{"id":"court_ctb_440_18","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":440,"sub_number":18,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-25","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 20 May 27, 2021 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 833","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 20**\n\nMay 27, 2021 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 833\n\n| | | 22-50073 | |\n|-----------------------|-----|----------------------------|----|\n| Ho Wan Kwok
IN RE: | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | PAX | | 20 |\n| | | | |\n| | | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full | |\n| | | P.E. | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 2 of 20\n\n> 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNTY OF NEW YORK : CIVIL TERM : PART 61 ------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, INDEX NO: -against- 652077/2017 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, 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 MICROSOFT TEAMS May 27, 2021 B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, J U S T I C E A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorney for the Plaintiff Times Square Tower New York, New York 10036 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. BAKER HOSTETLER, LLP Attorney for the Defendant 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC Attorney for the Defendant GENEVER 162 E. 64th Street New York, New York 10065 BY: AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 3 of\n\n| 1 | YANKWITT
LLP |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Attorney
for
the
Defendant
140
Grand
Street,
Suite
705 |\n| 3 | New
York,
New
York
NY
BY:
DANIEL
ALTER
ESQ. |\n| 4 | |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | |\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 | Karen
Mangano,
CSR |\n| 22 | Senior
Court
Reporter |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 4 of\n\n3\n\n20\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moss, this is your motion. MR. MOSS: Good afternoon, your Honor. We have two requests in our motion. One is compel discovery in response to a subpoena and the other is to modify the Court's restraining order. So I thought I would start with the subpoena. Your Honor, this might be the most straightforward issue that I've argued in front of this Court on this case. CPLR 5223 permits a broad range of discovery on any third party to request information that is relevant - relevant to enforcement of a judgment. As the Court knows, we've been forced -- my client has been forced to serve subpoenas on several third parties trying to find Mr. Kwok's assets because he doesn't hold them in his own name. Perhaps the most important subpoena Pacific Alliance served was a subpoena on an entity called Golden Springs. Golden Springs is a so-called family office for Mr. Kwok's family, but in reality, it is just Mr. Kwok's principal front. It's an entity that he funded entirely with his own money. It's an entity that pays all of the expenses for his lavish lifestyle. Every single expense by their own admission. It pays legal fees for a host of\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 5 of 20\n\n4\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | lawsuits
for
lawyers
to
represent
Mr.
Kwok
in
his
individual |\n| 2 | capacity
in
cases
in
which
Golden
Springs
is
not
even
a |\n| 3 | party. |\n| 4 | It
pays
the
legal
fees
of
a
lawyer
who
represents |\n| 5 | the
entity
that
owns
the
yacht
that's
stonewalling
me
in |\n| 6 | discovery
like
the
others. |\n| 7 | It
pays
the
maintenance
on
the
Sherry-Netherland |\n| 8 | apartment.
We
know
all
of
this
because
Mr.
Kwok
and
his |\n| 9 | lawyers
admitted
it
in
court
filings
and
in
discovery |\n| 10 | responses. |\n| 11 | I
just
want
to
put
a
fine
point
on
it,
your
Honor. |\n| 12 | Mr.
Kwok
has
no
money
or
assets
according
to
him,
but
he |\n| 13 | says
he
funded
this
entire
entity
and
he
uses
it
to
pay |\n| 14 | every
single
one
of
his
expenses,
his
living
expenses. |\n| 15 | What
are
we
talking
about
here,
Judge?
How
is
this |\n| 16 | discovery
possibly
not
permitted
under
the
CPLR?
How
is
it |\n| 17 | not
permitted
relevant
to
enforce
a
judgment? |\n| 18 | The
opposition
that
they
filed,
your
Honor,
it's
a |\n| 19 | frivolous
document,
and
I
want
to
start
with
what's
not
in |\n| 20 | here.
What's
not
in
it
is
a
dispute
about
any
one
of
the |\n| 21 | facts
that
I
just
covered
about
Golden
Springs.
They
ignore |\n| 22 | all
of
them.
They
can't
dispute
them
because
Mr.
Kwok
and |\n| 23 | his
lawyers
admitted
them
in
discovery
responses
and
in |\n| 24 | Court
filings.
So
Golden
Springs
--
one
of
their
arguments |\n| 25 | is
well,
we
have
corporate
documents.
We
respect
the |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 6 of 20\n\nProceedings\n\n5\n\n| 1 | corporate
forum.
We
have
employees.
But
it
doesn't
dispute |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that
it
only
has
one
business
which
is
to
serve
Highness |\n| 3 | Kwok.
It
doesn't
even
say
what
the
business
is
besides
a |\n| 4 | family
office
for
his
business.
They
say
we
have
employees |\n| 5 | that
include
security.
That's
Mr.
Kwok's
bodyguard
who |\n| 6 | comes
to
--
who
comes
with
him
to
my
office
when
I
depose |\n| 7 | him
and
hands
him
bottled
water
because
he's
afraid
that |\n| 8 | we're
agents
of
the
communists
and
my
water
at
my
firm
is |\n| 9 | going
to
kill
him.
I
mean,
Judge,
this
is
not
a
real |\n| 10 | company.
They
pay
for
Mr.
Kwok's
people. |\n| 11 | If
Tim
Cook
got
sued
for
something
unrelating
to |\n| 12 | his
capacity
in
Apple,
Apple
doesn't
pay
those
fees.
Apple |\n| 13 | doesn't
pay
his
maintenance.
This
is
Mr.
