{"id":"court_ctb_406_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":406,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"Exhibit UCC-1 February 9, 2022 Decision and Order on Motion for Contempt in PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit UCC-1\n\nFebruary 9, 2022 Decision and Order on Motion for Contempt in PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\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                                          |                            |                  |  |\n|          | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                                    | MOTION SEQ. NO.            | 019              |  |\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\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 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 |                 |       |\n|-----------------------------------------------------|---|---------------|--|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|-------|\n|                                                     | X | GRANTED       |  | DENIED                |                       | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION:                                        |   | SETTLE ORDER  |  |                       | SUBMIT ORDER          |                 |       |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:<br>INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN |   |               |  | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE             |                 |       |","body_zh":"证据 UCC-1\n\n2022年2月9日关于 PAX 诉 Kwok 案民事藐视法庭动议的判决与裁定，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），诉讼记录编号 1181。\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）阁下 审判庭 IAS 动议 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.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 GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 动议序号 019\nWAN GUE HAOYUN（万古浩云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名\nHAOYUN GUO（浩云郭），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（巨浪控股有限责任公司），以及 动议判决 + 裁定\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（巨浪控股公司），\n\n被告。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X BARRY R. OSTRAGER 阁下\n\n在这起拥有 1,180 项诉讼记录的 2017 年案件中——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，以下简称「Kwok」）试图通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信及家族成员名下，来逃避并欺骗其债权人——本院需判定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，以下简称「PAX」）是否已完成证明责任，即本院应向 Kwok 下达民事藐视法庭的最终裁定。基于下述理由，本院正同时发布一份民事藐视法庭的最终裁定。\n\nPAX 于 2021年2月3日 获得了针对 Kwok 金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决（NYSCEF 档号 716）。此后，PAX 历经长达一年的努力来执行其判决，首先是识别继而试图扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在识别 Kwok 实际控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的 Kwok 已将其资产隐匿在由公司实体和家族成员交织而成的迷宫中。尽管 Kwok 过着奢华的生活，但这种操作使他能够坚称自己没有任何资产，原告已使用社交媒体剪报、照片和录像带对他的奢华生活进行了梳理编目，\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 406-1 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 3 页，共 11 页\n\n显示 Kwok 生活豪奢，并炫耀其财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022年2月2日 庭审记录所述，这些证据证明力有限，因为提交这些证据的证人除了知道这些内容可以从各种网站上获取外，对于这些「证据」的真实性并不具有第一手的第一手认知。\n\n2022年2月2日，本院举行了证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证词，并接受了交叉询问。在此次听证会之前，PAX 进行了旷日持久的法律程序，以寻找并扣押被告 Kwok 拥有的资产。除其他事项外，这些程序确立了 Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使着事实支配与控制权，并促使法院发布了一系列限制令，限制 Kwok 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本院司法管辖区。第一份此类裁定于 2020年9月30日 发布，详见下文，随后于 2020年10月15日 发布了另一份裁定，限制「Kwok 先生和/或……名为『Lady May』的游艇登记所有人」离开管辖区。（NYSCEF 档号 630）。详见下文，Kwok 在 2020年7月、8月和9月 的大部分时间里都在 Lady May 上度过。在产生 2020年9月30日 和 10月15日 限制令的诉讼程序进行的同时，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020年10月初 驶往 Florida（佛罗里达州），随后前往 Bahamas（巴哈马）。2021年3月16日，本院发布了一项附条件的民事藐视法庭裁定，责令如果 Kwok 未能在 2021年5月31日 之前将 Lady May 送回本院管辖区，Lady May 滞留在本院管辖区外的每一天，他都将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（第一分部上诉法庭）维持了本院判定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的裁定，认定「每天 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力\n\n促使被告清除其藐视法庭行为，尽管他获得了消除的机会，但他并未表现出任何意愿……」NYSCEF 档号 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉法庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院判定被告民事藐视法庭是在其自由裁量权范围内行事，因为原告以明晰且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了法院合法、明确的指令，且被告对此知情，并且该违反应对原告的权利造成了损害（参见 El-Dehdan 诉 El-Dehdan，26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。