{"id":"court_ctb_404_19","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":19,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 19 April 30, 2021 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 837","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 19**\n\nApril 30, 2021 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 837\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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, INDEX NO. - against - 652077/17 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK Ho, aka 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 60 Centre Street New York, New York April 30, 2021 MICROSOFT TEAMS BEFORE: HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Justice APPEARANCES: O'MELVENEY & MYERS LLP Attorneys for the Plaintiff 7 Times Square New York, New York 10046 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. STUART ARANOFF, ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Miles Kwok 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ.\n\n> Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter PAX-19\n\n| 1 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | YANKWITT
LLP |\n| 3 | Attorneys
for
Movant
Yvette
Wang
140
Grand
Street
-
Suite
705
White
Plains,
New
York
10601 |\n| 4 | BY:
DANIEL
S.
ATLER,
ESQ. |\n| 5 | LAWALL
&
MITCHELL
LLC |\n| 6 | Attorneys
for
Defendant
Genever
162
East
64th
Street |\n| 7 | New
York,
New
York
10065
BY:
AARON
A.
MITCHELL,
ESQ. |\n| 8 | |\n| 9 | |\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 | Bonnie
Piccirillo
Official
Court
Reporter |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | Bonnie
Piccirillo
-
Official
Court
Reporter |\n\n3\n\nProceedings\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. We have Ms. Wang's motion to quash the judgment creditor's subpoena. So, let me hear the movant. MR. ALTER: Thank you, your Honor. May it please the Court, my name is Daniel Alter of the Yankwitt Firm and I'm representing Ms. Wang, as you noted. I'd like to start if I may first with a preliminary matter.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Apparently, in opposition to our motion, PAX, the judgment creditor, has filed documents under seal and this would appear to be in violation of your Honor's Rule 31. We have not had access to those documents. I can't access them off the docket. I haven't seen those documents, and we object to their filing, so I would ask that the Court strike them from the record of this motion and that's my preliminary request.\n\n18 19 20 Your Honor, if I may continue, I would like to get directly to the nub of the argument because I think this boils down to some very straightforward principles.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter The cases are very protective of non-parties' financial information that are sought in connection with judgment enforcement subpoenas. You have the Carlyle and the Stern cases in the First Department that make that clear. But, it's not even enough that a person is close to\n\n4\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of\n\n26\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the judgment creditor to get passed that wall. The Spruce Interiors case, which was decided by the Supreme Court, New York County, reiterated that principal that being close to the judgment debtor is not enough of a rationale to require response to a subpoena; but, nevertheless, required the recipient of the subpoena, the third parties, to produce financial documents because the subpoenaing party had established a factual basis that superseded the general rule.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 And the factual basis there was that the creditor had established that the third party had actually received transfers from the debtor into its personal bank accounts; and on that basis, they allowed -- the court allowed the subpoenas to stand.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 Your Honor, the question here is whether PAX has established sufficient grounds to allow it to access Ms. Wang's personal financial and other information through a very broad-sweeping subpoena that it served upon banks, law firms and I understand perhaps accounting firms and other individuals. We don't know the scope.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter The problem of course here is that apart from the blizzard of information that they have put into the record that is not relevant to the question at issue and apart from the very personal attacks that they have made against Ms. Wang, they have provided not a shred of evidence to\n\n5\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 suggest that her personal financial accounts that are held, maintained by third parties, would provide matter that is relevant to the satisfaction of this judgment.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 They at length make extensive accusations. They characterize Ms. Wang in very unflattering ways and point to other proceedings, but they have not shown as Spruce Interiors had in its record a single shred of actual evidence that she received any kind of transfer, was in possession of any of the debtors's personal property, nothing.\n\n11 12 13 So, it's not appropriate without that basis for PAX to be really just dredging for Ms. Wang's personal financial information.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 Now, this could have been done correctly. This is unfortunate that PAX has decided to really pursue a kind of scorched-earth policy because this could have been done correctly and in accordance with a defined process that could have resulted in a reasoned resolution if PAX had just subpoenaed Ms. Wang herself.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 She would have had whatever defenses she could have put up. She could have negotiated with regard to an appropriate scope or what documents she could provide, but we wouldn't be here fighting against an un-tolled number of subpoenas seeking for information about her that has nothing to do with the debtor or the debtor's property.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n6\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of\n\n26\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It just seeks a blunderbuss request for all information relating to her own bank accounts, any kind of securities accounts and it goes on and on. Her private information that were connected to the bank and doing know-your-client background information and it goes on and on. It is just inappropriate and it is all together unnecessary.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 So we request, your Honor, that you grant the relief that Ms. Wang seeks which is to quash any requests insofar as it seeks information about Ms. Wang and direct PAX to withdraw those requests from the numerous subpoenas that we're unaware of the identity.\n\n13 14 15 If the Court has any questions, I rest for the rest of my argument on the briefs that we've submitted, but I'd be happy to answer any questions.\n\n16 17 THE COURT: Okay. There is a test under CPLR 5223 that PAX has to satisfy.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 MR. ALTER: Correct, but I would say the test under 5223, as I understand it, is directed towards recipients, direct recipients of subpoenas and I'm not sure that it applies to PAX when it's going after third parties and the information of third parties.\n\n23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter Section 5240 is a very broad protective measure to protect parties and the courts from overreaching behavior. This is not a circumstance where it is a subpoena\n\n7\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 to a party or even directly to a third party, but rather it is one of these very broad-sweeping things that seeks to catch up Ms. Wang in a subpoena looking for information about 64 independent entities.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So, even if you were to look to the standard that's -- that your Honor identified, I don't think PAX can satisfy it. Because, again, in the cases that I've cited, the only way the courts would allow a creditor to subpoena a third party for its personal financial records would be upon a predicate showing that it was justified like a showing that Ms. Wang had received actual transfers as in the Spruce case. They made no such showing. This is all on speculation and accusation.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: You agree that 5223 allows for broad discovery in support of enforcing a judgment, including taking discovery from third parties other than the judgment debtor so long as it is relevant to the judgment debtor's income or property?\n\n19 20 21 MR. ALTER: I agree that that's the standard certainly stated, but I agree the cases decided under 5240 mold that standard as I've just described.