{"id":"court_ctb_476_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":476,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |                             |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |                             |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|\n| In re:                                                                           | Chapter 11 Case No.         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,1                                                                    | Case No. 2-50073 (JAM)      |\n| Debtor.                                                                          |                             |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.,<br>Plaintiff,<br>v.                 | Adv. Proc. No. ____________ |\n| HO WAN KWOK, an individual,<br>Defendant.                                        | June 20, 2022               |\n\n# **COMPLAINT**\n\nPursuant to section 523 of title 11 of the United States Code, (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"Plaintiff\" or \"PAX\") files this complaint seeking a determination that certain debts due and owing to Plaintiff are non-dischargeable (the \"Complaint\"), and alleges as follows:\n\n# **THE PARTIES**\n\n1. Plaintiff is a Cayman Islands limited partnership.\n\n2. Ho Wan Kwok (\"Kwok\" or the \"Debtor\") is a debtor pursuant to Section 101(13) of the Bankruptcy Code. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in this Court under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor is an individual who alleges that he is a resident of the State of Connecticut, having an\n\n 1 The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\naddress of 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831. Upon information and belief, the Debtor is also a resident of the State of New York, with a residence at the address 781 Fifth Avenue, Unit 1801, New York, NY 10022.\n\n3. As of the Petition Date, the Debtor owed PAX more than \\$261,000,000 (the \"Claims\"), which consists of (a) the prepetition judgment obtained by PAX against the Debtor, inclusive of post-judgment interest and costs, in the aggregate amount of at least \\$127,000,000 (the \"Contract Claim\") and (b) a \\$134,000,000 civil contempt fine resulting from Kwok's willful, brazen and prolonged contempt of court (the \"Contempt Claim\").<sup>2</sup>\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334(b).\n\n5. Venue is proper in the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.\n\n6. This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).\n\n## **FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS**\n\n## **PAX Prevails in the New York Breach of Contract Action**\n\n7. As previously determined by a state court, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-related entity called Shiny Times over eleven years ago. Kwok personally guaranteed the repayment of that loan (the \"Personal Guarantee\"). Despite multiple repayment extensions and PAX's numerous attempts to settle the debt, the debt subject to the Personal Guarantee was never repaid.\n\n<sup>2</sup> PAX reserves the right to supplement any of the foregoing amounts with additional accrued interest, fees, or costs in accordance with applicable law.\n\n8. PAX sued Kwok in April 2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the \"New York Court\") for the unpaid debt, asserting that Kwok's failure to honor the Personal Guarantee was a breach of contract.\n\n9. On September 15, 2020, the New York Court granted partial summary judgment in PAX's favor on the breach-of-contract claim (the \"Summary Judgment Order\"). On December 18, 2020, the New York Court awarded PAX \"damages of \\$46,426,489.00 plus contractual interest pursuant to the 2011 Personal Guarantee at a rate of 15% per annum from effective date of December 31, 2010 and at the statutory rate of 9% per annum from the date of entry of this decision and order.\" The judgment was entered on February 3, 2021 as \\$116,402,019.57.<sup>3</sup>\n\n#### **Post-Judgment Collection Efforts**\n\n10. On September 30, 2020, the New York Court entered a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" On October 15, 2020, the New York Court permanently (i) \"restrained [Kwok] from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, whether directly or indirectly, and from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him . . .