{"id":"court_ctb_475_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":475,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":null,"title":"EXHIBIT A INDEX NO. 158140/2 TILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS 1362022222216:16633 views No. 1581472017","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n# INDEX NO. 158140/2 TILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS 1362022222216:16633 views No. 1581472017\n\n# SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nRUI MA,\n\nIndex. No. 158140/2017\n\nPlaintiff,\n\n-against-\n\n# AMENDED VERIETED COMPLAINT\n\nGUO WENGUI a/k/a MILES KWOK and GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.,\n\nDefendants.\n\nPlaintiff Rui Ma (\"Plaintiff\"), by her undersigned attorneys, as and for her verified complaint against defendant Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok (\"Defendant Guo\"), and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (a/k/a Shiny Times Holding Limited, Spirit Charter Investment Limited and Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.) (\"Golden Spring\") respectfully alleges as follows:\n\n#### PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n1. Defendant Guo carefully cultivated an image of himself as a cultured political dissident who stands up to -- and exposes the rampant corruption within -- the tyrannical government of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\").\n\n2. This public persona, however, is a smokescreen, largely facilitated by Defendant Guo's considerable personal wealth and prominent connections in the West.\n\n3. -In fact, this crafted fiction serves not only to satisfy the ego of Defendant Guo and those who affiliate with him; it further provides Defendant Guo with a means to mask the campaign of intimidation and terror he unleashes regularly upon those few of his employees, like Plaintiff, who dare not submit themselves entirely to his domination.\n\n4. By this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recompense from Defendant Guo for his repeated acts of mental cruelty and sexual violence, so that Defendant Guo -- who has fled the\n\n#### of 27\n\nFITEED :\n\njurisdictions in which he could be held criminally responsible - might be held accountable in a civil forum for his wrongs.\n\n#### THE PARTIES\n\npostage 22-50073 - Doc 475-1 - Filed 06/20/2/2012 - 16:16 08/20/22 16:16 232 10 - 158140 - 158140 - 158140 - 158140 - 158140\n\nINDEX NO. 158140/\n\n5. Plaintiff is a 28-year old woman who is a Chinese national and who was, at all relevant times relevant here, employed as an assistant to Defendant Guo. Plaintiff swears to the accuracy of the claims set forth herein by the verification attached to this pleading.\n\n6. Defendant Guo is a 50-year old man, who is also a Chinese national.\n\nAt all relevant times, Defendant Guo was, and remains, a New York resident 7. living in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel in an apartment that has been valued at approximately \\$68 million, located at 781 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.\n\n8. Defendant Golden Spring is a Delaware Corporation affiliated with Defendant Guo, which is authorized to, and in fact does, business in the State of New York, with, upon information and belief, offices located at 767 Fifth Avenue.\n\n9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo has used, and continues to use, an alias, which he perpetuates via forged and false official travel documents in connection with his international travel, to avoid the detection of relevant authorities.\n\n10. For example, on information and belief, Defendant Guo has traveled under the name Ho Wan Kwok and had official travel documents issued in that name, which is fictitious.\n\n11. It has been reported that Defendant has now sought asylum in the United States, claiming that he has become \"a political opponent of the Chinese regime.\"\n\nhttp r=0\n\n12. Upon information and belief, Defendant's asylum application, which allows him to remain in the United States perhaps for years, is nothing more than a ruse to enable him to continue to avoid answering for his crimes against Plaintiff in the PRC.\n\n#### JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n13. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter given that Defendant Guo is a resident of the State of New York.\n\n. 14. Venue in this County is proper pursuant to CPLR 503 since Defendant Guo is a resident of this County.\n\n#### FACTS SUPPORT CLAIMS\n\nDefendant Guo is a well-known Chinese national with an estimated net worth in 15. excess of \\$2 billion.\n\n16. Defendant Guo has fashioned a particular persona via the media, such that he is lauded by some as a courageous dissident who has, at personal risk, detailed myriad allegations of corruption at the government of the PRC.\n\n17. Not surprisingly, Defendant Guo's claims have resulted in a fair amount of press coverage, both locally and abroad, wherein Defendant Guo is depicted as a whistleblower albeit one with an indisputably checkered past rife with allegations of economic fraud. See, e.g., http\n\njinping.html?mcubz=1.\n\n18. By his narrative, Defendant Guo hopes to obtain political support for a petition for asylum in the United States, where he has yet to answer any of these the grave charges of misconduct pending in his homeland.\n\n## Plaintiff Is Lured Away from her Family and Friends\n\nPerhaps emboldened by the respite from his foibles in the PRC afforded him by 19. the status of his New York address and the prominence of his connections in the United States, Defendant Guo commenced building an infrastructure that would allow for him to continue conducting business.\n\n20. To this end, Defendant Guo established a staff for himself.\n\n21. In April 2015, Plaintiff, who was then employed by one of Defendant Guo's China-based affiliated entities, was told that she was to travel to New York for one week.\n\n22. This was a ruse. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, she would not return to her home until almost three years later.