{"id":"court_ctb_406_11","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":406,"sub_number":11,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"Exhibit UCC-11 PAX's Amended Statement of Claim dated October 16, 2020 in Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP v. G","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit UCC-11\n\nPAX's Amended Statement of Claim dated October 16, 2020 in Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP v. Genever Holdings Corp. et al, Claim No. BVIHCM 0137 of 2020 (Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Virgin Islands, Commercial Division)\n\n**Case Number :BVIHCOM2020/0137** Case 22-50073 Doc 406-11 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 2 of\n\n17\n\n**THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT**\n\n**VIRGIN ISLANDS**\n\n**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE**\n\n**COMMERCIAL DIVISION**\n\n**Claim No BVIHCM 0137 of 2020**\n\n**BETWEEN**\n\n### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LP**\n\n**Claimant**\n\n**And**\n\n#### **GEN EVER HOLDINGS CORP BRAVO LUCK LIMITED KWOK HO WAN (also known as MILES KWOK, HO WAN KWOK and GUO WEN GUI) QIANG GUO (also known as QUO QIANG and MILESON KWOK)**\n\n**Defendants**\n\n#### **AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM**\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n- <sup>1</sup> The Claimant **(PAX)** is an investment fund organised as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands.\n- 2 The First Defendant **(Genever BVI)** is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on 13 February 2015, having its Registered Office address at Intertrust Corporate Services (BVI) Limited, Ritter House, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands.\n- 3 The Second Defendant **(Bravo Luck)** is also a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on 2 April 2013, having its Registered Office at Vistra (BVI) Limited **(Vistra),** Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands.\n- 4 The Third Defendant **(Mr Kwok)** is <sup>a</sup> fugitive from Chinese justice, currently resident in the State of New York, United States of America, avoiding fraud, bribery and corruption, and money laundering charges in the People's Republic of China.\n\n**Submitted Date:16/10/2020 10:47**\n\n**Filed Date:16/10/2020 10:47**\n\n**Fees Paid:112.91**\n\n- <sup>5</sup> The Fourth Defendant is the Third Defendant's 33 -year-old son, having been born on 22 February 1987 **(Mr Guo).**\n- 6 As is pleaded more fully below, at all relevant times:\n\t- (i) The Third Defendant was the sole Director and Sole Shareholder of Genever BVI, as well as the holder of 50% of the shares issued by the Fourth Defendant after 26 January 2015;\n\t- (ii) The Fourth Defendant is and was the sole (registered) Director of Bravo Luck, but he acted at all relevant times as <sup>a</sup> mere cypher and nominee for his father, the Third Defendant who at all relevant times directed the activities of his son and Bravo Luck; and\n\t- (iii) The Third Defendant therefore also acted as <sup>a</sup> de facto or shadow director of Bravo Luck, and the actions and knowledge of the Third Defendant are to be attributed both to Genever BVI and to Bravo Luck, whilst the actions and knowledge of the Fourth Defendant are to be attributed to Bravo Luck.\n\n# **KWOK'S LIABILITY TO PAX**\n\n- 7 On or around 4 February 2008, Spirit Charter Investment Limited **(Spirit** Charter) entered into <sup>a</sup> loan facility agreement with PAX (the **2008 Loan** Facility). The principle amount of the loan advanced by PAX to Spirit Charter under the 2008 Loan Facility was US\\$30 million. Furthermore, Mr Kwok, as required by the 2008 Loan Facility, executed <sup>a</sup> personal guarantee of Spirit Charter's repayment obligations to PAX (the **2008 Guarantee).** The terms of the 2008 Loan Facility were amended on 12 March 2008 (the **Amended 2008 Loan Facility).**\n- 8 Pursuant to a Deed of Settlement dated 17 September 2009 (the **2009 Deed of Settlement),** Shiny Times Limited **(Shiny Times),** <sup>a</sup> company controlled by Mr Kwok, assumed Spirit Charter's debt to PAX under the Amended 2008 Loan Facility. As at the date of the 2009 Deed of Settlement, the outstanding amount inclusive of unpaid interest pursuant to the Amended 2008 Loan Facility was agreed by the parties as US\\$45,357,534.25.\n- 9 On 18 November 2009, as required by the 2009 Deed of Settlement, Mr Kwok entered into the terms of <sup>a</sup> new Guarantee (the **2009 Guarantee)** by which he reaffirmed his guarantee of the repayment obligations (assumed by Shiny Times) to PAX under the terms of the Amended 2008 Loan Facility.\n- 10 On or about 12 March 2010, Shiny Times, PAX and Mr Kwok entered into <sup>a</sup> revised loan facility in which they agreed to extend the date for repayment of the debt from 12 March 2010 to 31 December 2010 (the **2010 Loan** Facility), which debt Mr Kwok continued to guarantee pursuant to the 2009\n\nGuarantee. As at the date of the 2010 Loan Facility, the debt was agreed by the parties as US\\$47,625,410.96.\n\n- 11 Having failed to repay the 2010 Loan Facility and with Mr Kwok's failure to perform his personal guarantee, the parties entered into <sup>a</sup> new loan facility on 16 March 2011, (the **2011 Loan Facility),** which superseded and replaced the parties' prior agreements pertaining to the outstanding debt to PAX. As at 16 March 2011, the outstanding amount, inclusive of unpaid interest due to PAX pursuant to the Amended 2008 Loan Facility, was agreed by the parties as US\\$46,426,489. The debt was to be repaid by 30 June 2012, but again Mr Kwok failed to so.\n- 12 Also, on 16 March 2011, Mr Kwok entered into the terms of a third Guarantee (the **2011 Guarantee)** by which he personally guaranteed the liability of Shiny Times to PAX under the terms as revised by the 2011 Loan Facility. As at the date of this Statement of Claim, Mr Kwok's liability under the 2011 Guarantee stands at over US\\$112.3 million (exclusive of contractual enforcement costs).