{"id":"court_ctb_440_16","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":440,"sub_number":16,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-25","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 18 October 15, 2020 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 647","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 18**\n\nOctober 15, 2020 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 647\n\n|        | 22-50073 |                            |    |  |\n|--------|----------|----------------------------|----|--|\n| IN RE: |          | Ho Wan Kwok                |    |  |\n|        |          |                            |    |  |\n|        | PAX      |                            | 18 |  |\n|        |          |                            |    |  |\n|        |          | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full |    |  |\n|        |          | P.E.                       |    |  |\n|        |          |                            |    |  |\n|        |          |                            |    |  |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 2 of 29\n\ntav SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: TRIAL TERM PART 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, - against - KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO a/k/a GWO WEN GUI a/k/a GUO WENGUI a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN a/k/a MILES KWOK a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Index No. 652077/2017 October 15, 2020 Teams Proceeding B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Justice A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys at Law 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys at Law 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. (Appearances continued on next page.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 3 of\n\n| 1  | A P P E A R A N C E S:<br>(Continuing)                 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC<br>Attorneys at Law              |\n| 3  | 162 East 64th Street<br>New York, New York 10065       |\n| 4  | BY:<br>AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.                         |\n| 5  |                                                        |\n| 6  |                                                        |\n| 7  |                                                        |\n| 8  | Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR<br>Official Court Reporter |\n| 9  |                                                        |\n| 10 |                                                        |\n| 11 |                                                        |\n| 12 |                                                        |\n| 13 |                                                        |\n| 14 |                                                        |\n| 15 |                                                        |\n| 16 |                                                        |\n| 17 |                                                        |\n| 18 |                                                        |\n| 19 |                                                        |\n| 20 |                                                        |\n| 21 |                                                        |\n| 22 |                                                        |\n| 23 |                                                        |\n| 24 |                                                        |\n| 25 |                                                        |\n|    | tav                                                    |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 4 of 29\n\n|    | 3<br>Proceedings                                             |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Good morning.                                  |\n| 2  | There are a few housekeeping matters that I want             |\n| 3  | to address before we discuss the application for a temporary |\n| 4  | restraining order.                                           |\n| 5  | If you are not speaking, please mute your                    |\n| 6  | microphone so we don't get static.<br>Thank you.             |\n| 7  | So, as I started to say, there are a few                     |\n| 8  | housekeeping matters I want to resolve before we address the |\n| 9  | application for a temporary restraining order.<br>We are     |\n| 10 | technically scheduled to discuss plaintiff's application for |\n| 11 | attorney's fees, and there's in the motion part a motion by  |\n| 12 | the defendant to add an affirmative defense of failure to    |\n| 13 | mitigate damages.<br>With respect to the latter issue,       |\n| 14 | Mr. Moss, I would like you to stipulate that at trial we     |\n| 15 | will conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at the       |\n| 16 | trial, and because I addressed the mitigation of damage      |\n| 17 | issue in my September 15th decision and order, and because   |\n| 18 | that issue has always been at least peripherally in the      |\n| 19 | case, I would like you to stipulate that that will be one of |\n| 20 | the issues that will be addressed at the plenary trial, and  |\n| 21 | avoid the necessity of motion practice, and so I would like  |\n| 22 | to mark that motion as withdrawn without prejudice on        |\n| 23 | consent.<br>Is that acceptable to you?                       |\n| 24 | MR. MOSS:<br>Your Honor, I just -- I just would like         |\n\n25\n\n### tav\n\nto understand, my understanding was that the Court was going\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 5 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n21\n\n### Proceedings\n\n4\n\nto make a determination on damages. You had ordered us to put our calculation in. I thought the mitigation issue had already been decided by the Court on summary judgment, and that there was not going to be a trial on damages, that this was going to be done so that you could get the calculation so that the Clerk of Court could issue the judgment. That's what was in the order, and so I did not understand that there was going to be a trial, and we do not believe that there are any issues of fact for a trial.\n\nTHE COURT: My understanding is that I granted you summary judgment on liability which is why you're privileged to make the 5229 application that you're making today, and we deferred the calculation of damages because there are issues of fact relating to the quantum of damages. I found that your proof was insufficient for me to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages. So that's something that's going to be addressed at the hearing which I believe we scheduled for January. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nMR. MOSS: So my understanding, your Honor, was that the January trial was on the veil piercing issues -- 19 20\n\nTHE COURT: It is, it is.\n\nMR. MOSS: -- and that the only defense on damages that Mr. Kwok has proffered, your Honor, is mitigation. Mitigation was something that the Court has already rejected as a matter of Hong Kong law on summary judgment. 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 6 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n### Proceedings\n\n5\n\nTHE COURT: I specifically referenced it in the September 15th decision. Now I referenced it in a manner suggesting that I thought it was a dubious claim, and I still think it's a dubious claim because I don't think it was incumbent upon your client post facto to purchase an apartment from the Communist Chinese Party at what would appear to be an above-market price, and that's what I said in my September 15, 2020, decision.\n\nSo there's a motion by the defendant to amend his answer to assert a defense of failure to mitigate damages. Whenever we get around to assessing damages, I'm going to hear the defendant on the mitigation issue. Now if you want him to make a motion, and you want me to decide the motion, there is nothing I can do other than allow him to make the motion, have you respond to the motion, and then decide the motion. And since any hearing that we have is one at which I'm going to conform the pleadings to the proof that's adduced at trial, I thought as a housekeeping matter we'd have the defendant withdraw that motion without prejudice and for you to be content with that state of play. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nMR. MOSS: Okay, that's fine. If your Honor is going to grant the motion anyway on the motion for leave to amend, we can stipulate to that. 21 22 23\n\nWe have a pending motion for damages, and they -- THE COURT: Yes. 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 7 of 29\n\n6 tav Proceedings MR. MOSS: So how would your Honor like to resolve the damages issue? THE COURT: We are going to have a hearing on the damages issue and that hearing is not today. MR. MOSS: Yes. THE COURT: So at that hearing whatever the defendant wants to proffer in connection with this mitigation of damage theory which I strongly indicated in my September 15, 2020, decision and order is quite dubious, they will be permitted to adduce whatever evidence they have, if any, on that theory in connection with the damages hearing. Let me ask counsel for the defendant if we can mark the motion to amend the answer as withdrawn without prejudice in light of what is now on the transcript of proceedings of today? MR. SIEGAL: Yes, John Siegal, Baker Hostetler, for defendant Kwok. We certainly consent to that result, and will serve our Second Amended Answer following today and file it so it's of record and that's the basis on which we will proceed to the hearing. THE COURT: Fair enough. It's really not necessary for you to file a Second Amended Complaint, but I think it's very clear on the transcript of the proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 8 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n### Proceedings\n\n7\n\nof today that we are going to have a damages hearing, and at the damages hearing you will be able to adduce whatever testimony you wish or whatever documents you wish to introduce on the mitigation portion claim, and it's really just burdensome to the Court and burdensome to the plaintiff for you to file a Second Amended Complaint and for the plaintiff to have to respond to it.\n\nSo the record speaks for itself. I would just like a little cooperation from you and Mr. Moss here.\n\nMR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. We appreciate the Court allowing us the opportunity to adduce evidence on that issue, and we will be ready at the hearing, and we have had good cooperation with Mr. Moss since we have appeared in the case, and I'm sure we will continue to, and we look forward to that opportunity to try to convince your Honor, who we understand it's dubious, that on full examination there's a mitigation defense here that has a very substantial impact on the damages, so thank you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nWe will not have any Second Amended Complaint, and we are not going to have any motions, correct?\n\nMR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor, understood.\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nNow the second housekeeping matter that we have is attorney's fees. Since there are going to be further 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 9 of 29\n\n8 Proceedings proceedings, it doesn't make any sense to address attorney's fees today because there will be more attorney's fees in connection with the two hearings that we are going to have, one on damages and the other that's been previously scheduled for January 15th. So with your consent, Mr. Moss, I would like to adjourn your application for attorney's fees to a more appropriate time. MR. MOSS: That's fine. That's fine, your Honor. I guess, you know, the attorney's fees are contract damages just like the principal and interest, and I would propose that we submit our evidence at the hearing or concurrently with the hearing. I guess we really wouldn't have any witnesses on the attorney's fees other than Mr. Lewis. I think we should do it at the hearing, your Honor, that would make the most sense to me, at the damages hearing, because they are really part of the damages. THE COURT: When all proceedings in this case are concluded you will be awarded whatever contractually entitled attorney's fees are due you. It's just not a today issue, it's an issue that awaits future resolution. All right. MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor. And do we have -- do you have a sense of when you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nwould like to conduct the hearing on damages?\n\n25\n\n### tav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 10 of 29\n\n|    | 9<br>Proceedings                                               |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>As soon as I can.                                |\n| 2  | Not for anything, you're all aware of the fact                 |\n| 3  | that Justice Scarpulla has been elevated to the Appellate      |\n| 4  | Division, Justices Friedman and Sherwood are retiring in the   |\n| 5  | near term, so there are only five Commercial Division judges   |\n| 6  | who are currently in the wheel, and Justice Scarpulla's        |\n| 7  | cases have been reallocated to the five justices who remain    |\n| 8  | in the wheel.<br>So we are all a little busy now.              |\n| 9  | MR. MOSS:<br>Yes, your Honor.                                  |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>You have a January 15th date on your             |\n| 11 | other issue.<br>We will try and find a convenient time to      |\n| 12 | resolve damages and attorney's fees.                           |\n| 13 | So now let's get to the only thing that I want to              |\n| 14 | deal with this morning which is your application under CPLR    |\n| 15 | 5229 for a restraining order that extends to Mr. Kwok's        |\n| 16 | assets, and which you believe should be extended to entities   |\n| 17 | that he controls whether they be single purpose LLCs or        |\n| 18 | family members like his son.                                   |\n| 19 | So I will hear you, Mr. Moss.                                  |\n| 20 | MR. MOSS:<br>Thank you.                                        |\n| 21 | Your Honor, as far as the relief goes under 5229,              |\n| 22 | I don't think Mr. Kwok disputes that we are entitled to some   |\n| 23 | relief.<br>He does not contest that Pacific Alliance meets the |\n| 24 | standard.<br>He does not dispute our contention that he        |\n| 25 | intends to dissipate his assets, a process that has already    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 11 of 29\n\n10\n\n|    | Proceedings                                                     |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | begun with this sham bankruptcy proceeding.                     |\n| 2  | The Court has suggested that there's a showing                  |\n| 3  | necessary beyond the fact of just prevailing on the             |\n| 4  | judgment.<br>We have submitted that all you need to do is       |\n| 5  | prevail on summary judgment.<br>The Court suggested that there  |\n| 6  | might be a an additional showing necessary so we did set        |\n| 7  | that forth in our papers.                                       |\n| 8  | There's a clear and significant risk here that if               |\n| 9  | left unchecked Mr. Kwok will continue to do everything in       |\n| 10 | his power to shield assets and render this judgment             |\n| 11 | uncollectible whether it's committing perjury, whether it's     |\n| 12 | disobeying Court orders or whether it's making this sham        |\n| 13 | bankruptcy petition.<br>We have been saying this judge for      |\n| 14 | years.<br>It's why we requested the attachment.<br>We also knew |\n| 15 | what was going to happen.<br>We would win because Mr. Kwok had  |\n| 16 | no legitimate defense, and then Mr. Kwok would evade the        |\n| 17 | judgment, and that he would do whatever he can do to ensure     |\n| 18 | that my client is left holding the bag.                         |\n\nSo the two issues specifically before the judge on the 5229, there are two arguments that Mr. Kwok makes to sort of limit the relief that we are requesting. So I will deal with it, what I think is the easier one first.