{"id":"court_ctb_4338_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4338,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"Exhibit 1 Case Number :BVIHCOM2024/0454","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit 1**\n\n15\n\n# **Case Number :BVIHCOM2024/0454**\n\n# **FILED**\n\nHIGH COURT TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\n\nIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO. BVIHCOM2024/0454\n\n**Submitted Date:13/01/2025 15:37**\n\n**Filed Date:13/01/2025 15:39**\n\n**Fees Paid:811.84**\n\n**BETWEEN:**\n\n# **LUC A. DESPINS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF HO WAN KWOK)**\n\n**Claimant**\n\n**AND**\n\n**(1) K LEGACY LTD**\n\n**(2) QIANG GUO**\n\n**Defendants**\n\n# **DEFENCE**\n\n# **INTRODUCTION**\n\n- **1.** The abbreviations and headings set out in the Points of Claim are adopted in this Defence save where otherwise stated - no admissions are made thereby. The Applicant is referred to as the \"Claimant\" herein. The Second Defendant is referred to as \"Mileson\".\n- **2.** Unless otherwise stated, references in this Defence to paragraph numbers are to the paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim (then called \"Points of Claim\") filed on 30 September 2024.\n- **3.** It is a rule of the Common Law that where immovable property is situated in country A, neither the law nor the courts of country Awill recognise or give effect to any laws or judicial decisions of other countries which purport to govern or decide issues of rights to and interests in that immovable property, save to the extent of any exceptions under the law of country A (the **\"Immovables Rule\").** The corollary or a part of the Immovables Rule is that a court of a foreign country has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the title to, or the right to possession of, any immovable situate outside that country.\n- **4.** These proceedings have been brought by the Claimant in order to determine issues of rights to and interests in immovable property (viz. the Property) situated outside of the jurisdiction of the BVI, namely in England. Further or alternatively, these proceedings concern or have as their\n\nobject rights of ownership and/or possession in relation to immovable property (viz. the Property) situated outside of the jurisdiction, namely in England.\n\n- **5.** In the premises, the BVI Courts have no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings; alternatively (without prejudice to the foregoing) no jurisdiction to determine any issues in these proceedings which are issues as described in paragraph 4 above.\n- **6.** Further, and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Claimant (on its case) has only a prospective right (which is denied) to the Shares, and is not entitled to any relief premised on his having a present right to registration.\n- 7. Without prejudice to the foregoing, and as further pleaded below, the Claimant has no right or entitlement to the Shares or to the Property. The same are not part of the Debtor's Estate and at all material times were owned by Mileson.\n\n## **THE PARTIES**\n\n- **8.** Paragraph 1 is admitted.\n- **9.** As to paragraph 2:\n\t- **9.1.** The Debtor is originally from Hong Kong/China but who moved to the United States of America in around 2015 because of concerns for his safety were he to remain in Hong Kong.\n\t- **9.2.** The Debtor's said convictions as referred to in the first part of the second sentence are admitted, albeit they are of no relevance to this claim.\n\t- **9.3.** The allegation that the Debtor's alleged fraud funded his \"lavish lifestyle\" is not admitted, but it is in any event irrelevant to this claim.\n\t- **9.4.** Ms Wang's plea as referred to in the last sentence is admitted, albeit it is of no relevance to this claim.\n\t- **9.5.** Save as aforesaid, paragraph 2 is denied.\n- **10.** Paragraph 3 is admitted. At all material times from the date of its incorporation the ultimate beneficial owner of K Legacy and therefore of the Property has been Mileson.\n- **11.** As to paragraph 4:\n- **11.1.** It is admitted that Mileson is the Debtor's son.\n- **11.2.** The Property was a residence of Mileson's between 2016 and 2022.\n- **11.3.** The expression \"true whereabouts\" in relation to Mileson is opaque. In any case, Mileson's \"true whereabouts\" are irrelevant to the claim, and the Defendants cannot moreover plead to what the Claimant knows or does not know.\n- **11.4.** As pleaded by the Claimant, Mileson has not been indicted in the USA.\n- **11.5.** The plea that the New York Federal Court has allegedly held in evidentiary rulings that Mileson was a co-conspirator of the Debtor is embarrassing and bad **in** law. Mileson was not a party to the said foreign proceedings. Any alleged holdings or findings of the New York Federal Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n\n### **K LEGACY AND THE PROPERTY**\n\n- **12.