\n- 13 Insofar as is material, by clause 2.1 of the 2011 Guarantee, Mr Kwok irrevocably and unconditionally:\n\t- (i) Guaranteed the due and punctual payment of the Obligations (as defined therein), and agreed that promptly upon demand he would pay to PAX all obligations that were due but unpaid.\n\t- (ii) Agreed To pay interest of the rate of 15% per annum accrued from 31 December 2010 to the date on which all such liabilities are paid in full.\n- 14 By clause 5.3 of the 2011 Guarantee Mr Kwok additionally agreed to indemnify and hold PAX fully harmless from and against all and any costs, losses, expenses (including legal fees) and Obligations which PAX may incur as <sup>a</sup> result of the exercise or enforcement by PAX of any of the rights or powers conferred upon it under the Guarantee or by law.\n- 15 Demand was made to the Mr Kwok for payment of the obligations thereunder on 16 October 2015, but that demand went unsatisfied.\n- 16 In breach of his obligations under the 2011 Guarantee, neither Kwok as guarantor, nor Shiny Times as principal obligor (nor anybody on their behalf), has discharged the debt guaranteed by the 2011 Guarantee, or any part of it.\n\n#### **THE DEEDS OF SETTLEMENT**\n\n17 On 25 April 2012, following Shiny Times' failure to satisfy the 2011 Loan Facility, Shiny Times and PAX entered into a settlement agreement to which\n\nBeijing Pangu Investment Company Limited **(Beijing Pangu)** (another entity controlled by Mr Kwok) was also a party (the **2012 Deed of** Settlement). It was agreed between the parties to the 2012 Deed of Settlement, and stated therein, that the total amount due to PAX inclusive of interest as at 25 April 2012 was US\\$52 million. The 2012 Deed of Settlement specified that the amount due to PAX would no longer be due or owing upon the satisfaction of the following:\n\n- (a) That Shiny Times make three instalment payments to PAX, each instalment in the sum of US\\$17,333,333; thereafter\n- (b) That PAX complete the purchase of three apartments in Pangu Plaza, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China **(PRC)** owned by Beijing Pangu **(the Pangu Apartments);** and\n- (c) That PAX pay Beijing Pangu the purchase price of the Pangu Apartments in RMB.\n- 18 Shiny Times failed to make any of the three instalment payments as required by the 2012 Deed of Settlement and on 19 April 2013, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu and PAX entered into a revised settlement agreement (the **2013 Deed of Settlement).** The parties to the 2013 Deed of Settlement agreed that the total amount due to PAX inclusive of interest as at 19 April 2013 was US\\$52 million. The 2013 Deed of Settlement also specified the amount due to PAX would no longer be due or owing upon the satisfaction of the following revised requirements:\n\t- (a) That PAX first complete the purchase of the Pangu apartments. The purchases were to take place in three separate transactions with a purchase price of approximately US\\$5 million each; thereafter\n\t- (b) That Shiny Times make three instalment payments to PAX of approximately US\\$5 million after the completed purchase of each of the Pangu Apartments.\n- 19 Before the transactions specified at paragraphs 18(a) and 18(b) were to take place, however, Shiny Times and Beijing Pangu were required to satisfy <sup>a</sup> number of other conditions precedent relating to, inter a/ia, mortgage, tax and ultimately, title conveyance that were standard requirements in property transactions in the PRC (the **Conditions Precedent).** The 2013 Deed of Settlement specified that the Conditions Precedent were to be completed by 31 July 2013, failing which the 2013 Deed of Settlement would be terminated and the terms of the 2011 Loan Facility and the 2011 Guarantee would come back into full effect.\n- 20 Shiny Times and Beijing Pangu failed to satisfy the Conditions Precedent by 31 July 2013 and were granted <sup>a</sup> series of extensions of time by way of supplemental deeds on 3 December 2013, 15 May 2014 and 11 July 2014.\n\nExcept for the deadline for performance by Beijing Pangu and Mr Kwok, each of the supplemental deeds had the same terms as the 2013 Deed of **Settlement (the Supplemental Deeds of Settlement).**\n\n21 On 10 February 2015, Shiny Times, Beijing Pangu and PAX entered into the final of the Supplemental Deeds of Settlement (the **Final Deed of** Settlement) to grant Mr Kwok and Beijing Pangu <sup>a</sup> further extension until 30 June 2015 to perform the Conditions Precedent. In breach of the Final Deed of Settlement, Mr Kwok and Beijing Pangu failed to perform the Conditions Precedent by the end of June 2015.\n\n(The 2012 Deed of Settlement, the 2013 Deed of Settlement, the Supplemental Deeds of Settlement and the Final Deed of Settlement collectively being the **Deeds of Settlement).**\n\n22 All of the agreements set out in paragraphs 7 to 21 were governed by the laws of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong.\n\n# **THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS**\n\n- 23 By a Complaint issued before the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the **NY Court)** on 18 April 2017 the Claimant commenced proceedings against Mr Kwok. Insofar as material, in those proceedings (the **NY Proceedings):**\n\t- (a) The Claimant:\n\t\t- (i) Has claimed against Mr Kwok the sums due under the Second Kwok Guarantee in the total sum of US\\$88 million at the time of filing (now, US\\$112.3 million with contractual interest that continues to accrue at 15% per annum, exclusive of contractual enforcement costs).\n\t\t- (H) Has filed an interlocutory motion against Mr Kwok for a Pre Judgement Order of Attachment of a valuable asset (the leasehold for a residential property in Manhattan, New York) held by Genever NY, which is in turn owned by Genever BVI and ultimately beneficially owned by Mr Kwok. The motion was brought on the basis that the corporate veils of those entities should be pierced and that they should be treated as assets of Mr Kwok to be fixed for the enforcement of <sup>a</sup> judgment in the substantive claim stated at paragraph 23(a)(i);\n\t- (b) Mr Kwok:\n\t\t- (i) Initially defended those proceedings on forum and jurisdictional grounds. His jurisdictional defence was ultimately resolved in the\n\nClaimant's favour by the First Department of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division by a ruling dated <sup>5</sup> April 2018.