{"id":"court_ctb_441_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":441,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-05-25","title":"Exhibit UCC-1 February 9, 2022 Decision and Order on Motion for Contempt in PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit UCC-1\n\nFebruary 9, 2022 Decision and Order on Motion for Contempt in PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. No. 1181.\n\n|                       |     | 22-50073                   |  |  |  |  |\n|-----------------------|-----|----------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok<br>IN RE: |     |                            |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     |                            |  |  |  |  |\n|                       | UCC | 1                          |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     |                            |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     | P.E.                       |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     |                            |  |  |  |  |\n|                       |     |                            |  |  |  |  |\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                                                             | PART                       | IAS MOTION 61EFM |  |\n|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|--|\n|          | Justice                                                                            |                            |                  |  |\n|          | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X |                            |                  |  |\n|          | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND                                             |                            |                  |  |\n| L.P.,    |                                                                                    | INDEX NO.                  | 652077/2017      |  |\n|          | Plaintiff,                                                                         |                            |                  |  |\n|          | -<br>v -                                                                           | MOTION DATE                |                  |  |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN                                          | MOTION SEQ. NO.            | 019              |  |\n|          | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                                    |                            |                  |  |\n|          | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a                                            |                            |                  |  |\n|          | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and                                             | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |                  |  |\n|          | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,                                                      |                            |                  |  |\n|          |                                                                                    |                            |                  |  |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 3 of 11\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.<sup>1</sup> This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 5 of 11\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n<sup>2</sup> \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 6 of 11\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 7 of 11\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 8 of 11\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 9 of 11\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 10 of 11\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 11 of 11\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**","body_zh":"证据 UCC-1\n\n2022年2月9日关于 PAX 诉 Kwok 案中藐视法庭动议的决定与裁定，索引号 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.［纽约州最高法院］），待审案件卷宗号（Dkt. No.）1181。