** K Legacy was incorporated for the purpose of the purchase of the Property. **It** holds no other assets.\n- **13.** Paragraph 5 is admitted.\n- **14.** As to paragraph 6, the rE!ference to the \"Salamander Group\" is opaque and its relevance is not understood. Accordingly, no admission is made whether Salamander Nominees and Salamander Management are part of it. Save as aforesaid, paragraph 6 is admitted.\n- **15.** As to paragraph 7 , Article 15 of the Articles does not provide that any person becoming entitled by operation of law or otherwise to shares in consequence of the bankruptcy of any member **shall** be registered as a member upon such evidence being produced as may reasonably be required by the directors. Article 15 provides that: Any person becoming entitled by operation of law or otherwise to shares in consequence of the ... bankruptcy of any member **may** be registered as a member upon such evidence being produced as may reasonably be required by the directors. **(emphasis** added). Save as aforesaid, paragraph 7 is admitted.\n- **16.** Save that the Property was purchased for £35 million in total (£33 million for the land and £2 million for the fixtures and fittings), paragraph 8 is admitted.\n\n#### **CHAPTER11BANKRUPTCY**\n\n- **17.** Paragraphs 9 -11 are not admitted as being embarrassing and having no relevance to this claim. The Defendants were not parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court of the State of New York.\n- **18.** As to paragraph 12, the first sentence is admitted. The Defendants do not admit the second sentence or the accuracy of the said list, it not being the list of either of them.\n- **19.** Paragraph 13, which contains pleas as to the meaning and effect of sections 301, 362 and 541 of the US Bankruptcy Code, is not admitted. To the extent that the Claimant relies on the said provisions as regards any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, they have no legal force or effect under the Immovables Rule.\n- **20.** So far as the Defendants understand, and save that no admissions are made as to the meaning and effects of the said provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code, paragraphs 14 - 15 are admitted.\n- **21.** Paragraph 16, which contains pleas as to the meaning and effect of section 323 and unidentified \"related provisions\" of the Bankruptcy, paragraph 16 is not admitted.\n- **22.** As to paragraph 17:\n\t- **22.1.** So far as the Defendants understand, on 1 O August 2022 the US Bankruptcy Court made the Corporate Governance Order, to which the Defendants were not party.\n\t- **22.2.** To the extent that the Claimant relies on the Corporate Governance Order as regards any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, it has no legal force or effect under the Immovables Rule. In any event, the Corporate Governance Order is irrelevant to any property which does not belong to the Debtor, and in the premises is irrelevant to the Shares or the Property, both of which belong to Mileson.\n\t- **22.3.** Subject to the foregoing, no admission is made as to the meaning or effect of the Corporate Governance Order, save that it is noted that it provided inter alia that the Claimant's alleged authority to act in any foreign country is made subject to whatever is permitted by the applicable foreign law.\n- **23.** Save that the first two sentences are admitted and that the Claimant makes the claims it does in the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 18 is denied. For the reasons set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to the relief it seeks.\n\n# **OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES AND THE PROPERTY**\n\n**24.** Shortly after the incorporation of K Legacy, on 26 April 2016 the Defendants entered into a nominee agreement (the **\"Nominee Agreement\"),** which identified K Legacy as \"the Nominee\" and Mileson as \"the Beneficial Owner'.\n\n15\n\n- **25.** The recitals to the Nominee Agreement staled that K Legacy qua Nominee held and had at all times held the Property as nominee for Mileson qua Beneficial Owner.\n- **26.** Clause 2 of the Nominee Agreement provides that:\n\n\"The Nominee HEREBY DECLARES AND AGREES with the Beneficial Owner that at all times the Nominee:\n\n- has held and shall hold the Property and any interest therein as nominee for the Beneficial Owner,·\n- will deal with the Property at all times as the Beneficial Owner shall direct and shall in no way vary, change, modify, add to or alter the Property except at the express direction of the Beneficial Owner;\n- will execute such instniments as may be necessary to protect the Beneficial Owner's interest in the Property when and as directed by the Beneficial Owner,· and\n- will assign, dispose, sell, lease, mortgage, charge or pledge the Property to such person or persons at such time or times in such manner as the Beneficial Owner shall direct or appoint, but not otherwise.