Kwok's
piggy
bank |\n| 14 | that
he
set
up
with
his
own
money. |\n| 15 | The
principal
argument
that
is
in
Golden
Spring's |\n| | |\n\npapers is that Golden Springs is a third party and so we should only be entitled to information about assets that it holds for or transactions that it has conducted with Miles Kwok.\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 That's basically like saying it's a bank; right. You get that we subpoena the bank which we've done. We get Mr. Kwok's information, but we don't get information about the bank itself. We don't get information about the bank's other customers. That's a nice argument for a bank, but it completely ignores the context that Golden Springs is not a\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 7 of 20\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n6\n\n# Proceedings\n\n1 2 3 4 5 third party. It is the entity that holds Mr. Kwok's money, and it is the entity that pays his legal expenses. So it's assets are his assets. It's transactions are his transactions. And it's financial information is his financial information.\n\nThe suggestion in the papers that Mr. Kwok and Miss Wang and all of his people should be able to pick and choose and determine which information at Golden Springs relates to Mr. Kwok and which doesn't is a recipe for disaster here, Judge.\n\nMr. Kwok denies even being involved with Golden Springs. He denies being involved with the entity that owns the boat that we all know he owns because he said he owns the boat on YouTube, the boat which, by the way, is still out of the jurisdiction 15 days incurring \\$500,000 a day.\n\nMr. Kwok is the same guy who denies owning his apartment that Miss Wang says -- told the Court under oath that he owns it.\n\nSo the limitation that they're trying to put in here, only things relating to Mr. Kwok, that's nonsense in this case, and it's just a recipe for us to get nothing.\n\n22 23 24 25 Golden Springs also argues on the subpoena that we have to prove alterego to get discovery into it's assets. Well, that's just made up. There is no case to support that.\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 8 of 20\n\nProceedings\n\n7\n\n| 1 | 5223
is
a
broad
standard.
It's
a
generous |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | standard.
The
Court
ordered
Miss
Wang's
information
to
be |\n| 3 | produced
by
the
banks.
They're
not
alteregos.
She's
not
an |\n| 4 | alterego.
Of
course,
we
don't
have
to
prove
that
it's
an |\n| 5 | alterego
to
get
it's
information. |\n| 6 | The
Court
found
that
Miss
Wang
might
be
hiding
Mr. |\n| 7 | Kwok's
assets
and
gave
us
access
to
her
financial |\n| 8 | information.
This
is
much
easier.
He's
already
said
it's |\n| 9 | his
money,
and
he's
using
it
to
pay
all
of
his
expenses.
I |\n| 10 | mean,
there's
no
credible
opposition
to
this
motion. |\n| 11 | Finally,
there's
some
arguments
about
scope.
You |\n| 12 | know,
I
read
it
a
few
times.
My
subpoena
is
astounding. |\n| 13 | It's
blunderbuss.
It's
a
fishing
expedition.
It's |\n| 14 | flagrant.
A
lot
of
adjectives,
but
no
substance.
They |\n| 15 | don't
articulate
any
burden
arguments
at
all. |\n| 16 | Usually
you
say,
Judge,
well,
we
ran
some
search |\n| 17 | terms,
and
there
are
too
many
hits
or
this
is
going
to
be |\n| 18 | too
burdensome
to
get
because
it's
on
a
different
server. |\n| 19 | Nothing.
This
is
basically
just
a
relevance
argument
that |\n| 20 | we're
asking
for
too
much. |\n| 21 | If
they
want
to
have
a
discussion
about
search |\n| 22 | terms
and
custodian
and
which
laptops
to
collect,
we
welcome |\n| 23 | that
discussion.
We
welcome
an
actual
discussion
about |\n| 24 | burden
and
scope.
But
not
just
saying,
well,
we
think
it's |\n| 25 | too
much
without
any
showing
--
any
showing
at
all
that |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 9 of 20\n\nProceedings\n\n8\n\nthere is an actual burden.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\nI want to just end on one particular argument on the subpoena point because I expect Mr. Alter will focus on it. We ask -- we do. He's right. We ask for information about 60 people and entities, no one knowing to be associated with Kwok.\n\nMr. Alter quips in the brief, well, known by whom? Known by whom? Known by us, Judge. Known by us based on spending a lot of money and lot of time to dig through public records, court filings, social media accounts because that's the game Mr. Kwok has forced us to play.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The reason we have to ask for this information is because Golden Springs is the hub. We can't spend the rest of our lives chasing 100 entities. I mean, my grandkids would be doing this. Golden Springs is the entity that has the information. It's produced documents relating to Shiny Times, the entity that was involved in the underlying case. It has the documents. It is the hub of the empire. If it doesn't have information about a couple of these entities, if we're wrong about one or two, okay, fine. Then they should run the search and tell us they don't have it and not produce it. But run the search terms, collect the ESI and provide the documents.\n\n24 25 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Moss. I understand your argument. I also understand that Mr. Kwok is incurring\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 10 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 20\n\n| | 9
Proceedings |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | \\$500,000
a
day
in
contempt
penalties.
I
understand
that
Mr. |\n| 2 | Kwok
believes
that
these
court
proceedings
are
a
game
of |\n| 3 | evasion
that
he
--
that
he
wants
to
play. |\n| 4 | And
let
me
hear
from
counsel
for
Golden
Springs. |\n| 5 | MR.
ALTER:
Good
afternoon,
your
Honor.
It's |\n| 6 | Daniel
Alter,
and
we've
just
heard
a
lot
of
talk
but |\n| 7 | relatively
little
truth,
and
I'd
like
to
step
back
and |\n| 8 | clarify
some
issues
that
were
quite
muddied. |\n| 9 | First
of
all,
to
correct
two
specifically |\n| 10 | inaccurate
statements,
it's
my
understanding
that
Mr.
Kwok |\n| 11 | has
never
said
that
he
is
entirely
unrelated
or
has
no |\n| 12 | connection
to
Golden
Springs.
Quite
the
opposite.
He
said |\n| 13 | that
it
is
his
family
office.
So
let's
be
accurate
about |\n| 14 | that. |\n| 15 | The
second
thing
is
that,
you
know,
apparently
-- |\n| 16 | they
take
the
position
that
Mr.
Kwok
has
entirely
funded |\n| 17 | Golden
Springs.
Well,
I
don't
see
the
evidence
of
that. |\n| 18 | What
I
see
is
a
statement
in
the
record
that
he
initially |\n| 19 | provided
capital
to
Golden
Springs,
but
I
see
no
evidence |\n| 20 | that
he's
continued
to
do
so
or
that
the
capital
there
now |\n| 21 | is
his.
Let
me
step
back
a
moment
and
talk
about
this. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
Before
you
do
so,
Mr.
Alter,
because |\n| 23 | rightly
or
wrongly,
Mr.