……责令动议法院进行证据听证会，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉法庭的裁定，本院排定了 2022年2月2日 的证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实质拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未能在 2022年2月2日 的听证会上作证，此前他在应对 PAX 的资产查明调查时，曾援引《第五修正案》赋予的权利，拒绝就与 Lady May 相关的动议作证或回复证据开示请求。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引了《第五修正案》，Kwok 仍是多个法庭中活跃的诉讼当事人，并且他曾在本案及其他诉讼程序中提供过先前的证词。\n\nKwok 还曾在本院提起过一份起诉书，案名为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok 诉 Hong Zeng，157025/2020，其中引用了 Freebeacon.com 于 2017年9月8日 发布的博文，在该博文中 Kwok 抱怨了「涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的数起事件……」（起诉书第 8 款，NYSCEF 档号 001）（即「Zeng 案起诉书」）。Zeng 案起诉书将 Kwok 描述为「中国共产党的直言不讳的批评者」，并不遗余力地「揭露中国共产党和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败」。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，Trump（特朗普）总统的前顾问 Steve Bannon（斯蒂夫·班农）于 2020年 在 Lady May 船上被捕，并将 Bannon 先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业\n\n1「PX」指原告庭审证据。\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 406-1 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n合伙人，后者是「一名在网络上直言不讳批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但目前因涉嫌诈骗、敲诈勒索和行贿罪名被北京当局通缉」。其他新闻机构也报道称，Bannon 先生曾不止一次乘坐 Kwok 的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n听证会上被告证人口中得出的证言明晰且令人信服地表明，Kwok 实质拥有并控制着 Lady May，并且对本院及司法程序表现出极端的藐视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，以下简称「HK International」）的唯一股东。听证会上得出的证词表明，2014年 Kwok 在无对价的情况下将 HK International 的 100% 股权转让给了一位名叫 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族深受信赖的商业合伙人。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，2015年2月23日，HK International 以 2800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了 Lady May。听证会上得出的证词均未能证实购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）无可反驳的证词证实，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。庭审记录 44. 2 因此，合理的推论是 Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，Qu 女士于 2017年6月17日 左右以 $1 或无对价将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。庭审记录 47。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 档号 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了目前的所有权持有者 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，以下简称「HK USA」）。Guo 女士进一步声明她是 HK USA 的唯一所有者，尽管\n\n2「Tr.」指证据听证会记录，电子归档于 NYSCEF 档号 1179。\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 406-1 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\nLady May 每年数百万美元的全部开支，包括燃油费、维护费以及船长和船员的费用，均由据称是 Kwok 家族办公室的 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下简称「Golden Spring」）支付。\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士作证称是她哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。庭审记录 46。本院无法采信这一证言，因为没有任何证据表明 Guo 女士的哥哥参与了导致 Guo 女士获得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且，事实上在回答本院提问时，Guo 女士承认在她获得该游艇之前发生的所有转让中，她哥哥均未参与。庭审记录 47。\n\n听证会上得出的其他证词表明，Kwok 每年夏天都会反复出现在游艇上，而 Guo 女士则很少出现在游艇上。庭审记录 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 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相符。庭审记录 87:24-88:7。在本院于 2020年9月30日 发布限制令之后，Lady May 于 2020年10月 被送往 Florida 随后前往 Bahamas 进行维修，随后又据称在 Golden Spring 的指示下于 2021年10月 被派往 Italy（意大利）。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本院 2020年9月30日 的限制令以及本院随后于 2021年3月16日 发出的指令将 Lady May 送回本院管辖区的裁定。庭审记录 55; 57-60; 62。\n\nGuo 女士作证称，一方面她指挥 Lady May 的航程路线，但另一方面又作证称，出于对 Kwok 安全的考虑，不会对任何航程路线进行书面记录。庭审记录 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他想去的地方。庭审记录 50。然而，根本问题在于究竟是谁在 2020年10月 指示将游艇移出本院管辖区。Guo 女士声称，在 2020年10月初 她不再希望\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 收到 NYSCEF：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 406-1 归档 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 12:13:10 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给了 Golden Spring，Golden Spring 进而将她的指令传达给了当时的船长 Heaslop 船长。庭审记录 53。\n\n在进一步追问下，Guo 女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将游艇移至更温暖的地方。庭审记录 55。随后 Guo 女士重复了她此前已撤回的证词，即她哥哥把游艇送给了她，并且她表示她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有者。庭审记录 56。鉴于本院在 2020年9月30日 发布了临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……进行或促成对其享有权益的任何财产的任何出售、让与、转让或干预，或支付或以其他方式处置目前应付或此后应付给他的任何债务，但《民事诉讼法与规则》（CPLR）第 5222 条规定的例外情况以及在通常业务过程中除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May 号时任船长 Heaslop 船长作证称，在 Lady May 号于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州的「几天前」（且显然是在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日裁定作出之后），Kwok 先生（郭文贵）曾告诉 Heaslop 船长，郭文贵将不再作为 Lady May 号上的宾客。Tr. 89。