\n\n- (ii) Thereafter, defended those proceedings on the basis that he had settled the debt that was due under the 2011 Facility and 2011 Guarantee by falsely asserting that he had substantially performed the 2013 Deed of Settlement.\n- (iii) Notwithstanding paragraph 23(b)(ii), has very recently entirely reversed course and proceeded to dishonestly advance the false and disingenuous allegations that the various contracts relied upon in that action, including the 2011 Facility, 2011 Guarantee and the Deeds of Settlement, were documents that were not in fact executed by him, and even that they were forged by his Hong Kong -based solicitors in a conspiracy with the PRC Government.\n- 24 On 15 September 2020 the NY Court entered Judgment for the Claimant on those proceedings for <sup>a</sup> sum to be assessed. When that sum isfixed by the NY Court, the Clamant will have the benefit of <sup>a</sup> final judgment for <sup>a</sup> definite sum of money which is enforceable in the British Virgin Islands at common law (the **NY Judgment).**\n- 25 Accordingly, the Claimant expects to become <sup>a</sup> judgment creditor of Mr Kwok, Genever BVI and Genever NY in the NY Proceedings in a substantial sum, currently in excess of \\$112.3m together with interest accruing at 15% per annum, in addition to contractual enforcement costs. The Claimant will consent to these proceedings, or at least the quantification of its claims for damages, being stayed until the NY Court has fixed the amount payable under the NY Judgment.\n- 26 Despite the representations which are pleaded below which Mr Kwok made to the Sherry Netherland as to his financial wherewithal, Mr Kwok has asserted in the NY Proceedings that he does not \"in reality, under the law, own any assets in the United States\" and that he has \"not <sup>a</sup> penny left.\" It is therefore anticipated that he will not comply with the NY Judgment or any judgment given by this Court.\n\n# **THE CONSPIRACY**\n\n- 27 Mr Kwok's liability to the Claimant under the 2011 Guarantee (and its anticipated liability under the NY Judgment) currently stands at over USD\\$112,300,000, exclusive of contractual enforcement costs.\n- 28 Instead of discharging his obligations under the 2011 Guarantee, Mr Kwok diverted approximately US\\$68m to Bravo Luck (which was also approximately the total amount owed by Mr Kwok to PAX at that time) pursuant to <sup>a</sup> scheme hatched among the Defendants to conceal that money in an opaque structure involving Genever BVI so as to enable Mr\n\nKwok to act in continued breach of his contractual obligations to PAX, while using the same amount of money due and owing to PAX at the time to purchase a luxury apartment in New York City, and, ultimately, to avoid enforcement of <sup>a</sup> judgment in the NY Proceedings.\n\n- 29 On a date unknown to the Claimant until after disclosure, Mr Kwok arranged for approximately US\\$70m to be paid from assets of his into an account maintained by Bravo Luck with UBS AG (the **UBS Account).** He did so pursuant to the unlawful conspiracy pleaded below with the intention of defrauding his creditors and thereby causing loss to the Claimant by unlawful means.\n- 30 Furthermore, on dates unknown to the Claimant until after disclosure herein, but after February 2015:\n\t- (i) The First, Second and Fourth Defendants induced, encouraged and facilitated Mr Kwok's various breaches of his contractual obligations to PAX; and\n\t- (ii) The Defendants all wrongfully conspired together with the sole or the predominant intention of injuring the Claimant and/or causing loss to the Claimant, to assist Mr Kwok in evading his liabilities under the 2011 Guarantee, and/or to attempt to render himself judgment proof and/or to cause loss to the Claimant by unlawful means.\n- 31 The Claimant reserves the right to plead further to the Defendants' conspiracy after disclosure. Until then, the best particulars that the Claimant is able to give of this conspiracy are that:\n\n#### **PARTICULARS OF CONSPIRACY**\n\n- (i) Genever BVI was incorporated at the behest of Mr Kwok on 13 February 2015 as a vehicle to hold shares in a company incorporated in New York, Genever Holdings, LLC **(Genever NY).** On the same day, Genever BVI allotted 1,000 shares to Mr Kwok, its sole shareholder.\n- (ii) There were no obvious advantages to the incorporation of Genever BVI to hold shares in Genever NY of which PAX is aware; the sole or predominant purpose of incorporating Genever BVI was to enable the beneficial ownership of Genever NY, and therefore of the Residence (defined below), to be concealed and shielded.\n- (iii) On 17 February 2015, Genever NY was incorporated at the behest of Mr Kwok in the State of New York. On or about the same date, Genever NY allotted all of its shares to Genever BVI pursuant to a Limited Company Agreement dated 13 February 2015.\n- (iv) Purportedly on that same day, 17 February 2015, Genever BVI (acting through Mr Kwok) and Genever NY purportedly executed <sup>a</sup> Declaration of Trust (the **Purported DOT).** By the terms of the Purported DOT:\n\t- (I) Genever NY was said to be a special purpose vehicle holding the 18th floor property (Units 1801, 1804, 1807, 1809, 1811) at the Sherry-Netherland (the **Sherry Netherland)** Apartments, 781 Fifth Avenue, New York (the **Residence).**\n\t- (ii) Genever BVI was said to be a special purpose vehicle holding Genever NY.\n\t- (iii) Mr Kwok is said to have made it known to Bravo Luck that \"certain [unidentified and undisclosed] third parties may coown\"the shares issued by Genever NY and/or the Residence.\n- (iv) Mr Kwok is said to have declared that he holds the shares issued by Genever BVI on trust for Bravo Luck.\n- (v) On 26 January 2015, Mr Guo caused Bravo Luck to allot <sup>1</sup> share to Mr Kwok, with the result that the registered shareholders of Bravo Luck were then Mr Kwok and Mr Guo in equal shares.