Kwok
has
exhausted
the
Court's |\n| 24 | patience
with
his
antics. |\n| 25 | It's
quite
undisputed
that
Golden
Springs
has |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 11 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 20\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\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nProceedings funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle, and Mr. Kwok leads a rather extravagant lifestyle, purports to have zero assets whatsoever. So the plaintiff is a judgment creditor. The plaintiff knows that Golden Springs is funding expenses for Mr. Kwok. Not minor inconsequential expenses. Major expenses. And the judgment creditor is entitled to have discovery of the entity that is funding Mr. Kwok's expenses. The judgment creditor is also entitled to an order directing Golden Springs not to transfer, dispose or otherwise dissipate whatever assets Golden Springs has because the best evidence that has been made available to the Court compellingly suggests that any assets that Golden Springs has were provided to Golden Springs by Mr. Kwok. Now if the discovery that the judgment creditor is seeking from Golden Springs disproves that, well, then we have a different situation than the situation we now have. Under the CPLR, a judgment creditor is entitled to discovery of third parties of which in this case may well be\n\nalteregos of Mr. Kwok, but it's not necessary for the judgment creditor to establish that Golden Springs is an alterego of Mr. Kwok.\n\n23 24 25 MR. ALTER: You know, your Honor, we haven't - that's not our position. That's the straw man that has been presented.\n\nKM\n\n# 10 of 19\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 12 of\n\n25\n\nSpring.\n\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021
20 |\n|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 11 |\n| 1 | Proceedings
THE
COURT:
Well,
be
that
as
it
may,
unless
you
can |\n| 2 | persuade
me
otherwise,
I
am
granting
the
judgment
creditor's |\n| | |\n| 3 | motions
in
their
entirety. |\n| 4 | As
Mr.
Moss
outlined,
he
is
perfectly
prepared
to |\n| 5 | meet
and
confer
and
discuss
limitations
on
specific
requests |\n| 6 | that
he's
made
if
you
can
then
state
to
him
good
cause
for |\n| 7 | that.
But
we're
past
playing
games
here. |\n| 8 | MR.
ALTER:
Well,
your
Honor,
I'm
not
here
to
play |\n| 9 | games,
and
if
the
Court
has
made
it's
decision,
would
it |\n| 10 | allow
me
to
make
my
record. |\n| 11 | THE
COURT:
Yes.
Make
your
record. |\n| 12 | MR.
ALTER:
Okay.
Thank
you,
your
Honor. |\n| 13 | First
of
all,
our
argument
is
not
that
you
have
to |\n| 14 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
in
order
to
get
third-party |\n| 15 | discovery
under
the
CPLR
for
judgment
creditors.
It's
a |\n| 16 | relevance
argument,
and
we've
already
said
that
there
are |\n| 17 | aspects
such
as
discovery
as
between
Golden
Spring
and
the |\n| 18 | actual
judgment
debtor
is
relevant
and
appropriate.
So
we |\n| 19 | haven't
taken
a
position
that
is
all
out
of
line
with
what |\n| 20 | the
law
provides. |\n| 21 | What
we
have
said
and
what
Mr.
Moss
has
proven
in |\n| 22 | his
argument
is
they
take
the
position
that
Mr.
Kwok
is |\n| 23 | Golden
Spring
and
Golden
Spring
is
Mr.
Kwok;
and
therefore, |\n| 24 | they
are
entitled
to
go
through
the
entire
file
of
Golden |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 13 of 20\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n25\n\n# Proceedings\n\n12\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 Well, you know, your Honor, that's called piercing the corporate veil, and it's our position that if they want documents independent of the judgment debtor where they make no connection or efforts to make a connection whatsoever, then, yes, they do have to pierce the corporate veil, but that isn't the sum total of our argument.\n\nOur argument is that the requests are exceedingly overbroad and that they are irrelevant. And in fact, let's go for a moment to the facts that Mr. Moss says are overwhelming in this case.\n\nIf you look at the submission that was actually presented on this motion, there is absolutely no facts presented with regard to the 64 nonparties for which they seek discovery having nothing to do with the judgment debtor. Just -- not even having anything to do with Golden Spring. They just want discovery to 64 nonparties.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Now your Honor, we heard Mr. Moss say that he knows there is a connection. Well, wouldn't it be enlightening for the Court to know what that connection is before there is a ruling that Golden Spring has to produce documents that otherwise are clearly irrelevant. So that's why we assert that those documents should not be discovered unless and until Mr. Moss and PAX comes forward with actual proof that there is a connection. We don't have that.\n\nAnd with regard to the proof, the overwhelming\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 14 of\n\n13\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 20\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | proof
that
Golden
Spring
is
Mr.
Kwok
and
Mr.
Kwok
is
Golden |\n| 2 | Spring,
at
least
from
the
record
I've
seen,
your
Honor,
and |\n| 3 | I
do
not
call
your
Honor's
history
--
historical |\n| 4 | recollection
into
question,
but
what
has
been
presented
on |\n| 5 | this
record
is
Golden
Spring
initially
helped
to
capitalize |\n| 6 | a
company.
A
lot
of
folks
do
that. |\n| 7 | Secondly,
Golden
Spring
pays
for
attorneys
and
has |\n| 8 | contributed
to
paying
for
apartment
expenses.
Well,
okay. |\n| 9 | Three,
employees
of
Golden
Spring
have
attended |\n| 10 | family
interests
that
have
to
do
with
the
Guo
family.
Well, |\n| 11 | it's
a
family
company.
It's
a
family
office. |\n| 12 | And
Golden
Spring's
parent
has
apparently
produced |\n| 13 | documents
in
response
to
discovery
requests.
So
yes, |\n| 14 | there's
a
connection
as
Mr.
Kwok
has
said,
but
there
isn't |\n| 15 | an
identity
of
entity
between
Mr.
Kwok
and
Golden
Spring, |\n| 16 | and
that's
why
we
referred
in
our
papers
to
the
fact
that
if |\n| 17 | that
is
the
case,
the
law
is
very
clear
they
do
need
to |\n| 18 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
and
they
absolutely
would
need
to |\n| 19 | pierce
the
corporate
veil
to
get
injunction.