\n\n22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter I don't think it's sufficient in a very broad-sweeping way to say that something is potentially relevant and thereby go into the personal information of third parties. I don't believe the cases -- respectfully,\n\n8\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter your Honor, I don't believe the cases support that. THE COURT: So, PAX would have to meet the burden of showing that its subpoenas seek information relevant to Mr. Kwok's income and/or property; correct? MR. ALTER: Yeah, I believe that they would have to show in order to justify the subpoena that they have issued, that Ms. Wang has received some kind of transfer that is indicative of her having information and they haven't done that. THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm going to hear from Mr. Moss about. MR. ALTER: Very well your Honor, thank you. MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor. Edward Moss for PAX. First on the sealing point, we actually raised the sealing with Mr. Siegal and Ms. Carvalho because we were going to be mentioning some information in Mr. Kwok's document production and a tax return. We actually just put a number in and we conferred with Mr. Siegal. We redacted number, and we filed public versions with only that number redacted. And so, Mr. Alter, I apologize if you don't have the papers, but we filed everything publicly except for that number. MR. ALTER: Your Honor, that's where there's a\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 10 of\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings 9 problem here. I represent Ms. Kwok. Mr. Siegal does not represent Ms. Kwok. He represents -- MR. MOSS: Mr. Kwok -- MR. ALTER: I'm sorry, you're right. Mr. Siegal represents Mr. Kwok. I represent Ms. Wang. I have an interest, Ms. Wang has an interest in the development of the record. Notwithstanding the fact that you may have conferred with Mr. Siegal whose motion this is not, you did not confer with me and you did not seek by order to show cause to have this document admitted, and we were not given the opportunity to object to what is clearly extraneous information to this particular motion. So I think there's a good reason why the Court has a rule that requires a motion by order to show cause so that the interested parties have the ability to respond. MR. MOSS: It was one number, Judge. It was Mr. Kwok's confidential information so we asked Mr. Kwok if he wanted to seal it. We wouldn't have sealed it, but he wanted us to so we did. We can move on from that and let me get to the merits here. And before I get to the specifics of the application and the financial information, I think we do need to start with some context here about what's going on, the big picture about why we're here which Mr. Alter\n\n9 of 25\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n10\n\nProceedings\n\n1 studiously avoided.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Kwok has a \\$116-million judgment against him. He has not posted an appeal bond. He has not paid. We always knew he wasn't going to pay, which is why we asked the Court for an attachment of the apartment at the beginning of these proceedings.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 But, your Honor, it's so much worse than we thought, right? Now he's saying he won't pay because the lawyers on our side, my partner, Mr. Sarnoff, and me, the lawyers on his side, David Boies he points to, and you, Judge; we're all in cahoots with the communist party, the Chinese communist party and that's why this case was entered against him.\n\n14 15 16 17 He's not going to pay us a dime. And whether Mr. Kwok really believes this or not, he's fighting like crazy to make sure that we never get a dime, that my client never gets a dime. He is throwing up roadblocks everywhere.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Kwok says he has no assets. He's now taken the Fifth Amendment. We subpoena one of his entities and a new lawyer, Mr. Alter is one of them, and there are others, they all show up everyday and say, Hey, it's not me. I don't represent Mr. Kwok. I represent one of the entities.\n\n23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter We subpoenaed the entity that supposedly owns the boat, that his daughter supposedly owns the entity. He writes me a nasty letter saying, What does this have to do\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 12 of\n\n26\n\n11\n\n## Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with me? I just represent Hong Kong International. I mean, and then you have the lawyers who have been here all along. You have Mr. Mitchell representing Genever. He's objecting to a subpoena that I didn't even serve him with. He sends me a note saying, I summarily object to your transparent attempt, blah-blah-blah. He never even received the subpoena.\n\n8 9 10 11 I mean, this is a circus, Judge, and it's pretty rich here that Ms. Wang coming in and accusing my client of abuse of process, miscarriage of justice, whatever other hyperbole is in those papers, right.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The simple fact here, Judge, is we can't get discovery. If we can't get discovery from Mr. Kwok and his closest associates and his entities, then we might as well all go home because the man, himself, has told us that he has no assets. So we will all have wasted four years of our lives. We can all go to our houses, Mr. Kwok can go onto his boat or his mansion and that will be the end of it; right?\n\n20 That can't be the right result here, Judge.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter Turning to Ms. Wang, I actually think that this is quite an easy issue, and I think your Honor hit it on the head with the standard of CPLR 5223. All matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment. It is a broad standard. It is a generous standard, and I think we have it backwards.\n\n12\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 When a party moves to quash, that party bears the burden of conclusively establishing that the subpoena is not seeking relevant information.\n\n4 5 6 That's the standard and so if it were our burden, Judge -- and I'll get to the issue you wanted to address right now.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ms. Wang is Mr. Kwok's closest associate. He brought her here from China and he installed her as the CEO of this fake company, Golden Spring, which is the company that he admits in an affidavit he funded with his own money and which Mr. Siegal and Ms. Carvalho admitted in a letter to me pays all of his relevant legal expenses and other expenses, all his personal expenses. She's the CEO of that entity. We know about that entity so that entity probably doesn't have any money anymore, but we're trying to find out.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 Ms. Wang is Mr. Kwok's spokesperson in court. She testified in this case falsely. She testified in the bankruptcy falsely. She recently testified last week on behalf of another entity Mr. Kwok says you're not going to own called the Eastern Profit.\n\n22 23 24 25 All of the testimony has been false in this case. She's testified under oath there's a pledge of the apartment. Well, we found public documents showing that pledge had been terminated; there was no pledge.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n13\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 She put in an affidavit telling your Honor Mr. Kwok has an ownership interest in the apartment. She testified a couple months ago in front of the bankruptcy judge that Mr. Kwok doesn't have any ownership interest in the apartment.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 In the Eastern Profit case, Judge Liman found that she has very, very, very serious credibility issues. She's the one who has to make the showing, and there's no way that she can make a showing with a self-serving affidavit, no documentary evidence when she's a known perjurer, Judge.\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I mean, we can't make a showing because they've blocked us from all of the assets. Mr. Kwok, I can't depose him because he's taken the Fifth. Last time I deposed him, he started ranting about the communist party. How am I going to make a showing about what he has transferred in her name when they're blocking the financial accounts? They're not speaking. They're not giving us any information; and when they have given information, they have been lying. I mean, it's a joke, Judge. Like if we can't get this information, then it's over.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 So Ms. Wang's accounts are highly relevant to satisfaction of the judgment. The fact that we know that he has these entities and we're now searching for these entities, it's quite logical that he would have put the money in personal account, right?\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n14\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 It is her burden to prove this and a self-serving affidavit is not enough. We are sensitive to the fact that Ms. Wang is an individual person, and this is not the typical subpoena; but it is not the typical case. It is unlike any case I've ever read, unlike any case I've ever litigated.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Look, we'll treat the information as attorneys' eyes only. If there are no huge sums of money in her accounts, fine; we'll rip up the pieces of paper and that will be the end of it. But if there are, then we're entitled to seize the money if it's there. She's a translator. She shouldn't have millions and millions of dollars in her account. We're entitled to seize the money; and if we find more likely what will have happened the money has already been transferred out and there are going to be other accounts that we're going to have to follow up on, and we've been doing that and doing that as these bank responses come in, Judge.\n\n19 20 21 22 It is a game of whack-a-mole. I mean, it really is. There are new shell companies coming up everyday, and Mr. Kwok wants us to play it with both hands tied behind our back.