\"; and (ii) specifically restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\" The New York Court also held that PAX was entitled to post-judgment discovery of other assets that Kwok directly or indirectly owns.\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Court also found that, under the terms of the Personal Guarantee, PAX is entitled to repayment of its legal fees in connection with enforcement of its rights thereunder, in an amount to be determined once the collection process was completed.\n\n11. PAX spent more than a year pursuing discovery from Kwok and related entities in an attempt to identify assets to satisfy its nine-figure judgment. The New York Court recognized that \"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 . . . .\"\n\n### **Contempt Proceedings and Judgment**\n\n12. Despite the New York Court's orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the Lady May from removing the yacht from the court's jurisdiction, the Lady May left New York on or around October 9, 2021. PAX moved for civil contempt, and the New York Court granted PAX's motion on March 16, 2021, ruling that:\n\n\"it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit in proceedings before this New York Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht 'Lady May' . . . . Rather than catalogue the many 'shell games' defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, [ . . . ] [f]or every day the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000.\"\n\n13. Kwok remained in contempt of the New York Court's March 16, 2021 order for\n\n268 days. After that order was entered, he sought a stay pending appeal, but it was denied.\n\nUltimately, the First Department affirmed the New York Court's order on November 4, 2021,\n\nfinding that \"[t]he motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt,\n\nas plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear\n\nmandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to\n\nplaintiff's rights.\"\n\n14. The First Department held that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing.\"\n\n15. The First Department also \"instructed\" the New York Court \"to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht.\"\n\n16. Kwok then filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals on December 3, 2021, which was denied by the First Department on January 20, 2022.\n\n17. As instructed by the First Department, the New York Court held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. The New York Court heard testimony from seven witnesses, including Kwok's daughter, the purported owner of the Lady May. On February 9, 2022 the New York Court issued a final Order of Civil Contempt (the \"Yacht Contempt Order\"). The New York Court found that \"Kwok exercised dominion and control over [] the Lady May\" and that \"[t]he 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\n18. The New York Court further found that \"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\n19. The New York Court imposed a \\$134 million fine, based on the \"268 days,\" \"[a]s of February 7, 2022,\" that \"the Lady May ha[d] remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court.\" The New York Court ordered Kwok to remit the \\$134 million to PAX within five business days, noting that the Court would be \"prepared to exercise its full authority Judiciary Law § 753,\" New York's civil contempt provision.\n\n5\n\n20. The Yacht Contempt Order stated that \"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.\"\n\n21. On the same day the Yacht Contempt Order was issued, the Debtor publicly announced his intention to \"start an all-out war with the PA[X],\" as well as to flee the country.\n\n22. On February 14, 2022, Kwok filed a notice of appeal of the Yacht Contempt Order and requested an emergency interim stay pending appeal. The Appellate Division, First Department denied Kwok's interim stay request the next day.\n\n23. The evening before the contempt fine was due to be paid, Kwok filed this chapter 11 case.\n\n#### **COUNT ONE**\n\n#### **(Nondischargeability Under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code)**\n\n24. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 above inclusive, and each and every such paragraph by reference as if set forth in full herein.