{"id":"court_ctb_404_25","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":25,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 25 Decision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1181","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 25**\n\nDecision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1181\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of 11\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                                                             | PART                       | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|\n|          | Justice                                                                            |                            |                  |\n|          | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X |                            |                  |\n|          | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND                                             |                            |                  |\n| L.P.,    |                                                                                    | INDEX NO.                  | 652077/2017      |\n|          | Plaintiff,                                                                         |                            |                  |\n|          | -<br>v -                                                                           | MOTION DATE                |                  |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN                                          | MOTION SEQ. NO.            | 019              |\n|          | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                                    |                            |                  |\n|          | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a                                            |                            |                  |\n|          | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and                                             | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |                  |\n|          | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,                                                      |                            |                  |\n|          |                                                                                    |                            |                  |\n\nDefendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 3 of 11\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.<sup>1</sup> This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 5 of 11\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n<sup>2</sup> \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 6 of 11\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 7 of 11\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 8 of 11\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of 11\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 10 of 11\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-25 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 11 of 11\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**","body_zh":"证据 PAX 25\n\n动议裁定及命令，PAX 诉 郭案，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），案卷号 1181\n归档：纽约县巡回文书 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 404-25 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 2 页，共 11 页\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND\nL.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）， 索引号 652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN 动议序号 019\nGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名\nWAN GUE HAOYUN（万圭浩云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名\nHAOYUN GUO（浩云郭），GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（日内瓦控股有限责任公司），以及 动议裁定 + 命令\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（日内瓦控股公司），\n\n被告。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n在这起具有 1,180 项案卷记录的 2017 年案件中——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，下称“郭”）通过将大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员处以规避和欺骗其债权人的行为——本法院需判定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，下称“PAX”）是否完成了举证责任，证明法院应当对郭作出民事蔑视法庭的最终命令。基于下述理由，本法院同时发布民事蔑视法庭的最终命令。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日获得针对郭金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF 文件号 716）。此后，PAX 历经长达一年的努力，先是识别并进而试图扣押郭在美国的资产以执行其判决。PAX 在识别郭所控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的郭将其资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体和家庭成员网络中。这一方案使郭得以坚称自己身无分文，尽管他过着极尽奢华的生活；原告已根据社交媒体剪辑、照片和录像资料对其进行了记录，\n归档：纽约县巡回文书 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 404-25 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 3 页，共 11 页\n\n显示郭生活挥霍，炫耀其财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日诉讼程序笔录所述，由于出示该等证据的证人除了知道这些“证据”可在各网站上获取外，对其真实性并无第一手了解，因此该等证据的证明力极低。