\n\n23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter So I don't know if he's abandoning it or not, but the second request here which Mr. Alter didn't address in his argument is they want to quash the subpoenas totally as\n\n15\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter to every entity shell company and every associate. Not just Ms. Wang. She, obviously, lacks standing to do that. She can't move to quash a subpoena that doesn't call for her information and that information is relevant for the same reasons that her information is relevant. So, again, Judge, if we cannot get this information, we're done. Let's go home. We know that's what Mr. Kwok wants. You don't have to take my word for it, Judge. You just have to watch his video where he says we're never going to get a dime. THE COURT: Well, you may or may not get a dime. I don't need to hear anything more. I don't believe that the judgment enforcement subpoenas are seeking information unrelated to the judgment debtor's assets. I think the judgment debtor has made a sufficient showing that Ms. Wang couldn't possibly have millions of dollars that belong to her; and if these subpoenas addressed to banks and security firms identify huge sums of money, there's a reasonable inference based on the totality of circumstances that I've been hearing about for the last two years that the money doesn't belong to Ms. Wang and does belong to Mr. Kwok. So, I'm not going to quash the subpoenas; and I rely upon you, Mr. Moss, as an officer of the court to -- as you represented -- just rip up the information that's being\n\n16\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter provided to you for attorneys' eyes only if that information is consistent with Mr. Alter's representation that none of the money in Ms. Wang's account is traceable to Mr. Kwok. And as far as your other efforts to locate Mr. Kwok's assets, if it's a game of whack-a-mole, you're, unfortunately, required to play it; but I'm not quashing the subpoenas. MR. ATLER: Your Honor, one point of clarification. I understand your Honor's directive. Was the request to Mr. Moss about maintaining it under attorneys' eyes only and destroying such documents afterwards a directive of the court? I just need for the record to know whether that constitutes an order of the court? THE COURT: That is the order of the court. MR. ATLER: Thank you, sir. THE COURT: If the documents that are produced pursuant to the subpoena do not reflect sums of money or securities that would be wildly disproportionate to any assets that Ms. Wang could possibly have by reason of her employment in the United States for the last six years, then Mr. Moss is obligated to destroy the information that's produced for attorneys' eyes only. MR. MOSS: Your Honor, can I make one clarification?\n\n17\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 In the event that we identify transfers in and out from accounts, other entities that Mr. Kwok owns or that we believe he's affiliated with, can we before destroying the documents, can we follow up on those accounts and try to subpoena the banks to get information about those other accounts? That's part of this process.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Well, you'll come back to the court. I can't prejudge or predict what is going to be produced pursuant to these subpoenas; and it is the case that individuals in Mr. Kwok's orbit may have information or funds that would properly be available for the judgment creditor to seize subject, of course, to court approval upon an appropriate showing.\n\n14 15 16 MR. MOSS: Thank you. Thank you, your Honor. May I raise one other related issue? Do you have one moment?\n\n17 THE COURT: Yes, you have the next hour.\n\n18 MR. MOSS: Oh, I don't think we'll need that,\n\n19 Judge.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 So we had filed a letter seeking to move to compel production of Golden Spring's documents. Mr. Alter is also counsel for Golden Spring, and we have reached an impasse on that. We asked for permission. He then wrote a letter today seeking to cross-move to quash the Golden Spring's subpoena.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n18\n\n26\n\nProceedings\n\n1 2 3 I think the issue there is that he wants to be able to have the last word and write a reply brief, you know, maybe because of what happened this time.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 So I'm happy to proceed however the Court wants. If you want three briefs or four briefs, I think we should have the last word because it's our motion to compel because they responded and objected to our subpoena and we sought permission to move first; but I'm happy to proceed on the briefing in whatever way the Court thinks would be most efficient.\n\n11 12 13 THE COURT: I think what would be most efficient would be for you and Mr. Alter to come to some kind of consensual resolution.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 As I understand your preliminary showing in support of your application is that for some period of time Golden Spring was the source of funds to support Mr. Kwok's lavish lifestyle, including payments for the Sherry-Netherland apartment that Mr. Kwok claims not to own and payments to fund the operations of his yacht, which has been removed from United States territorial waters in violation of a court order.\n\n22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter And, if you both want to run up legal fees briefing this as opposed to coming to some reasonable understanding as to this issue, I'll deal with it in the fullness of time just the way we dealt with Ms. Wang's issues without\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 20 of 26\n\n19\n\nProceedings\n\n1 prejudging the outcome.\n\n2 3 4 5 MR. MOSS: Sure, Judge. I just think the issue is that a motion to compel and a motion to quash is going to have six briefs and that seems silly when they're the same issues.\n\n6 7 8 MR. ATLER: Yes, if I actually might be heard on that since I had something to do with it. I agree with the judge entirely that it makes sense for us to discuss it.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 Your assumption, again, that this has to do with who gets the last brief is off the mark, and I'd be happy to discuss with you a rational way for each of us to present our respective arguments. So, I'm not sure how this is productive.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: I don't need six briefs or four briefs. I just need Mr. Moss's best effort to make the case for subpoenaing the records of this entity and for you, Mr. Alter, to make your best case to quash any proposed subpoena on this entity and then we'll have a Microsoft Teams session. I'll hear you, and then I'll decide; or you might save your clients a lot of legal fees and time by coming to some consensual understanding on this issue, but if you can't that's what courts are for.\n\n23 24 All right, have a nice day. Order a copy of the transcript.\n\n25\n\nBonnie Piccirillo - Official Court Reporter\n\n| Case 22-50073
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 | Doc 404-19 | Filed 05/20/22
26 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 21 of
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 | |\n|--------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | | | 20 |\n| 1 | | | | |\n| 2 | | | | |\n| 3 | | C
E
R
T
I | F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N | |\n| 4 | | | | |\n| 5
INDEX | NO. | 652077/17 | | |\n| 6 | | | | |\n| 7 | | --- | | |\n| 8 | | | | |\n| 9 | | THIS
TRUE | IS
HEREBY
CERTIFIED
TO
BE
AND
CORRECT
TRANSCRIPT. | A |\n| 10 | | | | |\n| 11 | | | BONNIE
PICCIRILLO | |\n| 12 | | | OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | |\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\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 22 of\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n1\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of\n\n9:9\n\n| 1 |\n|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 10046 [1] - 1:19 |\n| 10065 [1] - 2:7 |\n| 10111 [1] - 1:23 |\n| 10601 [1] - 2:3
116-million [1] - 10:2 |\n| 140 [1] - 2:3 |\n| 162 [1] - 2:6 |\n| 2 |\n| 2021 [1] - 1:12 |\n| 3 |\n| 30 [1] - 1:12 |\n| 31 [1] - 3:12 |\n| 4 |\n| 45 [1] - 1:22 |\n| 5 |\n| 5223 [4] - 6:16, 6:19, |\n| 7:14, 11:23 |\n| 5240 [2] - 6:23, 7:20 |\n| 6 |\n| 60 [1] - 1:11 |\n| 61 [1] - 1:1 |\n| 64 [1] - 7:4
64th [1] - 2:6 |\n| 652077/17 [1] - 1:5 |\n| 7 |\n| 7 [1] - 1:19 |\n| 705 [1] - 2:3 |\n| A |\n| a/k/a [6] - 1:6, 1:7, 1:7 |\n| AARON [1] - 2:7
abandoning [1] - |\n| 14:23 |\n| ability [1] - 9:16 |\n| able [1] - 18:1 |\n| abuse [1] - 11:10 |\n| access [3] - 3:13, 4:16 |\n| accordance [1] - 5:17
account [3] - 13:25, |\n| 14:13, 16:3 |\n| accounting [1] - 4:19 |\n| accounts [11] - 4:12, |\n\n5:1, 6:2, 6:3, 13:16, 13:21, 14:9, 14:16, 17:2, 17:4, 17:6\n\n**accusation** [1] - 7:13 **accusations** [1] - 5:4 **accusing** [1] - 11:9 **actual** [2] - 5:7, 7:11 **address** [2] - 12:5, 14:24 **addressed** [1] - 15:18 **admits** [1] - 12:10 **admitted** [2] - 9:11, 12:11 **affidavit** [4] - 12:10, 13:1, 13:9, 14:2 **affiliated** [1] - 17:3 **afternoon** [1] - 3:2 **afterwards** [1] - 16:12 **ago** [1] - 13:3 **agree** [4] - 7:14, 7:19, 7:20, 19:7 **aka** [1] - 1:6 **ALLIANCE**[1] - 1:3 **allow** [2] - 4:16, 7:8 **allowed** [2] - 4:13 **allows** [1] - 7:14 **ALTER** [7] - 3:5, 6:18, 7:19, 8:5, 8:12, 8:25, 9:4 **alter**[2] - 17:21, 18:12 **Alter**[6] - 3:6, 8:22, 9:25, 10:20, 14:24, 19:17 **alter's** [1] - 16:2 **Amendment**[1] - 10:19 **answer**[1] - 6:15 **apart** [2] - 4:21, 4:23 **apartment** [5] - 10:5, 12:24, 13:2, 13:5, 18:18 **apologize** [1] - 8:22 **appeal** [1] - 10:3 **appear**[1] - 3:12 **APPEARANCES**[1] - 1:17 **application** [2] - 9:23, 18:15 **applies** [1] - 6:21 **appropriate** [3] - 5:11, 5:22, 17:13 **approval** [1] - 17:12 **April** [1] - 1:12 **ARANOFF**[1] - 1:20 **argument** [3] - 3:19, 6:14, 14:25 **arguments** [1] - 19:12 **ASIA** [1] - 1:3 **assets** [6] - 10:18, 11:16, 13:12, 15:15, 16:5, 16:20 **associate** [2] - 12:7,\n\n15:1 **associates** [1] - 11:14 **assumption** [1] - 19:9 **ATLER** [4] - 2:4, 16:8, 16:16, 19:6 **attachment** [1] - 10:5 **attacks** [1] - 4:24 **attempt** [1] - 11:6 **Attorneys**[4] - 1:18, 1:22, 2:2, 2:6 **attorneys'** [4] - 14:7, 16:1, 16:11, 16:23 **available** [1] - 17:11 **avoided** [1] - 10:1\n\n## **B**\n\n**background** [1] - 6:5 **backwards** [1] - 11:25 **BAKER** [1] - 1:21 **bank** [4] - 4:12, 6:2, 6:4, 14:17 **bankruptcy** [2] - 12:19, 13:3 **banks** [3] - 4:18, 15:18, 17:5 **BARRY**[1] - 1:15 **based** [1] - 15:19 **basis** [4] - 4:8, 4:10, 4:13, 5:11 **bears** [1] - 12:1 **BEFORE** [1] - 1:14 **beginning** [1] - 10:6 **behalf** [1] - 12:20 **behavior**[1] - 6:24 **behind** [1] - 14:21 **believes** [1] - 10:15 **belong** [3] - 15:17, 15:21, 15:22 **best** [2] - 19:15, 19:17 **big** [1] - 9:25 **blah** [3] - 11:6 **blah-blah-blah** [1] - 11:6 **blizzard** [1] - 4:22 **blocked** [1] - 13:12 **blocking** [1] - 13:16 **blunderbuss** [1] - 6:1 **boat** [2] - 10:24, 11:18 **Boies** [1] - 10:10 **boils** [1] - 3:20 **bond** [1] - 10:3 **Bonnie** [1] - 2:23 **brief** [2] - 18:2, 19:10 **briefing** [2] - 18:9, 18:22 **briefs** [6] - 6:14, 18:5, 19:4, 19:14 **broad** [6] - 4:18, 6:23,\n\n7:2, 7:14, 7:23, 11:24 **broad-sweeping** [3] - 4:18, 7:2, 7:23 **brought** [1] - 12:8 **burden** [4] - 8:2, 12:2, 12:4, 14:1 **BY** [4] - 1:20, 1:23, 2:4, 2:7\n\n## **C**\n\n**cahoots** [1] - 10:11 **cannot** [1] - 15:6 **Carlyle** [1] - 3:23 **Carvalho** [2] - 8:16, 12:11 **CARVALHO**[1] - 1:24 **case** [12] - 4:2, 7:12, 10:12, 12:18, 12:22, 13:6, 14:4, 14:5, 17:9, 19:15, 19:17 **cases** [6] - 3:21, 3:24, 7:7, 7:20, 7:25, 8:1 **catch** [1] - 7:3 **Centre** [1] - 1:11 **CEO** [2] - 12:8, 12:13 **certainly** [1] - 7:20 **characterize** [1] - 5:5 **China** [1] - 12:8 **Chinese** [1] - 10:12 **circumstance** [1] - 6:25 **circumstances** [1] - 15:20 **circus** [1] - 11:8 **cited** [1] - 7:7 **claims** [1] - 18:18 **clarification** [2] - 16:8, 16:25 **clear**[1] - 3:25 **clearly** [1] - 9:12 **client** [3] - 6:5, 10:16, 11:9 **clients** [1] - 19:20 **close** [2] - 3:25, 4:3 **closest** [2] - 11:14, 12:7 **coming** [4] - 11:9, 14:20, 18:23, 19:21 **communist** [3] - 10:11, 10:12, 13:14 **companies** [1] - 14:20 **company** [3] - 12:9, 15:1 **compel** [3] - 17:20, 18:6, 19:3 **conclusively** [1] - 12:2 **confer**[1] - 9:10 **conferred** [2] - 8:19,\n\n**confidential** [1] - 9:18 **connected** [1] - 6:4 **connection** [1] - 3:22 **consensual** [2] - 18:13, 19:21 **consistent** [1] - 16:2 **constitutes** [1] - 16:13 **context** [1] - 9:24 **continue** [1] - 3:18 **copy** [1] - 19:23 **CORPORATION** [1] - 1:8 **correct** [2] - 6:18, 8:4 **correctly** [2] - 5:14, 5:17 **counsel** [1] - 17:22 **County** [1] - 4:3 **COUNTY** [1] - 1:1 **couple** [1] - 13:3 **course** [2] - 4:21, 17:12 **Court** [9] - 2:23, 3:6, 3:15, 4:2, 6:13, 9:14, 10:5, 18:4, 18:9 **COURT** [13] - 1:1, 3:2, 6:16, 7:14, 8:2, 8:10, 15:11, 16:15, 16:17, 17:7, 17:17, 18:11, 19:14 **court** [9] - 4:13, 12:17, 15:24, 16:12, 16:14, 16:15, 17:7, 17:12, 18:21 **courts** [3] - 6:24, 7:8, 19:22 **CPLR** [2] - 6:16, 11:23 **crazy** [1] - 10:16 **credibility** [1] - 13:7 **creditor**[5] - 3:11, 4:1, 4:10, 7:8, 17:12 **creditor's** [1] - 3:3 **cross** [1] - 17:24 **cross-move** [1] - 17:24\n\n## **D**\n\n**DANIEL** [1] - 2:4 **Daniel** [1] - 3:6 **daughter**[1] - 10:24 **David** [1] - 10:10 **deal** [1] - 18:24 **dealt** [1] - 18:25 **debtor** [5] - 4:4, 4:12, 5:25, 7:17, 15:15 **debtor's** [3] - 5:25, 7:17, 15:15 **debtors's** [1] - 5:9 **decide** [1] - 19:19\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021\n\n**HONORABLE** [1] -\n\n**HOSTETLER** [1] -\n\n1:15\n\n1:21\n\n2\n\n| decided [3] - 4:2, | |\n|--------------------------|--|\n| 5:15, 7:20 | |\n| Defendant [2] - 1:22, | |\n| 2:6 | |\n| Defendants [1] - 1:9 | |\n| defenses [1] - 5:20 | |\n| defined [1] - 5:17 | |\n| Department [1] - 3:24 | |\n| depose [1] - 13:12 | |\n| deposed [1] - 13:13 | |\n| described [1] - 7:21 | |\n| destroy [1] - 16:22 | |\n| destroying [2] - 16:11, | |\n| 17:3 | |\n| development [1] - 9:6 | |\n| dime [5] - 10:14, | |\n| 10:16, 10:17, 15:10, | |\n| 15:11 | |\n| direct [2] - 6:10, 6:20 | |\n| directed [1] - 6:19 | |\n| | |\n| directive [2] - 16:9, | |\n| 16:12 | |\n| directly [2] - 3:19, 7:1 | |\n| discovery [4] - 7:15, | |\n| 7:16, 11:13 | |\n| discuss [2] - 19:8, | |\n| 19:11 | |\n| disproportionate [1] - | |\n| 16:19 | |\n| docket [1] - 3:14 | |\n| document [2] - 8:18, | |\n| 9:11 | |\n| documentary [1] - | |\n| 13:10 | |\n| documents [10] - | |\n| 3:11, 3:13, 3:14, 4:7, | |\n| 5:22, 12:24, 16:11, | |\n| 16:17, 17:4, 17:21 | |\n| dollars [2] - 14:13, | |\n| 15:17 | |\n| done [4] - 5:14, 5:16, | |\n| 8:8, 15:7 | |\n| down [1] - 3:20 | |\n| dredging [1] - 5:12 | |\n| | |\n| E | |\n| | |\n| earth [1] - 5:16 | |\n| East [1] - 2:6 | |\n| Eastern [2] - 12:21, | |\n| | |\n\n13:6 **easy** [1] - 11:22 **Edward** [1] - 8:13 **EDWARD** [1] - 1:20 **efficient** [2] - 18:10,\n\n18:11 **effort** [1] - 19:15 **efforts** [1] - 16:4 **employment**[1] - 16:21\n\n**end** [2] - 11:18, 14:10 **enforcement** [2] - 3:23, 15:13 **enforcing** [1] - 7:15 **entered** [1] - 10:12 **entirely** [1] - 19:8 **entities** [7] - 7:4, 10:19, 10:22, 11:14, 13:23, 13:24, 17:2 **entitled** [2] - 14:11, 14:13 **entity** [9] - 10:23, 10:24, 12:14, 12:20, 15:1, 19:16, 19:18 **ESQ** [6] - 1:20, 1:20, 1:23, 1:24, 2:4, 2:7 **established** [3] - 4:8, 4:11, 4:16 **establishing** [1] - 12:2 **event** [1] - 17:1 **everyday**[2] - 10:21, 14:20 **everywhere**[1] - 10:17 **evidence** [3] - 4:25, 5:8, 13:10 **except** [1] - 8:23 **expenses** [3] - 12:12, 12:13 **extensive** [1] - 5:4 **extraneous** [1] - 9:12 **eyes** [4] - 14:8, 16:1, 16:11, 16:23 **F fact** [4] - 9:8, 11:12, 13:22, 14:2 **factual** [2] - 4:8, 4:10\n\n**fake** [1] - 12:9 **false** [1] - 12:22 **falsely** [2] - 12:18, 12:19 **far**[1] - 16:4 **fees** [2] - 18:22, 19:20 **Fifth** [2] - 10:19, 13:13 **fighting** [2] - 5:23, 10:15 **filed** [4] - 3:11, 8:20, 8:23, 17:20 **filing** [1] - 3:15 **financial** [8] - 3:22, 4:7, 4:17, 5:1, 5:12, 7:9, 9:23, 13:16 **fine** [1] - 14:9 **Firm** [1] - 3:6 **firms** [3] - 4:19, 15:18 **first** [3] - 3:8, 8:15, 18:8\n\n**First** [1] - 3:24\n\n**follow** [2] - 14:16, 17:4 **four** [3] - 11:16, 18:5, 19:14 **front** [1] - 13:3 **fullness** [1] - 18:24 **FUND** [1] - 1:3 **fund** [1] - 18:19 **funded** [1] - 12:10 **funds** [2] - 17:11, 18:16\n\n## **G**\n\n**game** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **general** [1] - 4:8 **generous** [1] - 11:25 **GENEVER** [2] - 1:8, 1:8 **Genever**[2] - 2:6, 11:3 **given** [2] - 9:11, 13:18 **Golden** [5] - 12:9, 17:21, 17:22, 17:24, 18:15 **Grand** [1] - 2:3 **grant** [1] - 6:8 **grounds** [1] - 4:16 **GUE** [1] - 1:7 **GUI** [2] - 1:7 **GUO** [3] - 1:7, 1:8 **GWO** [1] - 1:6\n\n## **H**\n\n**hands** [1] - 14:21 **HAOYUN** [2] - 1:7, 1:8 **happy** [4] - 6:15, 18:4, 18:8, 19:10 **head** [1] - 11:23 **hear**[4] - 3:4, 8:10, 15:12, 19:19 **heard** [1] - 19:6 **hearing** [1] - 15:20 **held** [1] - 5:1 **herself** [1] - 5:19 **highly** [1] - 13:21 **himself** [1] - 11:15 **hit** [1] - 11:22 **HO** [1] - 1:6 **Ho** [1] - 1:6 **HOLDINGS** [2] - 1:8, 1:8 **home** [2] - 11:15, 15:7 **Hong** [1] - 11:1 **Honor** [15] - 3:5, 3:18, 4:15, 6:8, 7:6, 8:1, 8:12, 8:13, 8:25, 10:7, 11:22, 13:1, 16:8, 16:24, 17:14 **Honor's** [2] - 3:12, 16:9\n\n**hour** [1] - 17:17 **houses** [1] - 11:17 **huge** [2] - 14:8, 15:19 **hyperbole** [1] - 11:11 **I identified** [1] - 7:6 **identify** [2] - 15:18, 17:1 **identity** [1] - 6:12 **impasse** [1] - 17:22 **inappropriate** [1] - 6:6 **including** [2] - 7:15, 18:17 **income** [2] - 7:18, 8:4 **independent** [1] - 7:4 **INDEX** [1] - 1:5 **indicative** [1] - 8:8 **individual** [1] - 14:3 **individuals** [2] - 4:20, 17:10 **inference** [1] - 15:19 **information** [33] - 3:22, 4:17, 4:22, 5:13, 5:24, 6:2, 6:4, 6:5, 6:10, 6:22, 7:3, 7:24, 8:3, 8:8, 8:17, 9:13, 9:18, 9:23, 12:3, 13:17, 13:18, 13:20, 14:7, 15:4, 15:5, 15:7, 15:14, 15:25, 16:1, 16:22, 17:5, 17:10 **insofar**[1] - 6:10 **installed** [1] - 12:8 **interest** [4] - 9:6, 13:2, 13:4 **interested** [1] - 9:16 **Interiors** [2] - 4:2, 5:7 **International** [1] - 11:1 **issue** [8] - 4:23, 11:22, 12:5, 17:15, 18:1, 18:24, 19:2, 19:21 **issued** [1] - 8:6 **issues** [3] - 13:7, 18:25, 19:5 **J JOHN** [1] - 1:23 **joke** [1] - 13:19\n\n**Judge** [14] - 9:17, 10:11, 11:8, 11:12, 11:20, 12:5, 13:6,\n\n19:2 **judge** [2] - 13:3, 19:8 **judgment** [16] - 3:3, 3:11, 3:23, 4:1, 4:4, 5:3, 7:15, 7:16, 7:17, 10:2, 11:24, 13:22, 15:13, 15:14, 15:15, 17:11 **justice** [1] - 11:10 **Justice** [1] - 1:15 **justified** [1] - 7:10 **justify** [1] - 8:6 **K kind** [5] - 5:8, 5:15, 6:2, 8:7, 18:12 **know-your-client** [1] - 6:5 **known** [1] - 13:10 **Kong** [1] - 11:1 **KWOK** [3] - 1:6, 1:7 **Kwok** [22] - 1:22, 9:1, 9:2, 9:3, 9:5, 9:18, 10:2, 10:15, 10:18, 10:22, 11:13, 11:17, 12:20, 13:1, 13:4, 13:12, 14:21, 15:8, 15:22, 16:3, 17:2, 18:18 **Kwok's** [8] - 8:4, 8:17, 9:18, 12:7, 12:17,\n\n13:10, 13:19, 14:18, 15:6, 15:9, 17:19,\n\n## 16:5, 17:10, 18:16\n\n**L L.P** [1] - 1:3 **lacks** [1] - 15:2 **last** [7] - 12:19, 13:13, 15:21, 16:21, 18:2, 18:6, 19:10 **lavish** [1] - 18:16 **law** [1] - 4:19 **LAWALL** [1] - 2:5 **lawyer**[1] - 10:20 **lawyers** [3] - 10:9, 10:10, 11:2 **legal** [3] - 12:12, 18:22, 19:20 **length** [1] - 5:4 **letter**[4] - 10:25, 12:11, 17:20, 17:23 **lifestyle** [1] - 18:17 **likely** [1] - 14:14 **Liman** [1] - 13:6 **litigated** [1] - 14:6 **lives** [1] - 11:17 **LLC** [2] - 1:8, 2:5\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 25 of\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021\n\n3\n\n**LLP** [3] - 1:18, 1:21, 2:2 **locate** [1] - 16:4 **logical** [1] - 13:24 **look** [2] - 7:5, 14:7 **looking** [1] - 7:3 **lying** [1] - 13:18\n\n## **M**\n\n**maintained** [1] - 5:2 **maintaining** [1] - 16:10 **man** [1] - 11:15 **mansion** [1] - 11:18 **mark** [1] - 19:10 **matter**[3] - 3:9, 5:2, 11:23 **mean** [5] - 11:2, 11:8, 13:11, 13:19, 14:19 **measure** [1] - 6:23 **meet** [1] - 8:2 **MELISSA** [1] - 1:24 **mentioning** [1] - 8:17 **merits** [1] - 9:21 **Microsoft** [1] - 19:18 **MICROSOFT** [1] - 1:12 **might** [3] - 11:14, 19:6, 19:20 **Miles** [1] - 