Because
as
we |\n| 20 | stated,
as
much
as
the
Court
has
lost
patience,
and
I |\n| 21 | understand
your
Honor's
position,
the
law
is
clear
that
an |\n| 22 | entity
as
a
matter
of
due
process
can
not
be
enjoined |\n| 23 | without
actually
being
a
party. |\n| 24 | And
even
if
an
entity
were
brought
into
a |\n| 25 | litigation
as
a
party,
the
Courts
are
constrained.
They
can |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 15 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n14\n\n# Proceedings\n\n20\n\nnot grant prejudgment asset freezes, and that is exactly what PAX is trying to do now. They are trying to enjoin Golden Spring from expending any of it's own assets for any purpose, and that is contrary to the law.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Now, they argue that your Honor has a power to enforce restraining orders. Of course you do. And Golden Spring was served with a restraining order, and Golden Spring acts at it's peril if it transfers any property with which Mr. Kwok -- in which Mr. Kwok has an interest, but a Court's enforcement of a restraining notice is not the tantamount to an injunction. It's an after-the-fact litigation based upon allegations that there had been a violation of the notice. They're two entirely separate things.\n\nSo your Honor, respectfully, there isn't either a jurisdictional basis for the injunction nor is there a compelling factual basis for one because they have the relief that the CPLR has provided for.\n\nNow, if the Court is going to go ahead and enter certain orders as your Honor has described, I request a few things, a few clarification points.\n\n22 23 24 25 First of all, we would request the Court post a bond. Order that PAX post a bond. They are seeking an injunction against Golden Spring from using any of it's assets. And pursuant to the CPLR 6312(b), a bond is\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 16 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021\n\n20\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Proceedings 15 necessary. It's a necessary element for preliminary relief. So we would ask the Court direct that a bond be posted. We would also ask whether under this jurisdiction, Golden Spring is able to pay lawyers. Is it able to pay it's employees? Mr. Moss dismisses the fact that the company actually employs 16 employees and seven independent contractors. Are they not entitled to continue that? Do they need -- is this injunction going to close Golden Spring? We need that clarification because Golden Spring does not want to be in violation of your Honor's order. And finally, you know, your Honor, I would request respectfully a stay of the Court's order for a week so that we may seek appellate relief and seek a stay pending appeal. But given that this is, you know, a holiday weekend, we request that the Court stay because again, as I said, Golden Spring does not want to be in violation of this Court's order; but for all the reasons I've stated, honestly, your Honor, the relief requested is a function of facts that Mr. Moss has asserted as judge, jury and executioner. They haven't been presented. They haven't been adjudicated. They haven't been formally determined, all of which are necessary for the kind of relief for reaching into Golden Spring and setting aside it's individual identity and\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 17 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 20\n\n| | 16
Proceedings |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | just
securing
whatever
documents
it
wants
and
enjoining
all |\n| 2 | of
it's
assets.
That's
necessary
under
the
law. |\n| 3 | Thank
you,
your
Honor. |\n| 4 | THE
COURT:
All
right.
I
take
your
points. |\n| 5 | Nothing
that
you've
said
suggests
that
Golden |\n| 6 | Springs
hasn't
paid
seven
figures
worth
of
Mr.
Kwok's |\n| 7 | expenses
in
the
immediate
recent
past.
Nothing
that
you |\n| 8 | said
alters
the
fact
that
Mr.
Kwok
flaunts
the
Court's |\n| 9 | orders
at
will. |\n| 10 | You're
correct
that
PAX
needs
to
post
a
\\$500,000 |\n| 11 | bond.
You're
correct
that
I
should
stay
these
orders
until |\n| 12 | June
1st
at
five
p.m.
to
enable
you
to
seek
appellate |\n| 13 | relief,
and
you're
correct
that
Golden
Spring
may
pay
it's |\n| 14 | employees
in
accordance
with
a
schedule
listing
the
identity |\n| 15 | of
the
employees
and
the
amount
of
their
compensation
which |\n| 16 | you'll
provide
to
Mr.
Moss.
And
I
think
that
addresses
your |\n| 17 | concerns. |\n| 18 | MR.
ALTER:
With
one
exception,
your
Honor,
and
I |\n| 19 | appreciate
the
Court's
response
to
those
concerns.
The |\n| 20 | attorneys.
The
attorneys
that
Golden
Springs
has
been |\n| 21 | permitted
here
today
to
pay. |\n| 22 | THE
COURT:
There's
no
issue.
Just
need
to |\n| 23 | identify
the
attorneys
and
the
fees
that
you're
paying
to |\n| 24 | them. |\n| 25 | MR.
ALTER:
Okay. |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 18 of 20\n\nProceedings\n\n17\n\n| 1 | THE
COURT:
And,
you
know,
I
note
that
Mr.
Kwok
has |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | apparently
no
concern
for
the
\\$500,000
a
day
sanction
for |\n| 3 | flagrantly
violating
prior
orders
of
the
Court
with
respect |\n| 4 | to
the
boat
that
Golden
Spring's
is
paying
to
maintain
and |\n| 5 | transport.
And
if
my
calculation
is
correct,
the
total
of |\n| 6 | the
contempt
sanctions
to
date
is
\\$7.5
million. |\n| 7 | Mr.
Kwok
is
just
not
free
to
live
in
New
York
at
an |\n| 8 | ultra-luxurious
condominium,
the
cost
of
which
he's
paid
for |\n| 9 | by
Golden
Springs
and
ignore
the
processes
of
the
New
York |\n| 10 | courts. |\n| 11 | Now
does
anybody
else
wish
to
be
heard? |\n| 12 | MR.
MITCHELL:
Your
Honor,
Aaron
Mitchell.
I |\n| 13 | represent
the
Genever
defendants.
Just
one
point
of |\n| 14 | clarification. |\n| 15 | As
you're
well
aware,
your
Honor,
the
Genever |\n| 16 | New
York
which
owns
the
co-op
is
in
bankruptcy
so
Golden |\n| 17 | Spring
is
not
paying
the
maintenance
for
that
apartment. |\n| 18 | I
believe
Mr.