\"\n- **27.** Accordingly, K legacy has at all material times held, and still holds, the Property as nominee for Mileson.\n- **28.** As to the chapeau to paragraph 19, the Defendants are unable to plead to the alleged fact or fruits of the Claimant's said alleged investigations as they have no knowledge of the latter. As to the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 19:\n\t- **28.1.** Paragraph 19.1 is admitted. The transfer of US\\$54m from Anton Development to Mishcon de Reya LLP for the purchase of the Property was actioned on 6 May 2016 and the said monies had been loaned to Mileson by Anton Development pursuant to a Facility Agreement dated 1 April 2016.\n\t- **28.2.** As to paragraph 19.2:\n\t\t- **28.2.1.** Anion Development was not nominally owned by the said chef; it was nominally owned by Ms N Qu until in or about 2018 when Mei Guo held the said shares in it. Further at all material times Anton Development was ultimately beneficially owned by the Kwok family as a whole, and is not controlled by the Debtor. The said US\\$54m was not money to which the\n\nDebtor was beneficially entitled, was not impressed with the alleged purpose trust and was and is not held for his benefit.\n\n- **28.2.2.**  The plea as to what the High Court of Hong Kong has allegedly held including as regards to accounts held by Anton Development at DBS Bank is embarrassing and bad in law. Any alleged holdings or findings of the High Court of Hong Kong are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn and/or the said judgment (which contains any such alleged holdings or findings) is unenforceable as against Mileson in any event.\n- **28.2.3.**  Further and without prejudice to the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn, to the extent that the Claimant relies on any holdings or findings of the High Court of Hong Kong as regards any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, they have no legal force or effect under the Immovables Rule.\n- **28.3.** As to paragraph 19.3, so far as the Defendants understand, the Debtor visited and stayed in the Property as a guest of and with Mileson for a few months shortly after it was purchased. He stayed with Mileson to be with his son and to experience his son's new apartment in London. He occupied the master bedroom, as would be expected given Mileson's love and respect for his father. No admissions are made as to what the Debtor may have said. In any case, whatever he made have said to third parties is irrelevant. Neither the shares in K Legacy nor the Property were his.\n- **28.4.** As to paragraph 19.4:\n\t- **28.4.1.**  so far as the Defendants understand, the Debtor was able to enter and leave the Property when he wished, and that he did not need or seek the permission of Mileson or anyone else to do so which is entirely unsurprising given his being Mileson's father.\n\t- **28.4.2.**  The staff within the Property were hired by Mileson and were his staff. When the Debtor visited Mileson, Mileson hired a security detail for the Debtor. The Debtor, on occasion, made requests of the staff and security, which is again entirely unsurprising given he is Mileson's father and was staying at the Property.\n\t- **28.4.3.**  Save for the council tax bill which was sent to Mileson directly and which Mileson paid, all the other bills related to the Property were paid for by the management company and then included in the management fees that Mileson paid.\n- **28.4.4.**  No admission is made as to whether the Debtor documents related to the Property (including the Property purchase contract).\n- **28.4.5.**  Save as aforesaid, paragraph 19.4 is denied.\n- **28.5.** As to paragraph 19.5, so far as Mileson understands, the Debtor participated in a television interview which aired on HBO on 15 November 2017. During the interview, the Debtor spoke in Chinese. Mileson understands that\"/ have the most luxurious apartment in London\" was HBO's translation of what his father had said in Chinese. The translation is inaccurate or incomplete. The Debtor was talking in general terms about a property that was within his family and to which he had access. He did not say that he owned K Legacy or the Property. Further, even if he had so stated (which is denied), it is irrelevant.\n- **28.6.** As to paragraph 19.6, so far as the Defendants understand, the first sentence of subparagraph 19.6 is admitted. The fact that the Debtor declined, as was his legal right, not to provide an answer to the question of the ownership and control of K Legacy is inadmissible in and/or irrelevant to this claim. Insofar as the reference to \"the Court\" is to the BVI Court, the second sentence of sub-paragraph 19.6 is denied.\n- **28.7.