\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nFirst, Mr. Kwok does not dispute that we are entitled to depose him and to discovery into him, but he argues that the discovery should only be into assets that we 23 24 25\n\n### tav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 12 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n11\n\n### Proceedings\n\nhave not sought discovery for, that we have not gotten discovery for. The only asset related to discovery in this case was during the attachment phase, and Mr. Kwok and his prior counsel vehemently and consistently refused to provide any discovery into any assets other than the Sherry-Netherland residence. I think we are all in agreement, actually, that all of the other assets are fair game.\n\nAs for the apartment, the residence, there's no reason to limit the discovery on that. This is the only asset we have identified that Mr. Kwok has in New York. It seems to be the largest asset that he has in this country, and it's perhaps the largest asset he has anywhere that has not been frozen by the Chinese government. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nNow, Mr. Kwok's prior counsel denigrated us, they said we were hysterical, we were afraid of the merits because we kept seeking to attach the apartment. We knew who we were dealing with and we knew we would end up here, that this asset was our best chance to collect.\n\nWe are entitled to discovery into that asset. There's no appreciable burden associated with this discovery, and we have not taken any discovery on the apartment for two years.\n\nThere are new arguments, there are new things to discover. For example, Mr. Kwok is now claiming in his 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 13 of 29\n\n12\n\n|    | Proceedings                                                   |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | bankruptcy petition that there's another company, not just    |\n| 2  | the New York company owned by the BVI company, the two        |\n| 3  | Genever entities, there's a new company, a new shell company  |\n| 4  | called Bravo Luck, and that's really the beneficial owner of  |\n| 5  | the apartment, and that has been paying the expenses, and     |\n| 6  | that is owned wholly by his son.<br>So his argument in the    |\n| 7  | bankruptcy is not that he has any legitimate creditors, it's  |\n| 8  | that the apartment is held in trust for his son, and his son  |\n| 9  | should take priority over Pacific Alliance.                   |\n| 10 | It's all a shell game.<br>We are entitled to explore          |\n| 11 | that and whatever else had is happening in the last few       |\n| 12 | years.<br>They put the apartment on the market, and then they |\n| 13 | took it off the day of the attachment proceeding so that      |\n| 14 | they could argue to you in court, hey, it's not on the        |\n| 15 | market any more, you shouldn't attach it.<br>We are entitled  |\n| 16 | to that discovery, and that's what CPLR 5229 is intended to   |\n| 17 | give us, giving the judgment creditor precisely the           |\n\ninformation of who owns the assets, where they are located.\n\n18\n\nThe second issue that they raise, your Honor, and that's the one that you started this conversation with, is what should be the scope here, should the restraining order relate only to Mr. Kwok's assets, to Mr. Kwok's assets that he indirectly and directly owns? What they are trying to say here is that it should only pertain to assets he \"owns directly.\" That is an exception that would swallow the rule 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 14 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n23\n\n13\n\n### Proceedings\n\nbecause Mr. Kwok does not hold any assets directly. That is his MO. He holds assets through multiple layers of family members, multiple layers of shell companies precisely for this reason so creditors like us can't reach them.\n\nMr. Kwok admitted it in his deposition in another case. He said, he testified under oath, we quote this, \"In reality I don't have any assets under the law. I'm penniless.\" He makes those claims because of the way he structures his holdings like the apartment. I told you, for example, shell company, shell company that he now says his son owns, and this is a company, Bravo Luck, that he says his son owns even though he used to hold it, 50 percent of it, and apparently says now he sold it to his son for a dollar based on documents he didn't produce in this case, backdated, forged documents. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nThis entire thing is a sham, that his 20-something year old son at the time was really the one to pay \\$70 million for the apartment, he's the rightful owner of the apartment? It's all a game to make sure we are unable to collect.\n\nThere's also a 30 million-dollar yacht. That one is held by a Hong Kong company. 21 22\n\nTHE COURT: I thought it was \\$27 million.\n\nMR. MOSS: I'm sorry, I was rounding up. I was rounding up. 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 15 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n25\n\n14\n\n### Proceedings\n\nThere's a 27 million-dollar yacht held by a Hong Kong company, and once we are allowed to take discovery we will find more assets held by more shell companies of which Mr. Kwok or one of his children is the sole owner.\n\nHere's the issues: If they ask you to only enjoin him from dissipating his assets that he holds directly, that would exclude everything, and it would exclude everything even though Mr. Kwok has said that these are his assets.\n\nHe submitted an affidavit to this Court saying he owned the apartment. He submitted, he filed a complaint last month in New York saying that the yacht was \"his yacht.\" These are his assets, and it's permitted by the statute, CPLR 5229, to have a restraining order that applies to assets held directly and indirectly. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nCPLR 5229 provides that a plaintiff can have prejudgment restraint in the same way it can have post-judgment restraint. Post-judgment restraint is governed by CPLR 5222, and that says that the restraints apply to property in which he or she, meaning the judgment debtor, \"has an interest.\" It doesn't say direct interest, it says an interest. Mr. Kwok has already testified, he's already submitted evidence in this case that he owns the apartment, and he has judicial admissions that he owns the yacht. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nSo their cases that they cite for the proposition\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 16 of 29\n\n15\n\n|    | Proceedings                                                  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | that CPLR 5229 and 5222 only apply to direct assets are      |\n| 2  | completely inapposite because none of them involve a         |\n| 3  | situation whereas here the defendant has actually claimed    |\n| 4  | that he owns these assets.                                   |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Moss, I understand your argument.          |\n| 6  | Let me hear from Mr. Siegal.                                 |\n| 7  | MR. MOSS:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                          |\n| 8  | MS. CARVALHO:<br>Good morning.<br>Melissa Carvalho           |\n| 9  | from Baker & Hostetler for Mr. Kwok.                         |\n| 10 | I just want to begin by saying we have repeatedly            |\n| 11 | heard this morning Mr. Moss saying \"Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy.\"  |\n| 12 | The bankruptcy petition that was filed was not Mr. Kwok's.   |\n| 13 | We have been made aware of it as the Court has been made     |\n| 14 | aware of it.<br>On its face it says that it's filed by an    |\n| 15 | entity, one of the entities who has counsel here present     |\n| 16 | today.<br>So if any questions or issues are arising relating |\n| 17 | to the bankruptcy, I cannot speak to it, but Mr. Mitchell    |\n| 18 | certainly can.                                               |\n| 19 | So on CPLR 5229 the relief being sought by                   |\n| 20 | plaintiff in the TRO and order to show cause is far broader  |\n| 21 | than that provided under CPLR 5229.<br>Plaintiff seeks to    |\n| 22 | enjoin and restrain defendant Kwok with respect to \"any      |\n| 23 | property in which he has an interest,\" but CPLR 5229's       |\n| 24 | application is limited to Mr. Kwok, the adverse party.       |\n| 25 | CPLR 5229 specifically states that \"the trial                |\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 17 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n16\n\n### Proceedings\n\njudge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment.\" Courts have strictly construed the language of CPLR 5229. The adverse party is Mr. Kwok, and the Court's decision and order on summary judgment is limited to him individually.\n\nPlaintiffs have spent a lot of time in their reply seeking to continue to poison the well against Mr. Kwok, but that is simply because plaintiff cannot present authority to support its unilateral expansion of CPLR 5229.\n\nPlaintiff presented the Court with various categories of cases where CPLR 5229 relief has been granted, but that goes to the Court's discretion to grant this relief. The statute says the Court \"may order relief under 5229,\" and we are not disputing that. Yes, a Court can award CPLR 5229 relief in many different fact patterns, but the relief is still limited to what is provided in CPLR 5229, and plaintiff has not shown any basis supporting its unilateral expansion of the statute besides it's just what they want. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nThe cases cited by plaintiff, in fact, do not expand the scope of CPLR 5229. The APF case, Gallegos case, Safeco case, Unex case and Leser case all limit the relief to the specific adverse party and not to any \"interest\" that party may have. In the Eastern District of New York in the 21 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 18 of 29\n\n17\n\n## Proceedings Leser v. U.S. Bank case the Court specifically stated, \"Plaintiff is correct, however, that the scope of the order should be limited to the restraint on the assets of plaintiff Leser.\" USB had originally sought restraints against \"plaintiff Leser and any person, company or other entity controlled by him,\" but then USB conceded during argument that it was only seeking restraint as to plaintiff Leser, and the Court found that appropriate and proper. Nothing plaintiff says can change that. The statute only provides the relief that it provides. So let's look at the statute. The statute provides for examination and restraints. Examination: Here Mr. Kwok's assets have already been addressed in discovery. Mr. Kwok has been deposed three times in this matter, on October 3rd, 2018, November 25, 2019, and December 11, 2019. Mr. Kwok has produced over 14 pages of documents. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to sufficiently examine Mr. Kwok, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nand, in fact, if you look at plaintiff's second set of document requests attached to my affirmation you see that they were, in fact, targeting assets.\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\nNow plaintiff argues that passed discovery is insufficient, but the record shows that there was, in fact, disclosure. Objections were certainly made based on the scope. There were questions asked of Mr. Kwok such as, 22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 19 of 29\n\n18\n\nProceedings \"Were any of your assets received by the Chinese government,\" but by not allowing fishing expeditions that does not mean that discovery was not sufficient. I also note there were disputes in the past, and those discovery disputes have been resolved, but creating confusion by making these broad-sweeping statements, and attaching e-mails without original letters that they are responding to does not change that. Now turning to the second part that the statute allows restraint, but restraint is limited to CPLR 5229 and is distinguishable from the restraint provided under CPLR 5222. The relief sought here pursuant to 5229 is applicable before a judgment has been entered so unlike post-judgment devices which are available against third-parties, the restraining powers under CPLR 5229 can only be used against \"the adverse party.\" However, at any posture restraint is always limited to property in which Mr. Kwok has a direct and actual interest. Restraint will not apply to indirect interests including interest held in a corporation, proceeds of property, or even assets of an alter ego until alter ego status has been adjudicated and liability has been determined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nPlaintiff also cannot use CPLR 5229 as an end run under the requirements for prejudgment attachment statutes. Here plaintiff's application relies ad nauseam and we have\n\ntav\n\n#### 18 of 28\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 20 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n19\n\n### Proceedings\n\nheard his counsel repeat this morning and admit that the sole focus here is on the ownership of the residence at the Sherry. Plaintiff himself says Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. The Court has acknowledged and stated Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. And even though Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry, he agreed on consent to a court order where he would provide plaintiff with immediate written notice of any contract to sell, assign, pledge or transfer any assets of the respective defendant entity to any third-party. So plaintiff has received broader relief on subsequent than it would have been entitled on this instant publication under CPLR 5229 so, therefore, there's no concern with respect to dissipation of the Sherry.\n\nNow plaintiff argues that Mr. Kwok is trying to weaken the relief that they are seeking, but in actuality we are adhering to the statute and the powers that the Court has given under the statute. Plaintiff is relying on statements allegedly made by Mr. Kwok regarding his ownership of assets. Mr. Kwok can say anything he wants to, ownership is a factual legal issue. If he does not own it, he does not own it, period. That is not enough to give you broader relief under CPLR 5229. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nDiscovery has been conducted. The plaintiff's focus here is solely on the Sherry, as we have repeatedly 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 21 of 29\n\n20\n\nProceedings heard this morning. Any further examination is a waste of time and money. The subject is already -- the Sherry is already subject to an order and it's restrained. None of plaintiff's arguments change the application of CPLR 5229 here. That's it. Now importantly relief under 5229 rests within the sound discretion of the Court, absolutely, but Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and any further examination should be limited to assets and topics not previously addressed in discovery. Redundant and duplicative discovery are not authorized under CPLR 5229. And the transfer of the Sherry, as we have already mentioned several times, it's already been restricted, and any further restraints should be denied. We have a consent order in place that Mr. Kwok has agreed to, and Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry. So Mr. Kwok requests that this Court vacate the TRO, deny plaintiff's motion for CPLR 5229 relief as it far exceeds the scope of CPLR 5229. Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and his assets have already been discovered and restrained by this Court, but should this Court be inclined to grant plaintiff's relief under CPLR 5229, Mr. Kwok would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nrequest that this Court use its discretion to modify such relief to Mr. Kwok's assets in his individual capacity as\n\ntav\n\n#### 20 of 28\n\n24\n\n25\n\n### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 22 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 29\n\n21\n\n|    | Proceedings                                                    |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the \"adverse party,\" and Mr. Kwok's assets not previously      |\n| 2  | the subject of prior discovery and court orders relating to    |\n| 3  | a transfer.                                                    |\n| 4  | Thank you, your Honor.                                         |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Does anybody from Genever want          |\n| 6  | to say anything?                                               |\n| 7  | MR. MITCHELL:<br>No, your Honor.<br>I think that was           |\n| 8  | well said.<br>I join Ms. Carvalho in her argument.             |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>All right.                                       |\n| 10 | Look, this is a 2017 case.<br>We've had multiple               |\n| 11 | motions relating to Mr. Kwok's assets.<br>The Court believes,  |\n| 12 | as reflected in the September 15, 2020, order that Mr. Kwok    |\n| 13 | has attempted to mislead the Court.<br>The Court believes that |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game   |\n| 15 | with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court   |\n| 16 | orders, the spirit of court orders.<br>This is going to come   |\n| 17 | to an end on or shortly after January 15, 2021, when we have   |\n| 18 | the trial on the alter ego issue, but between now and the      |\n| 19 | commencement of the January 15, 2021, trial Mr. Kwok and any   |\n| 20 | entities that he directly or indirectly controls are           |\n| 21 | restrained from alienating or transferring any property that   |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok has a direct or indirect interest including most      |\n| 23 | specifically the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel      |\n| 24 | which was the subject of 2018 discovery and a consent order    |\n| 25 | to which counsel for Mr. Kwok referenced, and also the yacht   |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 23 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n22\n\n25\n\n22\n\n### Proceedings\n\nwhich Mr. Kwok has at various times claimed ownership of. So the net result is that I exercise my discretion under CPLR 5229 to restrain any further transfers of the Sherry-Netherland apartment which Mr. Kwok once owned, and the 27 million-dollar yacht which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned.\n\nSo we are not going to have any more shell games. Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside, and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.\n\nIn the interim, between now and the January 15, 2021 trial on the alter ego issues, the plaintiff can conduct discovery of any of the entities that claim to own the Sherry-Netherland apartment or the yacht, and counsel for Genever and counsel for Mr. Kwok are directed to forthwith provide counsel for the plaintiff with information identifying the record owners of those two assets. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThat's the order of the Court.\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Your Honor, could I ask for some clarification? 23 24\n\nWe understand the order of the Court today,\n\n### tav\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 24 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n25\n\nProceedings\n\n23\n\nhowever, I am confused where it comes to indirect ownership because, I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, there could be entities that will be restrained from conducting regular and ordinary business, and to what extent can someone decide that something would be an indirect interest and prevent ordinary transfers? I mean, I don't know how far this goes with other independent autonomous companies.\n\nTHE COURT: It goes this far: There is no ordinary course transfer of a 70 million-dollar apartment at the Sherry-Netherland. There is no ordinary course transfer of a 27 million-dollar yacht. If Mr. Kwok wants to get a haircut or if Mr. Kwok wants to buy a newspaper or if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, that would be ordinary course, but I think everybody on this Microsoft Teams platform understands that there's been a lot of moving around of these two assets that have an aggregate value of at least \\$75 million, and the plaintiff is entitled to ascertain the entity that presently has title to these assets, how those entities came to have title to those assets, and any intermediate transfers that were made between the time Mr. Kwok was the record owner of these assets and the time that the present record owner came into possession of these assets. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Understood.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 25 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n24\n\n### Proceedings\n\nSo the assets specifically are the Sherry and the yacht, but the position, just to make sure I understand it, is that with respect to other autonomous corporations, they can continue in the ordinary course, there's no ceasing or stopping of business for other legally autonomous entities.\n\nTHE COURT: It's not clear to me what other business and what other entities Mr. Kwok has formed. The intent here which is very clear and specific is that in this 2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a great deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders, I want to know if any transaction is going to take place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something other than an ordinary course of business transaction. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\n> MS. CARVALHO: Okay. I think we understand. Thank you, your Honor.\n\nMR. MOSS: Your Honor, if I may, just two points. Number one, in terms of the assets, we know that\n\nthere are also shell companies in Connecticut that own Greenwich real estate that he just bought for like \\$7 million. I think the most efficient -- and we don't know what we don't know. I think the most efficient way to proceed would be for us to be able to serve some sort of interrogatory at the outset, what are the assets and what are the entities that hold them, and then we can proceed to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 26 of 29\n\nProceedings\n\n25\n\n## depose Mr. Kwok and those entities if they are entities or Mr. Kwok as the 30(b)(6) for those entities. I want to do this efficiently and with minimal burden, and rather than just asking him questions that he is going to say he does not know the answer to, I think the most efficient way would be to try to use written discovery to get a list of what the actual assets are. THE COURT: Look, I'm not going to tell you how to practice law. You have the transcript of today's proceedings. I think I've made it very clear what you can do. You can conduct discovery of any assets -- you can conduct discovery of any entity that you have a good faith basis for believing Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly controls. It can be written discovery, it can be oral discovery. I'm not going to play schoolyard monitor while you jockey back and forth with discovery disputes about the scope of what you can do. I think Mr. Kwok's counsel and I think Genever's counsel full understand what is reflected in the transcript of proceedings. We are dealing with a telescoped period of time here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThere's a restraining order that's been entered with respect to two specific assets, and only two specific assets, and there's an alter ego trial that's scheduled for January 15, 2021, and there's a damages hearing that's going 22 23 24 25\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 27 of 29\n\n|    | 26<br>Proceedings                                               |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | to take place sometime before or in conjunction with the        |\n| 2  | alter ego trial.                                                |\n| 3  | Again, this is a 2017 case, and it's occupied a                 |\n| 4  | considerable amount of the Court's time.