\n\n#### Plaintiff's \"Employment\" Commences\n\n23. After meeting Defendant Guo for the first time in New York, Plaintiff realized that she had taken no ordinary business trip.\n\nShe was advised that she had arrived to act as Defendant Guo's assistant. 24.\n\n25. In this capacity, she would be required to remain with Defendant Guo in New York City, and to travel with him to many different countries, including the United Kingdom (\"U.K.\") and the Bahamas.\n\n26. Defendant Guo further advised Plaintiff that, given that she was now in his employ, she could not at any point return to the PRC. If she did, Defendant Guo warned, Plaintiff would be arrested and thrown in prison, where she would be tortured.\n\n27. To ensure that Plaintiff did not leave on her own, Defendant Guo forcibly took away Plaintiff's passport, and precluded Plaintiff from accessing it.\n\n28. Defendant Guo further closely monitored her telephonic and electronic communication access, choosing when she could use her phone and laptop, and obtaining from her the passwords she used for Facebook and other applications. He further had her internet browser monitored, so that he would be aware of any \"inappropriate\" website activity.\n\nDefendant Guo additionally forbad Plaintiff from independently fraternizing in 29. any way with others outside his presence. She was to have permission to call her parents; no other contact with family or friends was permitted.\n\n30. Plaintiff's isolation was exacerbated by the fact that she was not, at this time, a proficient English speaker. Accordingly, her limited opportunity to communicate with anyone while confined within Defendant Guo's entourage in non-Chinese speaking countries was virtually non-existent.\n\n31. As a result of Defendant Guo's actions, almost immediately upon her arrival to the United States and at all relevant times thereafter, Plaintiff effectively became Defendant Guo's captive.\n\n#### Defendant Guo's Abuse Turns Physical\n\n32. Once he had obtained physical control over her person, Defendant Guo began to terrorize her.\n\n33. Among other things, for example, Defendant Guo would require that Plaintiff work until 2 a.m. or 4 a.m., seven days a week -- depriving her of any real opportunity to sleep.\n\n34. When she made a mistake of any sort (whether it be defying one of Defendant Guo's \"rules\" or simply failing to attend to a business matter to his liking), Plaintiff would be subject to obscene ridicule, where she would be called a \"pig\" and a \"whore,\" about whom her parents would be ashamed.\n\n35. This unrelenting verbal abuse was soon punctuated by acts of physical assault.\n\n36. For example, on September 1, 2015, while assisting in preparations for guests who were to arrive at Defendant Guo's New York apartment, Defendant Guo directed Plaintiff to go into the \"cinema room.\"\n\n37. Once there, Defendant Guo pulled down his pants and underwear, and began to tear at Plaintiff's skirt and tights, physically battering her in the process.\n\n38. Plaintiff pled with Defendant Guo and thereby narrowly avoided rape on this one occasion. Yet without her passport and in constant fear for her own safety and that of her parents (whom Defendant Guo had threatened to harm physically if she crossed Defendant Guo in any way), Plaintiff remained in Defendant Guo's captivity.\n\n#### Defendant Guo Rapes Plaintiff\n\n39. Not long after the incident in the cinema room, on April 6, 2016, Defendant Guo directed Plaintiff to have drinks with him.\n\n40. Plaintiff initially objected to this, indicating to him that she did not want to drink.\n\n41. Defendant Guo, however, insisted - after which Plaintiff relented with the hopes of avoiding the humiliating and rage-filled outburst that she knew would occur if she did not.\n\nAfter some time, Plaintiff excused herself to go to sleep, only to be awoken by 42. Defendant Guo, who was lying on top of her and attempting to separate her legs.\n\nPlaintiff yelled at Defendant Guo to stop, but he refused to do so. Eventually, 43. Defendant Guo overpowered her, and engaged in non-consensual forced sexual intercourse with Plaintiff.\n\n44. After this violence concluded, Defendant Guo left Plaintiff alone, bleeding in her bed.\n\n45. Plaintiff continued to live in constant fear of Defendant Guo thereafter, remaining awake for as long as she could muster for fear that Defendant Guo would again attack.\n\n#### Defendant Guo Rapes Plaintiff Again\n\n46. Subsequent to this rape, Defendant Guo's confinement and isolation of Plaintiff continued, and while at Defendant Guo's London home, Plaintiff was raped for a second time.\n\nOn August 19, 2016, while Plaintiff was working, Defendant Guo entered the 47. room where she was situated and locked the door behind him.\n\n48. He violently pulled Plaintiff from her chair, and threw Plaintiff to the floor and began to tear at her clothing.\n\nPlaintiff attempted to fight off Defendant Guo's attack, engaging in a sustained 49. physical struggle.\n\n50. Again, however, Plaintiff, however, was ultimately overpowered by Defendant Guo, who tore at Plaintiff's pants and underwear.\n\n51. Throughout this entire struggle, Plaintiff begged Defendant Guo to stop.\n\n52. But Defendant Guo did not stop, and instead coldly responded that Plaintiff must stop shouting.\n\n53. Defendant Guo proceeded to pin Plaintiff's hands together with one hand, so that she could no longer resist him, and put the full weight of his body on her.\n\n54. Defendant Guo then proceeded to use his legs to separate Plaintiff's legs and again forcibly raped her.\n\n# Plaintiff Escapes Defendant Guo's Captivity and Reports Defendant Guo to the PRC Criminal Authorities\n\n55. The rapes identified above are only examples of the sexual assaults to which Plaintiff was subjected. As a result of Defendant Guo's unrelenting emotional and physical abuse, Plaintiff fell into a deep depression.\n\n56. She began to take as a given that her abuse would continue (and worsen) no matter how much she adhered to the rules that Defendant Guo laid out for her.