** As to paragraph 19.7, it is admitted (although it is irrelevant) that Mileson worked for the family business and that he inter a/ia was responsible for managing overseas assets of the family business. However, the family business is not the Debtor's business and he does not ultimately control it. It is for the benefit of and operated by all of the Kwok family.\n- **28.8.** Save as aforesaid, sub-paragraphs 19.1 -19.7 are denied.\n- **29.** Paragraph 20 (including its sub-paragraphs) is embarrassing and contrary to the rules of pleading insofar as it pleads alleged evidence that K Legacy was owned or ultimately owned by the Debtor (which is in any event denied). It also contains irrelevant averments which do not touch upon the issue of the ownership of K Legacy. Subject to the foregoing, the Defendants plead as follows to the same:\n\t- **29.1.** The allegation that the Debtor \"has used .... Mi/eson ... in order to hide assets from his creditors\" is denied. The Defendants are unable to plead to the general (and irrelevant) allegation that the Debtor has used other third parties to hide assets from his creditors since the same is not something in respect of which they have any knowledge and is therefore not admitted.\n\t- **29.2.** As to the matters pleaded in paragraph 20.1 and any issues relating to Leading Shine BVI and the so-called Hong Kong Residence, they are irrelevant to this claim. Leading Shine BVI is the legal owner of the Hong Kong Residence. It is denied that Leading Shine\n\nBVI is nominally owned by Mileson; it is his company and he is the sole beneficial owner. Subject to the foregoing, no admissions are made as to the matters therein alleged. Further, any alleged holdings or findings of the High Court of Hong Kong are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.\n\n- **29.3.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.2 and issues relating to HK International Funds Investment (USA) LLC and the Lady May are irrelevant to this claim. Subject to the foregoing, no admissions are made as to the matters therein alleged. Any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n- **29.4.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.3 and issues relating to the so-called Sherry-Netherland Residence (including the US Bankruptcy Court's approval of the said settlement) are irrelevant to this claim. Further, any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n- **29.5.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.4 and issues relating to Golden Spring are irrelevant to this claim. In any case, it is denied that Golden Spring was nominally owned by Mileson; it was his company and he was the sole beneficial owner. Further, any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn.\n- **29.6.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.5 and issues relating to Lamp Capital are irrelevant to this claim. In any case, it is denied that Lamp Capital was nominally owned by Mileson; it was his company and he was the sole beneficial owner. Further, any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n- **29.7.** As to paragraph 20.6, the second sentence is admitted. However as regards the first sentence, it was Mileson and not the Debtor who used the said corporations to fund expenses associated with the Property.\n- **29.8.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.7 and issues relating to a Bombardier jet are irrelevant to this claim. Subject to the foregoing, no admissions are made as to the matters therein alleged. Any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n- **29.9.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.8 and issues relating to Ace Decade are irrelevant to this claim. Subject to the foregoing, no admissions are made as to the matters therein alleged. Any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n- **29.10.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.9 and issues relating to \"various luxury motorcycles\" are irrelevant to this claim. Subject to the foregoing, no admissions are made as to the matters therein alleged. Any alleged holdings or findings of the US Bankruptcy Court are inadmissible in these proceedings under the rule in Hollington v Hew/horn.\n- **29.11.** The matters pleaded in paragraph 20.1 O and issues relating to Taurus Fund LLC and an unidentified \"mansion in New Jersey\" are irrelevant to this claim. Subject to the foregoing, no admissions are made as to the matters therein alleged.\n- **30.** Paragraph 21 is denied. There is no proper basis for either of the alleged inferences.\n- **31.** As to paragraph 22:\n\t- **31.1.** The Court does not under the Immovables Rule have jurisdiction to determine any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, including any claim by the Claimant to any interest in or right over the Property. The sub-paragraphs which follow are without prejudice to such proposition.