\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提供了直接证词并接受了交叉询问。该听证会是在 PAX 为查找和扣押被告郭名下资产而进行的漫长程序之后举行的。除其他事项外，该等程序确定了郭对名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇拥有控制与支配权，并促成了一系列禁止郭及/或名为 Lady May 的游艇的注册所有人将 Lady May 移出本法院管辖范围的限制命令。第一份此类命令于 2020 年 9 月 30 日发布（下文有详述），随后于 2020 年 10 月 15 日发布的命令限制“郭先生及/或名为……‘Lady May’的游艇的注册所有人”离开司法管辖区。（NYSCEF 文件号 630）。如下文详述，郭在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在 Lady May 上度过。在导致 2020 年 9 月 30 日和 10 月 15 日限制令的诉讼程序进行的同时，郭及其同伙于 2020 年 10 月初安排 Lady May 驶往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马。2021 年 3 月 16 日，法院发布了一份附条件的民事蔑视法庭命令，指示如果郭未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 带回本法院管辖范围，则 Lady May 留在本法院管辖范围之外的每一天，他都将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\n上诉分部第一部门维持了本法院认定郭构成附条件民事蔑视法庭的命令，裁定“每天 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强烈\n\n促使被告消除其蔑视法庭状态，尽管被告被允许这样做，但他对此未表现出任何兴趣……”NYSCEF 文件号 953，199 AD3d 423（2021 年）。上诉分部进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院认定被告构成民事蔑视法庭属于其自由裁量权范围内，因为原告以明晰且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其明知的法院合法、明确的指令，且该违反行为导致了原告权利受损（见 El-Dehdan 诉 El-Dehdan 案，26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753（《司法法》第 753 条））。……动议法院受指示进行证据听证会，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分部的命令，本法院定于 2022 年 2 月 2 日举行证据听证会，以解决郭是否为该游艇的实际所有人及是否控制该游艇的问题。郭未在 2022 年 2 月 2 日的听证会上作证，此前在回应 PAX 的资产调查取证工作时，他曾援引第五修正案权利拒绝就涉及 Lady May 的事项作证或回应证据开示请求。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引了第五修正案，郭仍在多个法庭积极进行诉讼，并且他在本案及其他诉讼中曾提供过先前的证词。\n\n郭还在本法院提起过一起题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng（郭文贵又名迈尔斯·郭 诉 曾宏），案号 157025/2020 的诉状，其中引用了来自 Freebeacon.com 网站日期为 2017 年 9 月 8 日的博文，郭在其中抱怨“涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……”（诉状第 8 段，NYSCEF 文件号 001）（“曾案诉状”）。曾案诉状将郭描述为“中共直言不讳的批评者”，曾竭尽全力“揭露中共及中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。《华盛顿邮报》报道称，前总统特朗普的顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 游艇上被捕，并将班农先生描述为郭的朋友和商业\n\n1 “PX”指原告庭审证据。\n归档：纽约县巡回文书 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 404-25 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n合伙人，“一名在网络上直言不讳批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报机构关系密切，但目前因涉嫌欺诈、勒索和行贿而受到北京当局通缉”。其他新闻机构报道称，班农先生曾不止一次使用郭的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n听证会上从被告证人口中获取的证词明晰且令人信服地证明，郭实际拥有并控制 Lady May，且对本法院和司法程序怀有彻底的蔑视。\n\n郭曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，下称“香港国际”）的唯一股东。听证会上引出的证词证实，2014 年郭将香港国际 100% 的权益无对价转让给了一位名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。屈女士是郭氏家族信任的商业伙伴。此后，郭逃离中国，2015 年 2 月 23 日，香港国际以 2800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了 Lady May。听证会上没有任何证词能证实购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但郭的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）无可反驳的证词证实，屈女士并未提供购买游艇的资金。Tr. 44. 2 因此，合理的推论是郭向香港国际提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，屈女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日前后以 1 美元或无对价的方式将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了郭的女儿郭美。Tr. 47。根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 文件号 1162），郭女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了目前的所有权人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，下称“香港美国”）。郭女士进一步声称她是香港美国的唯一所有人，尽管每年用于\n\n2 “Tr.”指证据听证会笔录，电子归档于 NYSCEF 文件号 1179。\n归档：纽约县巡回文书 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 404-25 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\nLady May 包括燃油、维护以及船长和船员在内的数百万美元日常开支全部由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“金泉”）支付，据称金泉是郭氏家族的家族办公室。\n\n在听证会上，郭女士作证称是她哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46。法院无法采信这一证词，因为没有任何证据表明郭女士的哥哥参与了导致郭女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。事实上，在回答法院提问时，郭女士承认在她取得游艇之前发生的所有转让中，她哥哥均未参与。Tr. 47。\n\n听证会上引出的其他证词证实，郭每年夏天都会频繁登上游艇，而郭女士很少在游艇上。庭审记录 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，郭在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与他在夏天的惯常做法一致。庭审记录 87:24-88:7。在本法院发布 2020 年 9 月 30 日限制令之后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被送往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并随后据称在金泉的指示下于 2021 年 10 月被派往意大利。郭女士承认她知晓本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的限制令以及本法院随后于 2021 年 3 月 16 日发布的指示将 Lady May 带回法院管辖范围的命令。Tr. 55; 57-60; 62。\n\n郭女士一方面作证称她主导了 Lady May 的航行路线，但另一方面又作证称由于郭的安全问题备受关注，因此不会有任何航行路线的记录。Tr. 52。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在没有她陪同的情况下登上游艇时，他有权自由选择任何想去的地方。Tr. 50。然而，根本问题在于谁在 2020 年 10 月指示将游艇移出本法院的管辖范围。郭女士声称在 2020 年 10 月初她不再希望\n归档：纽约县巡回文书 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 404-25 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给了金泉，金泉随后将她的指示转达给了当时的船长 Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。Tr. 53。\n\n在进一步被质询时，郭女士承认是金泉建议她需要将游艇移至更暖和的地方。Tr. 55。郭女士随后重复了她此前已撤回的证词，即她哥哥把游艇送给了她，并且她声明她哥哥是金泉的唯一所有人。