Heaslop 船长亦反驳了 Guo 女士（郭美）关于其曾就游艇航行向 Heaslop 船长下达指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭美还承认随后阅读了法院要求 Lady May 号于 2021 年 5 月 31 日前返回法院管辖范围内的 2021 年 3 月 16 日裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与自己的律师（其服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她对该裁定未予理会。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil 作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了一份日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，并且他与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 保持沟通，但从未与郭美沟通过。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov 也是如此作证的。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭美关于其拥有并\nFILED: 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 8 of 11\n\n控制 Lady May 号的证言在任何方面均不具有可信度。郭美看似一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 号行使了支配与控制权，也未提供任何其取得 Lady May 号占有权的证实材料，唯有作为一项花招，以庇护 Lady May 号免遭其父亲的债权人扣押执行。\n\n与郭文贵就 Lady May 号所精心策划的移花接木骗局相关的种种花招手段，与其在本诉讼待决的五年期间所采取的每一起规避与蔑视法庭行为完全如出一辙，这也正是本案存在 1,180 项案卷记录的原因所在。\n\n当（如同本案）法院「明确认定［郭文贵］的行为旨在或实际已经破坏、损害、阻碍或妨碍了民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济」时，法院有权依据《Judiciary Law（司法法）》§ 753 认定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭——并「通过罚金和监禁对［其］予以惩处」。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条提出了四项要件：\n\n要在特定案件中认定存在藐视法庭行为，必须确定：［1］存在一份明确表达了不容置疑指令的法院合法裁定有效力。［2］必须能够以合理确信度显明，该裁定已被违抗……［3］此外，被认定藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的该项裁定，尽管该裁定并非必须已实际送达该当事人……［4］最后，必须证明诉讼一方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)）。本案中出示的证言满足本标准的每一项要件。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）亦作过如此暗示。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（「［PAX（太平洋同盟亚洲机会基金）已经］以清楚且具说服力的证据证明，［郭文贵］违反了\nFILED: 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 9 of 11\n\n其所知晓的法院合法、明确的指令，且该等违反行为导致了原告权利受损……」）。\n\nPAX 持续遭受「损害」的程度，取决于 PAX 是否已经证明其最终能够扣押执行 Lady May 号以清偿其针对郭文贵现已达上亿美元的判决债务。根据 CPLR（民事诉讼法与规则）§ 5225，在债务人持有必要「权益」的情况下，「金钱或其他动产」可被扣押执行。为满足这一要求，「并不要求判决债务人拥有该财产的法定所有权；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『对某项事物享有的权利或期待权……相对于对该事物的法定所有权而言』。」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 Lady May 号上所拥有的远不止实益权益。郭文贵不仅控制着该游艇，而且看似是他提供了购艇资金，且他正是主要享受使用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于「该财产使［实益所有人］受益，是否如同其直接接收了该财产一样」。同上（引自 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦参见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持对判决债务人关于其因将财产权益转让给其女儿而不再持有该财产权益之主张的驳回）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（准许判决债权人的移交动议，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」））。\nFILED: 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 10 of 11\n\n证据以清楚且具说服力的方式表明，郭文贵持有 Lady May 号的实益权益并对其进行控制。关于后者，法院注意到 Zeng（曾）案的提起，并从全部记录在案的事实中推断出郭文贵已采取非常手段来庇护该游艇免受其债权人追索。此外，郭文贵的「家族办公室」资助了该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n法院认定，郭美的证言不仅在内部自相矛盾且具掩饰性，而且还被 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长和 Stockil 先生的证言大幅削弱，后者陈述称，在郭美直接或间接持有该游艇产权的四年半时间里，他们从未接受过郭美与游艇相关的指示。\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「可构成不利事实推定的基础」。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。只要在必要或允许进行事实认定的任何时候，均可适用不利推定，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，根据缺席证人规则，「事实审理者可以针对未作证的证人，作出反向证据所允许的最强烈的推定。」Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告「本应对证据所提出的实质性问题具有知情权」的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权依据上述两项途径获得不利推定。针对 PAX 的判决后证据开示，包括专门针对有关 Lady May 号的要求，郭文贵均援引了其反对自证其罪的第五修正案权利。虽然郭文贵\nFILED: 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 406-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 11 of 11\n\n辩称在此处作出不利推定是不适当的，因为「只有在一份证据的真实性得到初步表面证明之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应」，但这一主张本身便站不住脚。PAX 已经出示了实质性的可采证据，证明郭文贵在 Lady May 号上享有必要的实益权益并对其拥有控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（阐释证据如果「有助于证明实质性事实——即本案中直接争议的事实——的存在或不存在」，则具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 号脱离本院管辖已达 268 天。根据本院判处并由上诉法庭确认的每日 500,000 美元罚金，由此产生的罚金总额将达 134,000,000.00 美元，该金额超过了 PAX 近 1.2 亿美元的未受偿判决金额，并且是 Lady May 号 2800 万英镑（GBP £）购买价格的数倍。然而，如果身家数十亿美元的诉讼当事人一方面在明知且故意违反法院裁定的同时，另一方面还能企图在纽约以及美国其他地方利用法院程序，那么法治将不复存在。郭文贵必须在本院带有登载通知（Notice of Entry）的裁定送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 134,000,000.00 美元。若未按时支付罚金，法院准备根据《Judiciary Law》§ 753 行使其全部职权。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n勾选一项： 案件结案 X 非终局处置\n\nX 准予 驳回 部分准予 其他\n申请： 拟定裁定 提交裁定\n如适用请勾选：\n包含移送/重新分配 财产受托人指定 查照转审","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3673,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:48:43"}