\n\t- **31.2.** The Debtor did not fund the purchase of the Property, or fund expenses associated with the Property. Nor was there any agreement between the Debtor and K Legacy that K Legacy would hold legal title to the Property on trust for the Debtor or as his nominee.\n\t- **31.3.** The alleged inference the Debtor used K Legacy to hold legal title lo the Property on trust for him and that it belonged beneficially to him is denied.\n- **32.** As to paragraph 23:\n\t- **32.1.** The Court does not under the Immovables Rule have jurisdiction to determine any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, including any claim by the Claimant to any interest in or right over the Property. The sub-paragraphs which follow are without prejudice to such proposition.\n\t- **32.2.** On 26 April 2016, K Legacy and Mileson entered into the Nominee Agreement referred to in paragraphs 24 - 26 above.\n\t- **32.3.** The unparticularised allegation that the Nominee Agreement is a sham or has no legal effect or is not inconsistent with the Debtor owning the ultimate beneficial interest in the Property is denied.\n\n**33.** In the premises, paragraph 24 is denied. Further and specifically as to sub-paragraph 24.2, the Court does not under the Immovables Rule have jurisdiction to determine any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, including any claim by the Claimant to any interest in or right *over*  the Property.\n\n## **FURTHER EVENTS**\n\n- **34.** As to paragraph 25, Salamander Nominees did lawfully and effectively transfer the Shares to Mileson such that he became and was registered as the sole shareholder and member of **K**  Legacy. Save as aforesaid, and *save* that the said error is admitted (although it has no different result as the Claimant accepts), paragraph 25 is denied.\n- **35.** By reason of the matters herein before pleaded, paragraphs 26 and 27 are denied.\n- **36.** As to paragraph 28:\n\t- **36.1.** It is admitted that Salamander Management resigned as director of K Legacy on 2 November 2023.\n\t- **36.2.** Mr Velu Sankar was appointed as the director of K Legacy by way of a resolution dated 2 November 2023.\n\t- **36.3.** It is admitted that the appointment was not registered.\n\t- **36.4.** Save as aforesaid, paragraph 28 is denied.\n- **37.** Paragraph 29 is admitted. However, as pleaded in paragraph 32 (which is admitted), it was restored lo the register on 18 June 2024.\n- **38.** As to paragraph 30:\n\t- **38.1.** The first sentence is denied.\n\t- **38.2.** The second sentence is admitted;\n\t- **38.3.** II is admitted that K Legacy only was served with the said Orders.\n\t- **38.4.** It is admitted that neither of the Defendants appeared in the proceedings which *gave* rise to the Orders and they did not challenge them.\n- **38.5.** Save as aforesaid, paragraph 30 is denied.\n- **39.** As to paragraph 31:\n\t- **39.1.** Mileson qua sole member of K Legacy passed the said resolution.\n\t- **39.2.** The second sentence is admitted.\n\t- **39.3.** Save as aforesaid, paragraph 31 is denied.\n- **40.** Paragraph 32 is admitted.\n- **41.** As to paragraph 33:\n\t- **41.1.** The Defendants are unable to plead to what was known or not known to the Claimant. The Claimant's plea to the state of its knowledge is thus embarrassing.\n\t- **41.2.** It is admitted that there were communications between Mileson and TrustConsult in which TrustConsult proposed the potential domiciliation of K Legacy to the Marshall Islands. However, this was no more than a potentiality, no instructions were given to TrustConsult to effect any re-domiciliation and K Legacy was not re-domiciled and remained domiciled in the BVI.\n\t- **41.3.** The last sentence is embarrassing and so vague and lacking particularity that the Defendants are unable to plead to the same.\n- **42.** Paragraph 34 is denied. The said inference is completely misconceived in circumstances where the Shares and Property are not, and have never been, owned, legally or beneficiary, by the Debtor.\n\n#### **FURTHER ORDER OF US BANKRUPTCY COURT**\n\n- **43.** As to paragraph 35:\n\t- **43.1.** The Default Judgment and its terms are admitted. However:\n\t\t- **43.1.1.** The US Bankruptcy Court had no jurisdiction to give a judgment in personam against the Defendants capable of enforcement or recognition as against them since: (i) at the time the proceedings were instituted, neither was present in the USA; (ii) neither Defendant was claimant, or counterclaimed,\n\nin the said proceedings; (iii) neither Defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the US Bankruptcy Court by voluntarily appearing in the said proceedings; or (iv) neither Defendant had, before the commencement of the said proceedings, agreed in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Bankruptcy Court or of the courts of the USA.\n\n- **43.1.2.