Moss
is
aware
as
well
there
was
a |\n| 19 | security
deposit
paid
which
the
surety
is
drawing
down
on |\n| 20 | which
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
for
the
record. |\n| 21 | THE
COURT:
That
is
a
fair
and
appropriate |\n| 22 | clarification. |\n| 23 | It
doesn't
alter
the
fact
that
prior
to
the
fact |\n| 24 | that
Genever
which
is
another
one
of
Mr.
Kwok's
many |\n| 25 | companies
was
paying
for
Mr.
Kwok's
luxury
apartment. |\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 19 of 20\n\nProceedings\n\n18\n\n| 1 | Mr.
Moss
has
been
pursuing
enforcement
of
a |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | judgment
for
years
now,
and
it's
been
my
misfortune
to
have |\n| 3 | to
have
presided
over
these
many,
many,
many
motions
and |\n| 4 | hearings,
none
of
which
are
producing
the
results
that
the |\n| 5 | Court
has
ordered
because
Mr.
Kwok
directly
or
indirectly |\n| 6 | through
his
companies
ignores
Court
orders. |\n| 7 | But
Golden
Springs
presumably
will
comply
with
the |\n\nBut Golden Springs presumably will comply with the Court's order, and Golden Springs, you know, may seek a stay in the Appellate Division either tomorrow or today or on June 1. And if the Appellate Division stays the Court's order, then the Court's order will be stayed.\n\nOtherwise, the Court expects Golden Springs to comply with the Court's orders subject to PAX's posting of \\$500,000 bond in the event it's determined that there's any overreach here and subject to Golden Springs being able to pay identified lawyers and identified employees in accordance with the schedule.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I just ask one clarification?\n\nTHE COURT: Yes.\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n25\n\n21 22 23 24 MR. SARNOFF: The obligation of PAX to post a bond, is that specifically in respect of the restraining order part of the -- of your decision today? THE COURT: Yes.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: And separate -- so there is no --\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n# NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-18 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 20 of\n\n20\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
With respect to the restraining order. |\n| 2 | MR. SARNOFF: So there is no -- there is no stay |\n| 3 | with respect to the obligation of Golden Spring to comply |\n| 4 | with the subpoena.
Is that correct? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
That's correct. |\n| 6 | MR. SARNOFF:
Thank you, sir. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Anything else from anybody else? |\n| 8 | All right.
The Court will enter a memorandum order |\n| 9 | consistent with the transcript of the proceedings of today. |\n| 10 | I would strongly urge counsel to order an expedited copy of |\n| 11 | the transcript of proceedings of today so that in the event |\n| 12 | Golden Springs seeks a stay from the the Appellate Division, |\n| 13 | there is a clear record reflecting what the Court has |\n| 14 | ordered. |\n| 15 | Have a nice day and a nice weekend.
Everybody stay |\n| 16 | safe and thank you. |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
ORIGINAL MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING. |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | ______________________________
KAREN MANGANO, CSR |\n| 23 | Senior Court Reporter