\n- (vi) On a date currently unknown to the Claimant, Mr Kwok caused or arranged monies to be transferred into <sup>a</sup> bank account maintained by Bravo Luck with UBS AG Hong Kong (the **UBS Account).**\n- (vii) On 4 March 2015, Mr Kwok, having induced Bravo Luck and Mr Guo to allow him to unilaterally authorise payments from Bravo Luck's UBS Account arranged for Bravo Luck to transfer the sum of US\\$62,990,781.85 to Ivey Barnum and O'Mara LLC, the Sherry-Netherland's attorneys, in order to acquire the Residence in the name of Genever NY.\n- (viii) On 5 March 2015 the further sum of US\\$6.3m was transferred from the UBS account to Mr Guo, supposedly for his \"own expenses.\" Absent explanation, part of this sum is likely to have been <sup>a</sup> payment to Mr Guo to compensate him for his part in this scheme.\n- (ix) On 5 March 2015 Mr Guo delivered a bankers draft to the Sherry Netherland in the sum of US\\$3,369,000, paid out of the sums transferred to him from the UBS Account. That payment was routed through Mr Guo in an effort to enable Mr Kwok to conceal his beneficial ownership of Genever BVI, Bravo Luck and/or the Residence.\n- 32 The Defendants took these steps notwithstanding the fact that:\n\t- (i) Mr Kwok came under an obligation to pay the Claimant the sum of US\\$46.2 Million under the terms of the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Guarantee on 16 March 2011, which debt had grown to over US\\$67m in February 2015 and continues to accrue interest at 15 percent per annum.\n\t- (ii) On 19 April 2013, Pangu came under an obligation to perform the Conditions Precedent and transfer title to the Pangu Apartments to PAX by 31 July 2013 in settlement of the 2011 Loan Facility and Second Guarantee under the terms of the 2013 Deed of Settlement. Three months previously, on 17 January 2013, Mr Guo had become a shareholder in Bravo Luck.\n\t- (iii) On 10 February 2015, Mr Kwok executed the Final Deed of Settlement in an effort to buy time to further and complete the conspiracy pleaded above, knowing full well that ultimately he would be unable to perform the same after the PRC authorities seized his assets (including Beijing Pangu) on or about 2 February 2015. Genever NY and Genever BVI were incorporated within just <sup>a</sup> few days after execution of the Final Deed of Settlement, on 13 February 2015 and 17 February 2015.\n\t- (iv) By the terms of the Final Deed of Settlement, Mr Kwok secured an extension to 30 June 2015 to perform the Conditions Precedent and transfer title to the Pangu Apartments to PAX, which enabled Mr Kwok to use (approximately) the same sum of money he owed PAX at the time to complete the purchase of the Residence on 6 March 2015.\n\n# **THE PURPORTED DECLARATION OF TRUST**\n\n- 33 The Purported DOT is <sup>a</sup> fraud that was not executed on the date that it bears. Without prejudice to the other matters pleaded within this Statement of Claim:\n\t- (i) Genever NY acquired the Residence on 6 March 2015, yet gave its business address in the Purported DOT as being care of the Residence, notwithstanding the fact that the Purported DOT is said to have been executed almost three weeks earlier, on 17 February 2015.\n\t- (ii) The Purported DOT was also expressed in terms that suggested that Genever NY already owned the Residence at the time of its purported execution. That statement was demonstrably untrue: the Residence was not in fact purchased until 6 March 2015, some three weeks later. Indeed, Mr Kwok had not even applied to purchase the\n\nResidence as of 17 February 2015; he first did so on 26 February 2015.\n\n- (iii) Despite the fact that it, if it was genuine, it would have been responsive to PAX's written document requests, the Purported DOT was not produced in the NY Proceedings until 22 April 2019 (months after the close of relevant attachment-related document discovery). Until that time, the consistent position of Mr Kwok, Genever BVI and Genever NY in the NY Proceedings was that Mr Kwok was the beneficial owner of the Residence; and that remained their position even after the Purported DOT was disclosed.\n- 34 Furthermore, the Purported DOT is <sup>a</sup> sham that was not intended to have legal effect as between Bravo Luck and any of the parties thereto, but was devised for the sole purpose of concealing an asset of Mr Kwok from his creditors. In addition to the matters set out above, pending disclosure, the Claimants will rely upon the following additional matters:\n\n# **PARTICULARS**\n\n- (i) Over a year after the Purported DOT was supposedly executed, on and after 29 June 2016, Mr Kwok enquired of the Sherry Netherland whether he might be permitted to transfer beneficial ownership of the Residence to his son through <sup>a</sup> trust, conduct inconsistent and irreconcilable with any contention that such a trust in fact already existed as of 17 February 2015.\n- (ii) The consistent position of Mr Kwok, his witnesses in the NY Proceedings and his counsel was that he was the beneficial owner of the Residence. That position is consistent only with either the Purported DOT being a sham, or Mr Kwok being the sole beneficial owner of Bravo Luck.\n- (iii) The Purported DOT is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the representations made by Mr Kwok to the Sherry Netherland that he was the owner of the Residence, as well as the terms of the Proprietary Lease that Genever NY entered into with the Sherry Netherland.\n- (iv) Mr Kwok is and was the sole legal and beneficial owner of Bravo Luck. The Purported DOT therefore served no purpose other than to obscure and shield his beneficial ownership of Genever BVI and (indirectly) the Residence.\n- (v) In evidence in other proceedings, Mr Kwok has admitted that he holds an interest in other companies through his children. He has reason to do so:\n- (I) He has significant debts;\n- (ii) He is <sup>a</sup> fugitive from justice in the PRC, against whom forfeiture orders have been made in relation to his Hong Kong assets and in respect of whom there are active criminal investigations for conspiracy and money laundering.