**  Without prejudice to the foregoing, the US Bankruptcy Court had and has no jurisdiction to make any enforcement orders in relation to the Shares since they are situate not in the USA but in the BVI: the situs of the Shares and any equitable interest in them is in the BVI, as being the jurisdiction where K Legacy is incorporated and where the Shares are registered.\n- **43.1.3.**  Without prejudice to the foregoing, the US Bankruptcy Court had and has no jurisdiction under the Immovables Rule to determine any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, including any claim by the Claimant **to** any interest in or right over the Property.\n- **43.2.** In the premises, the Default Judgment is legally irrelevant and has no legal or other effect in this jurisdiction and these proceedings.\n- **44.** As to paragraph 36:\n\t- **44.1.** By reason of the matters set out in the foregoing paragraph, there was and is no obligation on the Defendants to comply with the Default Judgment.\n\t- **44.2.** The Defendants are unable to plead to the embarrassing allegation as to what the Claimant allegedly \"reasonably considers\". The Defendants are not privy to the thought processes of the Claimant and in any event what the Claimant considers or even reasonably considers is irrelevant to the claim it seeks to make in these proceedings.\n\n# **RELIEF**\n\n- **45.** By reason of the matters aforesaid, paragraph 37 is denied. Without prejudice to the generality of such denial:\n\t- **45.1.** The Claimant is not entitled to any relief in relation to the Property, since the BVI Court has no jurisdiction under the Immovables Rule to determine any issues of rights to and interests in the Property, including any claim by the Claimant to any interest in or right over the Property. Accordingly and in any event, the Claimant is not entitled to any\n\ndeclarations in the terms of paragraphs 37.2(b) and 37.2(c) or to any order in the terms of paragraph 37.3(f).\n\n**45.2.** The Claimant is {by virtue of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ni/on Ltd & Anor v Royal Westminster Investments SA & Ors (British Virgin Islands) [2015) UKPC 2) not entitled to any orders in the terms of paragraphs 37.3(b), 37.3(c), 37.3(d), 37.3(e) and 37.4 since the Claimant and has (even on his case) only a prospective right (which is denied) and no present right to registration.\n\n# **Certificate of Truth**\n\nI, Cecile Civiale Vuillier, a director of TC Executives Corp, which is the sole director of the First Defendant K Legacy Limited certify that I believe that the facts states in this Defence are true.\n\ns ...... .........................\n\n**CECILE CIVIALE VUILLIER**\n\nI, Qiang Guo, certify that I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.\n\n**QIANG GUO**\n\n**13 January 2025**\n\n**CHARLES SAMEK K.C.**\n\n**ALEXANDER BRYANT**\n\n**OGIER**\n\nIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE VIRGIN ISLANDS COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO. BVIHCOM2024/0454\n\n### **BETWEEN:**\n\n#### **LUC A. DES PINS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF HO WAN KWOK)**\n\n**Claimant**\n\n**AND**\n\n**(1) K LEGACY LTD**\n\n**(2) QIANG GUO**\n\n**Defendants**\n\n**DEFENCE**\n\n![](_page_14_Picture_10.jpeg)\n\nRitter House Wickham's Cay II Road Town, Tortola British Virgin Islands VG1110 Tel.: +1 284 852 7300 Ref.: 509103.00001 Legal Practitioners for the Defendants","body_zh":"附件1\n\n案件编号：BVIHCOM2024/0454\n已提交\n\nHIGH COURT TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS（维尔京群岛领地高等法院）\n\nEASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT（东加勒比最高法院）维尔京群岛高等法院商事法庭，诉讼编号 BVIHCOM2024/0454\n\n提交日期：13/01/2025 15:37\n\n立案日期：13/01/2025 15:39\n\n已缴费用：811.84\n\n当事人：\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）（以其作为 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）第11章受托人的身份）\n\n原告\n\n与\n\n(1) K LEGACY LTD（K LEGACY有限公司）\n\n(2) QIANG GUO（郭强）\n\n被告\n答辩\n引言\n\n- 1. 除非另有说明，本答辩采用诉讼要点中列明的缩略语和标题，但不因此作出任何承认。下文将申请人称为“原告”。第二被告下文称为“迈尔森”。\n- 2. 除非另有说明，本答辩中对段落编号的提述，均指2024年9月30日提交的诉状详情（当时称为“诉讼要点”）中的段落。\n- 3. 普通法规则规定，如不动产位于A国，则除A国法律规定的任何例外情形外，A国的法律和法院均不会承认或实施任何声称规管或裁定该不动产权利及权益问题的其他国家的法律或司法裁决（“不动产规则”）。不动产规则的推论或组成部分是，外国法院对于裁定位于该国境外的不动产的所有权或占有权并无管辖权。\n- 4. 原告提起本程序，旨在裁定位于BVI管辖范围以外、即位于英格兰的不动产（即该物业）的权利及权益问题。进一步或作为另一选择，本程序涉及或以位于该管辖范围以外、即位于英格兰的不动产（即该物业）的所有权和/或占有权为其标的。\n\n- 5. 据此，BVI法院无权裁定本程序；或者（在不影响前述主张的前提下），无权裁定本程序中属于上文第4段所述的任何问题。\n- 6. 此外，在不影响前述主张的前提下，原告（依其主张）仅对该等股份享有一项将来权利（对此予以否认），并无权基于其目前享有登记权而获得任何救济。\n- 7. 在不影响前述主张的前提下，并如下文进一步陈述，原告对该等股份或该物业不享有任何权利或资格。两者均不构成债务人财产，并且在所有重要期间均归迈尔森所有。\n当事人\n\n- 8. 承认第1段。\n- 9. 就第2段而言：\n\t- 9.1. 债务人原籍香港/中国，但由于担心若继续留在香港其人身安全会受到威胁，故于2015年前后移居美利坚合众国。\n\t- 9.2. 承认第二句前半部分所提及的债务人前述定罪，但其与本项诉讼无关。\n\t- 9.3. 不承认债务人被指控的欺诈为其“奢华生活方式”提供资金的指称，但无论如何，该指称与本项诉讼无关。\n\t- 9.4. 承认最后一句所提及的王女士的认罪答辩，但其与本项诉讼无关。\n\t- 9.5. 除上述事项外，否认第2段。\n- 10. 承认第3段。自K Legacy成立之日起，在所有重要期间，K Legacy以及因此该物业的最终实益拥有人均为迈尔森。