<br>It's resulted in    |\n| 5  | several written decisions.<br>While orders of the Court are     |\n| 6  | either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and       |\n| 7  | while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have      |\n| 8  | misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going      |\n| 9  | to have closure in this case in January of 2021.                |\n| 10 | So the court reporter will give you her e-mail                  |\n| 11 | address.<br>You will order a copy of the transcript.<br>I can't |\n| 12 | be any clearer than I've been on this transcript.               |\n| 13 | If any party or any counsel disregards the orders               |\n| 14 | of the Court, there will be serious sanctions.                  |\n| 15 | Are we all clear?                                               |\n| 16 | MR. MOSS:<br>Yes.                                               |\n| 17 | Your Honor, may I just -- one question on the                   |\n| 18 | damages motion.                                                 |\n| 19 | We filed our motion, they opposed.<br>I understand              |\n| 20 | the Court is going to have a hearing as soon as possible on     |\n| 21 | this issue.<br>May we reply because there are some things we    |\n| 22 | would like to put before the Court given that they have         |\n| 23 | opposed and we have not yet replied?                            |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>If you wish.<br>I have explained to you           |\n| 25 | that I am backed up with trials and motions.<br>I have carved   |\n|    | tav                                                             |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 28 of 29\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n25\n\n27\n\n### Proceedings\n\nout a January 15th date. That's chiseled in stone. We will have the alter ego trial on January 15, 2021, if we can get to the damages hearing before, then we will, but there's not a lot of time between now and January 15th, and you, Mr. Moss, are probably going to be quite busy.\n\nMR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor.\n\nMR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, one last question regarding the order here today just because, as you're aware, Genever New York has filed bankruptcy. I doubt that any assets within the bankruptcy estate would be sold or anything between now and January 15th, but I want to make sure that myself particularly or any party to the action wouldn't draw the ire of a potential sanction for whatever happens in the bankruptcy court.\n\nTHE COURT: No, I cannot -- I have no jurisdiction over any entity that's in bankruptcy. That doesn't mean applications can't be made by Mr. Moss to the bankruptcy court. It doesn't mean that Mr. Moss can't refer in any proceedings before the bankruptcy court to the transcript of the proceedings here today, but I well understand the automatic stay of the bankruptcy court with respect to entities that have filed for bankruptcy. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nMR. MITCHELL: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 23 24\n\nTerry, can you give the parties your e-mail\n\ntav\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-16 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 29 of 29\n\n|    | 28                                                                             |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Proceedings                                                                    |\n| 1  | address from which they can order a copy of the transcript                     |\n| 2  | which will be so ordered and e-filed?                                          |\n| 3  | Thank you very much.                                                           |\n| 4  | Have a nice day everyone.                                                      |\n| 5  | MR. MOSS:<br>Thank you, your Honor.                                            |\n| 6  | ***                                                                            |\n| 7  | C E R T I F I C A T E                                                          |\n| 8  | I, Terry-Ann Volberg, C.S.R., an official court reporter of                    |\n| 9  | the State of New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing                    |\n| 10 | is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes.                    |\n| 11 |                                                                                |\n| 12 | _______________________                                                        |\n| 13 | Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR<br>Official Court Reporter<br>SO-ORDERED 11-9-2020 |\n| 14 |                                                                                |\n| 15 |                                                                                |\n| 16 |                                                                                |\n| 17 |                                                                                |\n| 18 |                                                                                |\n| 19 |                                                                                |\n| 20 |                                                                                |\n| 21 |                                                                                |\n| 22 |                                                                                |\n| 23 |                                                                                |\n| 24 |                                                                                |\n| 25 |                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                |\n|    | tav                                                                            |","body_zh":"证物 PAX 18\n\n2020年10月15日庭审记录，PAX v. Kwok，Index. No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. 647\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\nPAX 18\n\n5/25/2022 全部准予采纳\nP.E.\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 2 页，共 29 页\n\ntav　纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县：审判庭第 61 部　- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X　PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），原告，- 诉 -　KWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），被告。　- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X　案号：652077/2017　2020年10月15日　Teams 远程庭审　出庭法官：尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官　出庭人员：O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 律师事务所　7 Times Square　New York, New York 10036　代理律师：STUART SARNOFF 律师　EDWARD MOSS 律师　BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 律师事务所　45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor　New York, New York 10111　代理律师：JOHN SIEGAL 律师　MELISSA CARVALHO 律师　ERICA BARROW 律师　（出庭人员续见下一页。）　1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 3 页，共\n\n1　出庭人员：\n（续）\n\n2　LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC\n律师事务所\n3　162 East 64th Street\nNew York, New York 10065\n4　代理律师：\nAARON A. MITCHELL 律师\n\n8　Terry-Ann Volberg，CSR，CRR\n官方法庭记录员\n\ntav\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 4 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审程序\n\n1　法庭：\n早上好。\n2　在讨论临时限制令申请之前，我有几项\n3　程序性事项要\n4　处理。\n5　如您未发言，请将您的\n6　麦克风静音，以免出现杂音。谢谢。\n7　如我刚才开始所说，在处理临时限制令\n8　申请之前，我有几项程序性事项要解决。\n我们\n9　技术上安排讨论原告的律师费申请，此外在动议\n10　部分，还有被告提出的一项动议，要求增加一项未\n11　减轻损失的积极抗辩。关于后一个问题，\n12　Moss 先生，我希望您同意，在审判时我们将使诉辩\n13　文件与审判中提出的证据相一致，并且由于我在\n14　9月15日的判决及命令中处理了减轻损失\n15　问题，而且该问题一直至少在本案中\n16　处于边缘位置，我希望您同意，该问题将是\n17　全面审判中将予处理的问题之一，从而避免\n18　动议程序的必要性，因此我希望\n19　经双方同意，将该动议标记为无损害撤回。\n20　您对此可以接受吗？\n21　MOSS 律师：\n法官阁下，我只是——我只是想\n22　了解，我的理解是法庭将要\n\ntav\n\n作出关于损害赔偿的裁定。您曾命令我们提交计算结果。我以为减轻损失问题已由法庭在简易判决中裁定，而且不会就损害赔偿进行审判；这样做是为了让您取得计算结果，以便法庭书记官能够作出判决书。这是命令中所载内容，因此我并不理解将会进行审判，而且我们认为不存在需要审判的任何事实争议。\n\n法庭：我的理解是，我已就责任问题作出有利于你方的简易判决，这就是为什么你方有资格提出今日所提出的 5229 申请；而我们推迟计算损害赔偿，是因为与损害赔偿数额有关的事实争议尚存。我认定你方的证据不足以使我就损害赔偿问题作出简易判决。因此，这将在我认为我们安排于一月举行的听证中处理。10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nMOSS 律师：那么，法官阁下，我的理解是，一月的审判是关于揭开公司面纱问题的——19 20\n\n法庭：是的，是的。