\n\n57. Plaintiff determined that she would attempt to reach out to people in ways that Defendant Guo did not yet anticipate or could not yet control given his confiscation of her identification and passwords for social media like Facebook and Twitter, if for no other reason than her desperate need for kindness from another human.\n\n58. Plaintiff then created a profile on a dating web application, and, upon receiving responses, would tentatively broach the subject of her mistreatment at the hands of her employer.\n\nરતું. Plaintiff utilized the dating application because she knew that Defendant Guo was monitoring all other social media outlets, e.g. Facebook and Twitter, and she had virtually no other means of privately communicating with the outside world.\n\n60. This narrow band of potential access was soon thwarted, however.\n\n61. On information and belief, one of Defendant Guo's favored employees (there were a number of females in the office who willingly engaged in intercourse with him) discovered the account Plaintiff created and revealed Plaintiff's activities.\n\n62. Defendant Guo's anger was extreme. After demeaning her in front of her colleagues he advised her that she would be subject to extreme punishment for her actions.\n\n63. Plaintiff, fearing for her life and the safety of her parents, Chinese nationals whom Defendant Guo threatened were accessible to him through his vast resources and could be harmed, picked an appropriate time for escape.\n\n64. In November 2016, Plaintiff chose her best opportunity and fled from Defendant Guo's London home.\n\n65. Upon arrival at the Chinese Embassy, she was able to communicate with an attorney in the United Kingdom, and was assured she would be protected from any retaliation Defendant Guo might pursue if she pressed charges.\n\n#### Plaintiff Files Criminal Complaints in the PRC\n\n66. Following her return home, Plaintiff issued various written statements in connection with filing a criminal action against Defendant Guo in the PRC.\n\n67. In those statements, Plaintiff identified physical evidence of her allegations.\n\n68. Upon information and belief, that physical evidence is now in the custody of the PRC criminal authorities and is, in part, the basis for an arrest warrant issued by the PRC.\n\n69. Unfortunately, notwithstanding Plaintiff's escape from Defendant Guo, his campaign of intimidation has continued.\n\n70. For example, Plaintiff's parents have been contacted repeatedly by individuals who, upon information and belief, are agents of Defendant Guo.\n\nDefendant Guo has also taken to his twitter account, to post photos of Plaintiff 71. (and her parents), as well as identifying information like her address.\n\n72. Upon information and belief, these efforts are directed at silencing Plaintiff so that Defendant Guo might avoid answering for his wrongs.\n\n73. Defendant Guo's shocking and outrageous conduct has caused serious and lasting physical and emotional damage to Plaintiff.\n\n74. Defendant Guo's actions, including his two year confinement of Plaintiff and his misrepresentations to Plaintiff about the repercussions for speaking publicly about her treatment at his hands, prevented Plaintiff from filing any legal proceedings prior to Plaintiff's escape from Defendant Guo.\n\n75. Thereafter, Defendant Guo's continued harassment of Plaintiff after fleeing (which lead to Plaintiff's continued fear for her and her family's life) were prohibitive to Plaintiff instituting legal proceedings.\n\n76. Defendant Guo should be held responsible for his continuing acts of confinement, assault, sexual harassment, and battery.\n\n# AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Battery)\n\n77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n78. As set forth above, Defendant Guo engaged in a series of continuous and related acts of confinement, physical violence and sexual attacks against Plaintiff.\n\n79. Defendant Guo has physically detained Plaintiff, hit her, grabbed her and forcibly raped her.\n\n80. Defendant Guo's acts constitute a battery upon Plaintiff in that Defendant Guo intentionally attempted to and did in fact physically attack and injure Plaintiff.\n\nDefendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact constituted a grievous affront to 81. Plaintiff.\n\n82. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact was intentional, unauthorized, and grossly offensive in nature.\n\n83. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact was unwarranted, without any just cause or provocation and Defendant Guo knew at all times that his actions were without the consent of the Plaintiff.\n\n84. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were caused wholly and solely by reason of the conduct described and Plaintiff did not contribute thereto.\n\n85. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in 86. an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n87. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\nThe limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by 88. reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n## AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Assault)\n\n89. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n90. As set forth above, Defendant Guo engaged in a series of continuous and related acts of confinement, physical violence and sexual attacks against Plaintiff.\n\n91 : Defendant Guo has physically detained Plaintiff, hit her, grabbed her and forcibly raped her.\n\n92. Defendant Guo's acts constitute an assault upon Plaintiff in that Defendant Guo intentionally threatened to and did in fact physically attack and injure Plaintiff.\n\n93. Defendant Guo's wrongful bodily contact constituted a grievous affront to Plaintiff.\n\n94. Defendant Guo's threatened and actual wrongful bodily contact was intentional, unauthorized, and grossly offensive in nature.\n\n95. Defendant Guo's threatened and wrongful bodily contact was unwarranted, without any just cause or provocation and Defendant Guo knew at all times that his actions were without the consent of the Plaintiff.\n\n96. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were caused wholly and solely by reason of the conduct described and Plaintiff did not contribute thereto.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great 97. physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\nAs a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in 98. an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n99. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n100. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)\n\n101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n102. Defendant Guo's conduct, by confining, forcibly raping and physically battering Plaintiff, without provocation or justification, was extreme, outrageous, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community and was otherwise conduct that exceeded all reasonable bounds of decency.\n\n103. Defendant Guo's conduct, described above, was intended to and did cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.\n\n104. Defendant Guo's conduct was the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff.\n\n105. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty, was subjected to serious physical and emotional pain and suffering and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n106. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n107. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n108. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n#### AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)\n\n109. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n110. Defendant Guo's conduct, in assaulting and battering Plaintiff, was careless and negligent as to the emotional health of Plaintiff, and did, in fact, cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.\n\n111. The acts and conduct of Defendant Guo was the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff.\n\n112. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty, was subjected to serious physical and emotional pain and suffering, and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n113. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n114. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n115. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence)\n\n116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n117. As set forth above, Defendant Guo engaged in a series of continuous and related acts of confinement, physical violence and sexual attacks against Plaintiff.\n\nDefendant Guo has physically detained Plaintiff, hit her, grabbed her and forcibly 118. raped her.\n\n119. At all relevant times, Defendant Guo was Plaintiff's employer and thus had a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury while Plaintiff was performing the duties and responsibilities of her employment.\n\n120. Defendant Guo breached this duty by engaging in the conduct set forth in detail hereinabove.\n\n121. As set forth above, Plaintiff was caused to be injured solely and wholly due to the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Guo.\n\n122. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n123. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n124. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n125. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (False Imprisonment/Wrongful Confinement)\n\n126. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n127. As a result of Defendant Guo's actions as set forth above, at all relevant times, Plaintiff was under Defendant Guo's control and captivity.\n\n128. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was aware that she was being confined against her will.\n\n129. Plaintiff did not consent to confinement by Defendant Guo and, instead,\n\nconfinement was imposed upon her as set forth above.\n\n130. Defendant Guo's wrongful confinement of Plaintiff was not authorized by law, regulation or otherwise.\n\n131. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n132. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\nThe limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action. 133.\n\n134. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n## AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence As Against Defendant Golden Spring)\n\n135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n136. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Plaintiff was employed by Golden Spring, which is a business entity owned and/or controlled by Defendant Guo.\n\n137. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Golden Spring owned, operated, managed, maintained, controlled, secured and supervised the Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo.\n\n138. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Golden Spring, as the owner, operator, supervisor and manager of Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo, had a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury while Plaintiff was lawfully within such workspace.\n\n139. Upon information and belief, that, as set forth above, on numerous occasions, including while lawfully within such workspace, Plaintiff was caused to be injured solely and wholly due to the negligence and carelessness of Golden Spring in the ownership, operation, management, maintenance, control security and supervision of such workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.\n\n140. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to great physical and emotional pain and humiliation, was deprived of her liberty and was otherwise damaged and injured.\n\n141. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than \\$20 million.\n\n142. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action.\n\n143. The limitations on liability set forth in CPLR 1601 do not apply to this action by reason of one or more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 1602.\n\n# AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code)\n\n144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n145. The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[1] (New York City Human Rights Law) provides, in pertinent part, that \"[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived ... gender ... of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n146. Defendant Guo engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107.