\n- 11. 就第4段而言：\n- 11.1. 承认迈尔森是债务人的儿子。\n- 11.2. 该物业于2016年至2022年期间曾为迈尔森的住所。\n- 11.3. 就迈尔森而言，“真实下落”一语含义不明。无论如何，迈尔森的“真实下落”与本项诉讼无关，且被告亦无法就原告知悉或不知悉的事项作出答辩。\n- 11.4. 如原告所述，迈尔森未在美国被起诉。\n- 11.5. 关于纽约联邦法院据称在证据裁定中认定迈尔森为债务人的共谋者的主张，含混不清且于法无据。迈尔森并非前述外国程序的当事人。根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，纽约联邦法院任何被指称的裁定或认定在本程序中均不可采纳。\nK LEGACY及该物业\n\n- 12. K Legacy为购买该物业而成立。其不持有任何其他资产。\n- 13. 承认第5段。\n- 14. 就第6段而言，对“Salamander Group”的提述含义不明，且无法理解其相关性。因此，对于Salamander Nominees和Salamander Management是否属于该集团，不作承认。除上述事项外，承认第6段。\n- 15. 就第7段而言，《章程》第15条并未规定，任何人因任何成员破产而通过法律实施或以其他方式有权取得股份者，在提交董事可合理要求的证据后，应被登记为成员。第15条规定：“任何人因任何成员……破产而通过法律实施或以其他方式有权取得股份者，在提交董事可合理要求的证据后，可被登记为成员。”（着重强调）。除上述事项外，承认第7段。\n- 16. 除该物业总购买价为£35 million（其中土地为£33 million，固定装置及配件为£2 million）外，承认第8段。\n第11章破产程序\n\n- 17. 第9至11段不予承认，因其含混不清且与本项诉讼无关。被告并非纽约州最高法院程序的当事人。\n- 18. 就第12段而言，承认第一句。被告不承认第二句或前述清单的准确性，因该清单并非其任何一方的清单。\n- 19. 第13段载有关于《美国破产法典》第301、362及541条含义和效力的主张，故不予承认。如原告依赖前述条文主张与该物业权利及权益有关的任何问题，则根据不动产规则，该等条文不具任何法律效力。\n- 20. 就被告所理解者而言，并除不承认前述《美国破产法典》条文的含义和效力外，承认第14至15段。\n- 21. 第16段载有关于《破产法》第323条及未指明的“相关条文”含义和效力的主张，故不承认第16段。\n- 22. 就第17段而言：\n\t- 22.1. 就被告所理解者而言，美国破产法院于1 O August 2022作出公司治理命令，被告并非该命令程序的当事人。\n\t- 22.2. 如原告依赖公司治理命令主张与该物业权利及权益有关的任何问题，则根据不动产规则，该命令不具任何法律效力。无论如何，公司治理命令与不属于债务人的任何财产无关，据此亦与该等股份或该物业无关，两者均归迈尔森所有。\n\t- 22.3. 受限于上述事项，对于公司治理命令的含义或效力不作承认，但注意到该命令尤其规定，原告被指称在任何外国行事的权限，须以适用外国法律所允许的范围为限。\n- 23. 除承认前两句以及原告在诉状详情中提出其所提出的主张外，否认第18段。基于本答辩所述理由，原告无权获得其所寻求的救济。\n该等股份及该物业的所有权\n\n24. K Legacy成立后不久，即于26 April 2016，被告订立一份代名人协议（“代名人协议”），其中将K Legacy确定为“代名人”，并将迈尔森确定为“实益拥有人”。\n\n- 25. 代名人协议的序言称，K Legacy以代名人身份为迈尔森以实益拥有人身份持有，并在任何时候均持有该物业。\n- 26. 代名人协议第2条规定：\n\n“代名人特此向实益拥有人声明并同意，代名人在任何时候：\n\n- 已经并将会作为实益拥有人的代名人持有该物业及其中的任何权益；\n- 将在任何时候依照实益拥有人的指示处置该物业，且除非经实益拥有人明确指示，不会以任何方式变更、修改、增添或改动该物业；\n- 将于实益拥有人指示时及依照其实益拥有人的指示，签立为保护实益拥有人于该物业中的权益所必需的文书；以及\n- 将于实益拥有人指示或指定的时间，以实益拥有人指示或指定的方式，向实益拥有人指示或指定的一人或多人转让、处分、出售、出租、抵押、设定担保或质押该物业，但不得以其他方式为之。”\n- 27. 因此，K Legacy在所有重要期间均作为迈尔森的代名人持有该物业，并且至今仍如此持有。\n- 28. 就第19段的引导语而言，被告对于原告所称调查的被指称事实或成果无法作出答辩，因其对此并不知情。就第19段各子段而言：\n\t- 28.1. 承认第19.1段。Anton Development向Mishcon de Reya LLP划转的用于购买该物业的US\\$54m，于6 May 2016执行；该等款项系Anton Development根据日期为1 April 2016的融资协议贷予迈尔森。\n\t- 28.2. 就第19.2段而言：\n\t\t- 28.2.1. Anion Development并非由前述厨师名义持有；直至2018年前后，其股份由N Qu女士名义持有，其后由Mei Guo持有该等股份。此外，在所有重要期间，Anton Development的最终实益拥有人为整个郭氏家族，并不受债务人控制。前述US\\$54m并非债务人享有实益权利的款项，并未附带被指称的目的信托，且过去及现在均非为其利益而持有。\n\n- 28.2.2. 关于据称香港高等法院（High Court of Hong Kong）所作出的裁断，包括关于Anton Development（安东发展）在DBS Bank（星展银行）所持账户的裁断，该项主张含糊不清且不符合法律规定。根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，香港高等法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采；且无论如何，该判决（如其中载有任何该等据称裁断或认定）均不得对Mileson（迈尔森）强制执行。\n- 28.2.3. 此外，在不影响Hollington v Hewthorn规则的前提下，如原告依赖香港高等法院就该房产（Property）之权利和权益问题所作出的任何裁断或认定，则根据不动产规则（Immovables Rule），该等裁断或认定不具有任何法律效力或作用。\n- 28.3. 就第19.3段而言，据被告所知，债务人在该房产购买后不久曾作为Mileson的宾客，与Mileson一同在该房产居住数月。他与Mileson同住，是为了与其儿子相处并体验其儿子在伦敦的新公寓。鉴于Mileson对其父亲的爱与敬意，他入住主卧室乃属理所当然。对于债务人可能说过什么，不作任何承认。无论如何，其可能向第三方所作的任何陈述均无关紧要。K Legacy（K Legacy）的股份和该房产均不属于他。\n- 28.4. 就第19.4段而言：\n\t- 28.4.1. 据被告所知，债务人可随意进出该房产，无需也未曾寻求Mileson或任何其他人的许可；鉴于其为Mileson之父，此事完全不足为奇。\n\t- 28.4.2. 该房产内的工作人员由Mileson雇用，系其雇员。债务人探访Mileson时，Mileson为债务人雇用了安保人员。债务人偶尔向工作人员和安保人员提出要求；鉴于其为Mileson之父且居住于该房产，此事同样完全不足为奇。\n\t- 28.4.3. 除直接寄送给Mileson并由Mileson支付的市政税账单外，与该房产有关的所有其他账单均由管理公司支付，随后计入Mileson支付的管理费中。\n- 28.4.4. 对债务人是否持有与该房产有关的文件（包括该房产购买合同），不作任何承认。\n- 28.4.5. 除上述内容外，第19.4段予以否认。\n- 28.5. 就第19.5段而言，据Mileson所知，债务人参加了一场于15 November 2017在HBO（HBO）播出的电视采访。采访期间，债务人以中文发言。Mileson理解，“我在伦敦有最豪华的公寓”是HBO对其父亲中文发言的译文。该译文不准确或不完整。债务人只是笼统地谈及其家族拥有且其可使用的一处房产。他并未说其拥有K Legacy或该房产。此外，即使其作出过该等表述（对此予以否认），亦无关紧要。\n- 28.6. 就第19.6段而言，据被告所知，第19.6分段第一句获承认。债务人拒绝回答有关K Legacy的所有权及控制权的问题，乃其合法权利；该事实在本项请求中不可采和/或无关紧要。如对“法院”的提及系指英属维尔京群岛法院（BVI Court），则第19.6分段第二句予以否认。\n- 28.7. 就第19.7段而言，承认（尽管无关紧要）Mileson曾为家族企业工作，并且尤其负责管理家族企业的海外资产。然而，该家族企业并非债务人的企业，债务人亦不最终控制该企业。该企业为郭氏家族（Kwok family）全体成员的利益而经营，并由其全体成员运营。\n- 28.8. 除上述内容外，第19.1至19.7分段均予以否认。\n- 29. 第20段（包括其分段）含糊不清且违反诉讼文书规则，因其主张据称证明K Legacy由债务人拥有或最终拥有的证据（无论如何，该主张均予以否认）。其亦载有与K Legacy所有权问题无关的无关陈述。在不影响上述内容的前提下，被告就该段答辩如下：\n\t- 29.1. 关于债务人“曾使用……Mileson……以向其债权人隐匿资产”的指称予以否认。被告无法就债务人曾使用其他第三方为其债权人隐匿资产这一笼统（且无关）的指称作出答辩，因为此事并非其所知之事，故不予承认。\n\t- 29.2. 就第20.1段所主张的事项以及涉及Leading Shine BVI（Leading Shine BVI）和所谓香港住所（Hong Kong Residence）的问题而言，均与本项请求无关。Leading Shine BVI是该香港住所的法定所有人。否认Leading Shine BVI由Mileson名义持有；该公司是Mileson的公司，且他是唯一实益所有人。在不影响上述内容的前提下，对其中所指称的事项不作任何承认。此外，根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，香港高等法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n\n- 29.3. 第20.2段所主张的事项以及涉及HK International Funds Investment (USA) LLC（HK International Funds Investment (USA) LLC）和Lady May（Lady May）的问题，均与本项请求无关。在不影响上述内容的前提下，对其中所指称的事项不作任何承认。根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院（US Bankruptcy Court）据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.4. 第20.3段所主张的事项以及涉及所谓Sherry-Netherland Residence（Sherry-Netherland Residence）的问题（包括美国破产法院对上述和解的批准），均与本项请求无关。