\n\n25. The Debtor's conduct, as described above, with respect (and giving rise) to the Contempt Claim was (a) willful, in that the Debtor intended to cause harm to Plaintiff, (b) malicious, in that it was wrongful, done intentionally, necessarily caused injury, and was committed without cause or excuse, and (c) in fact, caused substantial injury to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Debtor's liability to Plaintiff for such conduct relating to the Contempt Claim should be determined to be non-dischargeable under section § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n6\n\n#### **COUNT TWO**\n\n#### **(Nondischargeability Under Section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code)**\n\n26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 above inclusive, and each and every such paragraph by reference as if set forth in full herein.\n\n27. PAX asserts that the Contempt Claim owed by the Debtor to the Plaintiff is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. Courts have held that section 523(a)(7) is applicable where—as is the case here—a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable has been imposed by a court (irrespective to whom the fine, penalty or forfeiture is paid) to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss. *See United States HUD v. Cost Control Mktg. & Sales Mgmt.*, 64 F.3d 920, 928 (4th Cir. 1995) (\"[S]o long as the government's interest in enforcing a debt is penal, it makes no difference that injured persons may thereby receive compensation for pecuniary loss.\"); *In re Allison*, 176 B.R. 60, 64 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994) (when awarded to vindicate the dignity of the court, \"a fine or penalty need not be payable to a governmental entity in order to be for the benefit of a governmental agency.\"); *In re Winn*, 92 B.R. 938, 940 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1988) (daily contempt fine not payable to governmental unit was nondischargeable because it was \"imposed as a penalty to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court\"); *In re Marini*, 28 B.R. 262, 266 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1983) (the fact that a contempt of court fine was owed directly to the plaintiff was not relevant to dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)).\n\n# *[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]*\n\n7\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:\n\n- (a) determine that the Contempt Claim is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n- (b) determine that the Contempt Claim is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code; and\n- (c) grant any other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: June 20, 2022 New York, New York RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney*  Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP**  280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman Stuart M. Sarnoff **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP**  Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：第11章案件编号\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），1 案件编号 2-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\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，\nv. 对抗程序编号 ____________\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），自然人，\n被告。 2022年6月20日\n起诉状\n\n根据《美国法典》第11编（《破产法典》）第523条，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（原告或「PAX」）提起本起诉状，请求认定债务人到期应付予原告的特定债务为不可免除债务（「起诉状」），并陈述如下：\n当事人\n\n1. 原告是一家开曼群岛有限合伙企业。\n\n2. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（「郭」或「债务人」）是根据《破产法典》第101(13)条界定的债务人。2022年2月15日（「申请日」），债务人依据《破产法典》第11章向本法院提交了自愿破产申请。债务人为自然人，自称是康涅狄格州居民，其\n\n1 债务人纳税人识别号的后四位数字为 9595。\n\n地址为 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831。据知悉与确信，债务人亦为纽约州居民，其住所地址为 781 Fifth Avenue, Unit 1801, New York, NY 10022。\n\n3. 截至申请日，债务人欠 PAX 超过 \\$261,000,000（「债权」），其中包括 (a) PAX 在申请日前针对债务人获得的判决，含判决后利息和费用，总额至少为 \\$127,000,000（「合同债权」），以及 (b) 因郭蓄意、肆无忌惮且长期藐视法庭而产生的 \\$134,000,000 民事藐视法庭罚款（「藐视法庭债权」）。2\n管辖权与审判地\n\n4. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) 和 1334(b)，本法院对本诉讼享有管辖权。\n\n5. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1409，康涅狄格区为适当审判地。\n\n6. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)，本事项属于核心程序。\n适用于所有罪名项的共同事实指控\nPAX 在纽约违约诉讼中胜诉\n\n7. 正如州法院此前所认定的，PAX 在十一年前与一家名为 Shiny Times 的郭关联实体签署了一份贷款协议。郭为该笔贷款的偿还提供了个人担保（「个人担保」）。