\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭浩云）\n\nUCC 1\n\n5/25/2022 全面采纳\nP.E.\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院） NEW YORK COUNTY（纽约县）\n\n审理法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 法庭 IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n原告，\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n诉 -\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（郭浩云），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（杰纳弗控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰纳弗控股公司），\n被告。\n动议日期\n动议序号 019\n动议决定 + 裁定\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n在这起包含 1,180 项待审案件卷宗记录的 2017 年案件中——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，以下称“Kwok”）企图通过将其实质性个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信及家庭成员名下来规避并欺骗其债权人的行为——本法院须判定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，以下称“PAX”）是否已承担证明责任，证明法院应当对 Kwok 下达民事藐视法庭的最终裁定。基于下述理由，本法院正同时签发一份民事藐视法庭的最终裁定。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日获得了针对 Kwok 金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF 档号 716）。此后，PAX 付出了长达一年的努力来执行其判决，首先是识别、随后试图扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在识别 Kwok 实际控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称身价数十亿美元的 Kwok 已将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体网络和家庭成员名下。这一安排使 Kwok 得以声称自己没有资产，尽管他过着极其奢华的生活——原告已通过社交媒体剪辑、照片和录像资料对其进行了梳理，显示 Kwok 挥金如土，夸耀自己的财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。\n已归档：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 档号 441-1 归档于 05/25/22 入账于 05/26/22 15:59:53 第 3 页，共 11 页\n\n正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日的庭审笔录所指出的，该证据的证明力极低，因为出示该证据的证人除了知道这些内容可在各网站上获取之外，对该“证据”的真实性并没有第一手了解。\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证词，并接受了交叉询问。该听证会是在 PAX 为查找和扣押被告 Kwok 名下资产而进行了旷日持久的法律程序之后举行的。除其他事项外，这些程序确立了 Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使着支配权和控制权，并促使法院发布了一系列限制令，限制 Kwok 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本法院的司法管辖管辖区。第一份此类裁定发布于 2020 年 9 月 30 日（详见下文），随后是 2020 年 10 月 15 日的裁定，该裁定限制“Kwok 先生和/或……名为‘Lady May’的游艇的登记所有人”离开司法管辖区。（NYSCEF 档号 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在 Lady May 上度过。在导致 2020 年 9 月 30 日和 10 月 15 日限制令的程序进行的同时，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，随后驶往巴哈马。2021 年 3 月 16 日，本法院签发了一项附条件的民事藐视法庭裁定，责令如果 Kwok 未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 归还至本法院的司法管辖区，则 Lady May 停留在本法院司法管辖区之外的每一天，他都将面临每天 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（第一部门上诉法庭）维持了本法院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事藐视法庭的裁定，认为“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强烈\n\n敦促被告消除其藐视法庭状态，尽管被告被允许这样做，但他并未表现出任何消除藐视法庭状态的意愿……”NYSCEF 档号 953，199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉法庭进一步裁定：\n\n动议法庭在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭方面属于酌情权范围内行事，因为原告以明晰且有说服力的证据证明被告违反了其知晓的合法、明确的法院命令，并且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（参见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753［《司法法》第 753 条］）。……指示动议法庭进行证据听证会，以解决有关该游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉法庭的裁定，本法院安排了 2022 年 2 月 2 日的证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实际拥有并控制该游艇的问题。Kwok 未能在 2022 年 2 月 2 日的听证会上作证，他此前在应对 PAX 的资产取证工作时，援引了宪法第五修正案的权利，拒绝就涉及 Lady May 的事项作证或回应证据开示请求。PX 27、28、29、30。1 尽管援引了第五修正案，Kwok 依然是多个诉讼场所的积极诉讼当事人，他曾在此程序及其他程序中提供过先前的证词。\n\nKwok 还在本法院提起过一份题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng（郭文贵又名迈尔斯·郭诉曾宏），案号 157025/2020 的起诉状，其中引用了 Freebeacon.com 于 2017 年 9 月 8 日发表的一篇博客文章，Kwok 在该文章中抱怨“涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的几起事件……”（起诉状第 8 段，NYSCEF 档号 001）（“《曾案起诉状》”）。《曾案起诉状》将 Kwok 描述为一名“直言不讳的中共批评者”，他曾“竭尽全力揭露中共及中国政府内部猖獗的腐败”。《华盛顿邮报》报道称，特朗普总统的前顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 游艇上被捕，并将班农先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友和商业\n\n1 “PX” 指原告的庭审证据（Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits）。\n已归档：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 档号 441-1 归档于 05/25/22 入账于 05/26/22 15:59:53 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n伙伴，Kwok 是“一名在网络上直言不讳批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报机构关系密切，但目前因涉嫌诈骗、敲诈和行贿罪名被北京当局通缉”。