1:22 **MILES** [1] - 1:7 **millions** [3] - 14:12, 15:17 **miscarriage** [1] - 11:10 **MITCHELL** [2] - 2:5, 2:7 **Mitchell** [1] - 11:3 **mold** [1] - 7:21 **mole** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **moment** [1] - 17:16 **money** [11] - 12:10, 12:15, 13:25, 14:8, 14:11, 14:13, 14:14, 15:19, 15:21, 16:3, 16:18 **months** [1] - 13:3 **MOSS** [8] - 1:20, 8:13, 9:3, 9:17, 16:24, 17:14, 17:18, 19:2 **Moss** [5] - 8:11, 8:13, 15:24, 16:10, 16:22 **Moss's** [1] - 19:15 **most** [2] - 18:9, 18:11 **motion** [9] - 3:3, 3:10, 3:16, 9:9, 9:13, 9:15, 18:6, 19:3 **Movant** [1] - 2:2 **movant** [1] - 3:4\n\n**move** [5] - 9:20, 15:3, 17:20, 17:24, 18:8 **moves** [1] - 12:1 **MR** [17] - 3:5, 6:18, 7:19, 8:5, 8:12, 8:13, 8:25, 9:3, 9:4, 9:17, 16:8, 16:16, 16:24, 17:14, 17:18, 19:2, 19:6 **MYERS** [1] - 1:18 **N name** [2] - 3:6, 13:16 **nasty** [1] - 10:25 **need** [6] - 9:24, 15:12, 16:12, 17:18, 19:14, 19:15 **negotiated** [1] - 5:21 **Netherland** [1] - 18:17 **never**[4] - 10:16, 10:17, 11:6, 15:10 **nevertheless** [1] - 4:5 **NEW** [2] - 1:1, 1:1 **new** [2] - 10:19, 14:20 **New** [10] - 1:11, 1:19, 1:23, 2:3, 2:7, 4:2 **next** [1] - 17:17 **nice** [1] - 19:23 **NO** [1] - 1:5 **non** [1] - 3:21 **non-parties'** [1] - 3:21 **none** [1] - 16:2 **note** [1] - 11:5 **noted** [1] - 3:7 **nothing** [2] - 5:10, 5:24 **notwithstanding** [1] - 9:8 **nub** [1] - 3:19 **number**[6] - 5:23,\n\n## **O**\n\n8:19, 8:20, 8:24,\n\n**numerous** [1] - 6:11\n\n9:17\n\n**O'MELVENEY**[1] - 1:18 **oath** [1] - 12:23 **object** [3] - 3:15, 9:12, 11:5 **objected** [1] - 18:7 **objecting** [1] - 11:4 **obligated** [1] - 16:22 **obviously** [1] - 15:2 **OF** [3] - 1:1, 1:1 **officer**[1] - 15:24 **Official** [1] - 2:23 **one** [10] - 7:2, 9:17,\n\n10:19, 10:20, 10:22, 13:8, 16:8, 16:24, 17:15, 17:16 **operations** [1] - 18:19 **opportunity** [1] - 9:12 **OPPORTUNITY**[1] - 1:3 **opposed** [1] - 18:23 **opposition** [1] - 3:10 **orbit** [1] - 17:10 **order**[7] - 8:6, 9:10, 9:15, 16:13, 16:15, 18:21, 19:23 **OSTRAGER** [1] - 1:15 **outcome** [1] - 19:1 **overreaching** [1] - 6:24 **own** [4] - 6:2, 12:10, 12:21, 18:18 **ownership** [2] - 13:2, 13:4 **owns** [3] - 10:23,\n\n## **P**\n\n10:24, 17:2\n\n**PACIFIC** [1] - 1:3 **paid** [1] - 10:3 **paper**[1] - 14:9 **papers** [2] - 8:23, 11:11 **part** [1] - 17:6 **PART** [1] - 1:1 **particular**[1] - 9:13 **parties** [8] - 4:6, 5:2, 6:21, 6:22, 6:24, 7:16, 7:25, 9:16 **parties'** [1] - 3:21 **partner**[1] - 10:9 **party** [10] - 4:7, 4:11, 7:1, 7:9, 10:11, 10:12, 12:1, 13:14 **passed** [1] - 4:1 **PAX** [11] - 3:10, 4:15, 5:11, 5:15, 5:18, 6:11, 6:17, 6:21, 7:6, 8:2, 8:14 **pay** [3] - 10:4, 10:8, 10:14 **payments** [2] - 18:17, 18:18 **pays** [1] - 12:12 **perhaps** [1] - 4:19 **period** [1] - 18:15 **perjurer**[1] - 13:10 **permission** [2] - 17:23, 18:8 **person** [2] - 3:25, 14:3 **personal** [10] - 4:12, 4:17, 4:24, 5:1, 5:9,\n\n5:12, 7:9, 7:24, 12:13, 13:25 **Piccirillo** [1] - 2:23 **picture** [1] - 9:25 **pieces** [1] - 14:9 **Plains** [1] - 2:3 **Plaintiff** [2] - 1:4, 1:18 **play** [2] - 14:21, 16:6 **Plaza** [1] - 1:22 **pledge** [3] - 12:23, 12:25 **point** [3] - 5:5, 8:15, 16:8 **points** [1] - 10:10 **policy** [1] - 5:16 **possession** [1] - 5:9 **possibly** [2] - 15:16, 16:20 **posted** [1] - 10:3 **potentially** [1] - 7:23 **predicate** [1] - 7:10 **predict** [1] - 17:8 **prejudge** [1] - 17:8 **prejudging** [1] - 19:1 **preliminary** [3] - 3:8, 3:17, 18:14 **present** [1] - 19:11 **pretty** [1] - 11:8 **principal** [1] - 4:3 **principles** [1] - 3:20 **private** [1] - 6:3 **problem** [2] - 4:21, 9:1 **proceed** [2] - 18:4, 18:8 **proceedings** [2] - 5:6, 10:6 **process** [3] - 5:17, 11:10, 17:6 **produce** [1] - 4:6 **produced** [3] - 16:17, 16:23, 17:8 **production** [2] - 8:18, 17:21 **productive** [1] - 19:13 **Profit** [2] - 12:21, 13:6 **properly** [1] - 17:11 **property** [4] - 5:9, 5:25, 7:18, 8:4 **proposed** [1] - 19:17 **protect** [1] - 6:24 **protective** [2] - 3:21, 6:23 **prove** [1] - 14:1 **provide** [2] - 5:2, 5:22 **provided** [2] - 4:25, 16:1 **public** [2] - 8:20, 12:24 **publicly** [1] - 8:23\n\n**pursuant** [2] - 16:18, 17:9 **pursue** [1] - 5:15 **put** [5] - 4:22, 5:21, 8:18, 13:1, 13:24\n\n## **Q**\n\n**quash** [9] - 3:3, 6:9, 12:1, 14:25, 15:3, 15:23, 17:24, 19:3, 19:17 **quashing** [1] - 16:6 **questions** [2] - 6:13, 6:15 **quite** [2] - 11:22, 13:24\n\n## **R**\n\n**raise** [1] - 17:15 **raised** [1] - 8:15 **ranting** [1] - 13:14 **rather**[1] - 7:1 **rational** [1] - 19:11 **rationale** [1] - 4:4 **reached** [1] - 17:22 **read** [1] - 14:5 **really** [4] - 5:12, 5:15, 10:15, 14:19 **reason** [2] - 9:14, 16:20 **reasonable** [2] - 15:19, 18:23 **reasoned** [1] - 5:18 **reasons** [1] - 15:5 **received** [5] - 4:11, 5:8, 7:11, 8:7, 11:6 **recently** [1] - 12:19 **recipient** [1] - 4:6 **recipients** [2] - 6:19, 6:20 **record** [5] - 3:16, 4:22, 5:7, 9:7, 16:13 **records** [2] - 7:9, 19:16 **redacted** [2] - 8:19, 8:21 **reflect** [1] - 16:18 **regard** [1] - 5:21 **reiterated** [1] - 4:3 **related** [1] - 17:15 **relating** [1] - 6:2 **relevant**[11] - 4:23, 5:3, 7:17, 7:24, 8:3, 11:23, 12:3, 12:12, 13:21, 15:4, 15:5 **relief** [1] - 6:9 **rely** [1] - 15:24 **removed** [1] - 18:19\n\nBP\n\n26\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of\n\n4\n\n**reply** [1] - 18:2 **Reporter**[1] - 2:23 **represent** [6] - 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 10:22, 11:1 **representation** [1] - 16:2 **represented** [1] - 15:25 **representing** [2] - 3:7, 11:3 **represents** [2] - 9:2, 9:5 **request** [5] - 3:17, 6:1, 6:8, 14:24, 16:10 **requests** [2] - 6:9, 6:11 **require** [1] - 4:4 **required** [2] - 4:5, 16:6 **requires** [1] - 9:15 **resolution** [2] - 5:18, 18:13 **respectfully** [1] - 7:25 **respective** [1] - 19:12 **respond** [1] - 9:16 **responded** [1] - 18:7 **response** [1] - 4:5 **responses** [1] - 14:17 **rest** [2] - 6:13 **result** [1] - 11:20 **resulted** [1] - 5:18 **return** [1] - 8:18 **rich** [1] - 11:9 **rip** [2] - 14:9, 15:25 **roadblocks** [1] - 10:17 **Rockefeller**[1] - 1:22 **rule** [2] - 4:9, 9:15 **Rule** [1] - 3:12 **run** [1] - 18:22 **S Sarnoff** [1] - 10:9 **satisfaction** [3] - 5:3, 11:24, 13:22 **satisfy** [2] - 6:17, 7:7 **save** [1] - 19:20 **scope** [2] - 4:20, 5:22 **scorched** [1] - 5:16 **scorched-earth** [1] - 5:16 **seal** [2] - 3:11, 9:19 **sealed** [1] - 9:19 **sealing** [2] - 8:15, 8:16 **searching** [1] - 13:23 **second** [1] - 14:24 **section** [1] - 6:23 **securities** [2] - 6:3, 16:19 **seek** [2] - 8:3, 9:10 **seeking** [5] - 5:24, 12:3, 15:14, 17:20, 17:24 **seeks** [4] - 6:1, 6:9, 6:10, 7:2 **seize** [3] - 14:11, 14:13, 17:12 **self** [2] - 13:9, 14:1 **self-serving** [2] - 13:9, 14:1 **sends** [1] - 11:5 **sense** [1] - 19:8 **sensitive** [1] - 14:2 **serious** [1] - 13:7 **serve** [1] - 11:4 **served** [1] - 4:18 **serving** [2] - 13:9, 14:1 **session** [1] - 19:19 **shell** [2] - 14:20, 15:1 **Sherry** [1] - 18:17 **Sherry-Netherland** [1] - 18:17 **show** [4] - 8:6, 9:10, 9:15, 10:21 **showing** [12] - 7:10, 7:12, 8:3, 12:24, 13:8, 13:9, 13:11, 13:15, 15:16, 17:13, 18:14 **shown** [1] - 5:6 **shred** [2] - 4:25, 5:7 **side** [2] - 10:9, 10:10 **SIEGAL** [1] - 1:23 **Siegal** [6] - 8:16, 8:19, 9:1, 9:4, 9:9, 12:11 **silly** [1] - 19:4 **simple** [1] - 11:12 **single** [1] - 5:7 **six** [3] - 16:21, 19:4, 19:14 **sorry** [1] - 9:4 **sought** [2] - 3:22, 18:7 **source** [1] - 18:16 **speaking** [1] - 13:17 **specifics** [1] - 9:22 **speculation** [1] - 7:13 **spokesperson** [1] - 12:17 **Spring** [3] - 12:9, 17:22, 18:16 **Spring's** [2] - 17:21, 17:24 **Spruce** [3] - 4:1, 5:6,\n\n**security** [1] - 15:18 7:11 **Square** [1] - 1:19 **stand** [1] - 4:14 **standard** [7] - 7:5,\n\n7:19, 7:21, 11:23, 11:24, 11:25, 12:4 **standing** [1] - 15:2 **start** [2] - 3:8, 9:24 **started** [1] - 13:14 **STATE**[1] - 1:1 **States** [2] - 16:21, 18:20 **Stern** [1] - 3:24 **straightforward** [1] - 3:20 **Street** [3] - 1:11, 2:3, 2:6 **strike** [1] - 3:15 **STUART**[1] - 1:20 **studiously** [1] - 10:1 **subject** [1] - 17:12 **submitted** [1] - 6:14 **subpoena** [19] - 3:3, 4:5, 4:6, 4:18, 6:25, 7:3, 7:8, 8:6, 10:19, 11:4, 11:7, 12:2, 14:4, 15:3, 16:18, 17:5, 17:25, 18:7, 19:18 **subpoenaed** [2] - 5:19, 10:23 **subpoenaing** [2] - 4:7, 19:16 **subpoenas** [12] - 3:23, 4:14, 5:24, 6:11, 6:20, 8:3, 14:25, 15:14, 15:18, 15:23, 16:7, 17:9 **sufficient** [3] - 4:16, 7:22, 15:16 **suggest** [1] - 5:1 **Suite** [1] - 2:3 **summarily** [1] - 11:5 **sums** [3] - 14:8, 15:19, 16:18 **superseded** [1] - 4:8 **support** [4] - 7:15, 8:1, 18:14, 18:16 **supposedly** [2] - 10:23, 10:24 **SUPREME** [1] - 1:1 **Supreme** [1] - 4:2 **sweeping** [3] - 4:18, 7:2, 7:23 **T**\n\n**tax** [1] - 8:18 **Teams** [1] - 19:19 **TEAMS**[1] - 1:12 **TERM** [1] - 1:1 **terminated** [1] - 12:25 **territorial** [1] - 18:20 **test** [2] - 6:16, 6:18\n\nBP\n\n**testified** [5] - 12:18, 12:19, 12:23, 13:2 **testimony** [1] - 12:22 **THE** [13] - 1:1, 3:2, 6:16, 7:14, 8:2, 8:10, 15:11, 16:15, 16:17, 17:7, 17:17, 18:11, 19:14 **thereby** [1] - 7:24 **they've** [1] - 13:11 **thinks** [1] - 18:9 **third** [9] - 4:6, 4:11, 5:2, 6:21, 6:22, 7:1, 7:9, 7:16, 7:25 **three** [1] - 18:5 **throwing** [1] - 10:17 **tied** [1] - 14:21 **today** [1] - 17:24 **together**[1] - 6:6 **tolled** [1] - 5:23 **totality** [1] - 15:20 **totally** [1] - 14:25 **towards** [1] - 6:19 **traceable** [1] - 16:3 **transcript** [1] - 19:24 **transfer**[2] - 5:8, 8:7 **transferred** [2] - 13:15, 14:15 **transfers** [3] - 4:12, 7:11, 17:1 **translator**[1] - 14:12 **transparent** [1] - 11:6 **treat** [1] - 14:7 **TRIAL** [1] - 1:1 **try** [1] - 17:4 **trying** [1] - 12:15 **turning** [1] - 11:21 **two** [1] - 15:21 **typical** [2] - 14:4\n\n## **U**\n\n**un-tolled** [1] - 5:23 **unaware** [1] - 6:12 **under** [6] - 3:11, 6:16, 6:18, 7:20, 12:23, 16:11 **unflattering** [1] - 5:5 **unfortunate** [1] - 5:15 **unfortunately** [1] - 16:6 **United** [2] - 16:21, 18:20 **unlike** [2] - 14:5 **unnecessary** [1] - 6:7 **unrelated** [1] - 15:14 **up** [10] - 5:21, 7:3, 10:17, 10:21, 14:9, 14:16, 14:20, 15:25, 17:4, 18:22\n\n## **V versions** [1] - 8:20\n\n**video** [1] - 15:9 **violation** [2] - 3:12, 18:20\n\n## **W**\n\n**wall** [1] - 4:1 **WAN** [2] - 1:6, 1:7 **wang** [1] - 15:22 **Wang** [20] - 2:2, 3:7, 4:25, 5:5, 5:19, 6:9, 6:10, 7:3, 7:11, 8:7, 9:5, 9:6, 11:9, 11:21, 12:7, 12:17, 14:3, 15:2, 15:16, 16:20 **Wang's** [6] - 3:3, 4:17, 5:12, 13:21, 16:3, 18:25 **wants** [4] - 14:21, 15:8, 18:1, 18:4 **wasted** [1] - 11:16 **watch** [1] - 15:9 **waters** [1] - 18:20 **ways** [1] - 5:5 **week** [1] - 12:19 **WEN** [2] - 1:7 **WEN-GUI** [1] - 1:7 **WENGUI** [1] - 1:7 **whack** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **whack-a-mole** [2] - 14:19, 16:5 **White** [1] - 2:3 **wildly** [1] - 16:19 **withdraw** [1] - 6:11 **word** [3] - 15:8, 18:2, 18:6 **worse** [1] - 10:7 **write** [1] - 18:2 **writes** [1] - 10:25 **wrote** [1] - 17:23\n\n## **Y**\n\n**yacht** [1] - 18:19 **YANKWITT**[1] - 2:2 **Yankwitt** [1] - 3:6 **years** [3] - 11:16, 15:21, 16:21 **YORK** [2] - 1:1, 1:1 **York** [10] - 1:11, 1:19, 1:23, 2:3, 2:7, 4:3 **Yvette** [1] - 2:2","body_zh":"证据附件 PAX 19\n\n2021年4月30日庭审记录，PAX v. Kwok，案卷编号 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. 