\n- 35 Alternatively, and for the reasons already set out herein, the Purported DOT was <sup>a</sup> document intended to defraud the creditors of Mr Kwok, and it is therefore liable to be set aside pursuant to Section 81 of the Conveyancing & Law of Property Ordinance.\n- 36 In the premises, each of the Defendants conspired together (and with Genever NY) with the sole or the predominant intention of injuring the Claimant and/or they conspired together to cause loss to the Claimant by unlawful means by creating <sup>a</sup> fraudulent, backdated document, intended to defraud the Claimant as a substantial creditor of Mr Kwok by giving the appearance of having divested himself of his interest in Genever BVI and having transferred that interest to Bravo Luck in circumstances in which:\n\t- (i) The legal and beneficial ownership of Bravo Luck was unknown to the Claimant, and was thought by the Defendants to be incapable of discovery by the Claimant; and\n\t- (ii) Even if the Claimant could discover that Mr Kwok was a shareholder of Bravo Luck, as it ultimately did, the Register of Members was intended to suggest that Mr Kwok was the legal and beneficial owner of only **50%** of the shares issued by Bravo Luck.\n\n#### **THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF BRAVO LUCK**\n\n- 37 The true position is that Mr Guo is and has always been <sup>a</sup> mere nominee for Mr Kwok and that Mr Kwok owns the whole of the shares issued by Bravo Luck beneficially. In consequence, the shares issued by Bravo Luck are an asset of Mr Kwok available to satisfy the NY Judgment and/or any judgment given in these proceedings. Alternatively, at least **SO%** of those shares are available to satisfy the NY Judgment and/or any judgment given in these proceedings.\n- 38 Until disclosure, the best additional particulars that the Claimant is presently able to provide are that:\n\t- (i) Both in the NY Proceedings and to the Sherry Netherland itself, Mr Kwok has repeatedly asserted that he is the sole beneficial owner of the Residence. Unless that position was dishonest and untrue, it must follow that he is also the sole beneficial owner of Bravo Luck. Mr Kwok's assistant, Ms Wang also provided <sup>a</sup> sworn affidavit in\n\nthose proceedings confirming that Mr Kwok was the beneficial owner of the residence.\n\n- (ii) Upon incorporation, Vistra's client of record was the law firm Stephenson Wong & Co. That is the same law firm that had acted on behalf of Mr Kwok, both is his dealings with PAG and elsewise since at least 2008.\n- (iii) With effect from 19 June 2017, Vistra's client of record changed from Stephenson Wong & Co to William Je of ACA Capital. William Je is <sup>a</sup> longstanding associate of Mr Kwok, as well as a shareholder in Beijing Pangu. Mr Kwok is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice in respect of multiple frauds committed by, inter alia, executives of Beijing Pangu who pled guilty to obtaining loans with fraudulent documents.\n- (iv) The source of the monies paid to acquire the Residence was Mr Kwok (monies which he diverted through Bravo Luck). The Residence is (or was) also the personal home and residence of Mr Kwok.\n- (v) On 4 March 2015 he arranged for Bravo Luck to transfer the sum of US\\$6,300,000 to the Fourth Defendant, who then paid US\\$3,369,000 of that money to the Sherry Netherland. There was no reason for that payment to be made through the Fourth Defendant if (as Mr Kwok now asserts) the Fourth Defendant was in fact the legal and beneficial owner of all of the shares issued by Bravo Luck.\n- (vi) Mr Guo is 33 years of age, and in 2015 he was 28 years of age, with no apparent significant work history or source of independent wealth.\n- 39 In BVIHCM 137/2020 (the **Black Swan Proceedings)** Mr Kwok has produced a document purporting to be an Instrument of Transfer (the **Purported lOT)** which bears the date 12 May 2015 which, if genuine, would effectuate the transfer of Mr Kwok's 50% shareholding in Bravo Luck to the Fourth Defendant. That document:\n\t- (i) Is not genuine and was not signed on the date that it bears;\n\t- (ii) Was not delivered to the Registered Agent of Bravo Luck;\n\t- (iii) Was produced for the first time on 4 September 2020, and was never disclosed in the NY Proceedings despite being (if genuine) responsive to PAX's written document request, among others, demanding disclosure from Mr Kwok of all documents relating to\n\nany transfer of monies or assets with a fair market value in excess of US\\$lm from Kwok to any other person or entity;\n\n- (iv) Was not intended to have legal effect;\n- (v) Alternatively, it was designed to complete the arrangement pleaded herein by which the Fourth Defendant was to hold the shares issued by Bravo Luck on trust for Mr Kwok as his nominee;\n- (vi) If that is not correct, it is <sup>a</sup> document intended to defraud Mr Kwok's creditors which should be set aside.\n- 40 The Defendants are each jointly and severally liable to the Claimant in damages for inducing the several and continuing breaches of contract of Mr Kwok as aforesaid under the 2011 Guarantee and under the various Deeds of Settlement and for conspiring to injure the Claimant as aforesaid.\n\n# **PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE**\n\n- (i) A sum equivalent to the sums due under the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Guarantee, exceeding US\\$112.3 million as of the date of this Statement of Claim.\n- (ii) The interest that shall continue to accrue at **15%** per annum upon the amount set forth in the above paragraph, under the terms of the 2011 Loan Facility and 2011 Guarantee.\n- (iii) The costs that the Claimant has incurred (and will incur) in its pursuit of proceedings against Mr Kwok in New York, and in relation to the steps that the Claimant has taken in this Court to protect the fruits of the judgment that it expects to obtain in New York.\n- 41 Furthermore, the Claimant is entitled to a declaration that:\n\t- (i) The Purported DOT (and/or the Purported lOT) is a sham, invalid and of no legal effect; or\n\t- (ii) Alternatively, that both should be set aside as transactions intended to defraud Mr Kwok's creditors pursuant to Section 81 of the Conveyancing & Law of Property Act.