\n\nMOSS 律师：——并且 Kwok 先生提出的关于损害赔偿的唯一抗辩，法官阁下，是减轻损失。法庭已在简易判决中根据香港法律驳回了减轻损失这一问题。22 23 24 25\n\ntav\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 6 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审程序\n法庭：我在9月15日的判决中专门提到了该问题。现在，我提及它的方式表明我认为它是一项可疑的主张，我现在仍然认为它是一项可疑的主张，因为我认为事后要求你方当事人以看似高于市场价的价格从中国共产党购买一套公寓，并非其应负之责，这正是我在2020年9月15日判决中所说的。\n\n因此，被告提出一项动议，要求修改其答辩状，以主张未减轻损失的抗辩。无论我们何时着手评估损害赔偿，我都会就减轻损失问题听取被告陈述。现在，如果你们希望他提出动议，并希望我裁定该动议，我除了准许他提出动议、让你方答复该动议，然后裁定该动议之外，无能为力。既然我们将举行的任何听证中，我都将使诉辩文件与审判中提出的证据相一致，我认为作为一项程序性事项，我们应让被告无损害撤回该动议，而你方应当接受这一局面。9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nMOSS 律师：好的，可以。如果法官阁下无论如何都会准许该修改许可动议，我们可以对此达成约定。21 22 23\n\n我们有一项待决的损害赔偿动议，而他们——法庭：是。24 25\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 7 页，共 29 页\n\n6 tav　庭审程序　MOSS 律师：那么法官阁下希望如何处理损害赔偿问题？法庭：我们将就损害赔偿问题举行听证，但该听证不是今天。MOSS 律师：是。法庭：因此，在该听证中，被告希望就这一减轻损失理论提出的任何事项——我在2020年9月15日的判决及命令中已强烈表明该理论颇为可疑——他们将被允许就损害赔偿听证中该理论提出其拥有的任何证据，如有。让我询问被告的律师，鉴于现已载入今日庭审记录的内容，我们能否将修改答辩状的动议标记为无损害撤回？SIEGAL 律师：是，John Siegal，Baker Hostetler，代表被告 Kwok。我们当然同意该结果，并将在今天之后送达并提交我们的第二次修订答辩状，使其成为记录的一部分，这将是我们参加听证的依据。法庭：可以。你们其实没有必要提交第二次修订起诉状，但我认为，从今日庭审程序的记录中非常清楚地表明，1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 8 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审程序\n我们将举行损害赔偿听证，而在该损害赔偿听证中，你们将能够就减轻损失主张部分提出你们希望提出的任何证言或希望提交的任何文件；你们提交第二次修订起诉状并让原告必须对此作出答复，确实只会给法庭和原告增加负担。\n\n因此，记录本身已说明一切。我只希望你和 Moss 先生在此给予一点配合。\n\nSIEGAL 律师：是，法官阁下。我们感谢法庭允许我们有机会就该问题提出证据；我们将在听证时做好准备。自我们在本案中出庭以来，我们一直与 Moss 先生进行了良好配合，我相信我们将继续如此；我们期待有机会说服法官阁下——我们理解您认为其可疑——在全面审查后，此处存在一项减轻损失抗辩，对损害赔偿具有非常重大的影响，因此谢谢。10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n我们不会有任何第二次修订起诉状，也不会有任何动议，对吗？\n\nSIEGAL 律师：是，法官阁下，明白。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n现在，我们的第二项程序性事项是律师费。由于还将有进一步的24 25\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 9 页，共 29 页\n\n8　庭审程序　程序，今日处理律师费没有意义，因为与我们将举行的两场听证有关还会产生更多律师费，其中一场关于损害赔偿，另一场此前已安排于1月15日举行。因此，经您同意，Moss 先生，我希望将您的律师费申请延期至一个更合适的时间。MOSS 律师：可以。可以，法官阁下。我想，您知道，律师费与本金和利息一样，都是合同损害赔偿，我建议我们在听证中或与听证同时提交我们的证据。我想我们实际上不会有律师费方面的任何证人，Lewis 先生除外。我认为我们应当在听证中处理，法官阁下，这对我来说最合理，即在损害赔偿听证中，因为它们确实是损害赔偿的一部分。法庭：当本案所有程序均告结束时，你方将获判应向你方支付的任何依合同有权获得的律师费。这不是今日要处理的问题，而是等待未来解决的问题。好的。MOSS 律师：是，法官阁下。我们是否——您是否大致知道何时您1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\n希望举行损害赔偿听证？\n\ntav\n提交：纽约县书记官 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 接收日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 10 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审程序\n\n法庭：\n\n一俟我能够。\n\n并非无缘无故，你们都知道，Scarpulla 法官（Justice Scarpulla）已获晋升至上诉庭，Friedman 法官（Justice Friedman）和 Sherwood 法官（Justice Sherwood）近期即将退休，因此目前轮值名单中仅有五名商事庭法官，Scarpulla 法官的案件已重新分配给轮值名单中剩余的五名法官。因此，我们现在都有些忙。\n\nMoss 先生（Mr. Moss）：\n\n是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n你们的另一事项排定在 January 15th。我们将尽力找到一个适当时间，以处理损害赔偿和律师费问题。\n\n那么，现在让我们处理今天上午我唯一想处理的事项，即你们根据 CPLR 5229 提出的申请，请求作出一项限制令，延及 Kwok 先生（Mr. Kwok）的资产，并且你们认为该限制令应延及其控制的实体，无论其为单一目的有限责任公司，还是诸如其儿子等家庭成员。\n\n那么，Moss 先生，请陈述。\n\nMoss 先生：\n\n谢谢。\n\n法官阁下，就 5229 项下的救济而言，我认为 Kwok 先生并不争议我们有权获得某种救济。他不争议 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）符合该标准。他也不争议我方的主张，即他意图耗散其资产，而这一过程已经随着这项虚假破产程序开始。\n\ntav\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记员）11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　收到 NYSCEF：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 11 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法庭曾表示，除仅仅在判决中胜诉这一事实之外，还需作出某种证明。我们已提交意见称，您所需做的只是就简易判决胜诉。法庭表示可能还需要额外证明，因此我们确已在提交的文件中说明了这一点。\n\n此处存在明确且重大的风险：如果不加制止，Kwok 先生将继续竭尽所能隐匿资产，并使该判决无法执行，无论是作伪证、违反法院命令，还是提出这项虚假破产申请。我们多年来一直向法官陈述这一点。这正是我们请求扣押的原因。我们也知道将会发生什么。我们会胜诉，因为 Kwok 先生没有任何正当抗辩；而后 Kwok 先生会规避该判决，并会尽其所能确保我的当事人蒙受损失。\n\n因此，就法官面前有关 5229 的两个具体问题而言，Kwok 先生提出两项论点，试图限制我们所请求的救济。因此，我将先处理我认为较为容易的一项。\n\n首先，Kwok 先生并不争议我们有权对其进行询问取证并就其开展证据开示，但他主张证据开示应仅限于我们尚未请求或尚未获得证据开示的资产。本案中唯一与资产有关的证据开示发生在扣押阶段，而 Kwok 先生及其先前的律师强烈且始终拒绝就除 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）住所之外的任何资产提供证据开示。我认为，实际上我们各方均同意，所有其他资产均可予以调查。\n\n至于该公寓、该住所，没有理由限制对其进行的证据开示。这是我们所确定的 Kwok 先生在纽约拥有的唯一资产。它似乎是他在本国拥有的最大资产，也许是他在任何地方拥有的、尚未被中国政府冻结的最大资产。\n\nKwok 先生先前的律师贬损我们，称我们歇斯底里，称我们因不断寻求扣押该公寓而害怕案件实体问题。我们知道自己面对的是谁，也知道最终会走到这一步，即该资产将是我们实现追偿的最佳机会。\n\n我们有权就该资产进行证据开示。此类证据开示不会造成任何显著负担，而且我们已有两年未就该公寓进行任何证据开示。\n\n存在新的论点，也有新的事项需要调查。例如，Kwok 先生现于其破产申请中主张，除由 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）公司拥有的纽约公司、即两个 Genever（吉尼弗）实体之外，还有一家新公司，一家名为 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）的新空壳公司，才是该公寓的真正受益所有人，并且该公司一直支付相关费用，而且该公司完全由其儿子所有。因此，他在破产程序中的主张并非他有任何正当债权人，而是该公寓系为其儿子信托持有，其儿子应优先于 Pacific Alliance 获得受偿。\n\n这完全是一场空壳游戏。我们有权调查该情形，以及过去数年间发生的任何其他事情。他们将该公寓挂牌出售，随后又在扣押程序当天撤下，以便在法庭上向您主张，嘿，它已不再挂牌出售，您不应扣押它。我们有权获得该证据开示，而这正是 CPLR 5229 旨在赋予我们的，即准确获知资产由谁拥有、位于何处的信息。\n\n法官阁下，他们提出的第二个问题，也是您开始这次谈话时提出的那个问题，是此处的范围应为何：限制令是否应仅涉及 Kwok 先生的资产，还是涉及 Kwok 先生直接或间接拥有的资产？他们试图主张，该命令应仅适用于他“直接拥有”的资产。这一例外将吞没规则本身。\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　收到 NYSCEF：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 14 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n因为 Kwok 先生并不直接持有任何资产。这就是他的惯用方式。他正是为此目的通过多层家庭成员、多层空壳公司持有资产，以使像我们这样的债权人无法触及这些资产。\n\nKwok 先生在另一案件的证言中承认了这一点。他称，他在宣誓后作证称，我们引用其原话：“事实上，依法我没有任何资产。我身无分文。”他作出该等主张，是因为他以公寓这样的方式架构其持有的资产。我刚才告诉过您，例如，空壳公司、他现称由其儿子拥有的空壳公司；这是一家名为 Bravo Luck 的公司，他称其儿子拥有该公司，尽管他过去持有其中 50%，而且显然现称其根据本案中未提交的文件，以一美元将其出售给其儿子；这些文件系倒签日期、伪造的文件。\n\n这一整件事都是虚假的：他当时二十多岁的儿子才是真正为该公寓支付 $70 million 的人，并且是该公寓的合法所有人？这完全是一场游戏，以确保我们无法实现追偿。\n\n还有一艘价值 30 million-dollar 的游艇。该游艇由一家香港公司持有。\n\n法庭：\n\n我以为是 $27 million。\n\nMoss 先生：\n\n抱歉，我是向上取整。我是向上取整。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　收到 NYSCEF：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 15 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n有一艘价值 $27 million 的游艇由一家香港公司持有；一旦获准进行证据开示，我们将发现更多由更多空壳公司持有的资产，而 Kwok 先生或其子女之一是该等公司的唯一所有人。\n\n问题在于：如果他们请求您仅禁止其耗散他直接持有的资产，那将排除一切；即使 Kwok 先生已称这些是他的资产，也会排除一切。\n\n他向本法庭提交了一份宣誓书，称其拥有该公寓。他上个月在纽约提交并立案的一份起诉书中称该游艇是“他的游艇”。这些是他的资产，而且法规 CPLR 5229 允许限制令适用于直接和间接持有的资产。\n\nCPLR 5229 规定，原告可如同其可获得判决后限制措施一样获得判决前限制措施。判决后限制措施受 CPLR 5222 管辖，该条规定，限制措施适用于其拥有“权益”的财产，其中“其”是指判决债务人。该条并未规定直接权益，而是规定权益。Kwok 先生已经作证，已经在本案中提交证据表明其拥有该公寓，并且他已作出拥有该游艇的司法承认。\n\n因此，他们援引的那些主张 CPLR 5229 和 5222 仅适用于直接资产的案件完全不适用，因为其中没有任何一案涉及本案这种被告实际上已主张其拥有这些资产的情形。\n\n法庭：\n\nMoss 先生，我理解你的论点。让我听听 Siegal 先生（Mr. Siegal）的意见。\n\nMoss 先生：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCarvalho 女士（Ms. Carvalho）：\n\n早上好。我是代表 Kwok 先生的 Baker & Hostetler（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）的 Melissa Carvalho（梅丽莎·卡瓦略）。\n\n我想先说明，今天上午我们已反复听到 Moss 先生说“Kwok 先生的破产”。所提交的破产申请并非 Kwok 先生的。我们已如法庭一样获悉此事。从表面上看，该申请载明其由某一实体提交，该实体之一的律师今日在场。因此，如有与破产有关的任何问题或争议，我无法就此发言，但 Mitchell 先生（Mr. Mitchell）当然可以。\n\n因此，就 CPLR 5229 而言，原告在其 TRO（临时限制令）和说明理由令中寻求的救济，远超 CPLR 5229 所规定的救济。原告寻求就“其拥有权益的任何财产”禁止和限制被告 Kwok，但 CPLR 5229 的适用仅限于 Kwok 先生，即不利方。CPLR 5229 明确规定：“审判法官可命令对不利方进行询问，并命令限制其行为，其效力如同判决后已向其送达限制通知。”法院对 CPLR 5229 的措辞作出了严格解释。不利方是 Kwok 先生，而法院就简易判决作出的决定和命令仅限于其个人。\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记员 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　收到 NYSCEF：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期 05/25/22　录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 17 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n原告在其答复中花费大量时间，试图继续在 Kwok 先生问题上先入为主地造成偏见，但这只是因为原告无法提出任何权威依据，以支持其单方面扩大 CPLR 5229 的适用范围。\n\n原告向法庭列举了多个获准给予 CPLR 5229 救济的案件类别，但这涉及法庭是否酌情给予该等救济。该法条规定法庭“may order relief under 5229”（“可依据 5229 作出救济命令”），对此我们并无争议。是的，法庭可以在许多不同事实情形下给予 CPLR 5229 救济，但该救济仍限于 CPLR 5229 所规定的范围，原告除声称这正是其所希望获得的结果外，未能说明任何支持其单方面扩大该法条范围的依据。\n\n实际上，原告援引的案件并未扩大 CPLR 5229 的适用范围。APF 案、Gallegos（加列戈斯）案、Safeco 案、Unex 案和 Leser（莱瑟）案均将救济限于特定的不利当事人，而非该当事人可能拥有的任何“权益”。在 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）的\n\ntav\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期：05/25/22　录入日期：05/26/22 15:30:37　第 18 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\nLeser v. U.S. Bank（莱瑟诉美国银行）一案中，法庭明确表示：“然而，原告是正确的，命令的范围应限于对原告 Leser 资产的限制。”USB 最初寻求对“原告 Leser 以及由其控制的任何个人、公司或其他实体”实施限制，但 USB 随后在辩论中承认，其仅寻求对原告 Leser 实施限制，法庭认为这适当且正当。原告所言均无法改变这一点。法条仅提供其所规定的救济。因此，让我们看看该法条。该法条规定审查和限制。审查：在本案中，Kwok（郭文贵）的资产已在证据开示中得到处理。Kwok 先生已于 October 3rd, 2018、November 25, 2019 和 December 11, 2019 就本案三次接受证言录取。Kwok 先生已提交超过 14 页的文件。原告已有多次机会充分审查 Kwok 先生，\n\n而且，实际上，如果您查看附于我宣誓陈述的原告第二套文件请求，便会发现其确实针对资产。现原告主张此前的证据开示不足，但记录表明确实已进行了开示。