SO ORDERED: June 1, 2021 |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | KM |","body_zh":"证物 PAX 20\n\n2021年5月27日听证会记录，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），案卷编号 833\n\n22-50073\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n关于：\n\nPAX 20\n\n5/25/2022 全部接纳\nP.E.\n\n1 纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 2 页，共 20 页\n\n纽约县：民事审判庭：第 61 部\n------------------------------------------X\nPACIFIC 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，索引号：\n诉 652077/2017\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，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。\n------------------------------------------X\nMICROSOFT TEAMS\n2021年5月27日\n出庭法官：\n尊敬的 BARRY OSTRAGER（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官\n出庭律师：\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n原告代理律师\nTimes Square Tower\nNew York, New York 10036\n代理律师：EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.\nBAKER HOSTETLER, LLP\n被告代理律师\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n代理律师：MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ.\nJOHN SIEGAL, ESQ.\nLAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC\n被告 GENEVER 代理律师\n162 E. 64th Street\nNew York, New York 10065\n代理律师：AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 3 页，共 20 页\n\nYANKWITT LLP\n\n被告代理律师\n\nGrand Street, Suite\n\nNew York, New York\nNY\n代理律师：\nDANIEL ALTER, ESQ.\n\nKaren Mangano，CSR\n高级法庭记录员\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 4 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法庭：好的，Moss 先生，这是你的动议。\n\nMOSS 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我们的动议提出两项请求。一是强制就传票作出证据开示，二是修改法院的限制令。因此，我想先谈传票。法官阁下，这可能是我在本案中向本庭陈述过的最直接明了的问题。CPLR 5223 允许就任何第三方进行广泛的证据开示，以请求与执行判决有关的信息。正如法庭所知，我们一直被迫——我的当事人一直被迫向数个第三方送达传票，试图查找 Kwok 先生的资产，因为他并不以自己的名义持有这些资产。Pacific Alliance 送达的最重要传票或许是向名为 Golden Springs（黄金泉）的实体送达的传票。Golden Springs 是所谓 Kwok 先生家族的家族办公室，但实际上，它只是 Kwok 先生的主要幌子。该实体完全由他自己的资金注资。该实体支付他奢华生活方式的一切开支。根据他们自己的承认，支付每一笔开支。它为众多诉讼支付律师费，用于由律师在 Golden Springs 甚至并非当事人的案件中代表 Kwok 先生个人。\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 5 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n它支付代表拥有该游艇之实体的律师费；该实体和其他实体一样，在证据开示中对我百般阻挠。\n\n它支付 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的维护费用。我们知道这一切，是因为 Kwok 先生及其律师在法庭文件和证据开示答复中承认了这些事项。\n\n法官阁下，我只是想明确强调这一点。根据 Kwok 先生自己的说法，他没有钱或资产，但他称自己资助了整个实体，并利用该实体支付他的每一项开支，即他的生活费用。\n\n法官，我们谈的到底是什么？这种证据开示怎么可能不获 CPLR 允许？它怎么可能与执行判决无关而不获允许？\n\n法官阁下，他们提交的反对文件是一份毫无根据的文件，我想先说说其中没有什么。其没有的内容，是对我刚刚谈及 Golden Springs 的任何一个事实提出争议。他们全都回避。他们无法提出争议，因为 Kwok 先生及其律师已在证据开示答复和法庭文件中承认了这些事实。因此，Golden Springs——他们的论点之一是，好吧，我们有公司文件。我们尊重公司形式。\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 6 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n我们有雇员。但其并未否认它只有一项业务，即服务 Kwok 殿下。除称其为服务于其业务的家族办公室外，它甚至没有说明该业务是什么。他们说我们有雇员，包括安保人员。那就是 Kwok 先生的保镖；他来——他在我对 Kwok 先生进行证言录取时，陪同他到我的办公室，并递给他瓶装水，因为他害怕我们是共产党特工，而我律所的水会杀死他。我的意思是，法官，这不是真正的公司。他们为 Kwok 先生的人支付费用。\n\n如果 Tim Cook 因与其在 Apple 的身份无关的事情被起诉，Apple 不会支付那些费用。Apple 不会支付他的维护费用。这是 Kwok 先生用自己的钱设立的存钱罐。\n\nGolden Springs 提交文件中的主要论点是，Golden Springs 是第三方，因此我们应当仅有权获得其为 Miles Kwok 持有的资产或其与 Miles Kwok 进行的交易的信息。\n\n这基本上就像是在说它是一家银行；对吧。你们明白我们向银行发出传票——我们已经这样做了。我们获得 Kwok 先生的信息，但我们不会获得关于银行本身的信息。我们不会获得关于银行其他客户的信息。对于一家银行而言，这是个不错的论点，但它完全忽略了 Golden Springs 并非一个第三方这一背景。\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 7 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n它是持有 Kwok 先生资金的实体，也是支付其法律费用的实体。因此，它的资产就是他的资产。它的交易就是他的交易。它的财务信息就是他的财务信息。\n\n文件中提出的说法，即 Kwok 先生、Wang 女士以及他的所有人应当能够挑选并决定 Golden Springs 中哪些信息与 Kwok 先生有关、哪些无关，在本案中将导致灾难性后果，法官。\n\nKwok 先生甚至否认参与 Golden Springs。他否认参与拥有那艘船的实体；我们都知道他拥有该船，因为他在 YouTube 上说过他拥有该船。顺便说一下，该船仍在管辖范围之外 15 天，每天产生 \\$500,000。\n\nKwok 先生也是同一个否认拥有其公寓的人，而 Wang 女士曾在宣誓后告诉法庭他拥有该公寓。\n\n因此，他们试图在此施加的限制，即仅限于与 Kwok 先生有关的事项，在本案中毫无道理，而且只会导致我们一无所获。\n\nGolden Springs 还就传票主张，我们必须证明另我人格才能获得对其资产的证据开示。好吧，这完全是凭空捏造。没有任何案例支持这一点。\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 8 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n5223 是一个宽泛标准。它是一个宽松标准。法庭命令银行提供 Wang 女士的信息。他们不是另我人格。她不是另我人格。当然，我们无需证明其为另我人格，才能获得其信息。\n\n法庭认定 Wang 女士可能在隐匿 Kwok 先生的资产，并允许我们取得她的财务信息。这容易得多。他已经表示那是他的钱，并且正用其支付自己的所有开支。我的意思是，对这项动议不存在可信的反对理由。\n\n最后，还有一些关于范围的论点。您知道，我读了几遍。我的传票令人震惊。它是大而化之的。它是一次摸底式调查。它是公然的。许多形容词，但没有实质内容。