\n- 42 Further or alternatively, the Claimant is entitled to damages against each of the Defendants for conspiracy to injure and conspiring to cause loss to the Claimant by unlawful means in the sums already pleaded above.\n\n# **AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS**\n\n- <sup>1</sup> As against Mr Kwok:\n\t- (i) A declaration that any judgment given in the NY Proceedings which is final and for a definite sum of money will be enforceable against Mr Kwok in the BVI at common law; alternatively, the sum claimed under the 2011 Guarantee in the NY Proceedings as a debt; and\n\t- (ii) Following the entry of the NY Judgment, <sup>a</sup> money judgment in respect of the sums due under the NY Judgment, together with interest accruing thereon and costs;\n\t- (iii) The costs of these proceedings on <sup>a</sup> full indemnity basis pursuant to clause 5.3 of the 2011 Guarantee;\n- 2 A declaration that the shares issued by Bravo Luck are held by the Fourth Defendant beneficially for the Third Defendant;\n- <sup>3</sup> A declaration that the shares issued by Genever BVI and by Bravo Luck are assets of Mr Kwok that will be available to satisfy any judgment which the Claimant obtains against him in the proceedings in New York;\n- 4 A declaration that the Purported DOT (and if necessary the Purported TOT) is invalid, void and of no legal effect;\n- 5 Alternatively, an order setting aside the Purported DOT (and if necessary the Purported TOT);\n- 6 Damages for conspiracy;\n- 7 Interest thereon;\n- 8 Such further or other relief as the Court might think fit;\n- 9 Costs.\n\n# **ANDREW WILLINS TERENCE WONG**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 406-11 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 16 of\n\n17\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF TRUTH**\n\nThe Claimant believes the facts stated in this Statement of Claim to be true. I am a director of the Claimant authorized to sign this statement on the Claimant's behalf.\n\nDated this 25th d,ay of August, 2020 - . ....\n\nFILED BY Andrew Willins of APPLEBY (BVI) Limited, Jayla Place, P0 Box 3190, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, VG1110. Legal Practitioner for the Claimant. Ref: AW.432766.0003.\n\nEmail: BVI-Litigation@applebyglobal.com\n\nTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT VIRGIN ISLANDS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL DIVISION\n\nClaim No BVI HCM 0137 of 2020\n\n#### BETWEEN\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LP\n\nClaimant\n\nand\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORP\n\nBRAVO LUCK LIMITED\n\nKWOK HO WAN (also known as MILES KWOK, HO WAN KWOK and GUO WEN GUI)\n\nQIANG GUO (also known as QUO QIANG and MILESON KWOK)\n\nDefendant\n\n#### AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM\n\nAndrew Willins Appleby (BVI) LJmited Legal Practitioner for the Claimant\n\nTel: +1 284 393 5323 Email: awillins@applebyglobal.com\n\nRef: AW. 432766.0003","body_zh":"附件 UCC-11\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）在 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 Genever Holdings Corp.（杰尼弗控股公司）等案中的修订诉状，日期为 October 16, 2020，案号：BVIHCM 0137 of 2020（Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Virgin Islands, Commercial Division（东加勒比最高法院、维尔京群岛、商事庭））\n\n案号：BVIHCOM2020/0137　案号 22-50073　文件 406-11　提交于 05/20/22　录入于 05/20/22 12:13:10　第 2 页，共\n东加勒比最高法院\n\n维尔京群岛\n\n高等法院\n\n商事庭\n\n案号 BVIHCM 0137 of 2020\n\n双方当事人\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n原告\n\n及\n\nGEN EVER HOLDINGS CORP（杰尼弗控股公司）　BRAVO LUCK LIMITED（好运有限公司）　KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）（亦称 MILES KWOK、HO WAN KWOK 和 GUO WEN GUI）　QIANG GUO（郭强）（亦称 QUO QIANG 和 MILESON KWOK）\n\n被告\n\n修订诉状\n\n当事人\n\n1. 原告（PAX）是一家根据开曼群岛法律组织成立的获豁免有限合伙形式的投资基金。\n\n2. 第一被告（Genever BVI）是一家于 13 February 2015 在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的公司，其注册地址为 Intertrust Corporate Services (BVI) Limited, Ritter House, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands。\n\n3. 第二被告（Bravo Luck）亦是一家于 2 April 2013 在英属维尔京群岛注册成立的公司，其注册地址为 Vistra (BVI) Limited（Vistra）, Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands。\n\n4. 第三被告（Kwok 先生）是逃避中华人民共和国欺诈、贿赂和腐败以及洗钱指控的中国司法逃犯，目前居住于美利坚合众国纽约州。\n\n提交日期：16/10/2020 10:47\n\n立案日期：16/10/2020 10:47\n\n已付费用：112.91\n\n5. 第四被告是第三被告的 33 岁儿子，出生于 22 February 1987（Guo 先生）。\n\n6. 如下文更详尽陈述，于所有相关期间：\n\n(i) 第三被告是 Genever BVI 的唯一董事及唯一股东，并且自 26 January 2015 后持有由第四被告发行的股份中的 50%；\n\n(ii) 第四被告现在及过去均为 Bravo Luck 的唯一（登记）董事，但其于所有相关期间仅充当其父亲即第三被告的傀儡及名义代持人；第三被告于所有相关期间指挥其儿子及 Bravo Luck 的活动；以及\n\n(iii) 因此，第三被告亦作为 Bravo Luck 的事实董事或影子董事行事，第三被告的行为及知情情况应归属于 Genever BVI 和 Bravo Luck，而第四被告的行为及知情情况应归属于 Bravo Luck。\n\nKWOK 对 PAX 的责任\n\n7. 于 4 February 2008 前后，Spirit Charter Investment Limited（Spirit Charter）与 PAX 签订了一份贷款融资协议（2008 年贷款融资协议）。PAX 根据 2008 年贷款融资协议向 Spirit Charter 发放贷款的本金金额为 US\\$30 million。此外，Kwok 先生按照 2008 年贷款融资协议的要求，就 Spirit Charter 对 PAX 的偿还义务签署了一份个人保证（2008 年保证）。2008 年贷款融资协议的条款于 12 March 2008 修订（经修订的 2008 年贷款融资协议）。\n\n8. 根据日期为 17 September 2009 的和解契据（2009 年和解契据），由 Kwok 先生控制的公司 Shiny Times Limited（Shiny Times）承接了 Spirit Charter 根据经修订的 2008 年贷款融资协议对 PAX 所负的债务。截至 2009 年和解契据之日，各方同意，经修订的 2008 年贷款融资协议项下包含未付利息在内的未偿金额为 US\\$45,357,534.25。\n\n9. 于 18 November 2009，按照 2009 年和解契据的要求，Kwok 先生签订了一份新的保证（2009 年保证），据此他重申了其就 Shiny Times 承接的、根据经修订的 2008 年贷款融资协议对 PAX 所负的偿还义务作出的保证。\n\n10. 于 12 March 2010 前后，Shiny Times、PAX 及 Kwok 先生签订了一份经修订的贷款融资协议，约定将债务偿还日期由 12 March 2010 延长至 31 December 2010（2010 年贷款融资协议）；Kwok 先生继续依据 2009 年保证对该债务提供保证。截至 2010 年贷款融资协议之日，各方同意该债务为 US\\$47,625,410.96。\n\n11. 由于未能偿还 2010 年贷款融资协议项下债务，且 Kwok 先生未履行其个人保证，各方于 16 March 2011 签订了一份新的贷款融资协议（2011 年贷款融资协议），其取代并替换了各方此前有关对 PAX 所负未偿债务的协议。截至 16 March 2011，各方同意，根据经修订的 2008 年贷款融资协议应付给 PAX 的、包含未付利息在内的未偿金额为 US\\$46,426,489。该债务应于 30 June 2012 前偿还，但 Kwok 先生再次未能如此履行。\n\n12. 同样于 16 March 2011，Kwok 先生签订了第三份保证（2011 年保证），据此他个人保证 Shiny Times 按经 2011 年贷款融资协议修订的条款对 PAX 所负的责任。截至本诉状之日，Kwok 先生在 2011 年保证项下的责任超过 US\\$112.3 million（不包括合同约定的执行费用）。\n\n13. 在相关范围内，根据 2011 年保证第 2.1 条，Kwok 先生不可撤销且无条件地：\n\n(i) 保证义务（定义见该保证）得到适当和及时的支付，并同意在收到要求后立即向 PAX 支付所有已到期但未支付的义务。