837\n\n纽约州最高法院\n纽约县：审判庭第61部分\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），原告，\n\n案号\n- 诉 - 652077/17\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 CORPORATION（Genever控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），被告。\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X\n\n60 Centre Street\nNew York, New York\n2021年4月30日\nMICROSOFT TEAMS\n\n审理法官：\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'MELVENEY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10046\n代理：\nEDWARD MOSS（爱德华·莫斯），ESQ.\nSTUART ARANOFF（斯图尔特·阿拉诺夫），ESQ.\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的代理律师\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n代理：\nJOHN SIEGAL（约翰·西格尔），ESQ.\nMELISSA CARVALHO（梅利莎·卡瓦略），ESQ.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\nPAX-19\n\nYANKWITT LLP（Yankwitt律师事务所）\n动议人 Yvette Wang（王雁伟）的代理律师\nGrand Street - Suite\nWhite Plains, New York\n代理：\nDANIEL S. ATLER（丹尼尔·S·阿特勒），ESQ.\n\nLAWALL & MITCHELL LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n被告 Genever（Genever）的代理律师\nEast 64th Street\nNew York, New York\n代理：\nAARON A. MITCHELL（亚伦·A·米切尔），ESQ.\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）\n官方法庭记录员\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n庭审程序\n\n法庭：各位下午好。现审理王女士提出的撤销判决债权人传票的动议。请动议人陈述。\n\nALTER先生：谢谢，法官阁下。请允许我陈述，我是 Yankwitt律师事务所的 Daniel Alter（丹尼尔·阿特勒），如您所述，我代理王女士。首先，如获准许，我想先谈一项初步事项。\n\n显然，判决债权人 PAX 为反对我方动议，已将文件密封提交，这似乎违反了法官阁下的第31条规则。我们未能查阅这些文件。我无法从案卷系统中访问它们。我未见过这些文件，并且我们反对其提交，因此我请求法庭将其从本动议的记录中剔除，这是我的初步请求。\n\n法官阁下，如获准许继续陈述，我想直接切入论点的核心，因为我认为本案归结为一些非常直接的原则。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n\n判例对于因执行判决传票而被要求提供的非当事人财务信息给予高度保护。第一部门的 Carlyle 和 Stern 两案明确了这一点。但是，仅仅某人与判决债权人关系密切，也不足以突破该屏障。由纽约县最高法院裁定的 Spruce Interiors 一案重申了如下原则：与判决债务人关系密切，并非要求对传票作出回应的充分理由；但该案仍要求传票接收人，即第三方，提交财务文件，因为发出传票的一方已确立了超越一般规则的事实依据。\n\n该案中的事实依据是，债权人已证明第三方实际上从债务人处收到转入其个人银行账户的款项；基于此，法院允许传票继续有效。\n\n法官阁下，本案的问题是，PAX 是否已确立充分理由，使其得以通过其向银行、律师事务所，以及据我了解可能还包括会计师事务所和其他个人送达的范围极为广泛的传票，获取王女士的个人财务及其他信息。我们不知道其范围。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n\n本案的问题当然在于，除其已提交至记录中、与争议问题无关的大量信息之外，以及除其对王女士作出的极具人身攻击性的言论之外，他们未提供任何哪怕一丝证据，表明由第三方持有和维护的她的个人财务账户，会提供与满足该判决有关的材料。\n\n他们长篇大论地作出广泛指控。他们以极不利的方式描述王女士，并指向其他程序，但他们并未像 Spruce Interiors 案中的记录那样，显示任何一丝实际证据证明她收到过任何形式的转账，或持有任何债务人的个人财产，毫无证据。\n\n因此，PAX 在没有该等依据的情况下，实际上只是搜罗王女士的个人财务信息，并不适当。\n\n现在，本可正确地进行此事。PAX 决定采取一种焦土政策，实属遗憾，因为如果 PAX 仅向王女士本人送达传票，本可正确地并依照既定程序进行，从而得出审慎的解决方案。\n\n她本可以提出其能够提出的任何抗辩。她本可以就适当范围或其能够提供何种文件进行协商，但我们就不会在此反对数量不明的传票，这些传票寻求有关她、却与债务人或债务人财产毫无关系的信息。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n\n它只是笼统地要求提供与其自身银行账户、任何类型证券账户有关的全部信息，且没完没了。其与银行相关的私人信息，以及在进行“了解你的客户”背景调查时获得的信息，等等。此举完全不适当，也完全没有必要。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我们请求您准予王女士所寻求的救济，即撤销任何寻求王女士相关信息的请求，并命令 PAX 从我们不知身份的众多传票中撤回该等请求。\n\n如法庭有任何问题，我其余论点均以我们提交的书面材料为准，但我乐意回答任何问题。\n\n法庭：好的。根据 CPLR 5223，PAX 必须满足一项标准。\n\nALTER先生：正确，但我认为，据我理解，5223 下的标准是针对传票的接收人，即直接接收传票的人；我不确定当 PAX 针对第三方及第三方的信息时，该标准是否适用于 PAX。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n\n第5240条是一项非常广泛的保护性措施，用以保护当事人和法院免受越权行为的影响。这并非向一方当事人，甚至直接向第三方发出的传票，而是这种范围极为广泛的做法之一，试图通过一份寻求64个独立实体信息的传票，将王女士卷入其中。\n\n因此，即使您审视法官阁下所指出的标准，我也不认为 PAX 能够满足它。因为，再次强调，在我援引的案件中，法院允许债权人向第三方调取其个人财务记录的唯一方式，是在初步证明其具有正当性之后，例如证明王女士如 Spruce 一案中那样实际收到过转账。他们没有作出此种证明。这完全基于推测和指控。\n\n法庭：您同意，5223 允许为执行判决而进行广泛的证据开示，包括向判决债务人以外的第三方进行证据开示，只要该信息与判决债务人的收入或财产有关？\n\nALTER先生：我同意这当然是所表述的标准，但我同意，根据5240裁定的案件如我刚才所述，对该标准进行了塑造。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n\n我不认为仅以极为宽泛的方式称某事可能有关，就足以据此探究第三方的个人信息。恕我直言，法官阁下，我不认为判例支持这一点。\n\n法庭：那么，PAX 必须承担举证责任，证明其传票所寻求的信息与 Kwok先生的收入和/或财产有关；正确吗？\n\nALTER先生：是的，我认为，为证明其已发出的传票具有正当性，他们必须证明王女士收到过某种转账，表明她持有信息，而他们并未做到这一点。\n\n法庭：嗯，这正是我将听取 Moss先生陈述的事项。\n\nALTER先生：很好，法官阁下，谢谢。\n\nMOSS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表 PAX 的 Edward Moss。首先就密封问题而言，我们实际上曾与 Siegal先生和 Carvalho女士讨论密封事宜，因为我们将提及 Kwok先生提交的文件和一份纳税申报表中的一些信息。我们实际上只是填入了一个数字，并与 Siegal先生协商。我们对该数字作了删节，并提交了公开版本，仅删节了该数字。因此，Alter先生，如您没有这些文件，我表示歉意，但除该数字外，我们已公开提交全部文件。\n\nALTER先生：法官阁下，这正是问题所在。我代理 Kwok女士。Siegal先生并不代理 Kwok女士。他代理——\n\nMOSS先生：Kwok先生——\n\nALTER先生：抱歉，您是对的。Siegal先生代理 Kwok先生。我代理王女士。我有利益，王女士对案卷记录的发展也有利益。尽管您可能已与 Siegal先生协商，但本动议不是他的动议，您没有与我协商，也没有通过说明理由命令申请接纳该文件，而且我们未获机会反对显然与本项具体动议无关的外来信息。因此，我认为法庭制定要求通过说明理由命令提出动议的规则，是有充分理由的，以便利害关系方有能力作出回应。\n\nMOSS先生：就一个数字，法官。这是 Kwok先生的保密信息，因此我们询问 Kwok先生是否希望密封。他希望我们这样做，所以我们就这样做了，否则我们不会密封。我们可以不再谈这个问题，转入实体问题。在谈及本申请的具体事项及财务信息之前，我认为我们确实需要先说明有关目前情况的一些背景，即我们为何来到这里的大局，而 Alter先生刻意回避了这些。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n庭审程序\n\nKwok先生被判承担 \\$116-million 的判决债务。他没有提交上诉保证金。他没有付款。我们一直知道他不会付款，这就是为什么在本程序开始时，我们请求法庭对该公寓采取扣押措施。\n\n但是，法官阁下，情况比我们原先想的要糟糕得多，对吧？现在他声称他不会付款，因为我方律师，即我的合伙人 Sarnoff 先生（萨诺夫先生）和我、他方律师 David Boies（戴维·博伊斯），以及您，法官；我们全都与共产党、中国共产党相互勾结，因此才对他作出了本案判决。\n\n他不会付给我们一分钱。无论 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）是否真的相信这一点，他都在疯狂抗争，以确保我们永远拿不到一分钱，确保我的当事人永远拿不到一分钱。他到处设置障碍。\n\nKwok 先生称他没有资产。他现在援引了《第五修正案》。我们向他的一个实体发出传票，一名新律师，Alter 先生（奥尔特先生）是其中之一，还有其他人，他们每天都到庭并说，嘿，不是我。我不代表 Kwok 先生。我代表其中一个实体。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n我们向据称拥有该船只的实体发出传票，据称他的女儿拥有该实体。他给我写了一封措辞恶劣的信，说，这与我有什么关系？\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 837 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 12 of\n\n庭审记录\n\n我只代表 Hong Kong International（香港国际）。我的意思是，然后还有一直在这里的律师。Mitchell 先生（米切尔先生）代表 Genever（吉尼弗）。他对一份我甚至没有向他送达的传票提出异议。他给我发了一张便条，说，我概括性地反对你明显企图，诸如此类。他甚至从未收到该传票。\n\n我的意思是，这是一场闹剧，法官阁下，而且 Wang 女士（王女士）来到这里指控我的当事人滥用程序、司法不公，以及那些文件中其他任何夸张言辞，实在是相当可笑，对吧。\n\n这里的简单事实是，法官阁下，我们无法获得证据开示。如果我们无法从 Kwok 先生、他的最密切关联人及其实体获得证据开示，那么我们不如全都回家，因为该本人已经告诉我们，他没有资产。如此一来，我们都会白白浪费四年的人生。我们都可以回家，Kwok 先生可以上他的船或去他的豪宅，而事情就到此为止；对吧？\n\n这不可能是这里正确的结果，法官阁下。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n转到 Wang 女士的问题上，我实际上认为这是一个相当容易的问题，而且我认为法官阁下以 CPLR 5223 的标准切中要害。一切与判决清偿有关的事项。这是一个宽泛的标准。这是一个宽容的标准，而我认为我们的理解恰好颠倒了。\n\n庭审记录\n\n当一方提出撤销动议时，该方负有决定性地证明传票并非寻求相关信息的举证责任。\n\n这就是标准，因此，如果这是我方的举证责任，法官阁下——我现在就谈您想要处理的问题。\n\nWang 女士是 Kwok 先生最密切的关联人。他把她从中国带到这里，并任命她为这家假公司 Golden Spring（黄金泉）的首席执行官；Kwok 先生在一份宣誓书中承认，他用自己的钱资助了该公司，而 Siegal 先生（西格尔先生）和 Carvalho 女士（卡瓦略女士）在给我的一封信中承认，该公司支付其所有相关法律费用及其他费用，即其所有个人费用。她是该实体的首席执行官。我们知道该实体，因此该实体可能已经没有钱了，但我们正试图查明。\n\nWang 女士是 Kwok 先生在法庭上的发言人。她在本案中作了虚假证言。她在破产程序中作了虚假证言。她最近于上周代表另一个实体作证，该实体名为 Eastern Profit（东方利润），Kwok 先生称其并非由他所有。\n\n她在本案中的所有证言都是虚假的。她曾在宣誓后作证称，该公寓存在一项质押。可是，我们找到了显示该质押已经终止的公开文件；根本不存在质押。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n庭审记录\n\n她提交了一份宣誓书，告知法官阁下 Kwok 先生对该公寓享有所有权权益。她数月前在破产法官面前作证称，Kwok 先生对该公寓不享有任何所有权权益。\n\n在 Eastern Profit 案中，Liman 法官（利曼法官）认定她存在非常、非常、非常严重的可信度问题。应由她作出证明，而当她是一个已知的伪证者时，她不可能仅凭一份自利性宣誓书、没有任何书面证据就完成举证，法官阁下。\n\n我的意思是，我们无法作出证明，因为他们把我们与所有资产隔绝开来。Kwok 先生，我无法对他进行证言录取，因为他援引了《第五修正案》。我上次对他进行证言录取时，他开始大谈共产党。我如何能够证明他以她的名义转移了什么，当他们封锁金融账户时？他们不说话。他们不给我们任何信息；而当他们提供过信息时，他们一直在说谎。我的意思是，这简直是个笑话，法官阁下。如果我们无法获得这些信息，那么就结束了。\n\n因此，Wang 女士的账户与判决清偿高度相关。我们知道他有这些实体，而我们现在正在寻找这些实体；他很有可能把钱存入个人账户，对吧？\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n庭审记录\n\n证明责任在她，而一份自利性宣誓书并不足够。我们注意到 Wang 女士是一个自然人，而且这并非典型的传票；但这也不是典型的案件。这不同于我曾经读过的任何案件，也不同于我曾经诉讼过的任何案件。\n\n听着，我们将仅限律师阅览该信息。如果她的账户中没有巨额款项，很好；我们会销毁这些文件，事情就到此为止。但如果有，那么如果该款项存在，我们就有权扣押该款项。她是一名翻译。她的账户中不应有数百万、数百万美元。我们有权扣押该款项；而且，如果我们发现更可能发生的情况是，该款项已经被转出，并且会有其他账户需要我们跟进，我们就必须跟进，而随着这些银行回复陆续送达，我们一直在这样做，法官阁下。\n\n这是一场打地鼠游戏。我的意思是，确实如此。每天都有新的空壳公司出现，而 Kwok 先生希望我们双手被绑在背后玩这个游戏。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n因此，我不知道他是否放弃了这一点，但这里的第二项请求，即 Alter 先生在其陈述中没有涉及的请求，是他们希望完全撤销针对每一个实体、空壳公司和每一名关联人的传票。\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 837 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 16 of\n\n庭审记录\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n而不只是 Wang 女士。显然，她没有资格这样做。她不能提出撤销一份并不要求提供她的信息的传票的动议，而出于与她的信息具有相关性的相同理由，该等信息也具有相关性。因此，再说一次，法官阁下，如果我们无法获得这些信息，我们就完了。我们回家吧。我们知道这正是 Kwok 先生想要的。您不必相信我的话，法官阁下。您只需观看他的视频，他在视频中说我们永远拿不到一分钱。\n法庭：嗯，你们可能拿得到一分钱，也可能拿不到。我不需要再听更多内容。我不认为这些判决执行传票是在寻求与判决债务人资产无关的信息。我认为判决债权人已充分证明，Wang 女士不可能拥有数百万美元且该等款项属于她；如果这些发给银行和证券公司的传票发现巨额款项，那么根据我过去两年一直听到的全部情况，可以作出合理推论：该款项不属于 Wang 女士，而属于 Kwok 先生。因此，我不会撤销传票；并且我依赖 Moss 先生（莫斯先生）作为法庭人员——正如你所表示的——如果仅限律师阅览而向你提供的信息与 Alter 先生所表示的、Wang 女士账户中的任何款项均无法追溯至 Kwok 先生这一说法一致，就销毁该信息。\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 837 NYSCEF 收件日期：06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of\n\n庭审记录\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n至于你为查找 Kwok 先生资产所作的其他努力，如果这是一场打地鼠游戏，那么很遗憾，你必须玩下去；但我不会撤销传票。\nATLER 先生：法官阁下，有一点需要澄清。我理解法官阁下的指示。关于要求 Moss 先生将其维持为仅限律师阅览，并在事后销毁该等文件，这是否为法庭的指示？我只是需要记录在案，知道这是否构成法庭命令？\n法庭：这是法庭的命令。\nALTER 先生：谢谢，阁下。\n法庭：如果根据传票出具的文件并未显示任何款项或证券，而该等款项或证券相对于 Wang 女士因其过去六年在美国受雇工作所可能拥有的任何资产而言不存在极端不相称，那么 Moss 先生有义务销毁仅限律师阅览而出具的信息。\nMOSS 先生：法官阁下，我能作一点澄清吗？