此外，根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.5. 第20.4段所主张的事项以及涉及Golden Spring（Golden Spring）的问题，均与本项请求无关。无论如何，否认Golden Spring由Mileson名义持有；该公司是Mileson的公司，且他是唯一实益所有人。此外，根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.6. 第20.5段所主张的事项以及涉及Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital）的问题，均与本项请求无关。无论如何，否认Lamp Capital由Mileson名义持有；该公司是Mileson的公司，且他是唯一实益所有人。此外，根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.7. 就第20.6段而言，第二句获承认。然而，就第一句而言，使用上述公司支付与该房产有关费用的是Mileson，而非债务人。\n- 29.8. 第20.7段所主张的事项以及涉及一架Bombardier喷气机（Bombardier jet）的问题，均与本项请求无关。在不影响上述内容的前提下，对其中所指称的事项不作任何承认。根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.9. 第20.8段所主张的事项以及涉及Ace Decade（Ace Decade）的问题，均与本项请求无关。在不影响上述内容的前提下，对其中所指称的事项不作任何承认。根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.10. 第20.9段所主张的事项以及涉及“各种豪华摩托车”的问题，均与本项请求无关。在不影响上述内容的前提下，对其中所指称的事项不作任何承认。根据Hollington v Hewthorn规则，美国破产法院据称作出的任何裁断或认定在本程序中均不可采。\n- 29.11. 第20.10段所主张的事项以及涉及Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund LLC）和一处身份不明的“位于新泽西州的豪宅”的问题，均与本项请求无关。在不影响上述内容的前提下，对其中所指称的事项不作任何承认。\n- 30. 第21段予以否认。对于任一据称推论均不存在适当依据。\n- 31. 就第22段而言：\n\t- 31.1. 根据不动产规则，法院无管辖权裁定任何有关该房产权利和权益的问题，包括原告就该房产主张任何权益或权利的任何请求。以下分段不影响该主张。\n\t- 31.2. 债务人并未为购买该房产提供资金，亦未为与该房产有关的费用提供资金。债务人与K Legacy之间亦不存在任何协议，约定K Legacy将以信托方式为债务人持有该房产的法定所有权，或作为债务人的名义持有人持有该法定所有权。\n\t- 31.3. 对据称债务人使用K Legacy以信托方式为其持有该房产的法定所有权，且该房产的实益所有权属于债务人的推论，予以否认。\n- 32. 就第23段而言：\n\t- 32.1. 根据不动产规则，法院无管辖权裁定任何有关该房产权利和权益的问题，包括原告就该房产主张任何权益或权利的任何请求。以下分段不影响该主张。\n\t- 32.2. On 26 April 2016，K Legacy与Mileson订立了上文第24至26段所述的名义持有人协议（Nominee Agreement）。\n\t- 32.3. 对未具体说明的以下指称予以否认：名义持有人协议系虚假安排、无法律效力，或与债务人拥有该房产最终实益权益并不矛盾。\n\n33. 据此，第24段予以否认。此外，特别就第24.2分段而言，根据不动产规则，法院无管辖权裁定任何有关该房产权利和权益的问题，包括原告就该房产主张任何权益或权利的任何请求。\n后续事件\n\n34. 就第25段而言，Salamander Nominees（萨拉曼德提名公司）已合法且有效地将股份转让给Mileson（迈尔森），使其成为并登记为K Legacy（凯莱格西）的唯一股东及成员。除上述事项外，并除承认所述错误（尽管如原告所承认，该错误并不导致不同结果）外，第25段予以否认。\n\n35. 基于此前所述事项，第26段及第27段予以否认。\n\n36. 就第28段而言：\n\n36.1. 承认Salamander Management（萨拉曼德管理公司）于2023年11月2日辞去K Legacy董事职务。\n\n36.2. Velu Sankar先生（维卢·桑卡尔）通过日期为2023年11月2日的决议获委任为K Legacy的董事。\n\n36.3. 承认该项委任未予登记。\n\n36.4. 除上述事项外，第28段予以否认。\n\n37. 第29段予以承认。然而，如第32段所述（该段获承认），其已于2024年6月18日恢复登记册。\n\n38. 就第30段而言：\n\n38.1. 第一句予以否认。\n\n38.2. 第二句予以承认；\n\n38.3. 承认仅向K Legacy送达了所述命令。\n\n38.4. 承认两名被告均未在导致该等命令的程序中出庭，且其未对该等命令提出异议。\n\n38.5. 除上述事项外，第30段予以否认。\n\n39. 就第31段而言：\n\n39.1. Mileson作为K Legacy的唯一成员通过了所述决议。\n\n39.2. 第二句予以承认。\n\n39.3. 除上述事项外，第31段予以否认。\n\n40. 第32段予以承认。\n\n41. 就第33段而言：\n\n41.1. 被告无法就原告知悉或不知悉的事项作出答辩。因此，原告就其知悉状态所作的答辩内容难以答辩。\n\n41.2. 承认Mileson与TrustConsult（特拉斯特咨询公司）之间曾有通信，TrustConsult在通信中提议K Legacy可能迁册至Marshall Islands（马绍尔群岛）。然而，这仅是一种可能性，未向TrustConsult发出实施任何重新迁册的指示，且K Legacy并未重新迁册，仍注册于BVI（英属维尔京群岛）。\n\n41.3. 最后一句难以答辩，且过于含糊、缺乏具体细节，以致被告无法对此作出答辩。\n\n42. 第34段予以否认。在股份及财产并非且从未由债务人以法律上或受益所有权方式拥有的情况下，所述推论完全错误。\n\n美国破产法院的进一步命令\n\n43. 就第35段而言：\n\n43.1. 缺席判决及其条款予以承认。然而：\n\n43.1.1. 美国破产法院（US Bankruptcy Court）无管辖权对被告作出可针对其执行或承认的对人判决，原因是：(i) 在该程序提起时，两名被告均不在美国境内；(ii) 两名被告均非所述程序中的原告，亦未提出反诉；(iii) 两名被告均未通过自愿在所述程序中出庭而接受美国破产法院的管辖；或(iv) 在所述程序开始前，两名被告均未就该程序的标的同意接受美国破产法院或美国法院的管辖。\n\n43.1.2. 在不影响前述事项的情况下，美国破产法院过去及现在均无管辖权就股份作出任何执行命令，因为股份并非位于美国，而是位于BVI：股份及其中任何衡平法权益的所在地为BVI，因K Legacy在该司法管辖区注册成立，且股份在该处登记。\n\n43.1.3. 在不影响前述事项的情况下，美国破产法院过去及现在均无权根据不动产规则就财产的权利及权益的任何问题作出裁定，包括原告对财产中的任何权益或对财产的任何权利提出的任何主张。\n\n43.2. 因此，缺席判决在法律上无关紧要，在本司法管辖区及本程序中不具有任何法律或其他效力。\n\n44. 就第36段而言：\n\n44.1. 基于前述段落所载事项，被告过去及现在均无义务遵守缺席判决。\n\n44.2. 被告无法就关于原告据称“合理认为”之内容的难以答辩指称作出答辩。被告并不知悉原告的思维过程，而且，无论原告认为或甚至合理认为何事，均与其在本程序中寻求提出的主张无关。\n\n救济\n\n45. 基于上述事项，第37段予以否认。在不限制该否认一般性的前提下：\n\n45.1. 原告无权就财产获得任何救济，因为BVI法院根据不动产规则无管辖权就财产的权利及权益的任何问题作出裁定，包括原告对财产中的任何权益或对财产的任何权利提出的任何主张。因此，无论如何，原告均无权获得第37.2(b)段及第37.2(c)段所述条款的任何宣告，或第37.3(f)段所述条款的任何命令。\n\n45.2. 原告根据Judicial Committee of the Privy Council（枢密院司法委员会）在Nilon Ltd & Anor v Royal Westminster Investments SA & Ors (British Virgin Islands) [2015] UKPC 2中的裁决，无权获得第37.3(b)、37.3(c)、37.3(d)、37.3(e)及37.4段所述条款的任何命令，因为原告即使按其自身主张，也仅享有一项预期权利（该权利予以否认），而不享有任何现时登记权利。\n\n真实性证明\n\n本人Cecile Civiale Vuillier（塞西尔·西维亚莱·维利耶），TC Executives Corp（TC高管公司）的董事，该公司为第一被告K Legacy Limited（凯莱格西有限公司）的唯一董事，证明本人相信本答辩状中所述事实真实无误。\n\n签名：…………………………\n\nCECILE CIVIALE VUILLIER（塞西尔·西维亚莱·维利耶）\n\n本人Qiang Guo（郭强）证明本人相信本答辩状中所述事实真实无误。\n\nQIANG GUO（郭强）\n\n13 January 2025\n\nCHARLES SAMEK K.C.（查尔斯·萨梅克御用大律师）\n\nALEXANDER BRYANT（亚历山大·布赖恩特）\n\nOGIER（奥杰律师事务所）\n\n东加勒比最高法院（Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court）英属维尔京群岛高等法院（High Court of Justice Virgin Islands）商事法庭（Commercial Division）案号：BVIHCOM2024/0454\n\n双方当事人：\n\nLUC A. DES PINS（作为HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）第11章受托人的身份）\n\n原告\n\n与\n\n(1) K LEGACY LTD（凯莱格西有限公司）\n\n(2) QIANG GUO（郭强）\n\n被告\n\n答辩状\n\nRitter House Wickham's Cay II Road Town, Tortola British Virgin Islands VG1110 电话：+1 284 852 7300 参考号：509103.00001 被告的法律执业律师","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4656,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:26:36"}