他们根本没有提出任何负担方面的论点。\n\n通常你会说，法官，我们运行了一些搜索词，结果命中太多，或者因为信息在另一台服务器上，获取这些内容将造成过重负担。什么都没有。这基本上只是一个相关性论点，即我们要求得太多。\n\n如果他们想就搜索词、保管人以及应当收集哪些笔记本电脑进行讨论，我们欢迎这种讨论。我们欢迎就负担和范围进行实际讨论。但不能只是说，好吧，我们认为太多了，却没有任何证明——根本没有任何证明表明存在实际负担。\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 9 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n我想就传票问题的一个特定论点作结，因为我预计 Alter 先生会着重谈及该论点。我们请求——确实如此。他说得对。我们请求有关 60 人和实体的信息，没有任何人已知与 Kwok 有关联。\n\nAlter 先生在书面意见中打趣道，好吧，谁知道？谁知道？我们知道，法官。我们之所以知道，是基于投入大量资金和大量时间查阅公共记录、法庭文件、社交媒体账户，因为这是 Kwok 先生迫使我们参与的游戏。\n\n我们必须请求这些信息的原因是，Golden Springs 是枢纽。我们不能用余生追查 100 个实体。我的意思是，我的孙辈还得继续做这件事。Golden Springs 是掌握信息的实体。它已出示与 Shiny Times（闪耀时代）有关的文件，该实体涉及基础案件。它有这些文件。它是该帝国的枢纽。如果它没有关于其中几个实体的信息，如果我们对一两个实体判断有误，好吧，可以。那么，他们应当运行搜索并告知我们他们没有这些信息，而不予出示。但要运行搜索词，收集 ESI，并提供文件。\n\n法庭：好的，Moss 先生。我明白你的论点。我也明白 Kwok 先生正在产生\n\n纽约州最高法院，纽约县书记官处提交：06/01/2021 04:48 PM；索引号 652077/2017；NYSCEF 文件编号 833；NYSCEF 收件日期：06/01/2021；案件 22-50073，文件 440-18，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 10 页，共 20 页\n\n诉讼程序\n\n每天 \\$500,000 的藐视法庭罚金。我明白 Kwok 先生认为这些法庭程序是一场他——他想要玩的规避游戏。\n\n让我听取 Golden Springs 代理律师的意见。\n\nALTER 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Daniel Alter，我们刚才听到了很多说辞，但相对而言真相很少，我想退一步澄清一些被严重混淆的问题。\n\n首先，为纠正两项具体不准确的陈述，据我了解，Kwok 先生从未表示他与 Golden Springs 完全无关或没有任何联系。恰恰相反。他说它是他的家族办公室。因此，让我们准确地说明这一点。\n\n第二件事是，您知道，显然\n\n他们的立场是，Kwok先生（郭文贵）完全为Golden Springs（戈尔登斯普林斯）提供了资金。嗯，我没有看到这方面的证据。我所看到的是，记录中有一项陈述称，他最初向Golden Springs提供了资本，但我没有看到任何证据表明他继续这样做，或者目前其中的资本属于他。请允许我退一步谈谈这一点。\n\n法庭：在您这样做之前，Alter先生（奥尔特），因为无论对错，Kwok先生的种种行径已经耗尽了本庭的耐心。\n\n毫无争议的是，Golden Springs已支付七位数金额的款项，以支持Kwok先生的生活方式，而Kwok先生过着相当奢华的生活方式，却声称自己完全没有任何资产。因此，原告是判决债权人。原告知道Golden Springs正在为Kwok先生支付费用。不是轻微、无关紧要的费用，而是重大费用。判决债权人有权向为Kwok先生支付费用的实体进行证据开示。判决债权人还有权获得一项命令，指示Golden Springs不得转让、处分或以其他方式耗散Golden Springs所拥有的任何资产，因为向本庭提供的最佳证据有力地表明，Golden Springs拥有的任何资产均由Kwok先生提供。现在，如果判决债权人向Golden Springs寻求的证据开示证明事实并非如此，那么我们所面临的情况就不同于目前的情况。根据CPLR，判决债权人有权向第三方进行证据开示，而在本案中，该等第三方很可能是Kwok先生的另一自我，但判决债权人无须证明Golden Springs是Kwok先生的另一自我。\n\nAlter先生：法官阁下，您知道，我们没有——那不是我们的立场。那是对方提出的稻草人论证。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 案件 22-50073 文件 440-18 于 05/25/22 提交，于 05/26/22 15:30:37 登记 第11页，共\n\nNYSCEF文件编号833 已收到NYSCEF：06/01/2021\n\n庭审记录\n\n法庭：嗯，不管怎样，除非您能说服我作出不同判断，我将全部准许判决债权人的各项动议。\n\n正如Moss先生（莫斯）所概述的，如果您能够向他说明具有正当理由，他已完全准备好会面协商，并讨论对其提出的具体请求作出限制。但我们已经过了在这里玩游戏的阶段。\n\nAlter先生：法官阁下，我不是来玩游戏的；如果法庭已经作出决定，是否允许我陈述以载入记录。\n\n法庭：可以。请陈述以载入记录。\n\nAlter先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n首先，我们的论点并不是，为使判决债权人根据CPLR取得第三方证据开示，必须刺破公司面纱。这是一个相关性论点，而且我们已经表示，诸如Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）与实际判决债务人之间的证据开示等事项，是相关且适当的。因此，我们并未采取任何完全偏离法律规定的立场。\n\n我们所说的，以及Moss先生在其论证中所证明的，是他们的立场为Kwok先生就是Golden Spring，而Golden Spring就是Kwok先生；因此，他们有权查阅Golden Spring的全部档案。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号833 已收到NYSCEF：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 440-18 于 05/25/22 提交，于 05/26/22 15:30:37 登记 第13页，共20页\n\n庭审记录\n\n嗯，法官阁下，您知道，这就叫作刺破公司面纱；我们的立场是，如果他们想取得与判决债务人无关的文件，而他们完全没有建立关联或试图建立关联，那么，是的，他们确实必须刺破公司面纱，但这并非我们论点的全部。\n\n我们的论点是，这些请求过于宽泛，并且不具相关性。事实上，让我们暂且看看Moss先生所称本案中压倒性的事实。\n\n如果您查看在本项动议中实际提交的材料，关于他们寻求对64名非当事人进行证据开示的事项，绝对没有提出任何事实，而这些非当事人与判决债务人毫无关系。甚至——与Golden Spring也毫无关系。他们只是想对64名非当事人进行证据开示。\n\n现在，法官阁下，我们听到Moss先生说他知道存在关联。那么，在裁定Golden Spring必须提交本来显然不具相关性的文件之前，让法庭知道该关联是什么，难道不会有助于澄清吗？因此，这就是我们主张不应对这些文件进行证据开示的原因，除非并直至Moss先生和PAX提出存在关联的实际证据。我们没有这种证据。\n\n关于证据，即证明Golden Spring就是Kwok先生、Kwok先生就是Golden Spring的压倒性证据，至少根据我所看到的记录，法官阁下，我并不质疑法官阁下的历史性——历史回忆，但本记录中所提交的是，Golden Spring最初帮助一家公司注入资本。很多人都会这样做。\n\n其次，Golden Spring支付律师费用，并且曾资助支付公寓费用。嗯，好吧。\n\n第三，Golden Spring的雇员曾处理与Guo家族有关的家庭事务。嗯，这是一家家族公司。这是一家家族办公室。\n\n而且，Golden Spring的母公司显然已就证据开示请求提交了文件。因此，正如Kwok先生所说，确实存在关联，但Kwok先生与Golden Spring之间并不存在实体同一性，这就是我们在书面文件中提到的原因：如果情况如此，法律非常明确，他们确实需要刺破公司面纱；而且，为取得禁令，他们绝对需要刺破公司面纱。因为正如我们所述，尽管法庭已经失去耐心，而且我理解法官阁下的立场，法律明确规定，作为正当程序问题，一个实体若非实际当事人，就不能被施加禁令。\n\n即使一个实体被作为当事人纳入诉讼，法院也受到限制。