Tr. 56。鉴于法院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日发布了限制郭的临时限制令，该证词不可信\n\n……进行或导致进行任何出售、让与、转让其享有权益的任何财产，或对该等财产造成干预，亦不得偿付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情况及在正常业务过程中进行的除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May（梅夫人号）当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）作证称，在“梅夫人号”于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州的“几天前”（且显然是在本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日裁定作出之后），Mr. Kwok（郭文贵先生）告诉希斯洛普船长，郭文贵将不再作为宾客登上“梅夫人号”。Tr. 89。希斯洛普船长还反驳了 Ms. Guo（郭美女士）关于其曾就游艇航行向希斯洛普船长发出指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认，其随后阅读了本法院于 2021 年 3 月 16 日作出的要求“梅夫人号”于 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前返回本法院管辖范围内的裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与自己的律师（其律师费由 Golden Spring［金泉公司］支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她对该裁定未予理会。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 公司的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签有一份日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，并且他曾与 HK USA 及金泉公司进行沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通过。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）的证言亦是如此。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭女士关于其拥有并控制“梅夫人号”的证言在任何方面均不具有可信度。郭女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对“梅夫人号”行使了支配和控制权，亦未提供任何确认其取得“梅夫人号”占有权的证据，这纯粹是为了规避其父亲的债权人对“梅夫人号”进行扣押而采取的诡计。\n\n郭文贵围绕“梅夫人号”策划的连环骗局所涉及的各种手段，与其在本案诉讼未决的五年期间所采取的其他一切逃避和蔑视法庭的行为如出一辙，这正是本案案卷记录多达 1,180 项的原因。\n\n根据 Judiciary Law § 753（《司法法》第 753 条），当出现本案情形——即本法院“明确认定［郭文贵］的行为旨在或实际上已经挫败、损害、阻碍或偏见民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济”时，本法院有权判定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭，并“通过罚金和监禁对其进行处罚”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定了四项要件：\n\n“要在具体案件中认定构成藐视法庭，必须确定：［1］法院的一项明确表达毫不含糊之命令的合法裁定当时有效；［2］必须能够以合理确信度证明该裁定未被遵守……［3］此外，被控藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的裁定，尽管并不要求该裁定实际上已送达该当事人……［4］最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了损害。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案所举证的证言符合本标准的每一项要件。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）亦作出了此种示意。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）, 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“［PAX / 太盟］已通过清晰且有说服力的证据确立［郭文贵］违反了其知晓的合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反行为导致原告的权利受到损害……”）。\n\n太盟所遭受的持续性“损害”程度，取决于太盟是否证明其最终能够扣押“梅夫人号”以清偿其目前对郭文贵持有的上亿美元的判决款项。根据 CPLR § 5225，债务人享有必要“权益”的“金钱或其他动产”属于可扣押财产。为满足该要件，“判决债务人无需对财产拥有法定所有权；享有实益权益即已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物所享有的权利或期待……相对于对该物所享有的法定所有权而言’。”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。郭文贵在“梅夫人号”上所享有的权益远不止实益权益。郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，而且似乎是他提供了购买资金，且他也是主要享受该游艇使用权的人。\n\n关键因素在于“该财产是否使［实益所有人］受益，犹如其直接取得了该财产一般。”同上（援引 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)［维持驳回判决债务人关于其因已将财产权益转让给其女儿而不再享有该财产权益的主张］；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)［支持判决债权人的财产移交动议，尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，因为即使属实，证据亦显示其对该财产‘保留了控制权和/或权益’］）。\n\n证据清晰且有说服力地证明郭文贵对“梅夫人号”享有实益权益并加以控制。就后者而言，本法院注意到曾案（Zeng case）的立案情况，并根据案卷中的全部事实作出推定，即郭文贵采取了异乎寻常的手段以图庇护该游艇免受其债权人追索。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”为该游艇的日常运营和维护提供了资金。\n\n本法院认定，郭女士的证言不仅前后自相矛盾且带有掩饰性质，而且也被希斯洛普船长、伊万诺夫船长及斯托基尔先生的证言大幅削弱，后三人表示，在郭女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未听从过郭女士与游艇相关的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州确立的法律规定，当事人在民事诉讼中援引《第五修正案》（Fifth Amendment）“可作为作出不利事实推定的依据”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。只要需要或允许进行事实认定，便可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情境中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据证人缺席规则（missing witness rule），“事实审理者可依据相对方证据，对未能出庭作证的证人作出证据所允许的最强不利推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（对未能出庭但“本应对证据所提出的实质性问题具有充分了解”的被告适用不利推定）。\n\n太盟有权基于上述两条途径获得不利推定。郭文贵在对太盟的判决后证据开示（包括专门针对“梅夫人号”的证据开示请求）作出答复时，援引了其反对自证其罪的《第五修正案》权利。尽管郭文贵辩称此处不宜适用不利推定，因为“只有在初步证明某项证据具有真实性之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但该主张在自身逻辑下即不攻自破。太盟已提出了大量可采证据，证明郭文贵对“梅夫人号”享有必要的实益权益并实施控制。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（阐释若证据“往往能证明实质性事实即本案中直接争议之事实的存在或不存在，则该证据具有证明力”）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，“梅夫人号”脱离本法院管辖范围已达 268 天。根据本法院处以并经上诉法庭确认的每日 500,000 美元罚金计算，由此产生的罚金总额达 134,000,000.00 美元，该金额超过了太盟近 1.2 亿美元的未受偿判决金额，亦是“梅夫人号”2,800 万英镑（GBP £ 28 million）购买价格的数倍。然而，如果身家数十亿的诉讼当事人一方面可以在纽约及美国其他地方寻求利用法院诉讼程序，另一方面却明知且故意地违反法院裁定，那么法治将不复存在。郭文贵必须在本法院附录入通知之裁定送达后五个工作日内向太盟支付 134,000,000.00 美元。若罚金未能按时足额支付，本法院准备充分行使 Judiciary Law § 753 赋予的一切权力。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n勾选一项：案件已了结 X 非终局处置\nX 准予 驳回 部分准予 其他\n申请：和解裁定 提交裁定\n如适用请勾选：包含移交/重新指派 破产受托人指定 移送案件审查","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3650,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:47:27"}