\n\n庭审记录\n\n如果我们识别出账户之间的转入和转出款项，涉及 Kwok 先生拥有的或我们认为他有关联的其他实体，在销毁文件之前，我们能否跟进那些账户，并尝试向银行发出传票，以获得关于那些其他账户的信息？这是该程序的一部分。\n\n法庭：嗯，你们需要回到法庭。我无法预先判断或预测将根据这些传票出具什么；而且确实如此，Kwok 先生周边的个人可能拥有信息或资金，在作出适当证明并经法庭批准的前提下，该等信息或资金可适当地供判决债权人扣押。\n\nMOSS 先生：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。我可以提出另一个相关问题吗？您有一点时间吗？\n\n法庭：是的，你有接下来一个小时。\n\nMOSS 先生：哦，我想我们不需要那么久，\n\n法官阁下。\n\n因此，我们已提交一封信，请求准许提出动议，强制出示 Golden Spring 的文件。Alter 先生也是 Golden Spring 的律师，而我们在该问题上陷入僵局。我们请求许可。随后，他今天写了一封信，请求提出交叉动议，以撤销 Golden Spring 的传票。\n\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）— 官方法庭记录员\n庭审记录\n\n我认为那里的问题是，他希望能够拥有最后发言权并提交一份答复状，您知道，也许是因为这次发生的事情。\n\n因此，我愿意按照法庭希望的任何方式进行。如果您希望三份书状或四份书状，我认为我们应当拥有最后发言权，因为这是我们提出的强制动议，因为他们回应并反对了我们的传票，而我们首先请求许可提出动议；但我愿意按照法庭认为最有效率的任何方式进行书面陈述。\n\n法庭：我认为最高效的做法是你和 Alter 先生达成某种双方同意的解决办法。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 据我理解，贵方为支持申请而作出的初步陈述是，在一段时期内，Golden Spring（金泉）一直是用于支持Kwok先生奢靡生活方式的资金来源，包括支付Kwok先生声称并不拥有的Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）公寓的款项，以及为其游艇运营提供资金的款项；该游艇已违反法院命令被移出美国领海。\n\n22 23 24 25 Bonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）—官方法庭记录员 而且，如果双方都想就此提交书面陈述而产生法律费用，而不是就此问题达成某种合理共识，我会在适当时候处理此事，就像我们处理Wang女士的问题那样，不预先判断结果。\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 20 of 26\n庭审记录\n\n1 预先判断结果。\n\n2 3 4 5 MOSS先生：当然，法官。我只是认为，强制提出动议和撤销动议将需要六份书面陈述，而它们涉及的是相同问题，这似乎毫无必要。\n\n6 7 8 ATLER先生：是的，既然此事与我有些关联，如果能允许我就此发言。我完全同意法官的看法，我们讨论此事是有道理的。\n\n9 10 11 12 13 您再次假定，此事关乎谁能提交最后一份书面陈述，这并不准确；我很乐意与您讨论一种合理方式，让我们各自提出相应论点。因此，我不确定这如何具有成效。\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 法院：我不需要六份书面陈述，也不需要四份书面陈述。我只需要Moss先生尽最大努力说明为何应当传唤该实体的记录；而您，Alter先生，则尽最大努力说明为何应当撤销针对该实体拟发出的任何传票，然后我们将举行一次Microsoft Teams会议。我将听取你们的意见，然后作出决定；或者，你们可以通过就此问题达成某种双方同意的共识，为你们的当事人节省大量法律费用和时间；但如果做不到，这正是法院存在的目的。\n\n23 24 好了，祝你们愉快。订购一份庭审记录副本。\nBonnie Piccirillo（邦妮·皮奇里洛）—官方法庭记录员\n\nCase 22-50073\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22\n26 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n第21页，共\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021\n\n3 证\n明\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/17\n\n7 ---\n\n9 特此证明\n本副本为真实且正确的庭审记录副本。\n\n11 BONNIE\nPICCIRILLO\n12 官方\n法庭\n记录员\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 22 of\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of\n\n9:9\n10046 [1] - 1:19\n10065 [1] - 2:7\n10111 [1] - 1:23\n10601 [1] - 2:3\n116-million [1] - 10:2\n140 [1] - 2:3\n162 [1] - 2:6\n\n2021 [1] - 1:12\n\n30 [1] - 1:12\n31 [1] - 3:12\n\n45 [1] - 1:22\n\n5223 [4] - 6:16, 6:19,\n7:14, 11:23\n5240 [2] - 6:23, 7:20\n\n60 [1] - 1:11\n61 [1] - 1:1\n64 [1] - 7:4\n64th [1] - 2:6\n652077/17 [1] - 1:5\n\n7 [1] - 1:19\n705 [1] - 2:3\nA\n亦称 [6] - 1:6, 1:7, 1:7\nAARON [1] - 2:7\n放弃 [1] -\n14:23\n能力 [1] - 9:16\n能够 [1] - 18:1\n滥用 [1] - 11:10\n获取 [3] - 3:13, 4:16\n依照 [1] - 5:17\n账户 [3] - 13:25,\n14:13, 16:3\n会计核算 [1] - 4:19\n账户 [11] - 4:12,\n\n5:1, 6:2, 6:3, 13:16, 13:21, 14:9, 14:16, 17:2, 17:4, 17:6\n\n指控 [1] - 7:13 指控 [1] - 5:4 指控 [1] - 11:9 实际 [2] - 5:7, 7:11 地址 [2] - 12:5, 14:24 已处理 [1] - 15:18 承认 [1] - 12:10 已承认 [2] - 9:11, 12:11 宣誓书 [4] - 12:10, 13:1, 13:9, 14:2 关联 [1] - 17:3 下午 [1] - 3:2 此后 [1] - 16:12 以前 [1] - 13:3 同意 [4] - 7:14, 7:19, 7:20, 19:7\n\nALLIANCE[1] - 1:3 允许 [2] - 4:16, 7:8 已允许 [2] - 4:13 允许 [1] - 7:14 ALTER [7] - 3:5, 6:18, 7:19, 8:5, 8:12, 8:25, 9:4 alter[2] - 17:21, 18:12 Alter[6] - 3:6, 8:22, 9:25, 10:20, 14:24, 19:17 修正案 [1] - 10:19 答复 [1] - 6:15 分开 [2] - 4:21, 4:23 公寓 [5] - 10:5, 12:24, 13:2, 13:5, 18:18 道歉 [1] - 8:22 上诉 [1] - 10:3 出庭 [1] - 3:12 出庭人员 [1] - 1:17 申请 [2] - 9:23, 18:15 适用 [1] - 6:21 适当 [3] - 5:11, 5:22, 17:13 批准 [1] - 17:12 April [1] - 1:12 ARANOFF[1] - 1:20 论点 [3] - 3:19, 6:14, 14:25 论点 [1] - 19:12 ASIA [1] - 1:3 资产 [6] - 10:18, 11:16, 13:12, 15:15, 16:5, 16:20 助理 [2] - 12:7,\n\n15:1 助理 [1] - 11:14 假定 [1] - 19:9 ATLER [4] - 2:4, 16:8, 16:16, 19:6 扣押 [1] - 10:5 攻击 [1] - 4:24 试图 [1] - 11:6 律师 [4] - 1:18, 1:22, 2:2, 2:6 律师费 [4] - 14:7, 16:1, 16:11, 16:23 可用 [1] - 17:11 避免 [1] - 10:1\nB\n\n背景 [1] - 6:5 倒退 [1] - 11:25 BAKER [1] - 1:21 银行 [4] - 4:12, 6:2, 6:4, 14:17 破产 [2] - 12:19, 13:3 银行 [3] - 4:18, 15:18, 17:5 BARRY[1] - 1:15 基于 [1] - 15:19 依据 [4] - 4:8, 4:10, 4:13, 5:11 表明 [1] - 12:1 在……之前 [1] - 1:14 开始 [1] - 10:6 代表 [1] - 12:20 行为 [1] - 6:24 落后于 [1] - 14:21 认为 [1] - 10:15 属于 [3] - 15:17, 15:21, 15:22 最佳 [2] - 19:15, 19:17 大 [1] - 9:25 诸如此类 [3] - 11:6 blah-blah-blah [1] - 11:6 暴风雪 [1] - 4:22 被阻止 [1] - 13:12 阻止 [1] - 13:16 霰弹枪式 [1] - 6:1 船 [2] - 10:24, 11:18 Boies [1] - 10:10 归结为 [1] - 3:20 债券 [1] - 10:3 Bonnie [1] - 2:23 书面陈述 [2] - 18:2, 19:10 书面陈述程序 [2] - 18:9, 18:22 书面陈述 [6] - 6:14, 18:5, 19:4, 19:14 广泛 [6] - 4:18, 6:23,\n\n7:2, 7:14, 7:23, 11:24 广泛全面的 [3] - 4:18, 7:2, 7:23 提出 [1] - 12:8 负担 [4] - 8:2, 12:2, 12:4, 14:1 BY [4] - 1:20, 1:23, 2:4, 2:7\nC\n\n串通 [1] - 10:11 不能 [1] - 15:6 Carlyle [1] - 3:23 Carvalho [2] - 8:16, 12:11 CARVALHO[1] - 1:24 案件 [12] - 4:2, 7:12, 10:12, 12:18, 12:22, 13:6, 14:4, 14:5, 17:9, 19:15, 19:17 案件 [6] - 3:21, 3:24, 7:7, 7:20, 7:25, 8:1 抓住 [1] - 7:3 Centre [1] - 1:11 CEO [2] - 12:8, 12:13 当然 [1] - 7:20 定性为 [1] - 5:5 China [1] - 12:8 Chinese [1] - 10:12 情况 [1] - 6:25 情况 [1] - 15:20 马戏团 [1] - 11:8 引用 [1] - 7:7 主张 [1] - 18:18 澄清 [2] - 16:8, 16:25 明确 [1] - 3:25 清楚地 [1] - 9:12 当事人 [3] - 6:5, 10:16, 11:9 当事人 [1] - 19:20 接近 [2] - 3:25, 4:3 最接近 [2] - 11:14, 12:7 达成 [4] - 11:9, 14:20, 18:23, 19:21 共产主义者 [3] - 10:11, 10:12, 13:14 公司 [1] - 14:20 公司 [3] - 12:9, 15:1 强制 [3] - 17:20, 18:6, 19:3 最终确定地 [1] - 12:2 协商 [1] - 9:10 已协商 [2] - 8:19,\n\n保密 [1] - 9:18 关联 [1] - 6:4 关联 [1] - 3:22 双方同意的 [2] - 18:13, 19:21 一致 [1] - 16:2 构成 [1] - 16:13 语境 [1] - 9:24 继续 [1] - 3:18 副本 [1] - 19:23 CORPORATION [1] - 1:8 正确 [2] - 6:18, 8:4 正确地 [2] - 5:14, 5:17 律师 [1] - 17:22 County [1] - 4:3 COUNTY [1] - 1:1 一对 [1] - 13:3 当然 [2] - 4:21, 17:12 法院 [9] - 2:23, 3:6, 3:15, 4:2, 6:13, 9:14, 10:5, 18:4, 18:9 COURT [13] - 1:1, 3:2, 6:16, 7:14, 8:2, 8:10, 15:11, 16:15, 16:17, 17:7, 17:17, 18:11, 19:14 法院 [9] - 4:13, 12:17, 15:24, 16:12, 16:14, 16:15, 17:7, 17:12, 18:21 法院 [3] - 6:24, 7:8, 19:22 CPLR [2] - 6:16, 11:23 疯狂 [1] - 10:16 可信度 [1] - 13:7 债权人 [5] - 3:11, 4:1, 4:10, 7:8, 17:12 债权人的 [1] - 3:3 交叉 [1] - 17:24 交叉动议 [1] - 17:24\nD\n\nDANIEL [1] - 2:4 Daniel [1] - 3:6 女儿 [1] - 10:24 David [1] - 10:10 处理 [1] - 18:24 已处理 [1] - 18:25 债务人 [5] - 4:4, 4:12, 5:25, 7:17, 15:15 债务人的 [3] - 5:25, 7:17, 15:15 债务人的 [1] - 5:9 决定 [1] - 19:19\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-19 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 837 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2021\n\nHONORABLE [1] -\n\nHOSTETLER [1] -\n\n1:15\n\n1:21\n已决定 [3] - 4:2,\n\n5:15, 7:20\n被告 [2] - 1:22,\n2:6\n被告 [1] - 1:9\n抗辩 [1] - 5:20\n界定 [1] - 5:17\nDepartment [1] - 3:24\n对……进行讯问 [1] - 13:12\n已接受讯问 [1] - 13:13\n所述 [1] - 7:21\n销毁 [1] - 16:22\n销毁 [2] - 16:11,\n17:3\n发展 [1] - 9:6\n一分钱 [5] - 10:14,\n10:16, 10:17, 15:10,\n15:11\n直接 [2] - 6:10, 6:20\n指示 [1] - 6:19\n\n指令 [2] - 16:9,\n16:12\n直接 [2] - 3:19, 7:1\n证据开示 [4] - 7:15,\n7:16, 11:13\n讨论 [2] - 19:8,\n19:11\n不成比例的 [1] -\n16:19\n案卷 [1] - 3:14\n文件 [2] - 8:18,\n9:11\n书面证据 [1] -\n13:10\n文件 [10] -\n3:11, 3:13, 3:14, 4:7,\n5:22, 12:24, 16:11,\n16:17, 17:4, 17:21\n美元 [2] - 14:13,\n15:17\n完成 [4] - 5:14, 5:16,\n8:8, 15:7\n向下 [1] - 3:20\n疏浚 [1] - 5:12\n\nE\n\n地球 [1] - 5:16\nEast [1] - 2:6\nEastern [2] - 12:21,\n\n13:6 容易 [1] - 11:22 Edward [1] - 8:13 EDWARD [1] - 1:20 高效 [2] - 18:10,\n\n18:11 努力 [1] - 19:15 努力 [1] - 16:4 雇佣 [1] - 16:21\n\n结束 [2] - 11:18, 14:10 执行 [2] - 3:23, 15:13 执行 [1] - 7:15 已作出 [1] - 10:12 完全 [1] - 19:8 实体 [7] - 7:4, 10:19, 10:22, 11:14, 13:23, 13:24, 17:2 有权 [2] - 14:11, 14:13 实体 [9] - 10:23, 10:24, 12:14, 12:20, 15:1, 19:16, 19:18 ESQ [6] - 1:20, 1:20, 1:23, 1:24, 2:4, 2:7 已确立 [3] - 4:8, 4:11, 4:16 确立 [1] - 12:2 事件 [1] - 17:1 日常 [2] - 10:21, 14:20 各处 [1] - 10:17 证据 [3] - 4:25, 5:8, 13:10 除外 [1] - 8:23 费用 [3] - 12:12, 12:13 广泛的 [1] - 5:4 无关的 [1] - 9:12 眼睛 [4] - 14:8, 16:1, 16:11, 16:23 F 事实 [4] - 9:8, 11:12, 13:22, 14:2 事实上的 [2] - 4:8, 4:10\n\n虚假的 [1] - 12:9 虚假地 [2] - 12:18, 12:19 远 [1] - 16:4 费用 [2] - 18:22, 19:20 第五 [2] - 10:19, 13:13 争斗 [2] - 5:23, 10:15 已提交 [4] - 3:11, 8:20, 8:23, 17:20 提交 [1] - 3:15 财务 [8] - 3:22, 4:7, 4:17, 5:1, 5:12, 7:9, 9:23, 13:16, 13:21 良好 [1] - 14:9 公司 [1] - 3:6 公司 [3] - 4:19, 15:18 首先 [3] - 3:8, 8:15, 18:8\n\nFirst [1] - 3:24\n\n遵循 [2] - 14:16, 17:4 四 [3] - 11:16, 18:5, 19:14 前方 [1] - 13:3 充分 [1] - 18:24 FUND [1] - 1:3 提供资金 [1] - 18:19 已提供资金 [1] - 12:10 资金 [2] - 17:11, 18:16\nG\n\ngame [2] - 14:19, 16:5 general [1] - 4:8 慷慨的 [1] - 11:25 GENEVER [2] - 1:8, 1:8 Genever [2] - 2:6, 11:3 给定 [2] - 9:11, 13:18 Golden [5] - 12:9, 17:21, 17:22, 17:24, 18:15 Grand [1] - 2:3 授予 [1] - 6:8 理由 [1] - 4:16 GUE [1] - 1:7 GUI [2] - 1:7 GUO [3] - 1:7, 1:8 GWO [1] - 1:6\nH\n\nhands [1] - 14:21 HAOYUN [2] - 1:7, 1:8 happy [4] - 6:15, 18:4, 18:8, 19:10 head [1] - 11:23 听取 [4] - 3:4, 8:10, 15:12, 19:19 听取 [1] - 19:6 听证 [1] - 15:20 持有 [1] - 5:1 她本人 [1] - 5:19 高度 [1] - 13:21 他本人 [1] - 11:15 打击 [1] - 11:22 HO [1] - 1:6 Ho [1] - 1:6 HOLDINGS [2] - 1:8, 1:8 家 [2] - 11:15, 15:7 Hong [1] - 11:1 Honor [15] - 3:5, 3:18, 4:15, 6:8, 7:6, 8:1, 8:12, 8:13, 8:25, 10:7, 11:22, 13:1, 16:8, 16:24, 17:14 Honor's [2] - 3:12, 16:9\n\n小时 [1] - 17:17 房屋 [1] - 11:17 巨大的 [2] - 14:8, 15:19 夸张 [1] - 11:11 I 已识别 [1] - 7:6 识别 [2] - 15:18, 17:1 身份 [1] - 6:12 在……范围内 [1] - 6:10 已安装 [1] - 12:8 利益 [4] - 9:6, 13:2, 13:4 感兴趣 [1] - 9:16 Interiors [2] - 4:2, 5:7 International [1] - 11:1 问题 [8] - 4:23, 11:22, 12:5, 17:15, 18:1, 18:24, 19:2, 19:21 已签发 [1] - 8:6 问题 [3] - 13:7, 18:25, 19:5 J JOHN [1] - 1:23 笑话 [1] - 13:19\n\nJudge [14] - 9:17, 10:11, 11:8, 11:12, 11:20, 12:5, 13:6,\n\n19:2 法官 [2] - 13:3, 19:8 判决书 [16] - 3:3, 3:11, 3:23, 4:1, 4:4, 5:3, 7:15, 7:16, 7:17, 10:2, 11:24, 13:22, 15:13, 15:14, 15:15, 17:11 正义 [1] - 11:10 Justice [1] - 1:15 有正当理由的 [1] - 7:10 证明正当性 [1] - 8:6 K 种类 [5] - 5:8, 5:15, 6:2, 8:7, 18:12 了解你的客户 [1] - 6:5 已知 [1] - 13:10 Kong [1] - 11:1 KWOK [3] - 1:6, 1:7, 1:8 Kwok [22] - 1:22, 9:1, 9:2, 9:3, 9:5, 9:18, 10:2, 10:15, 10:18, 10:22, 11:13, 11:17, 12:20, 13:1, 13:4, 13:12, 14:21, 15:8, 15:22, 16:3, 17:2, 18:18 Kwok的 [8] - 8:4, 8:17, 9:18, 12:7, 12:17,\n\n13:10, 13:19, 14:18, 15:6, 15:9, 17:19,\n16:5, 17:10, 18:16\n\nL L.P [1] - 1:3 缺乏 [1] - 15:2 最后 [7] - 12:19, 13:13, 15:21, 16:21, 18:2, 18:6, 19:10 奢华的 [1] - 18:16 法律 [1] - 4:19 LAWALL（劳沃尔）[1] - 2:5 律师 [1] - 10:20 律师 [3] - 10:9, 10:10, 11:2 法律上的 [3] - 12:12, 18:22, 19:20 长度 [1] - 5:4 信函 [4] - 10:25, 12:11, 17:20, 17:23 生活方式 [1] - 18:17 可能 [1] - 14:14 Liman（利曼）[1] - 13:6 已诉讼 [1] - 14:6 居住 [1] - 11:17 LLC [2] - 1:8, 2:5\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-19 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 25 页，共\nNYSCEF 文书编号 837 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/03/2021\nLLP [3] - 1:18, 1:21, 2:2 定位 [1] - 16:4 合乎逻辑的 [1] - 13:24 看 [2] - 7:5, 14:7 寻找 [1] - 7:3 撒谎 [1] - 13:18\nM\n\n维持 [1] - 5:2 维持 [1] - 16:10 男子 [1] - 11:15 豪宅 [1] - 11:18 标记 [1] - 19:10 事项 [3] - 3:9, 5:2, 11:23 意思 [5] - 11:2, 11:8, 13:11, 13:19, 14:19 衡量 [1] - 6:23 会面 [1] - 8:2 MELISSA（梅利莎）[1] - 1:24 提及 [1] - 8:17 是非曲直 [1] - 9:21 Microsoft（微软）[1] - 19:18 MICROSOFT（微软）[1] - 1:12 可能 [3] - 11:14, 19:6, 19:20 Miles（迈尔斯）[1] - 1:22 MILES（迈尔斯）[1] - 1:7 数百万 [3] - 14:12, 15:17 误判 [1] - 11:10 MITCHELL（米切尔）[2] - 2:5, 2:7 Mitchell（米切尔）[1] - 11:3 塑造 [1] - 7:21 鼹鼠 [2] - 14:19, 16:5 时刻 [1] - 17:16 金钱 [11] - 12:10, 12:15, 13:25, 14:8, 14:11, 14:13, 14:14, 15:19, 15:21, 16:3, 16:18 月 [1] - 13:3 MOSS（莫斯）[8] - 1:20, 8:13, 9:3, 9:17, 16:24, 17:14, 17:18, 19:2 Moss（莫斯）[5] - 8:11, 8:13, 15:24, 16:10, 16:22 Moss's（莫斯的）[1] - 19:15 大多数 [2] - 18:9, 18:11 动议 [9] - 3:3, 3:10, 3:16, 9:9, 9:13, 9:15, 18:6, 19:3 Movant（动议申请人）[1] - 2:2 动议申请人 [1] - 3:4\n\n移动 [5] - 9:20, 15:3, 17:20, 17:24, 18:8 移动 [1] - 12:1 MR（先生）[17] - 3:5, 6:18, 7:19, 8:5, 8:12, 8:13, 8:25, 9:3, 9:4, 9:17, 16:8, 16:16, 16:24, 17:14, 17:18, 19:2, 19:6 MYERS（迈尔斯）[1] - 1:18 N 名称 [2] - 3:6, 13:16 恶毒的 [1] - 10:25 需要 [6] - 9:24, 15:12, 16:12, 17:18, 19:14, 19:15 已谈判 [1] - 5:21 Netherland（内瑟兰）[1] - 18:17 从未 [4] - 10:16, 10:17, 11:6, 15:10 尽管如此 [1] - 4:5 NEW（纽约）[2] - 1:1, 1:1 新的 [2] - 10:19, 14:20 New（纽约）[10] - 1:11, 1:19, 1:23, 2:3, 2:7, 4:2 下一个 [1] - 17:17 好的 [1] - 19:23 NO（编号）[1] - 1:5 非 [1] - 3:21 非当事人的 [1] - 3:21 没有一个 [1] - 16:2 注意 [1] - 11:5 已注意到 [1] - 3:7 没有任何内容 [2] - 5:10, 5:24 尽管 [1] - 9:8 要点 [1] - 3:19 编号 [6] - 5:23,\nO\n\n8:19, 8:20, 8:24,\n\n众多 [1] - 6:11\n\n9:17\n\nO'MELVENEY（欧麦文）[1] - 1:18 宣誓 [1] - 12:23 异议 [3] - 3:15, 9:12, 11:5 已提出异议 [1] - 18:7 提出异议 [1] - 11:4 有义务的 [1] - 16:22 显然 [1] - 15:2 OF（的）[3] - 1:1, 1:1 官员 [1] - 15:24 Official（正式）[1] - 2:23 一 [10] - 7:2, 9:17,\n\n10:19, 10:20, 10:22, 13:8, 16:8, 16:24, 17:15, 17:16 业务 [1] - 18:19 机会 [1] - 9:12 OPPORTUNITY（机会）[1] - 1:3 反对 [1] - 18:23 反对意见 [1] - 3:10 轨道 [1] - 17:10 裁定 [7] - 8:6, 9:10, 9:15, 16:13, 16:15, 18:21, 19:23 OSTRAGER（奥斯特拉格）[1] - 1:15 结果 [1] - 19:1 越权 [1] - 6:24 自己的 [4] - 6:2, 12:10, 12:21, 18:18 所有权 [2] - 13:2, 13:4 拥有 [3] - 10:23,\nP\n\n10:24, 17:2\n\nPACIFIC（太平洋）[1] - 1:3 已支付 [1] - 10:3 文件 [1] - 14:9 文件 [2] - 8:23, 11:11 部分 [1] - 17:6 PART（部分）[1] - 1:1 特定的 [1] - 9:13 当事人 [8] - 4:6, 5:2, 6:21, 6:22, 6:24, 7:16, 7:25, 9:16 当事人的 [1] - 3:21 合伙人 [1] - 10:9 当事人 [10] - 4:7, 4:11, 7:1, 7:9, 10:11, 10:12, 12:1, 13:14 已通过 [1] - 4:1 PAX [11] - 3:10, 4:15, 5:11, 5:15, 5:18, 6:11, 6:17, 6:21, 7:6, 8:2, 8:14 支付 [3] - 10:4, 10:8, 10:14 款项 [2] - 18:17, 18:18 支付 [1] - 12:12 或许 [1] - 4:19 期间 [1] - 18:15 作伪证者 [1] - 13:10 许可 [2] - 17:23, 18:8 人 [2] - 3:25, 14:3 个人的 [10] - 4:12, 4:17, 4:24, 5:1, 5:9,\n\n5:12, 7:9, 7:24, 12:13, 13:25 Piccirillo（皮奇里洛）[1] - 2:23 图景 [1] - 9:25 碎片 [1] - 14:9 Plains（普莱恩斯）[1] - 2:3 Plaintiff（原告）[2] - 1:4, 1:18 参与 [2] - 14:21, 16:6 Plaza（广场）[1] - 1:22 质押 [3] - 12:23, 12:25 要点 [3] - 5:5, 8:15, 16:8 要点 [1] - 10:10 政策 [1] - 5:16 占有 [1] - 5:9 可能 [2] - 15:16, 16:20 已公布 [1] - 10:3 潜在地 [1] - 7:23 前提 [1] - 7:10 预判 [1] - 17:8 预先判断 [1] - 17:8 预先判断 [1] - 19:1 初步的 [3] - 3:8, 3:17, 18:14 目前 [1] - 19:11 相当 [1] - 11:8 主要的 [1] - 4:3 原则 [1] - 3:20 私人的 [1] - 6:3 问题 [2] - 4:21, 9:1 继续进行 [2] - 18:4, 18:8 程序 [2] - 5:6, 10:6 过程 [3] - 5:17, 11:10, 17:6 出示 [1] - 4:6 已出示 [3] - 16:17, 16:23, 17:8 出示 [2] - 8:18, 17:21 有成效的 [1] - 19:13 Profit（利润）[2] - 12:21, 13:6 适当 [1] - 17:11 财产 [4] - 5:9, 5:25, 7:18, 8:4 提议的 [1] - 19:17 保护 [1] - 6:24 保护性的 [2] - 3:21, 6:23 证明 [1] - 14:1 提供 [2] - 5:2, 5:22 已提供 [2] - 4:25, 16:1 公开的 [2] - 8:20, 12:24 公开地 [1] - 8:23\n\n根据 [2] - 16:18, 17:9 追求 [1] - 5:15 放置 [5] - 4:22, 5:21, 8:18, 13:1, 13:24\nQ\n\n撤销 [9] - 3:3, 6:9, 12:1, 14:25, 15:3, 15:23, 17:24, 19:3, 19:17 撤销 [1] - 16:6 问题 [2] - 6:13, 6:15 相当 [2] - 11:22, 13:24\nR\n\n提出 [1] - 17:15 已提出 [1] - 8:15 咆哮 [1] - 13:14 而非 [1] - 7:1 合理的 [1] - 19:11 理由 [1] - 4:4 已达成 [1] - 17:22 阅读 [1] - 14:5 真正地 [4] - 5:12, 5:15, 10:15, 14:19 理由 [2] - 9:14, 16:20 合理的 [2] - 15:19, 18:23 有理有据的 [1] - 5:18 理由 [1] - 15:5 已收到 [5] - 4:11, 5:8, 7:11, 8:7, 11:6 最近 [1] - 12:19 接收人 [1] - 4:6 接收人 [2] - 6:19, 6:20 记录 [5] - 3:16, 4:22, 5:7, 9:7, 16:13 记录 [2] - 7:9, 19:16 已删节 [2] - 8:19, 8:21 反映 [1] - 16:18 关于 [1] - 5:21 重申 [1] - 4:3 相关的 [1] - 17:15 有关 [1] - 6:2 相关的 [11] - 4:23, 5:3, 7:17, 7:24, 8:3, 11:23, 12:3, 12:12, 13:21, 15:4, 15:5 救济 [1] - 6:9 依赖 [1] - 15:24 已移除 [1] - 18:19\n\nBP\nNYSCEF 文书编号 837 NYSCEF 收到日期：06/03/2021 案件 22-50073 文书 404-19 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 26 页，共\n答复 [1] - 18:2 书记员 [1] - 2:23 代表 [6] - 9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 10:22, 11:1 陈述 [1] - 16:2 已代理 [1] - 15:25 代理 [2] - 3:7, 11:3 代理 [2] - 9:2, 9:5 请求 [5] - 3:17, 6:1, 6:8, 14:24, 16:10 请求 [2] - 6:9, 6:11 要求 [1] - 4:4 被要求 [2] - 4:5, 16:6 要求 [1] - 9:15 解决 [2] - 5:18, 18:13 谨此 [1] - 7:25 各自的 [1] - 19:12 回应 [1] - 9:16 已回应 [1] - 18:7 回应 [1] - 4:5 回应 [1] - 14:17 其余 [2] - 6:13 结果 [1] - 11:20 导致 [1] - 5:18 返回 [1] - 8:18 富有的 [1] - 11:9 撕毁 [2] - 14:9, 15:25 障碍 [1] - 10:17 Rockefeller（洛克菲勒）[1] - 1:22 规则 [2] - 4:9, 9:15 Rule（规则）[1] - 3:12 运营 [1] - 18:22 S Sarnoff（萨诺夫）[1] - 10:9 满足 [3] - 5:3, 11:24, 13:22 满足 [2] - 6:17, 7:7 保存 [1] - 19:20 范围 [2] - 4:20, 5:22 焦土式的 [1] - 5:16 焦土式 [1] - 5:16 密封 [2] - 3:11, 9:19 已密封 [1] - 9:19 密封 [2] - 8:15, 8:16 搜寻 [1] - 13:23 第二 [1] - 14:24 条款 [1] - 6:23 证券 [2] - 6:3, 16:19 寻求 [2] - 8:3, 9:10 寻求 [5] - 5:24, 12:3, 15:14, 17:20, 17:24 寻求 [4] - 6:1, 6:9, 6:10, 7:2 扣押 [3] - 14:11, 14:13, 17:12 自身 [2] - 13:9, 14:1 自利的 [2] - 13:9, 14:1 发送 [1] - 11:5 意义 [1] - 19:8 敏感的 [1] - 14:2 严重的 [1] - 13:7 送达 [1] - 11:4 已送达 [1] - 4:18 服务 [2] - 13:9, 14:1 会期 [1] - 19:19 空壳 [2] - 14:20, 15:1 Sherry（谢里）[1] - 18:17 Sherry-Netherland（谢里－内瑟兰）[1] - 18:17 显示 [4] - 8:6, 9:10, 9:15, 10:21 显示 [12] - 7:10, 7:12, 8:3, 12:24, 13:8, 13:9, 13:11, 13:15, 15:16, 17:13, 18:14 已显示 [1] - 5:6 撕碎 [2] - 4:25, 5:7 一方 [2] - 10:9, 10:10 SIEGAL（西格尔）[1] - 1:23 Siegal（西格尔）[6] - 8:16, 8:19, 9:1, 9:4, 9:9, 12:11 愚蠢的 [1] - 19:4 简单的 [1] - 11:12 单一的 [1] - 5:7 六 [3] - 16:21, 19:4, 19:14 抱歉 [1] - 9:4 寻求 [2] - 3:22, 18:7 来源 [1] - 18:16 发言 [1] - 13:17 具体细节 [1] - 9:22 推测 [1] - 7:13 发言人 [1] - 12:17 Spring（斯普林）[3] - 12:9, 17:22, 18:16 Spring's（斯普林的）[2] - 17:21, 17:24 Spruce（云杉）[3] - 4:1, 5:6,\n\n证券 [1] - 15:18 7:11 Square（广场）[1] - 1:19 立场 [1] - 4:14 标准 [7] - 7:5,\n\n7:19, 7:21, 11:23, 11:24, 11:25, 12:4 资格 [1] - 15:2 开始 [2] - 3:8, 9:24 已开始 [1] - 13:14 STATE（州）[1] - 1:1 States（合众国）[2] - 16:21, 18:20 Stern（斯特恩）[1] - 3:24 直接明了的 [1] - 3:20 Street（街）[3] - 1:11, 2:3, 2:6 驳回 [1] - 3:15 STUART（斯图尔特）[1] - 1:20 刻意地 [1] - 10:1 标的 [1] - 17:12 已提交 [1] - 6:14 传票 [19] - 3:3, 4:5, 4:6, 4:18, 6:25, 7:3, 7:8, 8:6, 10:19, 11:4, 11:7, 12:2, 14:4, 15:3, 16:18, 17:5, 17:25, 18:7, 19:18 被传唤 [2] - 5:19, 10:23 传唤 [2] - 4:7, 19:16 传票 [12] - 3:23, 4:14, 5:24, 6:11, 6:20, 8:3, 14:25, 15:14, 15:18, 15:23, 16:7, 17:9 足够的 [3] - 4:16, 7:22, 15:16 建议 [1] - 5:1 Suite（套房）[1] - 2:3 概括地 [1] - 11:5 款项 [3] - 14:8, 15:19, 16:18 已被取代 [1] - 4:8 支持 [4] - 7:15, 8:1, 18:14, 18:16 据称 [2] - 10:23, 10:24 SUPREME（最高）[1] - 1:1 Supreme（最高）[1] - 4:2 广泛的 [3] - 4:18, 7:2, 7:23 T\n\n税收 [1] - 8:18 Teams [1] - 19:19 TEAMS [1] - 1:12 TERM（期限）[1] - 1:1 已终止 [1] - 12:25 属地的 [1] - 18:20 检验 [2] - 6:16, 6:18\n\nBP\n\n已作证 [5] - 12:18, 12:19, 12:23, 13:2 证词 [1] - 12:22 THE（该）[13] - 1:1, 3:2, 6:16, 7:14, 8:2, 8:10, 15:11, 16:15, 16:17, 17:7, 17:17, 18:11, 19:14 从而 [1] - 7:24 他们已经 [1] - 13:11 认为 [1] - 18:9 第三 [9] - 4:6, 4:11, 5:2, 6:21, 6:22, 7:1, 7:9, 7:16, 7:25 三 [1] - 18:5 抛出 [1] - 10:17 关联 [1] - 14:21 今天 [1] - 17:24 一起 [1] - 6:6 时效中止 [1] - 5:23 全部情况 [1] - 15:20 完全 [1] - 14:25 朝向 [1] - 6:19 可追溯的 [1] - 16:3 庭审记录 [1] - 19:24 转让 [2] - 5:8, 8:7 已转让 [2] - 13:15, 14:15 转让 [3] - 4:12, 7:11, 17:1 译员 [1] - 14:12 透明的 [1] - 11:6 对待 [1] - 14:7 TRIAL（审判）[1] - 1:1 尝试 [1] - 17:4 正在尝试 [1] - 12:15 转向 [1] - 11:21 两 [1] - 15:21 典型的 [2] - 14:4\nU\n\n未中止时效的 [1] - 5:23 不知情的 [1] - 6:12 根据 [6] - 3:11, 6:16, 6:18, 7:20, 12:23, 16:11 不讨好的 [1] - 5:5 不幸的 [1] - 5:15 不幸的是 [1] - 16:6 United（合众）[2] - 16:21, 18:20 不同于 [2] - 14:5 不必要的 [1] - 6:7 无关的 [1] - 15:14 向上 [10] - 5:21, 7:3, 10:17, 10:21, 14:9, 14:16, 14:20, 15:25, 17:4, 18:22\nV 版本 [1] - 8:20\n\n视频 [1] - 15:9 违反 [2] - 3:12, 18:20\nW\n\n墙 [1] - 4:1 WAN（王）[2] - 1:6, 1:7 wang（王）[1] - 15:22 Wang（王）[20] - 2:2, 3:7, 4:25, 5:5, 5:19, 6:9, 6:10, 7:3, 7:11, 8:7, 9:5, 9:6, 11:9, 11:21, 12:7, 12:17, 14:3, 15:2, 15:16, 16:20 Wang's（王的）[6] - 3:3, 4:17, 5:12, 13:21, 16:3, 18:25 想要 [4] - 14:21, 15:8, 18:1, 18:4 浪费 [1] - 11:16 观看 [1] - 15:9 水域 [1] - 18:20 方式 [1] - 5:5 周 [1] - 12:19 WEN（文）[2] - 1:7 WEN-GUI（文贵）[1] - 1:7 WENGUI（文贵）[1] - 1:7 重击 [2] - 14:19, 16:5 打地鼠 [2] - 14:19, 16:5 White（怀特）[1] - 2:3 极其 [1] - 16:19 撤回 [1] - 6:11 词语 [3] - 15:8, 18:2, 18:6 更糟 [1] - 10:7 写 [1] - 18:2 写 [1] - 10:25 写了 [1] - 17:23\nY\n\n游艇 [1] - 18:19 YANKWITT（扬克维特）[1] - 2:2 Yankwitt（扬克维特）[1] - 3:6 年 [3] - 11:16, 15:21, 16:21 YORK（纽约）[2] - 1:1, 1:1 York（纽约）[10] - 1:11, 1:19, 1:23, 2:3, 2:7, 4:3 Yvette（伊薇特）[1] - 2:2","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":837,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9302,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:53:19"}