\n\n(ii) 同意就自 31 December 2010 起至所有该等责任全部付清之日止所累积的款项，按每年 15% 的利率支付利息。\n\n14. 根据 2011 年保证第 5.3 条，Kwok 先生还同意，就 PAX 因行使或执行其依据该保证或法律所获赋予的任何权利或权力而可能产生的所有及任何成本、损失、费用（包括律师费）及义务，对 PAX 作出赔偿并使其获得充分保障，不受损害。\n\n15. 于 16 October 2015，曾向 Kwok 先生要求支付其在该保证项下的义务，但该要求未获履行。\n\n16. 违反其在 2011 年保证项下的义务，作为保证人的 Kwok 先生、作为主债务人的 Shiny Times（或任何代表其二者之人）均未清偿 2011 年保证所保证的债务或其任何部分。\n\n和解契据\n\n17. 于 25 April 2012，在 Shiny Times 未能履行 2011 年贷款融资协议后，Shiny Times 与 PAX 签订了一份和解协议，Beijing Pangu Investment Company Limited（Beijing Pangu）（另一家由 Kwok 先生控制的实体）亦为该协议的一方（2012 年和解契据）。2012 年和解契据各方同意并在其中载明，截至 25 April 2012，应付 PAX 的总金额（包括利息）为 US\\$52 million。2012 年和解契据规定，在满足以下条件后，应付 PAX 的金额将不再到期或应付：\n\n(a) Shiny Times 向 PAX 支付三期分期款项，每期金额为 US\\$17,333,333；其后\n\n(b) PAX 完成购买 Beijing Pangu 所有的位于中华人民共和国（PRC）北京盘古广场的三套公寓（盘古公寓）；以及\n\n(c) PAX 以人民币向 Beijing Pangu 支付盘古公寓的购买价款。\n\n18. Shiny Times 未能按照 2012 年和解契据的要求支付三期分期款项中的任何一期。于 19 April 2013，Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu 及 PAX 签订了一份经修订的和解协议（2013 年和解契据）。2013 年和解契据各方同意，截至 19 April 2013，应付 PAX 的总金额（包括利息）为 US\\$52 million。2013 年和解契据还规定，在满足以下经修订的要求后，应付 PAX 的金额将不再到期或应付：\n\n(a) PAX 首先完成购买盘古公寓。购买应通过三项独立交易进行，每项交易的购买价款约为 US\\$5 million；其后\n\n(b) Shiny Times 在每套盘古公寓完成购买后，向 PAX 支付三期各约 US\\$5 million 的分期款项。\n\n19. 然而，在第 18(a) 及 18(b) 段所述交易进行之前，Shiny Times 和 Beijing Pangu 须满足若干其他先决条件，涉及包括抵押、税务及最终产权转让在内的事项；该等条件是中华人民共和国不动产交易中的标准要求（先决条件）。2013 年和解契据规定，先决条件应于 31 July 2013 前完成，否则 2013 年和解契据将终止，2011 年贷款融资协议及 2011 年保证的条款将恢复完全效力。\n\n20. Shiny Times 和 Beijing Pangu 未能于 31 July 2013 前满足先决条件，并通过于 3 December 2013、15 May 2014 及 11 July 2014 签订的补充契据获得了一系列期限延长。\n\n除 Beijing Pangu 和 Kwok 先生的履行期限外，每份补充契据的条款均与 2013 年和解契据相同（补充和解契据）。\n\n21. 于 10 February 2015，Shiny Times、Beijing Pangu 及 PAX 签订了最后一份补充和解契据（最终和解契据），给予 Kwok 先生和 Beijing Pangu 进一步延期至 30 June 2015 以履行先决条件。Kwok 先生和 Beijing Pangu 违反最终和解契据，未能于 2015 年 6 月底前履行先决条件。\n\n（2012 年和解契据、2013 年和解契据、补充和解契据及最终和解契据统称为和解契据）。\n\n22. 第 7 至 21 段所载全部协议均受香港特别行政区法律管辖。\n\n纽约诉讼程序\n\n23. 原告于 18 April 2017 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（纽约法院）提起的诉状中，对 Kwok 先生启动诉讼程序。在相关范围内，在该等诉讼程序（纽约诉讼程序）中：\n\n(a) 原告：\n\n(i) 就第二份 Kwok 保证项下应付的款项向 Kwok 先生提出索赔，提交时总额为 US\\$88 million（现为 US\\$112.3 million，合同利息继续按每年 15% 累积，不包括合同约定的执行费用）。\n\n(ii) 已针对 Kwok 先生提交中间动议，请求作出判决前扣押令，以扣押由 Genever NY 持有的一项有价值资产（纽约曼哈顿一处住宅物业的租赁权）；Genever NY 则由 Genever BVI 所有，并最终由 Kwok 先生实益拥有。该动议的提出基于应揭开该等实体的公司面纱，并应将其视为 Kwok 先生的资产，以供执行第 23(a)(i) 段所载实体请求中的判决；\n\n(b) Kwok 先生：\n\n(i) 最初基于审判地及管辖权理由抗辩该等诉讼程序。其管辖权抗辩最终由 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department（最高法院上诉庭第一部门）于 5 April 2018 作出的裁决判定原告胜诉。\n\n(ii) 此后，他以如下理由对该等程序进行抗辩：他虚假声称已实质履行《2013年和解契据》，从而已清偿根据《2011年融资协议》和《2011年保证书》到期的债务。\n\n(iii) 尽管有第23(b)(ii)段所述情况，他最近却完全改变立场，进而不诚实地提出虚假且不真诚的指控，称该诉讼中所依赖的各项合同，包括《2011年融资协议》、《2011年保证书》及各份《和解契据》，实际上并非由其签署，甚至称这些文件是其驻香港律师与中华人民共和国政府共谋伪造的。\n\n24 2020年9月15日，NY Court（纽约法院）在该等程序中作出有利于原告的判决，金额有待评定。当该金额由纽约法院确定后，原告将取得一项金额确定的终局判决，该判决可依据普通法在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）执行（以下简称“纽约判决”）。\n\n25 因此，原告预期将在纽约程序中成为 Kwok先生（郭文贵）、Genever BVI（杰尼弗英属维尔京群岛公司）及 Genever NY（杰尼弗纽约公司）的判决债权人，金额巨大，目前超过 \\$112.3m，另加按年利率15%计提的利息，以及合同约定的执行费用。原告将同意中止本程序，或至少中止其损害赔偿请求的金额确定，直至纽约法院确定纽约判决项下应付的金额。\n\n26 尽管 Kwok先生曾就其财力向 Sherry Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）作出下文所述陈述，但他在纽约程序中声称，他“实际上，根据法律，并不拥有任何位于美国的资产”，且他“一个便士也没有剩下。”因此，预期他不会遵守纽约判决或本院作出的任何判决。\n\n共谋\n\n27 Kwok先生根据《2011年保证书》对原告承担的责任（以及其根据纽约判决预期承担的责任）目前超过 USD\\$112,300,000，不包括合同约定的执行费用。\n\n28 Kwok先生并未履行其根据《2011年保证书》承担的义务，而是依照被告之间策划的方案，将约 US\\$68m 转移至 Bravo Luck（卓运），该金额亦大致为当时 Kwok先生欠付 PAX 的总额，以便将该款项隐匿于涉及 Genever BVI 的不透明架构中，从而使 Kwok先生得以持续违反其对 PAX 的合同义务；同时利用当时应付 PAX 的同一笔款项在纽约市购买一套豪华公寓，并最终规避纽约程序中判决的执行。\n\n29 在原告于披露后才知悉的某一日期，Kwok先生安排将其资产中的约 US\\$70m 支付至 Bravo Luck 在 UBS AG（瑞银集团）开立并维持的账户（以下简称“UBS账户”）。他是根据下文所述的非法共谋如此行事，意图欺诈其债权人，并由此以非法手段致使原告遭受损失。\n\n30 此外，在原告于本案披露后才知悉、但在2015年2月之后的日期：\n\n(i) 第一、第二及第四被告诱使、鼓励并协助 Kwok先生多次违反其对 PAX 的合同义务；以及\n\n(ii) 全体被告以损害原告和/或致使原告遭受损失为唯一或主要意图，错误地共同实施共谋，以协助 Kwok先生逃避其根据《2011年保证书》承担的责任，和/或试图使其自身成为无可供判决执行财产之人，和/或以非法手段致使原告遭受损失。\n\n31 原告保留在披露后就被告的共谋进一步主张的权利。在此之前，原告目前能够就该共谋提供的最详尽细节如下：\n\n共谋细节\n\n(i) Genever BVI 于2015年2月13日应 Kwok先生要求成立，作为持有在纽约注册成立的公司 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever NY，杰尼弗纽约有限责任公司）股份的载体。同日，Genever BVI 向其唯一股东 Kwok先生配发1,000股股份。\n\n(ii) 就 PAX 所知，设立 Genever BVI 以持有 Genever NY 的股份并无明显优势；设立 Genever BVI 的唯一或主要目的，是使 Genever NY 的实益所有权，以及因此下文界定的该住所的实益所有权，得以被隐匿和遮蔽。\n\n(iii) 2015年2月17日，Genever NY 应 Kwok先生要求在纽约州注册成立。在同日或大约同日，Genever NY 根据日期为2015年2月13日的《有限责任公司协议》，将其全部股份配发给 Genever BVI。\n\n(iv) 据称亦于同日，即2015年2月17日，Genever BVI（通过 Kwok先生行事）与 Genever NY 据称签署了一份《信托声明》（以下简称“所谓DOT”）。根据所谓DOT的条款：\n\n(I) Genever NY 被称为一家持有位于 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓、纽约第五大道781号第18层物业（1801、1804、1807、1809、1811单元）（以下简称“该住所”）的特殊目的载体。\n\n(ii) Genever BVI 被称为一家持有 Genever NY 的特殊目的载体。\n\n(iii) 据称 Kwok先生已向 Bravo Luck 表明，“某些[未识别且未披露的]第三方可能共同拥有”Genever NY 发行的股份和/或该住所。\n\n(iv) 据称 Kwok先生声明，其为 Bravo Luck 以信托方式持有 Genever BVI 发行的股份。\n\n(v) 2015年1月26日，Guo先生（郭先生）促使 Bravo Luck 向 Kwok先生配发1股股份，因此 Bravo Luck 的登记股东当时为 Kwok先生和 Guo先生，双方各持相等股份。\n\n(vi) 在原告目前尚不知悉的某一日期，Kwok先生促使或安排将款项转入 Bravo Luck 在 UBS AG Hong Kong（瑞银集团香港）开立并维持的银行账户（以下简称“UBS账户”）。\n\n(vii) 2015年3月4日，Kwok先生在诱使 Bravo Luck 和 Guo先生允许其单方面授权从 Bravo Luck 的 UBS账户付款后，安排 Bravo Luck 向 Sherry-Netherland 的律师 Ivey Barnum and O'Mara LLC（艾维·巴纳姆与奥马拉有限责任公司）转账 US\\$62,990,781.85，以便以 Genever NY 的名义购得该住所。\n\n(viii) 2015年3月5日，另有 US\\$6.3m 从 UBS账户转给 Guo先生，据称供其“个人开支”使用。在没有解释的情况下，该款项的一部分很可能是为补偿 Guo先生参与该方案而向其支付的款项。\n\n(ix) 2015年3月5日，Guo先生向 Sherry Netherland 交付了一张金额为 US\\$3,369,000 的银行汇票，该款项从转入其名下的 UBS账户款项中支付。该笔付款经由 Guo先生转付，旨在使 Kwok先生能够隐瞒其对 Genever BVI、Bravo Luck 和/或该住所的实益所有权。\n\n32 尽管存在以下事实，被告仍采取了这些步骤：\n\n(i) Kwok先生于2011年3月16日根据《2011年贷款融资协议》和《2011年保证书》的条款，承担向原告支付 US\\$46.2 Million 的义务；该债务至2015年2月已增至超过 US\\$67m，并继续按年利率15 percent 计息。\n\n(ii) 2013年4月19日，Pangu（盘古）根据《2013年和解契据》的条款，承担履行先决条件并于2013年7月31日前将 Pangu Apartments（盘古公寓）的产权转让给 PAX 的义务，以清偿《2011年贷款融资协议》和第二份保证书。三个月前，即2013年1月17日，Guo先生已成为 Bravo Luck 的股东。\n\n(iii) 2015年2月10日，Kwok先生签署《最终和解契据》，意图拖延时间以推进并完成上述所主张的共谋；其明知在中华人民共和国有关部门于2015年2月2日或前后查封其资产（包括 Beijing Pangu（北京盘古））后，其最终将无法履行该契据。Genever NY 和 Genever BVI 分别于《最终和解契据》签署后仅数日，即2015年2月13日和2015年2月17日成立。\n\n(iv) 根据《最终和解契据》的条款，Kwok先生获准将履行先决条件及将 Pangu Apartments 的产权转让给 PAX 的期限延长至2015年6月30日，这使 Kwok先生得以利用其当时欠付 PAX 的大致相同金额，于2015年3月6日完成对该住所的购买。