什么。你们可以对任何资产进行证据开示——你们可以对任何有善意依据相信Kwok先生直接或间接控制的实体进行证据开示。可以是书面证据开示，也可以是口头证据开示。我不会在你们就你们可做事项的范围来回争执证据开示争议时充当操场监管人。我认为Kwok先生的律师以及Genever（Genever公司）的律师都完全明白庭审记录所反映的内容。我们在此处理的是一段压缩的时间期限。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\n就两项特定资产且仅就两项特定资产，已经作出限制令；另我人格试验定于January 15, 2021举行，损害赔偿听证会将于22 23 24 25\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：647 NYSCEF收到日期：11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 27 of 29\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　在另我人格审判之前或与之同时的某个时间举行。\n2　\n3　再次强调，这是一个2017年的案件，\n4　已占用法院相当多的时间。该案已形成\n5　数份书面裁决。在法院命令被\n6　公然无视或作出极其宽松的解释的同时，\n7　且在向法院作出\n8　误导法院的故意或非故意不实陈述的同时，我们将\n9　在January of 2021终结本案。\n10　因此，法庭书记员将向你们提供她的电子邮件\n11　地址。你们将订购一份庭审记录副本。我不可能\n12　比我在该记录中所说的更清楚。\n13　如果任何当事人或任何律师无视\n14　法院命令，将受到严厉制裁。\n15　我们都清楚了吗？\n16　MOSS先生：清楚。\n17　法官阁下，我能否仅就\n18　损害赔偿动议提一个问题。\n19　我们已提交动议，他们提出了异议。我理解\n20　法院将尽快就\n21　该事项举行听证会。鉴于他们已提出异议，\n22　而我们尚未答复，我们可否提交答复，因为有些事项我们\n23　希望提交法院审阅？\n24　法庭：如你愿意。我已向你解释，\n25　我被审判和动议压得应接不暇。我已预留\ntav\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：647 NYSCEF收到日期：11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 28 of 29\n\n庭审记录\n\n出January 15th这一日期。这是铁定的。我们将于January 15, 2021进行另我人格审判；如果我们能在此之前进行损害赔偿听证会，我们就会进行，但现在至January 15th之间没有多少时间，而且你，Moss先生，可能会相当忙碌。\n\nMOSS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\nMITCHELL先生：法官阁下，关于今天的命令，还有最后一个问题，因为如您所知，Genever New York（Genever纽约）已申请破产。我怀疑破产财团内的任何资产会在现在至January 15th期间被出售或发生任何变动，但我想确保，尤其是我本人或本案任何一方，不会因破产法院发生的任何事情而招致潜在制裁。\n\n法庭：不，我不能——我对任何处于破产中的实体均无管辖权。这并不意味着Moss先生不能向破产法院提出申请。这并不意味着Moss先生不能在破产法院的任何程序中援引今日此处庭审的记录，但我完全理解破产法院对已申请破产的实体所适用的自动中止。15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nMITCHELL先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。23 24\n\nTerry，你能否向各方提供你的电子邮件\n\ntav\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号：652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号：647 NYSCEF收到日期：11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-18 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 29 of 29\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　地址，以便他们可从该地址订购庭审记录副本，\n2　该副本将据此订购并电子提交？\n3　非常感谢。\n4　祝大家愉快。\n5　MOSS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n6　***\n7　证 明\n8　本人，Terry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔伯格），C.S.R.，纽约州正式法庭书记员，\n9　特此证明，上述内容\n10　是本人速记笔记的真实且准确的誊本。\n\n12　_______________________\n13　Terry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔伯格）, CSR, CRR\n正式法庭书记员\n\ntav","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8334,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:17:24"}