\n\n147. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo employs four or more individuals.\n\n148. Defendant Guo discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's ability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the\n\ndiscriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, non-consensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of sexual harassment and rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n149. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment against Plaintiff.\n\n150. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Defendant Guo's unwelcome conduct.\n\n151. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n152. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n153. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo maintained a hostile work place through his discriminatory working conditions.\n\n154. Defendant Guo's actions were extreme and outrageous, wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n155. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\n# AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code)\n\n156. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n157. The Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[1] (New York City Human Rights Law) provides, in pertinent part, that \"[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory\n\n#### INDEX NO 158140/2 0 : NEW X2588 COUNTY CLEERK +3628122 . Emerican 16 : RE33 x 26 : RE33 x 26 : 26 : 0 : 20 : 0 : 2 ETTED : 28\n\npractice: (a) For an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived ... gender ... of any person, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such person or to discriminate against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n158. Golden Spring engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code Title 8, § 8-107.\n\n159. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring employs four or more individuals.\n\n160. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo is the principal and top-ranking executive of Golden Spring, who, in turn, is the owner, operator, supervisor and manager of Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo.\n\n161. Golden Spring, through at least Defendant Guo, discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's ability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the discriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, nonconsensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n162. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Golden Spring's (acting through Defendant Guo) unwelcome conduct.\n\n163. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n164. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment against Plaintiff.\n\n165. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n166. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring acquiesced, encouraged, or otherwise condoned or approved of Defendant Guo's discriminatory behavior.\n\n167. For the reasons stated herein, Golden Spring maintained a hostile work place through its discriminatory working conditions.\n\n168. Golden Spring's actions were wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n169. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\n# AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of New York State Law)\n\n170. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n171. New York's Executive Law § 296 provides, in pertinent part, that \"1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or licensing agency, because of an individual's ... sex ... to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n172. Defendant Guo engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York Executive Law § 296.\n\n173. Defendant Guo discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's\n\nability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the discriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, non-consensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n174. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Defendant Guo's unwelcome conduct.\n\n175. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n176. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment.\n\n177. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n178. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo maintained a hostile work place through his discriminatory working conditions.\n\n179. Defendant Guo's actions were extreme and outrageous, wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n180. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\n#### AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination in Violation of New York State Law)\n\n181. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein at length.\n\n182. New York's Executive Law § 296 provides, in pertinent part, that \"1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (a) For an employer or licensing agency, because of an\n\n#### TNDEX NO 158140/ por 388 22-50073 - Doc 475-175-16 06/2012 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ETTED : 28\n\nindividual's ... sex ... to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.\"\n\n183. Golden Spring engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the New York Executive Law § 296.\n\n184. Upon information and belief, Defendant Guo is the principal and top-ranking executive of Golden Spring, who, in turn, is the owner, operator, supervisor and manager of Plaintiff's workspace and its employees, officers and/or agents within Plaintiff's workspace, including Defendant Guo.\n\n185. Golden Spring, through at least Defendant Guo, discriminated against Plaintiff based on her gender by, among other things, engaging in verbal abuse and gender biased name calling; restricting Plaintiff's ability to leave the work premises or otherwise have contact with individuals outside of the discriminatory work environment; and engaging in unwanted, nonconsensual, and physically abusive contact with Plaintiff, including multiple instances of rape against the Plaintiff.