\n\n所谓信托声明\n\n33 所谓DOT是一份欺诈性文件，并非在其所载日期签署。在不影响本起诉状中所主张的其他事项的前提下：\n\n(i) Genever NY 于2015年3月6日取得该住所，却在所谓DOT中将其营业地址表述为由该住所代收，尽管据称所谓DOT早在近三周前，即2015年2月17日已经签署。\n\n(ii) 所谓DOT的表述亦显示，Genever NY 在其据称签署时已拥有该住所。该陈述显然不真实：该住所实际上直至约三周后的2015年3月6日才被购买。事实上，截至2015年2月17日，Kwok先生甚至尚未申请购买该住所；其首次申请是在2015年2月26日。\n\n(iii) 尽管如其为真实文件，其本应回应 PAX 的书面文件请求，但所谓DOT直至2019年4月22日才在纽约程序中提交（即在与扣押有关的文件开示结束数月后）。在此之前，Kwok先生、Genever BVI 及 Genever NY 在纽约程序中的一贯立场是，Kwok先生为该住所的实益所有人；即使在所谓DOT披露后，该立场仍未改变。\n\n34 此外，所谓DOT是一项虚假安排，并非意图在 Bravo Luck 与其任何当事方之间产生法律效力，而是仅为向 Kwok先生的债权人隐瞒其一项资产而设计。除上述事项外，在等待披露期间，原告将依赖以下其他事项：\n\n细节\n\n(i) 据称的 DOT 在据称签署一年多后，自 29 June 2016 起及之后，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）先生向 Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰人公寓）询问，是否可获准通过信托将该住宅的受益所有权转让给其儿子；该行为与任何有关该信托实际上已于 17 February 2015 存在的主张均不一致且不可调和。\n\n(ii) Kwok Ho Wan 先生、其在纽约诉讼中的证人以及其律师始终持有的立场是，其为该住宅的受益所有人。该立场仅与以下两种情形之一相一致：据称的 DOT 为虚假安排，或者 Kwok Ho Wan 先生为 Bravo Luck 的唯一受益所有人。\n\n(iii) 据称的 DOT 与 Kwok Ho Wan 先生向 Sherry Netherland 所作其为该住宅所有人的陈述，以及 Genever NY 与 Sherry Netherland 签订的专有租赁契约的条款，均不一致且不可调和。\n\n(iv) Kwok Ho Wan 先生现在及过去均为 Bravo Luck 的唯一法定及受益所有人。因此，据称的 DOT 除掩盖和遮蔽其对 Genever BVI 及（间接）该住宅的受益所有权外，别无其他目的。\n\n(v) Kwok Ho Wan 先生已在其他诉讼程序中的证据中承认，其通过其子女持有其他公司的权益。其有理由如此行事：\n\n(I) 其负有重大债务；\n\n(ii) 其为在 PRC 被通缉的逃犯，已就其香港资产作出没收命令，并且其正因共谋及洗钱而面临积极进行的刑事调查。\n\n35 或者，且基于本文已述理由，据称的 DOT 是一份旨在欺诈 Kwok Ho Wan 先生债权人的文件，因而应根据《Conveyancing & Law of Property Ordinance》第 81 条予以撤销。\n\n36 据此，各被告共同（并与 Genever NY）合谋，其唯一或主要意图是损害原告，及/或其共同合谋以非法手段使原告蒙受损失，即制作一份欺诈性、倒签日期的文件，意图通过造成 Kwok Ho Wan 先生已剥离其在 Genever BVI 中的权益并已将该权益转让给 Bravo Luck 的表象，以欺诈作为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生重要债权人的原告；其情形为：\n\n(i) 原告不知 Bravo Luck 的法定及受益所有权情况，且被告认为原告不可能发现该情况；以及\n\n(ii) 即使原告能够发现 Kwok Ho Wan 先生为 Bravo Luck 的股东（其最终确已发现），股东名册亦旨在表明 Kwok Ho Wan 先生仅为 Bravo Luck 已发行股份中 50% 的法定及受益所有人。\n\nBRAVO LUCK 的受益所有权\n\n37 真实情况是，Qiang Guo（郭强）先生现在及一直仅为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生的名义持有人，而 Kwok Ho Wan 先生为 Bravo Luck 所发行全部股份的受益所有人。因此，Bravo Luck 所发行的股份为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生的资产，可用于清偿纽约判决及/或本诉讼中作出的任何判决。或者，至少该等股份中的 50% 可用于清偿纽约判决及/或本诉讼中作出的任何判决。\n\n38 在披露之前，原告目前能够提供的最佳补充细节如下：\n\n(i) 在纽约诉讼中及向 Sherry Netherland 本身，Kwok Ho Wan 先生均一再声称其为该住宅的唯一受益所有人。除非该立场不诚实且不真实，否则必然意味着其亦为 Bravo Luck 的唯一受益所有人。Kwok Ho Wan 先生的助理 Wang（王）女士亦在该等诉讼中提交经宣誓的宣誓书，确认 Kwok Ho Wan 先生为该住宅的受益所有人。\n\n(ii) 在成立时，Vistra（维信达）的登记客户为 Stephenson Wong & Co（史蒂芬森黄律师事务所）。该律师事务所自至少 2008 年起，既在 Kwok Ho Wan 先生与 PAG 的交易中，亦在其他事项中代表 Kwok Ho Wan 先生行事。\n\n(iii) 自 19 June 2017 起，Vistra 的登记客户由 Stephenson Wong & Co 变更为 ACA Capital（ACA 资本）的 William Je（谢威廉）。William Je 为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生的长期关联人士，亦为 Beijing Pangu（北京盘古）的股东。Kwok Ho Wan 先生是国际刑警组织红色通缉令的对象，该通缉令涉及包括 Beijing Pangu 高管在内的人员实施的多项欺诈；该等高管已就使用欺诈性文件获取贷款认罪答辩。\n\n(iv) 为取得该住宅而支付款项的来源是 Kwok Ho Wan 先生（其通过 Bravo Luck 转移该等款项）。该住宅亦是（或曾是）Kwok Ho Wan 先生的私人住所和居所。\n\n(v) 于 4 March 2015，其安排 Bravo Luck 向第四被告转让 US\\$6,300,000，第四被告随后从该笔款项中向 Sherry Netherland 支付 US\\$3,369,000。如同 Kwok Ho Wan 先生现时所主张，第四被告实际上是 Bravo Luck 所发行全部股份的法定及受益所有人，则没有理由经由第四被告支付该款项。\n\n(vi) Qiang Guo 先生现年 33 岁，且其于 2015 年为 28 岁，并无明显的重要工作经历或独立财富来源。\n\n39 在 BVIHCM 137/2020（Black Swan Proceedings（黑天鹅诉讼））中，Kwok Ho Wan 先生提交了一份据称为转让文书的文件（据称的 IOT），其日期为 12 May 2015；如属真实，该文件将实现将 Kwok Ho Wan 先生在 Bravo Luck 中持有的 50% 股权转让给第四被告。该文件：\n\n(i) 并非真实，且并非于其所载日期签署；\n\n(ii) 并未交付给 Bravo Luck 的注册代理人；\n\n(iii) 首次于 4 September 2020 提交，且尽管其（如属真实）回应了包括 PAX 的书面文件请求在内的请求——该等请求要求 Kwok Ho Wan 先生披露有关其向任何其他人士或实体转让公平市值超过 US\\$1m 的任何款项或资产的一切文件——但其从未在纽约诉讼中披露；\n\n(iv) 并非意图具有法律效力；\n\n(v) 或者，其旨在完成本文所主张的安排，即第四被告应作为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生的名义持有人，为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生以信托方式持有 Bravo Luck 所发行的股份；\n\n(vi) 如上述不正确，则其为一份旨在欺诈 Kwok Ho Wan 先生债权人的文件，应予撤销。\n\n40 各被告就如上所述诱使 Kwok Ho Wan 先生违反 2011 Guarantee（2011 年担保）项下及各项 Deeds of Settlement（和解契约）项下的数项持续违约，以及如上所述合谋损害原告，对原告负连带赔偿责任。\n\n损失及损害赔偿细节\n\n(i) 相当于 2011 Loan Facility（2011 年贷款额度）及 2011 Guarantee 项下到期款项的金额；截至本起诉状日期，超过 US\\$112.3 million。\n\n(ii) 根据 2011 Loan Facility 及 2011 Guarantee 的条款，就上段所列金额按年利率 15% 持续累积的利息。\n\n(iii) 原告在纽约追究针对 Kwok Ho Wan 先生的诉讼程序，以及就原告在本院为保护其预期在纽约取得的判决成果所采取步骤而已发生（及将发生）的费用。\n\n41 此外，原告有权取得一项声明，确认：\n\n(i) 据称的 DOT（及/或据称的 IOT）为虚假安排、无效且不具有法律效力；或\n\n(ii) 或者，根据《Conveyancing & Law of Property Act》第 81 条，该两项文件均应作为旨在欺诈 Kwok Ho Wan 先生债权人的交易予以撤销。\n\n42 此外或或者，原告有权就各被告合谋损害原告及以非法手段合谋使原告蒙受损失，向各被告请求已于上文主张数额的损害赔偿。\n\n原告请求\n\n1 针对 Kwok Ho Wan 先生：\n\n(i) 一项声明，确认在纽约诉讼中作出的任何终局且金额确定的判决，可根据普通法在 BVI 对 Kwok Ho Wan 先生执行；或者，确认纽约诉讼中根据 2011 Guarantee 主张的款项为债务；以及\n\n(ii) 在登记纽约判决后，就纽约判决项下到期款项连同其上累积的利息及费用作出金钱判决；\n\n(iii) 根据 2011 Guarantee 第 5.3 条，按完全赔偿基准支付本诉讼程序的费用；\n\n2 一项声明，确认 Bravo Luck 所发行的股份由第四被告为第三被告的受益利益持有；\n\n3 一项声明，确认 Genever BVI 及 Bravo Luck 所发行的股份为 Kwok Ho Wan 先生的资产，可用于清偿原告在纽约诉讼中针对其取得的任何判决；\n\n4 一项声明，确认据称的 DOT（以及如有必要，据称的 TOT）无效、作废且不具有法律效力；\n\n5 或者，一项撤销据称的 DOT（以及如有必要，据称的 TOT）的命令；\n\n6 因合谋而获得损害赔偿；\n\n7 其上利息；\n\n8 法院认为适当的进一步或其他救济；\n\n9 费用。\n\nANDREW WILLINS TERENCE WONG（安德鲁·威林斯·特伦斯·黄）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 406-11 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 12:13:10 Page 16 of\n\n真实性证明\n\n原告相信本起诉状中所述事实真实无误。我是原告的一名董事，获授权代表原告签署本声明。\n\n日期为 2020 年 8 月 25 日。\n\n由 APPLEBY (BVI) Limited（Appleby（BVI）有限公司）之 Andrew Willins（安德鲁·威林斯）提交，地址为 Jayla Place, PO Box 3190, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, VG1110。原告的法律执业人。编号：AW.432766.0003。\n\n电子邮件：BVI-Litigation@applebyglobal.com\n\n东加勒比最高法院 英属维尔京群岛 高等法院 商事庭\n\n案号 BVI HCM 0137 of 2020\n双方当事人\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LP（太盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n原告\n\n与\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORP（杰尼弗控股公司）\n\nBRAVO LUCK LIMITED（好运有限公司）\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）（又名 MILES KWOK、HO WAN KWOK 及 GUO WEN GUI）\n\nQIANG GUO（郭强）（又名 QUO QIANG 及 MILESON KWOK）\n\n被告\n经修订的起诉状\n\nAndrew Willins\nAppleby (BVI) Limited\n原告的法律执业人\n\n电话：+1 284 393 5323 电子邮件：awillins@applebyglobal.com\n\n编号：AW.432766.0003","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","William Je","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5546,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:49:27"}