基于范围提出了异议，这当然是事实。曾向 Kwok 先生提出诸如以下问题：\n\ntav\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期：05/25/22　录入日期：05/26/22 15:30:37　第 19 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n“您的任何资产是否被中国政府接收”，但未允许进行漫无边际的探查，并不意味着证据开示不充分。我还指出，过去曾发生争议，而这些证据开示争议已得到解决；但通过作出这些宽泛的陈述并附上其所回复的原始信函缺失的电子邮件来制造混乱，并不能改变这一点。现转向该法条所允许的第二部分，即限制，但限制受 CPLR 5229 约束，并有别于 CPLR 5222 规定的限制。此处依据 5229 所请求的救济适用于判决作出之前，因此与可针对第三方使用的判决后手段不同，CPLR 5229 下的限制权力只能针对“该不利当事人”行使。然而，无论处于何种程序阶段，限制始终仅限于 Kwok 先生拥有直接、现实权益的财产。限制不适用于间接权益，包括在公司中持有的权益、财产收益，甚至是替身实体的资产，除非替身实体地位已获裁判且责任已被确定。\n\n原告亦不得将 CPLR 5229 作为规避判决前扣押法条要求的手段。在此，原告的申请反复援引，而我们已经\n\ntav\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期：05/25/22　录入日期：05/26/22 15:30:37　第 20 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n听到其律师今天上午反复陈述并承认，此处唯一关注的是位于 Sherry 的住宅的所有权。原告自己表示 Kwok 先生不是 Sherry 的所有人。法庭已确认并表示 Kwok 先生不是 Sherry 的所有人。尽管 Kwok 先生对位于 Sherry 的住宅不拥有直接权益，他仍同意接受一项法庭命令，根据该命令，他将就相关被告实体向任何第三方出售、让与、质押或转让任何资产的任何合同，立即向原告提供书面通知。因此，原告根据同意令所获得的救济，比其在本次依据 CPLR 5229 提出的申请中本有权获得的救济更为广泛，故对于 Sherry 的资产耗散不存在任何担忧。\n\n现原告主张 Kwok 先生正试图削弱其所寻求的救济，但实际上，我们是在遵守该法条以及法条赋予法庭的权力。原告依赖于 Kwok 先生就其资产所有权所作的据称陈述。Kwok 先生可以说任何他想说的话；所有权是一个事实和法律问题。如果他不拥有它，他就不拥有它，仅此而已。这不足以使您依据 CPLR 5229 获得更广泛的救济。\n\n已进行了证据开示。如我们今天上午反复听到的，原告在此唯一关注的是 Sherry。任何进一步审查都是浪费时间和金钱。该标的已经——Sherry 已受一项命令约束并受到限制。原告的任何论点均不改变 CPLR 5229 在此的适用。这就是全部。重要的是，依据 5229 的救济完全属于法庭的合理裁量权，当然如此，但 Kwok 先生已接受审查，任何进一步审查都应限于在证据开示中此前未处理的资产和事项。CPLR 5229 不授权重复和累赘的证据开示。如我们已经数次提及，Sherry 的转让已受到限制，任何进一步限制均应被驳回。我们已有一项 Kwok 先生同意的同意令，而且 Kwok 先生对位于 Sherry 的住宅并不拥有直接权益。因此，Kwok 先生请求本法庭撤销临时限制令，驳回原告关于 CPLR 5229 救济的动议，因为其远远超出 CPLR 5229 的范围。Kwok 先生已接受审查，其资产已被发现并由本法庭限制；但若本法庭倾向于给予原告依据 CPLR 5229 所请求的救济，Kwok 先生将\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期：05/25/22　录入日期：05/26/22 15:30:37　第 22 页，共 29 页\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　请求本法庭行使其裁量权，将该等救济修改为仅针对作为\n2　“该不利当事人”的 Kwok 先生以其个人身份持有的资产，以及此前\n3　不属于先前证据开示及与转让有关的法庭命令标的的 Kwok 先生资产。\n4　谢谢，法官阁下。\n5　法庭：\n好的。Genever（吉尼弗）一方有人\n6　要说什么吗？\n7　MITCHELL（米切尔）先生：\n没有，法官阁下。我认为她说得\n8　很好。我加入 CARVALHO（卡瓦略）女士的论证。\n9　法庭：\n好的。\n10　您看，这是一个 2017 年的案件。我们已就 Kwok 先生的资产提出过多项\n11　动议。法庭相信，\n12　正如 September 15, 2020 命令所反映的那样，Kwok 先生\n13　曾试图误导法庭。法庭相信\n14　Kwok 先生如原告所主张的那样，正在就其资产玩弄障眼法，\n15　并且即使没有违反法庭命令的字面规定，\n16　也违反了法庭命令的精神。这将在\n17　January 15, 2021 当日或此后不久结束，届时我们将\n18　就人格混同问题进行审判；但在现在至\n19　January 15, 2021 审判开始期间，Kwok 先生及其直接或间接控制的任何\n20　实体均被限制处分或转让任何\n21　Kwok 先生拥有直接或间接权益的财产，其中\n22　尤其包括 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内德兰酒店）的公寓，\n23　该公寓曾是 2018 年证据开示和一项同意令的标的，\n24　Kwok 先生的律师曾提及该同意令；还包括游艇\n25　即 Kwok 先生曾在不同时间主张拥有所有权的游艇。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期：05/25/22　录入日期：05/26/22 15:30:37　第 23 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\nKwok 先生曾在不同时间主张拥有该游艇的所有权。因此，最终结果是，我行使 CPLR 5229 项下的裁量权，限制对 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的任何进一步转让，该公寓曾由 Kwok 先生拥有；并限制对价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇的任何进一步转让，该游艇曾由 Kwok 先生主张拥有。\n\n因此，我们不会再有任何障眼法。无论这些资产由何处持有，它们都将继续由其目前所在之处持有；如果确定目前被列为这些资产所有人的实体是 Kwok 先生的人格混同实体，或者完全受 Kwok 先生支配和控制，则这些资产将可用于满足原告获得的任何判决。\n\n在现在至 January 15, 2021 就人格混同问题进行审判期间，原告可以对任何声称拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓或该游艇的实体进行证据开示，并命令 Genever 的律师和 Kwok 先生的律师立即向原告律师提供识别该两项资产登记所有人的信息。\n\n这就是法庭的命令。\n\nCARVALHO 女士：法官阁下，我可以请求一些澄清吗？\n\n我们理解法庭今天的命令，\n\ntav\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：647　NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020　案件 22-50073　文件 440-16　提交日期：05/25/22　录入日期：05/26/22 15:30:37　第 24 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n但是，我对间接所有权的部分感到困惑，因为，我只是临时想到，可能有实体将被限制开展正常和日常业务，而在何种程度上有人可以认定某项事物属于间接权益并阻止正常转让？我的意思是，我不知道这对于其他独立自主公司的影响范围有多大。\n\n法庭：其范围如下：价值 70 million-dollar 的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓不存在正常业务过程中的转让。价值 27 million-dollar 的游艇不存在正常业务过程中的转让。如果 Kwok 先生想理发，或者 Kwok 先生想买一份报纸，或者 Kwok 先生想在 coronavirus pandemic（冠状病毒疫情）期间去度假，那将属于正常业务过程；但我认为，这个 Microsoft Teams（微软团队）平台上的每个人都明白，这两项总价值至少为 $75 million 的资产已发生了大量转移，而原告有权查明目前对这些资产享有产权的实体、这些实体如何取得这些资产的产权，以及在 Kwok 先生为这些资产的登记所有人与当前登记所有人取得这些资产占有之间所进行的任何中间转让。\n\n卡瓦略女士（Carvalho）：明白。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官（New York County Clerk）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 647 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文书 440-16 提交日期 05/25/22 录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 25 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n因此，具体资产是 Sherry（谢里）和该游艇；但为了确保我理解无误，对于其他独立法人，公司可以继续按正常业务程序运营，其他法律上独立的实体无需停止或终止营业。\n\n法院：我不清楚郭先生设立了哪些其他业务和哪些其他实体。此处明确且具体的意图是，在这起 2017 年案件中，已出现大量的策略性周旋、大量的掩饰，以及一些公然无视法院命令的行为；如果将进行任何交易，而郭先生是该交易的主导者，并且该交易不属于正常业务程序中的交易，我希望知悉。6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\n卡瓦略女士：好的。我想我们明白了。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n莫斯先生（Moss）：法官阁下，如蒙允许，我只提两点。第一，关于资产，我们知道\n\n他刚以大约 \\$7 million 购买的格林尼治房地产，也由康涅狄格州的空壳公司持有。我认为最有效率的方式——而且我们不知道我们所不知道的情况——我认为最有效率的推进方式，是让我们一开始便能够送达某种书面质询：资产有哪些，以及持有这些资产的是哪些实体；然后我们可以继续进行 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官（New York County Clerk）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 647 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文书 440-16 提交日期 05/25/22 录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 26 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n对郭先生及那些实体进行证言录取；如果它们是实体，则由郭先生作为这些实体的 30(b)(6) 代表接受证言录取。我希望高效且以最小负担完成此事；与其仅仅问他一些他会说自己不知道答案的问题，我认为最有效率的方式，是尝试通过书面证据开示取得实际资产的清单。法院：听着，我不会告诉你如何执业。你有今天庭审的记录。我认为我已非常明确地说明你可以做什么。你可以对任何资产进行证据开示——你可以对任何你有善意依据相信由郭先生直接或间接控制的实体进行证据开示。可以是书面证据开示，也可以是口头证据开示。我不会在你们就可进行事项的范围来回争执证据开示纠纷时充当操场监督员。我认为郭先生的律师，也认为 Genever（吉尼弗）的律师，完全理解庭审记录中所反映的内容。我们目前面对的是一个压缩的时间期限。1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\n已就两项特定资产，而且仅就两项特定资产，作出了限制令；另我责任审判已排定于 January 15, 2021 举行，并且赔偿听证会将于 22 23 24 25\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官（New York County Clerk）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 647 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文书 440-16 提交日期 05/25/22 录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 27 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n在另我责任审判之前的某个时间或与该审判同时举行。\n\n再次强调，这是一宗 2017 年的案件，已占用法院相当多的时间。该案已形成数项书面裁决。鉴于法院命令要么被藐视，要么被极为宽泛地解释；并且有人向法院作出了故意或非故意的失实陈述，从而误导了法院，我们将在 January of 2021 结案。\n\n因此，法庭书记员将向你们提供她的电子邮件地址。你们将订购一份庭审记录副本。我不可能比我在这份庭审记录中所说的更加明确。\n\n如果任何一方或任何律师无视法院命令，将受到严厉制裁。\n\n我们都清楚了吗？\n\n莫斯先生：是。\n\n法官阁下，我能否就赔偿动议问一个问题。\n\n我们已提交动议，对方已提出异议。我理解法院将尽快就此问题举行听证会。鉴于对方已提出异议而我们尚未答复，我们是否可以提交答复，因为有一些事项我们希望提交法院？\n\n法院：如果你希望如此。我已经向你解释过，我积压着审判和动议。我已预留\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官（New York County Clerk）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 647 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文书 440-16 提交日期 05/25/22 录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 28 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n出 January 15th 这个日期。该日期不可更改。我们将于 January 15, 2021 举行另我责任审判；如果我们能在此之前举行赔偿听证会，我们就会举行，但从现在到 January 15th 之间没有多少时间，而你，莫斯先生，可能会相当忙碌。\n\n莫斯先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n米切尔先生（Mitchell）：法官阁下，就今天的命令，我还有最后一个问题，因为如您所知，Genever New York（吉尼弗纽约）已经申请破产。我怀疑从现在到 January 15th 之间，破产财产中的任何资产会被出售或发生任何事情，但我想确保，尤其是我本人或本案的任何一方，不会因破产法院发生的任何事情而招致可能的制裁。\n\n法院：不会，我不能——我对任何处于破产中的实体均无管辖权。这并不意味着莫斯先生不能向破产法院提出申请。这并不意味着莫斯先生不能在破产法院的任何程序中提及今天庭审的记录，但我完全理解破产法院对于已申请破产实体的自动中止。15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\n米切尔先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：好的。23 24\n\n特里（Terry），你能否向各方提供你的电子邮件\n\ntav\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官（New York County Clerk）11/10/2020 02:41 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文书编号 647 NYSCEF 收到日期：11/10/2020 案件 22-50073 文书 440-16 提交日期 05/25/22 录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 29 页，共 29 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n地址，以便他们可以从该地址订购一份将被订购并以电子方式提交的庭审记录副本？\n\n非常感谢。\n\n祝各位愉快。\n\n莫斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n***\n\n证 明\n\n本人，Terry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔伯格），C.S.R.，纽约州（State of New York）官方法庭记录员，特此证明，上述内容是本人速记记录的真实准确誊本。\n\n_______________________\n\nTerry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔伯格），CSR，CRR\n官方法庭记录员\nSO-ORDERED 11-9-2020\n\ntav","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8396,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:23:12"}