\n\n186. Plaintiff repeatedly objected to, and did not otherwise condone, Golden Spring's (acting through Defendant Guo) unwelcome conduct.\n\n187. Enduring these intolerable and discriminatory work practices were a term, condition, and/or privilege of Plaintiff's employment and continued employment.\n\n188. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Guo engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment against Plaintiff.\n\n189. Upon information and belief, such treatment endured by Plaintiff was pervasive and endured by other female employees.\n\n190. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring acquiesced, encouraged, or otherwise condoned or approved of Defendant Guo's discriminatory behavior.\n\n191. For the reasons stated herein, Golden Spring maintained a hostile work place through its discriminatory working conditions.\n\n192. Golden Spring's actions were wanton and reckless, with malice and without reason or basis.\n\n193. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered loss of income and benefits, residential rights and was caused mental and physical anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, all to her damage.\n\nWHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as follows:\n\n- (a) On the first cause of action against Defendant Guo, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than \\$20,000,000, along with interest thereon as provided by law, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances;\n- (b) On the second cause of action against Defendant Guo, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than \\$20,000,000, along with interest thereon as provided by law, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances;\n- On the third cause of action against Defendant Guo, in an amount to be (c) determined at trial, but in no event less than \\$20,000,000, along with interest thereon as provided by law, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n#### VERIFICATION\n\nETLED : NEW XORK COUNTY : CLERKET : 2622022 : STIEFER : 262072012 : 16:33 : 07 : 3814/2017 28\n\n> People's Republic of Municipality of Beijing Embassy of the United States of America\n\n| China |       |  |\n|-------|-------|--|\n| 3     |       |  |\n| C     | SS SS |  |\n|       | 1)    |  |\n\nRUI MA, being duly sworn, deposes and says:\n\nI am the individual Plaintiff in this matter. I have read the foregoing Amended Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same are true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters that are therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters I believe them to be true.\n\nPeople's Republic of China) Municipality of Beijing\nEmbassy of the United ടട: States of America\n\nRui Ma\n\nINDEX NO. 158140/2017\n\nSworn to before me this 3 0 NOV 2017 day of November, 2017 by Rul MA.\n\n> Sonja Andersen Vice Consul\n\n> > Notary Public","body_zh":"附件 A\n\n索引号 158140/2；已提交：纽约县书记官处 1362022222216:16633 views；编号 1581472017\n\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nRui Ma（马蕊），\n\n索引号 158140/2017\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n经核实的修正起诉状\n\nGuo Wengui（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司），\n\n被告。\n\n原告 Rui Ma（马蕊，以下简称“原告”）通过其下列签署的律师，就被告 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），又名 Miles Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“被告郭”），以及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司，亦称 Shiny Times Holding Limited、Spirit Charter Investment Limited 和 Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.，以下简称“Golden Spring”）提起本经核实的起诉状，并谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 被告郭精心塑造自己作为一名有教养的政治异见人士的形象，此人敢于对抗并揭露中华人民共和国（以下简称“中国”）专制政府内部猖獗的腐败。\n\n2. 然而，这一公众形象不过是烟幕，主要由被告郭可观的个人财富及其在西方的显要关系所促成。\n\n3. 事实上，这一精心编造的虚构形象不仅满足了被告郭及与其关联之人的自我；其还为被告郭提供了一种手段，以掩饰其经常对少数如原告般不敢完全屈从于其支配的雇员发动的恐吓和恐怖活动。\n\n4. 原告通过本起诉状，寻求就被告郭反复实施的精神虐待和性暴力行为获得赔偿，从而使已逃离可能被追究刑事责任之司法辖区的被告郭，得以在民事法庭中为其不法行为承担责任。\n\n第 页，共 27 页\n\n已提交：\n\n当事人\n\n5. 原告为一名 28 岁的中国籍女性，在本案所有相关期间均受雇担任被告郭的助理。原告通过附于本诉状的核实声明，宣誓本诉状所列主张准确无误。\n\n6. 被告郭为一名 50 岁的男性，亦为中国籍。\n\n7. 在所有相关期间，被告郭一直是且目前仍是纽约州居民，居住于位于纽约州纽约市第五大道 781 号的 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪梨荷兰酒店）的一套公寓中，该公寓估值约为 \\$68 million。\n\n8. 被告 Golden Spring 是一家与被告郭有关联的特拉华州公司，其获准且事实上确实在纽约州从事经营活动；据原告所知及相信，其办公地点位于第五大道 767 号。\n\n9. 据原告所知及相信，被告郭曾使用且仍在使用一个别名，并通过伪造和虚假的官方旅行证件，在其国际旅行中持续使用该别名，以逃避相关主管机关的侦查。\n\n10. 例如，据原告所知及相信，被告郭曾以 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）之名旅行，并曾取得以该虚构姓名签发的官方旅行证件。\n\n11. 据报道，被告现已在美国申请庇护，声称其已成为“a political opponent of the Chinese regime”。\n\nhttp r=0\n\n12. 据原告所知及相信，被告的庇护申请使其或可在美国停留多年，该申请不过是使其继续逃避就其在中国针对原告所犯行为承担责任的诡计。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n13. 本院对本案具有管辖权，因为被告郭是纽约州居民。\n\n14. 根据 CPLR 503，本县为适当审判地，因为被告郭是本县居民。\n\n支持诉请的事实\n\n15. 被告郭是一名知名中国籍人士，据估计其净资产超过 \\$2 billion。\n\n16. 被告郭通过媒体塑造了一种特定形象，以致一些人称赞其为一名勇敢的异见人士，认为其不顾个人风险，详细披露了有关中国政府腐败的诸多指控。\n\n17. 不出所料，被告郭的主张引起了相当程度的本地及国际媒体报道；报道将被告郭描绘为一名吹哨人，尽管其有着无可争辩、充斥经济欺诈指控的斑驳过往。参见，例如，http jinping.html?mcubz=1。\n\n18. 根据其叙述，被告郭希望为其在美国提出的庇护申请获得政治支持；在美国，他尚未就其祖国中待决的任何这些严重不当行为指控作出回应。\n\n原告被诱离家人和朋友\n\n19. 或许是因其纽约住址的地位及其在美国人脉的显要性，使其得以暂时摆脱其在中国的过失而受到鼓舞，被告郭开始建立一种基础架构，使其能够继续从事经营活动。\n\n20. 为此，被告郭为自己组建了一支员工队伍。\n\n21. 2015 年 4 月，当时受雇于被告郭一家中国关联实体的原告，被告知其将前往纽约停留一周。\n\n22. 这是一个骗局。原告并不知道，她直到近三年后才会返回家中。\n\n原告的“雇佣关系”开始\n\n23. 原告在纽约首次见到被告郭后，意识到自己所进行的并非一次普通的商务旅行。\n\n24. 她被告知，她来到这里是为了担任被告郭的助理。\n\n25. 以此身份，她须与被告郭一同留在纽约市，并与其一同前往许多不同国家，包括英国（“U.K.”）和巴哈马。\n\n26. 被告郭进一步告知原告，鉴于其现已受雇于他，其在任何时候均不得返回中国。被告郭警告称，如其返回，原告将被逮捕并投入监狱，在那里遭受酷刑。\n\n27. 为确保原告不会自行离开，被告郭强行拿走原告的护照，并阻止原告取得该护照。\n\n28. 被告郭还严密监控她使用电话和电子通信的权限，决定她何时可以使用手机和笔记本电脑，并取得她用于 Facebook 和其他应用程序的密码。他还监控她的互联网浏览器，以便知悉任何“不适当”的网站活动。\n\n29. 被告郭还禁止原告在其不在场的情况下，以任何方式独自与他人交往。她必须取得许可才能给父母打电话；不允许与其他家人或朋友联系。\n\n30. 原告的孤立状态因其当时并不精通英语而加剧。因此，在非中文国家中，当其被限制于被告郭的随行人员之内时，她与任何人沟通的有限机会实际上几乎不存在。\n\n31. 由于被告郭的行为，原告自抵达美国后几乎立即起，并在此后所有相关期间，实际上成为被告郭的俘虏。\n\n被告郭的虐待演变为身体暴力\n\n32. 一旦取得对原告人身的实际控制，被告郭便开始恐吓她。\n\n33. 例如，除其他行为外，被告郭会要求原告每周七天工作至凌晨 2 点或凌晨 4 点，使其失去任何真正的睡眠机会。\n\n34. 