法院不能批准判决前资产冻结，而这正是PAX现在试图做的事情。他们试图禁止Golden Spring将其任何自有资产用于任何目的，这违反法律。\n\n现在，他们主张法官阁下有权执行限制令。当然您有此权力。Golden Spring已被送达一项限制令，如果其转让Kwok先生——Kwok先生享有权益的任何财产，Golden Spring将自行承担风险；但法院对限制通知的执行并不等同于禁令。这是在事后基于有人违反该通知的指称而进行的诉讼。两者是完全不同的事项。\n\n因此，法官阁下，恭敬地说，禁令既没有管辖权依据，也没有令人信服的事实依据，因为他们已有CPLR所提供的救济。\n\n现在，如果法庭将如法官阁下所述继续作出某些命令，我请求若干事项，若干澄清要点。\n\n首先，我们请求法庭要求提供保证金。命令PAX提供保证金。他们寻求禁止Golden Spring使用其任何资产。根据CPLR 6312(b)，保证金是必要的。它是临时救济的必要要素。因此，我们请求法庭指示提供保证金。我们还请求确认，在本辖区内，Golden Spring是否可以支付律师费用？是否可以支付其雇员？Moss先生淡化了该公司实际雇用了16名雇员和七名独立承包人的事实。他们无权继续这样做吗？该禁令是否会关闭Golden Spring？我们需要这一澄清，因为Golden Spring不希望违反法官阁下的命令。最后，法官阁下，我谨请求将法庭的命令暂缓一周，以便我们寻求上诉救济并寻求上诉期间暂缓执行。但是，鉴于这是一个节假日周末，我们请求法庭暂缓执行，因为如我所言，Golden Spring不希望违反本庭命令；但基于我所陈述的所有理由，坦率地说，法官阁下，所请求的救济取决于Moss先生以法官、陪审团和执行官的身份所主张的事实。这些事实尚未被提交，尚未被裁判，也尚未被正式认定，而所有这些对于深入干预Golden Spring、否定其独立实体身份，并仅仅取得其想要的任何文件和禁止其全部资产的此类救济，都是必要的。这是法律所要求的。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我理解您的观点。\n\n您所说的任何内容都没有表明Golden Springs在最近的过去没有支付Kwok先生七位数金额的费用。您所说的任何内容都没有改变Kwok先生随意藐视本庭命令这一事实。\n\n您说得对，PAX需要提供$500,000保证金。您说得对，我应当将这些命令暂缓至June 1st下午五时，以使您能够寻求上诉救济；您也说得对，Golden Spring可以按照列明雇员身份及其报酬金额的清单支付其雇员，您将把该清单提供给Moss先生。我认为这解决了您的关切。\n\nAlter先生：法官阁下，只有一个例外，而且我感谢法庭对这些关切的回应。律师。Golden Springs今天被允许支付的律师费用。\n\n法庭：没有问题。只需注明律师身份以及您向他们支付的费用。\n\nAlter先生：好的。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 06/01/2021 04:48 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号833 已收到NYSCEF：06/01/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 440-18 于 05/25/22 提交，于 05/26/22 15:30:37 登记 第18页，共20页\n\n庭审记录\n\n法庭：并且，您知道，我注意到Kwok先生已经\n\n2　显然毫不在意因公然违反本院此前就 Golden Springs（戈尔登斯普林斯）支付费用维护和运输的船舶所作命令而被处以的每日 \\$500,000 制裁。且如本人计算无误，截至目前藐视法庭制裁总额为 \\$7.5 million。Kwok（郭文贵）先生无权住在纽约的一套超豪华共管公寓内——其费用由 Golden Springs 支付——同时无视纽约法院的司法程序。\n\n11　现在还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\n12　MITCHELL（米切尔）先生：法官阁下，我是 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）。我代表 Genever（吉尼弗）被告。仅作一点澄清。\n\n15　如您十分清楚，法官阁下，拥有该合作公寓的 Genever New York（吉尼弗纽约）正在破产程序中，因此 Golden Spring 并未支付该公寓的维护费用。我相信 Moss（莫斯）先生也知道，已经支付了一笔保证金，担保人正在从中扣款。我只是希望为记录明确这一点。\n\n21　本院：这是公平且适当的澄清。\n\n23　这并不改变以下事实：在 Genever——Kwok 先生众多公司中的另一家——破产之前，该公司一直在为 Kwok 先生的豪华公寓支付费用。\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 833　收到 NYSCEF：06/01/2021　案件 22-50073　文件 440-18　提交 05/25/22　登记 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 19 页，共 20 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　Moss 先生多年来一直在寻求执行一项判决书，而不幸的是，本人不得不主持如此多、如此多、如此多的动议和听证会；这些动议和听证会均未产生本院所命令的结果，因为 Kwok 先生直接或间接通过其公司无视本院命令。\n\n7　但 Golden Springs 推定将遵守本院的命令，并且 Golden Springs，您知道，可以在明日、今日或 6 月 1 日向 Appellate Division（上诉分庭）申请暂缓执行。若上诉分庭暂缓执行本院命令，则本院命令将被暂缓执行。\n\n否则，本院期望 Golden Springs 遵守本院命令，但以 PAX（PAX）缴纳 \\$500,000 保证金为条件，以防认定本案存在任何越权情形；并以 Golden Springs 能够依照该时间表向已确定的律师及已确定的员工付款为条件。\n\nSARNOFF（萨诺夫）先生：法官阁下，我是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我可以只请求澄清一点吗？\n\n本院：可以。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：PAX 缴纳保证金的义务，是否具体是就您今日裁定中限制令部分而言？\n\n本院：是。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：并且是单独的——所以不存在——\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM　案号 652077/2017\nNYSCEF 文件编号 833　收到 NYSCEF：06/01/2021　案件 22-50073　文件 440-18　提交 05/25/22　登记 05/26/22 15:30:37　第 20 页，共\n\n庭审记录\n\n1　本院：就限制令而言。\n\n2　SARNOFF 先生：因此，就 Golden Spring 遵守传票的义务而言，不存在——不存在暂缓执行。对吗？\n\n5　本院：正确。\n\n6　SARNOFF 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n7　本院：还有其他人有任何事项吗？\n\n8　好的。本院将作出与今日庭审记录一致的备忘录命令。\n\n10　本人强烈敦促各方律师订购一份今日庭审记录的加急副本，以便若 Golden Springs 向上诉分庭申请暂缓执行，有一份清楚的记录反映本院已作出的命令。\n\n15　祝各位愉快，也祝各位周末愉快。各位都请注意安全，谢谢。\n\n18　兹证明，本记录系本次程序所作原始庭审记录的真实、准确副本。\n\n22　______________________________\nKAREN MANGANO（凯伦·曼加诺），CSR\n23　高级法庭记录员\n据此命令：June 1, 2021\n\nKM","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":833,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4297,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:53:37"}