其他新闻机构也曾报道，班农先生曾多次使用 Kwok 的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n听证会上从被告方证人口中获取的证词清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok 实际拥有并控制着 Lady May，并对本法院和司法程序抱有极其蔑视的态度。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，以下称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上出示的证词表明，2014 年 Kwok 无偿将 HK International 100% 的权益转让给了一位名叫 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。屈女士是郭氏家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。此后 Kwok 逃离中国，2015 年 2 月 23 日，HK International 以 2800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了 Lady May。听证会上出示的证词均未确立购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）无可反驳的证词证实，屈女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。庭审笔录 44。2 因此，一个合理的推论是，Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。无可争议的是，屈女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日前后以 $1 或无偿形式将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了 Kwok 的女儿郭美。庭审笔录 47。根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 档号 1162），郭女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了现产权所有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，以下称“HK USA”）。郭女士进一步坚称她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 每年数百万美元的全部\n\n2 “Tr.” 指证据听证会的笔录，电子归档于 NYSCEF 档号 1179。\n已归档：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 档号 441-1 归档于 05/25/22 入账于 05/26/22 15:59:53 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\n开支，包括燃油、维护、船长及船员费用，均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下称“Golden Spring”）支付，而该公司据称是郭氏家族的家族办公室。\n\n在听证会上，郭女士作证称是她哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。庭审笔录 46。法院无法采信这一证词，因为没有任何证据表明郭女士的哥哥参与了促成郭女士取得该游艇产权的公司交易。而且，事实上，在回答法院的提问时，郭女士承认，在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她哥哥均未参与。庭审笔录 47。\n\n听证会上出示的其他证词表明，Kwok 每年夏天都频繁出现在游艇上，而郭女士则很少登艇。庭审笔录 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与他往年夏天的惯例一致。庭审笔录 87:24-88:7。在本法院签发 2020 年 9 月 30 日限制令后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被派往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并随后于 2021 年 10 月被派往意大利，据称是听从 Golden Spring 的指示。郭女士承认，她知悉本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的限制令，以及本法院随后于 2021 年 3 月 16 日签发的责令将 Lady May 归还至法院管辖区的裁定。庭审笔录 55；57-60；62。\n\n郭女士作证称，一方面是她指示了 Lady May 的行程，但另一方面又作证称，出于对 Kwok 安全的担忧，任何行程都不会形成书面记录。庭审笔录 52。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在没有她陪同的情况下登上游艇时，他有自由选择想去的任何地方。庭审笔录 50。然而，根本问题在于，是谁在 2020 年 10 月指示将该游艇移出本法院的司法管辖区。郭女士声称，在 2020 年 10 月初，她不再希望\n已归档：纽约县书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 档号 1181 NYSCEF 收到日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 档号 441-1 归档于 05/25/22 入账于 05/26/22 15:59:53 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给了 Golden Spring，Golden Spring 随后将其指示转达给了当时的船长 Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。庭审笔录 53。\n\n在进一步追问下，郭女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将游艇移至更温暖的地方。庭审笔录 55。郭女士随后重复了她此前已撤回的证词，即她哥哥把游艇送给了她，并表示她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。庭审笔录 56。鉴于本法院曾于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发了一项临时限制令，限制 Kwok\n\n……进行或促成任何对其拥有利益的财产的出售、让与、转让或干涉，或清偿、处置目前已到期或此后即将到期应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222（《纽约州民事诉讼法与规则》第 5222 条）所规定的除外情形以及在通常业务过程中发生的情形除外。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May（梅号）游艇当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）作证称，在 2020 年 10 月初 Lady May 启航前往 Florida（佛罗里达州）的“几天前”（显然是在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日裁定下达之后），Mr. Kwok（Kwok 先生/郭先生，即 Ho Wan Kwok［郭文贵］）告诉 Heaslop 船长，郭将不再作为 Lady May 上的宾客。Tr. 89。Heaslop 船长还反驳了 Ms. Guo（郭女士，即郭美）关于郭女士曾就游艇的航行向 Heaslop 船长发出指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认，其随后阅读了法院于 2021 年 3 月 16 日作出的要求在 2021 年 5 月 31 日前将 Lady May 归还至本院管辖范围内的裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与她的律师（其律师费由 Golden Spring［金泉公司］支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她对该裁定未予理会。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（游艇动物园有限责任公司）的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，他的公司与 HK USA（香港美国公司）签订了日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，并且他与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 进行过沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）也作出了同样的证言。