当她犯下任何错误时（无论是违背被告郭的某项“规则”，还是仅仅未能以其满意的方式处理某项业务事项），原告便会遭受猥亵的羞辱，被称为“pig”和“whore”，并被告知她的父母会以她为耻。\n\n35. 这种持续不断的言语虐待很快又伴随着身体攻击行为。\n\n36. 例如，2015 年 9 月 1 日，在协助准备将抵达被告郭纽约公寓的客人事宜时，被告郭指示原告进入“cinema room”。\n\n37. 到达那里后，被告郭脱下裤子和内裤，开始撕扯原告的裙子和连裤袜，并在此过程中对她实施身体殴打。\n\n38. 原告恳求被告郭，并因此在这一次勉强避免遭到强奸。然而，由于没有护照，并持续担心自身及父母的安全（被告郭曾威胁称，如原告以任何方式违抗他，便会对其父母实施身体伤害），原告仍被被告郭囚禁。\n\n被告郭强奸原告\n\n39. 在电影院房间事件发生不久后，即 2016 年 4 月 6 日，被告郭指示原告与其一同饮酒。\n\n40. 原告起初对此表示反对，向其表明自己不想饮酒。\n\n41. 然而，被告郭坚持要求；随后，原告让步，希望避免她知道若自己不从便会发生的充满羞辱和愤怒的爆发。\n\n42. 过了一段时间，原告借故去睡觉，却被被告郭弄醒；当时他正压在她身上，并试图分开她的双腿。\n\n43. 原告对被告郭喊道，要其停止，但他拒绝停止。最终，被告郭制服了她，并与原告发生了未经同意的强迫性性交。\n\n44. 该暴力行为结束后，被告郭离开了原告，让她独自躺在床上流血。\n\n45. 此后，原告一直生活在对被告郭的恐惧中，尽可能长时间保持清醒，害怕被告郭会再次袭击。\n\n被告郭再次强奸原告\n\n46. 在该次强奸之后，被告郭对原告的禁闭和隔离仍在持续；在被告郭位于伦敦的住所期间，原告第二次遭到强奸。\n\n47. 2016 年 8 月 19 日，当原告正在工作时，被告郭进入她所在的房间，并在身后锁上房门。\n\n48. 他暴力地将原告从椅子上拉起，将原告摔到地上，并开始撕扯她的衣物。\n\n49. 原告试图抵抗被告郭的袭击，进行了持续的肢体挣扎。\n\n50. 然而，原告最终再次被被告郭制服；被告郭撕扯了原告的裤子和内裤。\n\n51. 在整个挣扎过程中，原告恳求被告郭停止。\n\n52. 但被告郭没有停止，反而冷酷地回应称原告必须停止喊叫。\n\n53. 被告郭随后用一只手将原告的双手按在一起，使她无法再抵抗他，并将其整个身体的重量压在她身上。\n\n54. 被告郭接着用双腿分开原告的双腿，并再次强行强奸她。\n\n原告逃离被告郭的囚禁并向中国刑事机关举报被告郭\n\n55. 上述强奸仅是原告遭受性侵犯的例子。由于被告郭持续不断的情感和身体虐待，原告陷入严重抑郁。\n\n56. 她开始认定，无论她多么遵守被告郭为她制定的规则，她所受的虐待都会持续并且加重。\n\n57. 原告决定尝试以被告郭尚未预见或尚无法控制的方式联系他人；鉴于被告郭没收了她的身份证件以及她用于 Facebook 和 Twitter 等社交媒体的密码，即便只是出于她对另一名人类善意的绝望需求，她也决定这样做。\n\n58. 原告随后在一款约会网络应用程序上创建了个人资料，并在收到回复后，试探性地提及其遭雇主虐待一事。\n\n59. 原告使用该约会应用程序，是因为她知道被告 Guo（郭文贵）正在监控所有其他社交媒体平台，例如 Facebook 和 Twitter，而且她实际上几乎没有其他方式可以私下与外界沟通。\n\n60. 然而，这一狭窄的潜在接触渠道很快即被阻断。\n\n61. 根据所知所信，被告 Guo 的一名受宠雇员（办公室内有多名女性自愿与其发生性关系）发现了原告创建的账户，并揭露了原告的活动。\n\n62. 被告 Guo 极为愤怒。在同事面前贬损原告后，他告知原告，她将因其行为而受到严厉惩罚。\n\n63. 原告因担心自己的生命安全以及其父母的安全而选择了适当的逃离时机；其父母为中国籍人士，被告 Guo 曾威胁称，凭借其庞大资源可以接触到他们并对其造成伤害。\n\n64. 2016年11月，原告选择了最佳时机，逃离了被告 Guo 位于伦敦的住所。\n\n65. 抵达中国大使馆后，她得以与一名英国律师沟通，并获保证，如其提出指控，她将受到保护，不受被告 Guo 可能采取的任何报复。\n原告在中华人民共和国（PRC）提出刑事控告\n\n66. 返回家乡后，原告就其在中华人民共和国对被告 Guo 提起刑事诉讼一事作出了多份书面陈述。\n\n67. 在该等陈述中，原告指明了支持其主张的实物证据。\n\n68. 根据所知所信，该等实物证据现由中华人民共和国刑事机关保管，并且部分构成中华人民共和国签发逮捕令的依据。\n\n69. 遗憾的是，尽管原告逃离了被告 Guo，其恐吓活动仍在持续。\n\n70. 例如，原告父母曾多次受到一些人士的联系；根据所知所信，该等人士系被告 Guo 的代理人。\n\n71. 被告 Guo 还利用其 Twitter（推特）账户发布原告（及其父母）的照片，以及诸如其住址等身份识别信息。\n\n72. 根据所知所信，这些行为旨在使原告保持沉默，以便被告 Guo 逃避对其不法行为的责任。\n\n73. 被告 Guo 令人震惊且骇人听闻的行为，已对原告造成严重且持久的身体和精神损害。\n\n74. 被告 Guo 的行为，包括其对原告长达两年的禁闭，以及其就公开谈论其受到其虐待将产生的后果而向原告作出的虚假陈述，阻止原告在逃离被告 Guo 前提起任何法律程序。\n\n75. 此后，被告 Guo 在原告逃离后持续骚扰原告（致使原告持续担忧其本人及其家人的生命安全），使原告无法提起法律程序。\n\n76. 被告 Guo 应就其持续实施的禁闭、攻击、性骚扰及殴打行为承担责任。\n作为第一项诉因（殴打）\n\n77. 原告重申并再次主张上述各段所载指控，犹如在此逐一完整列明。\n\n78. 如上所述，被告 Guo 对原告实施了一系列持续且相互关联的禁闭、身体暴力及性侵犯行为。\n\n79. 被告 Guo 曾对原告实施人身拘禁、殴打、抓扯及强奸。\n\n80. 被告 Guo 的行为构成对原告的殴打，因为被告 Guo 故意企图且事实上实施了对原告的人身攻击并使其受伤。\n\n81. 被告 Guo 的不法身体接触构成对原告的严重冒犯。\n\n82. 被告 Guo 的不法身体接触系故意、未经授权且性质上极具冒犯性。\n\n83. 被告 Guo 的不法身体接触毫无正当理由或挑衅，且被告 Guo 始终知道其行为未经原告同意。\n\n84. 原告所受伤害完全且仅因上述行为所致，原告对此并无任何过错。\n\n85. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受了巨大的身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺了人身自由，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n86. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额应由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n87. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n88. 因 CPLR 1602 规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n作为第二项诉因（攻击）\n\n89. 原告重申并再次主张上述各段所载指控，犹如在此逐一完整列明。\n\n90. 如上所述，被告 Guo 对原告实施了一系列持续且相互关联的禁闭、身体暴力及性侵犯行为。\n\n91. 被告 Guo 曾对原告实施人身拘禁、殴打、抓扯及强奸。\n\n92. 被告 Guo 的行为构成对原告的攻击，因为被告 Guo 故意威胁要实施且事实上实施了对原告的人身攻击并使其受伤。\n\n93. 被告 Guo 的不法身体接触构成对原告的严重冒犯。\n\n94. 被告 Guo 所威胁及实际实施的不法身体接触系故意、未经授权且性质上极具冒犯性。\n\n95. 被告 Guo 所威胁及实施的不法身体接触毫无正当理由或挑衅，且被告 Guo 始终知道其行为未经原告同意。\n\n96. 原告所受伤害完全且仅因上述行为所致，原告对此并无任何过错。\n\n97. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受了巨大的身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺了人身自由，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n98. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额应由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n99. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n100. 因 CPLR 1602 规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n作为第三项诉因（故意造成精神痛苦）\n\n101. 原告重申并再次主张上述各段所载指控，犹如在此逐一完整列明。\n\n102. 被告 Guo 对原告实施禁闭、强奸和人身殴打的行为，既无挑衅亦无正当理由，属极端、骇人听闻且在文明社会中完全不能容忍的行为，并且该等行为在其他方面亦超出一切合理的行为准则。\n\n103. 上述被告 Guo 的行为旨在且确实对原告造成严重精神痛苦。\n\n104. 被告 Guo 的行为是造成原告受伤和损害的直接和近因。\n\n105. 因上述行为，原告被剥夺了人身自由，遭受严重的身体和精神痛苦，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n106. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额应由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n107. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n108. 因 CPLR 1602 规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n作为第四项诉因（过失造成精神痛苦）\n\n109. 原告重申并再次主张上述各段所载指控，犹如在此逐一完整列明。\n\n110. 被告 Guo 对原告实施攻击和殴打的行为，对原告的精神健康而言属疏忽和过失，且事实上对原告造成严重精神痛苦。\n\n111. 被告 Guo 的行为及举动是造成原告受伤和损害的直接和近因。\n\n112. 因上述行为，原告被剥夺了人身自由，遭受严重的身体和精神痛苦，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n113. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额应由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n114. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n115. 因 CPLR 1602 规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n作为第五项诉因（过失）\n\n116. 原告重申并再次主张上述各段所载指控，犹如在此逐一完整列明。\n\n117. 如上所述，被告 Guo 对原告实施了一系列持续且相互关联的禁闭、身体暴力及性侵犯行为。\n\n118. 被告 Guo 曾对原告实施人身拘禁、殴打、抓扯及强奸。\n\n119. 在所有相关期间，被告 Guo 系原告的雇主，因此负有在原告履行其受雇职责和责任期间保护原告免受伤害的义务。\n\n120. 被告 Guo 实施了上文详细陈述的行为，从而违反了该义务。\n\n121. 如上所述，原告完全且仅因被告 Guo 的过失和疏忽而受伤。\n\n122. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受了巨大的身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺了人身自由，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n123. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额应由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n124. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n125. 因 CPLR 1602 规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n作为第六项诉因（非法拘禁／不法禁闭）\n\n126. 原告重申并再次主张上述各段所载指控，犹如在此逐一完整列明。\n\n127. 由于被告 Guo 如上所述的行为，在所有相关期间，原告均处于被告 Guo 的控制和拘禁之下。\n\n128. 在所有相关期间，原告知悉自己正被违背意愿地禁闭。\n\n129. 原告未同意被告 Guo 对其实施禁闭；相反，如上所述，该禁闭是强加于她的。\n\n130. 被告 Guo 对原告实施的不法禁闭未获法律、法规或其他授权。\n\n131. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受了巨大的身体和精神痛苦及羞辱，被剥夺了人身自由，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n132. 