尽管多次延期还款且 PAX 进行了多次和解尝试，但受该个人担保约束的债务从未得到偿还。\n\n2 PAX 保留根据适用法律，就任何前述金额补充追加应计利息、收费或费用的权利。\n\n8. PAX 于 2017年4月 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York（纽约州纽约县最高法院）（「纽约法院」）就未偿债务起诉郭，主张郭未履行个人担保构成违约。\n\n9. 2020年9月15日，纽约法院就违约主张作出了有利于 PAX 的部分即决判决（「即决判决裁定」）。2020年12月18日，纽约法院判处 PAX 获得「损害赔偿金 \\$46,426,489.00，加上依据 2011年个人担保自生效日期 2010年12月31日起每年 15% 的合同利息，以及自本决定和命令登记之日起每年 9% 的法定利息」。该判决于 2021年2月3日 登记入卷，金额为 \\$116,402,019.57。3\n判决后的追偿行动\n\n10. 2020年9月30日，纽约法院签发了一项临时限制令，禁止郭（除其他事项外）「干预其享有权益的任何财产」。2020年10月15日，纽约法院永久性地 (i)「限制［郭］直接或间接进行或导致任何出售、让与、转让或干预其享有权益的任何财产，并限制其支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后应付给他的任何债务……」；以及 (ii) 具体限制「郭先生及/或 (1) 位于雪梨荷兰酒店的住所和 (2) 游艇『Lady May』……的登记所有人进行或导致对这些资产的任何出售、让与、转让或干预」。纽约法院还裁定，PAX 有权对郭直接或间接拥有的其他资产进行判决后证据开示。\n\n3 法院还认定，根据个人担保的条款，PAX 有权追偿其因行使其项下权利而产生的律师费，具体金额将在追偿程序完成后予以确定。\n\n11. PAX 花费了一年多的时间对郭及相关实体进行证据开示，试图查明可用于履行其九位数判决的资产。纽约法院确认，「PAX 在查明郭实际控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的郭将其资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体和家庭成员网络中。该计划使郭尽管生活奢华却得以声称自己没有任何资产……」\n藐视法庭程序及判决\n\n12. 尽管纽约法院下达了限制郭及/或 Lady May 登记所有人将该游艇移出法院管辖范围的命令，Lady May 仍在 2021年10月9日 左右离开了纽约。PAX 提出了民事藐视法庭动议，纽约法院于 2021年3月16日 批准了 PAX 的动议，裁定：\n\n「显然，在纽约法院就游艇『Lady May』的下落和所有权进行的程序中，存在着令人无法容忍的手腕玩弄、掩饰和欺骗……在此毋庸列举被告郭在理应更明事理的律师协助下所进行的诸多『空壳骗局』，［……］自 2021年5月15日 之后，该游艇在本法院管辖范围之外的每一天，被告郭将被处以每日 \\$500,000 的罚款。」\n\n13. 郭对纽约法院 2021年3月16日 裁定的藐视持续了\n\n268天。在该裁定下达后，他曾申请上诉期间暂缓执行，但遭到驳回。\n\n最终，First Department（第一分部）于 2021年11月4日 维持了纽约法院的裁定，\n\n认定「动议审理法院裁定被告构成民事藐视法庭是在其裁量权范围内行事，\n\n因为原告以明确且有说服力的证据证明被告违反了其明知的法院合法、明确的\n\n命令，且该违反应已对原告的权利造成了损害。」\n\n14. 第一分部裁定，「每日 \\$500,000.00 的罚款旨在强烈督促［郭］消除自身的藐视状态，尽管他获准这样做，但他并未表现出任何意愿。」\n\n15. 第一分部还「指示」纽约法院「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。」\n\n16. 随后，郭于 2021年12月3日 向 Court of Appeals（上诉法院）提交了上诉许可动议，该动议于 2022年1月20日 被第一分部驳回。\n\n17. 按照第一分部的指示，纽约法院于 2022年2月2日 举行了该证据听证会。纽约法院听取了包括郭的女儿（即 Lady May 的名义所有人）在内的七名证人的证词。2022年2月9日，纽约法院作出了民事藐视法庭最终裁定（「游艇藐视法庭裁定」）。纽约法院认定，「郭对［］Lady May 行使了支配权和控制权」，并且「听证会上由被告证人口中提供的证词明确且有说服力地证明，郭实际实益拥有并控制 Lady May，并对本法院和司法程序抱有彻底的蔑视。」\n\n18. 纽约法院进一步认定，「郭在 Lady May 中享有的远不止实益权益。郭不仅控制着这艘游艇，而且似乎是他提供了购买资金，并且他是主要享受该游艇使用权的人。」\n\n19. 纽约法院根据「截至 2022年2月7日」「Lady May 滞留在法院管辖范围之外」的「268天」，处以了 1.34 亿美元的罚款。纽约法院命令郭在五个工作日内向 PAX 汇付这 1.34 亿美元，并指出法院将「准备行使《司法法》第753条（Judiciary Law § 753，即纽约州的民事藐视法庭条款）赋予的全部权力」。\n\n20. 游艇藐视法庭裁定指出，「如果身家亿万的诉讼当事人一方面可以在纽约及美国其他地方寻求利用法院程序，另一方面却明知故犯地故意违反法院命令，那么法治将荡然无存。」\n\n21. 在游艇藐视法庭裁定作出的同一天，债务人公开宣布其意图「向 PA[X] 发动全面战争」，并意图逃离美国。\n\n22. 2022年2月14日，郭就游艇藐视法庭裁定提交了上诉通知书，并请求在上诉期间给予紧急临时暂缓执行。Appellate Division, First Department（上诉分部第一分部）次日驳回了郭的临时暂缓执行请求。\n\n23. 在藐视法庭罚款到期应付的前一天晚上，郭提交了本起第11章案件的申请。\n\n罪名项一\n（根据《破产法典》第523(a)(6)条的不可免除性）\n\n24. 原告援引并并入上述第1段至第23段（含）的内容，每一段均通过援引方式并入，如同在此全文陈述。\n\n25. 如上所述，债务人就藐视法庭债权（并由此引发该债权）的行为属于 (a) 蓄意的，因为债务人意图对原告造成损害；(b) 恶意的，因为该行为是不正当的、故意的、必然造成了损害，且没有任何理由或借口；并且 (c) 事实上给原告造成了重大损害。因此，根据《破产法典》第523(a)(6)条，债务人因该等与藐视法庭债权相关的行为而对原告承担的责任应被认定为不可免除债务。\n\n罪名项二\n（根据《破产法典》第523(a)(7)条的不可免除性）\n\n26. 原告援引并并入上述第1段至第23段（含）的内容，每一段均通过援引方式并入，如同在此全文陈述。\n\n27. PAX 主张，债务人欠原告的藐视法庭债权根据《破产法典》第523(a)(7)条属于不可免除债务。法院认为，在法院为维护法院的尊严和权威而施加应付罚款、处罚或没收（不论该罚款、处罚或没收支付给谁），且该罚款并非对实际金钱损失的赔偿时——正如本案的情形——第523(a)(7)条适用。参见 United States HUD v. Cost Control Mktg. & Sales Mgmt., 64 F.3d 920, 928 (4th Cir. 1995)（「只要政府在强制执行某项债务中的利益具有惩罚性，受损害人是否可能因此获得金钱损失的赔偿并不重要」）；In re Allison, 176 B.R. 60, 64 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1994)（当为维护法院尊严而判处时，「罚款或处罚无需支付给政府实体即可属于为了政府机构的利益」）；In re Winn, 92 B.R. 938, 940 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1988)（无需支付给政府部门的每日藐视法庭罚款属于不可免除债务，因为它是「作为维护法院尊严和权威的处罚而施加的」）；In re Marini, 28 B.R. 262, 266 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1983)（藐视法庭罚款直接欠付原告这一事实与根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) 的免除性无关）。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n结论\n\n据此，原告谨请法院：\n\n- (a) 认定藐视法庭债权根据《破产法典》第523(a)(6)条属于不可免除债务；\n- (b) 认定藐视法庭债权根据《破产法典》第523(a)(7)条属于不可免除债务；以及\n- (c) 准予法院认为公正且适当的任何其他或进一步救济。\n\n日期：June 20, 2022\nNew York, New York（纽约州纽约市）\n谨此呈递，\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州执业编号：19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州执业编号：31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP（罗宾逊科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n-以及-\n\nPeter Friedman\nStuart M. Sarnoff\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","forfeiture","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2082,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:06:02"}