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭女士关于她拥有并\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 8 of 11\n\n控制 Lady May 的证言在任何方面都不可采信。郭女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明她对 Lady May 行使了支配和控制权，也未提供任何证据证实她占有 Lady May 除了作为阻止其父亲的债权人对 Lady May 申请强制执行的诡计之外还有其他事实依据。\n\n郭围绕 Lady May 精心策划的“三张牌/空手套白狼”骗局相关的诸般操弄，与郭在本诉讼悬而未决的五年期间所采取的每一次规避和蔑视法庭的行为如出一辙，这也是本案卷宗记录多达 1,180 项的原因。\n\n根据 Judiciary Law（《司法法》）\n\n§ 753，本院有权裁定郭构成民事藐视法庭——并“通过罚款和监禁对其予以惩处”——只要（如本案中）法院“明确认定［郭的］行为旨在或者确实挫败、损害、阻碍或妨碍了民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济途径。”Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定了四项要件：\n\n要在特定案件中认定存在藐视法庭行为，必须确定：［1］存在一份明确表达了明确无误之训令的法院有效合法命令。［2］必须具有合理确定性地表明该命令已被违抗……［3］此外，被裁定藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的命令，尽管该命令不一定非要实际送达给该当事人……［4］最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了损害。\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证言符合该标准的每一项要件。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）已有此暗示。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021)（“［PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）已经］以清楚且具说服力的证据证明［郭］违反了\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 9 of 11\n\n法院的一项合法的、明确的命令，且其对此命令是知情的，并且该违反行为导致了对原告权利的损害……”）。\n\nPAX 持续遭受的“损害”程度取决于 PAX 是否已证明其最终可对 Lady May 申请强制执行，以清偿其目前针对郭的数亿美元的判决债权。根据 CPLR（《民事诉讼法与规则》）§ 5225，在债务人持有必要的“权益”时，“金钱或其他动产”可被申请强制执行。为满足这一要求，“判决债务人对该财产拥有法定所有权并非必要条件；拥有实益权益即可。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物拥有的权利或期待权……相对于该物的法定所有权而言。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引《布莱克法律词典》第 9 版（2009 年）关于“Interest”的释义）。郭在 Lady May 中拥有的远不止是实益权益。郭不仅控制着该游艇，而且看起来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享有该游艇使用权的人。\n\n关键因素在于“该财产是否使［实益所有人］受益，如同其直接获得了该财产一样。”同上（援引 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)［维持驳回判决债务人因将其财产权益转让给其女儿故不再持有该财产权益的主张］；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)［准许判决债权人提出的财产移交动议，尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，因为即使属实，证据亦显示其“保留了对该财产的控制权和/或权益”］）。\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 10 of 11\n\n证据清楚且具说服力地表明郭持有 Lady May 的实益权益并控制该游艇。关于后者，本院注意到 Zeng（曾）案的提起，并从全案记录事实中推定郭已采取非同寻常的手段来屏蔽其债权人对该游艇的追索。此外，郭的“家族办公室”资助了该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n本院认定，郭女士的证言不仅前后不一、虚伪掩饰，而且被 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长以及 Stockil 先生的证言严重动摇——他们表示，在她直接或间接持有游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未听从过郭女士关于游艇方面的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州确立的法律明确规定，当事人在民事诉讼中援引 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）“可构成作出不利事实推定的依据。”DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。只要需要或允许进行事实认定，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情境中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据证人缺席规则，“事实审理者可以根据相对方证据所允许的最强程度，对未出庭作证的证人作出不利推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“对证据所引起的实质性争议问题应属知情”的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权依据上述两条途径获得不利推定。针对 PAX 的判决后证据开示，包括具体针对 Lady May 的请求，郭均援引了其反强迫自证其罪的第五修正案权利。尽管郭\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 441-1 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:59:53 Page 11 of 11\n\n辩称此处不宜作出不利推定，因为“只有在初步证明某项证据具有真实性之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但该主张自身便站不住脚。PAX 已经提供了大量可采凭证，证明郭对 Lady May 拥有必要的实益权益和控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（阐释证据如果“倾向于证明实质性事实的存在或不存在，即本案直接争议的事实”，则具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 已处于本院管辖范围之外长达 268 天。根据本院处以并经上诉法庭确认的每日 $500,000 的罚款，由此产生的罚款总额将达 $134,000,000.00，这已超过了 PAX 近 1.2 亿美元的未受偿判决金额，并且是 Lady May 购买价格 GBP £ 28 million（2800 万英镑）的数倍。然而，如果身家亿万的诉讼当事人可以在明知且故意违反法院命令的同时，试图利用纽约及美国其他地方的法院程序，那么法治将荡然无存。郭必须在本院附带录入通知的裁定送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000.00。如果罚款未被及时支付，本院准备根据《司法法》第 753 条行使其全部权力。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n勾选一项：案件已结 X 非最终处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他 申请：确定裁定 提交裁定 若适用请勾选：包含移交/重新分配 破产管理人指定 转交案情审查","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3722,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:49:56"}