作为上述行为的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害金额应由审判确定，但无论如何不得低于 \\$20 million。\n\n133. CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n134. 因 CPLR 1602 规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601 规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n作为第七项诉因（针对被告 Golden Spring 的过失）\n\n135. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段中所载的指控，如同在此完整详述。\n\n136. 根据所知及确信，在所有相关期间，原告受雇于Golden Spring（金泉公司），该商业实体由被告Guo（郭）拥有和/或控制。\n\n137. 根据所知及确信，在所有相关期间，Golden Spring拥有、运营、管理、维护、控制、保障并监督原告的工作场所及原告工作场所内的其雇员、高管和/或代理人，包括被告Guo。\n\n138. 根据所知及确信，在所有相关期间，Golden Spring作为原告工作场所及原告工作场所内其雇员、高管和/或代理人（包括被告Guo）的所有人、运营者、监督者和管理者，负有在原告合法处于该工作场所期间保护原告免受伤害的义务。\n\n139. 根据所知及确信，如上所述，在多次情形下，包括原告合法处于该工作场所期间，原告仅且完全因Golden Spring在对该工作场所及原告工作场所内其雇员、高管和/或代理人（包括被告Guo）进行所有、运营、管理、维护、控制、保障和监督时的疏忽及不谨慎而遭受伤害，原告对此并无任何促成性过失。\n\n140. 作为上述事项的直接和近因结果，原告遭受了严重的身体及精神痛苦和羞辱，被剥夺人身自由，并以其他方式受到损害和伤害。\n\n141. 作为上述事项的直接和近因结果，原告遭受的损害数额应由审判确定，但在任何情况下均不少于\\$20 million。\n\n142. CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n143. 因CPLR 1602规定的一项或多项豁免事由，CPLR 1601规定的责任限制不适用于本案。\n\n作为第八项诉因（违反《纽约市行政法典》第8篇的歧视）\n\n144. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段中所载的指控，如同在此完整详述。\n\n145. 《纽约市行政法典》§ 8-107[1]（《纽约市人权法》）的相关部分规定：“‘构成违法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主、其雇员或代理人因任何人的实际或被认为的……性别……而拒绝雇用、聘用、禁止该人就业或将该人解雇，或者在报酬或雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该人。’”\n\n146. 被告Guo实施了违反《纽约市行政法典》第8篇§ 8-107的违法歧视行为。\n\n147. 根据所知及确信，被告Guo雇用了四名或以上个人。\n\n148. 被告Guo基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语虐待及带有性别偏见的辱骂；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境外的个人接触的能力；以及与原告发生不受欢迎、未经同意且带有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施性骚扰和强奸。\n\n149. 基于本文件所述理由，被告Guo对原告实施了以性换利式性骚扰。\n\n150. 原告多次反对被告Guo不受欢迎的行为，且未以其他方式纵容该等行为。\n\n151. 忍受这些不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，构成原告受雇及持续受雇的一项条款、条件和/或特权。\n\n152. 根据所知及确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n153. 基于本文件所述理由，被告Guo通过其歧视性的工作条件维持了敌意工作环境。\n\n154. 被告Guo的行为极端且令人发指、恣意且鲁莽，怀有恶意且毫无理由或依据。\n\n155. 因上述事项，原告遭受收入和福利损失、居住权利损失，并遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，均使其受到损害。\n\n作为第九项诉因（违反《纽约市行政法典》第8篇的歧视）\n\n156. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段中所载的指控，如同在此完整详述。\n\n157. 《纽约市行政法典》§ 8-107[1]（《纽约市人权法》）的相关部分规定：“‘构成违法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主、其雇员或代理人因任何人的实际或被认为的……性别……而拒绝雇用、聘用、禁止该人就业或将该人解雇，或者在报酬或雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该人。’”\n\n158. Golden Spring实施了违反《纽约市行政法典》第8篇§ 8-107的违法歧视行为。\n\n159. 根据所知及确信，Golden Spring雇用了四名或以上个人。\n\n160. 根据所知及确信，被告Guo是Golden Spring的负责人及最高级别高管；而Golden Spring则是原告工作场所及原告工作场所内其雇员、高管和/或代理人（包括被告Guo）的所有人、运营者、监督者和管理者。\n\n161. Golden Spring至少通过被告Guo，基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语虐待及带有性别偏见的辱骂；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境外的个人接触的能力；以及与原告发生不受欢迎、未经同意且带有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施强奸。\n\n162. 原告多次反对Golden Spring（通过被告Guo行事）不受欢迎的行为，且未以其他方式纵容该等行为。\n\n163. 忍受这些不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，构成原告受雇及持续受雇的一项条款、条件和/或特权。\n\n164. 基于本文件所述理由，被告Guo对原告实施了以性换利式性骚扰。\n\n165. 根据所知及确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n166. 根据所知及确信，Golden Spring默许、鼓励，或以其他方式纵容或批准被告Guo的歧视性行为。\n\n167. 基于本文件所述理由，Golden Spring通过其歧视性的工作条件维持了敌意工作环境。\n\n168. Golden Spring的行为恣意且鲁莽，怀有恶意且毫无理由或依据。\n\n169. 因上述事项，原告遭受收入和福利损失、居住权利损失，并遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，均使其受到损害。\n\n作为第十项诉因（违反纽约州法律的歧视）\n\n170. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段中所载的指控，如同在此完整详述。\n\n171. 《纽约州行政法》§ 296的相关部分规定：“‘1. 构成违法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主或许可机构因某个人的……性别……而拒绝雇用、聘用、禁止该个人就业或将该个人解雇，或者在报酬或雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该个人。’”\n\n172. 被告Guo实施了违反《纽约州行政法》§ 296的违法歧视行为。\n\n173. 被告Guo基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语虐待及带有性别偏见的辱骂；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境外的个人接触的能力；以及与原告发生不受欢迎、未经同意且带有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施强奸。\n\n174. 原告多次反对被告Guo不受欢迎的行为，且未以其他方式纵容该等行为。\n\n175. 忍受这些不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，构成原告受雇及持续受雇的一项条款、条件和/或特权。\n\n176. 基于本文件所述理由，被告Guo实施了以性换利式性骚扰。\n\n177. 根据所知及确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n178. 基于本文件所述理由，被告Guo通过其歧视性的工作条件维持了敌意工作环境。\n\n179. 被告Guo的行为极端且令人发指、恣意且鲁莽，怀有恶意且毫无理由或依据。\n\n180. 因上述事项，原告遭受收入和福利损失、居住权利损失，并遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，均使其受到损害。\n\n作为第十一项诉因（违反纽约州法律的歧视）\n\n181. 原告重述并再次主张前述各段中所载的指控，如同在此完整详述。\n\n182. 《纽约州行政法》§ 296的相关部分规定：“‘1. 构成违法歧视行为的是：(a) 雇主或许可机构因某个人的……性别……而拒绝雇用、聘用、禁止该个人就业或将该个人解雇，或者在报酬或雇佣的条款、条件或特权方面歧视该个人。’”\n\n183. Golden Spring实施了违反《纽约州行政法》§ 296的违法歧视行为。\n\n184. 根据所知及确信，被告Guo是Golden Spring的负责人及最高级别高管；而Golden Spring则是原告工作场所及原告工作场所内其雇员、高管和/或代理人（包括被告Guo）的所有人、运营者、监督者和管理者。\n\n185. Golden Spring至少通过被告Guo，基于原告的性别歧视原告，包括但不限于实施言语虐待及带有性别偏见的辱骂；限制原告离开工作场所或以其他方式与歧视性工作环境外的个人接触的能力；以及与原告发生不受欢迎、未经同意且带有身体虐待性质的接触，包括多次对原告实施强奸。\n\n186. 原告多次反对Golden Spring（通过被告Guo行事）不受欢迎的行为，且未以其他方式纵容该等行为。\n\n187. 忍受这些不可容忍且具有歧视性的工作做法，构成原告受雇及持续受雇的一项条款、条件和/或特权。\n\n188. 基于本文件所述理由，被告Guo对原告实施了以性换利式性骚扰。\n\n189. 根据所知及确信，原告所忍受的该等待遇具有普遍性，其他女性雇员亦曾忍受该等待遇。\n\n190. 根据所知及确信，Golden Spring默许、鼓励，或以其他方式纵容或批准被告Guo的歧视性行为。\n\n191. 基于上述理由，Golden Spring（金泉）通过其歧视性的工作条件维持了敌对工作环境。\n\n192. Golden Spring的行为系肆意且鲁莽，带有恶意，且无任何理由或依据。\n\n193. 由于上述原因，原告遭受了收入和福利损失、居住权利损失，并遭受精神和身体痛苦、生活乐趣丧失及情绪困扰，致其受到损害。\n\n因此，原告恭请法院作出如下判决：\n\n- (a) 就针对被告Guo（郭）的第一项诉因，判令金额由审判确定，但无论如何不得少于\\$20,000,000，并判给法律规定的利息、惩罚性赔偿、律师费和诉讼费用，以及本法院在该等情形下认为公正适当的其他及进一步救济；\n- (b) 就针对被告Guo的第二项诉因，判令金额由审判确定，但无论如何不得少于\\$20,000,000，并判给法律规定的利息、惩罚性赔偿、律师费和诉讼费用，以及本法院在该等情形下认为公正适当的其他及进一步救济；\n- 就针对被告Guo的第三项诉因，判令金额由审判确定，(c) 但无论如何不得少于\\$20,000,000，并判给法律规定的利息、惩罚性赔偿、律师费和诉讼费用，以及该等\n\n核验\n\n已提交：纽约郡：书记员：2622022：STIEFER：262072012：16:33：07：3814/2017 28\n\n美利坚合众国驻中华人民共和国北京市大使馆\n\n中国\n\nC　SS SS\n1)\n\nRUI MA（马蕊）经依法宣誓后，陈述如下：\n\n我是本案中的个人原告。我已阅读上述经修正的起诉状，并知悉其内容。其内容均属我本人所知真实无误，但其中明确载明系根据资料和信念提出主张的事项除外；就该等事项，我相信其真实无误。\n\n中华人民共和国）北京市\n美利坚合众国驻华大使馆\n\nRui Ma\n\n案号：158140/2017\n\nRul MA于2017年11月3 0日向本人宣誓。\n\nSonja Andersen\n副领事\n\n公证人","key_entities":["Guo","Je","CIPA","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6129,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:14:57"}