{"id":"court_ctb_49_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":49,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY | PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                          | PA","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                          | PART                       | IAS MOTION 61EFN |  |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|--|\n|          | Justice                                         |                            |                  |  |\n|          |                                                 |                            |                  |  |\n|          | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND          |                            |                  |  |\n| L.P.,    |                                                 | INDEX NO.                  | 652077/2017      |  |\n|          | Plaintiff.                                      |                            |                  |  |\n|          | - 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\nDefendants. ---- X\n\n### 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### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCE DOC-488.2239073 - Doctor Started Schlered Porter Porter versen Portuges of P020202\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\n !\"# \\$\"%&\"\n\n'&(&#)\\*\\$\n+\n, \\*\n\n+\n\n - + +\n\n+\n\n .\n\n+ /0123456/73891:;/08/<<=>2/?@8>ABCCDEFGCHIJKLDEFGCHIJK&M\"# & N&(#!OP Q -R ST!\")U\\*\n\n +\n - +\n\n-\n\n V\n\n\\$\n+WX\n\n -&&(&& +\n - +\n\nY. - -\nY.\n\n-\n\n -&&(&& + +-+.\n\\$ +-Z\n R - [ \\]^=>\n+-\nV\\_&T&`& \"(#\\*+\n\n\\$\n\n Y.\n+\n+\n\nY.\n\nabcdCKebfJghgJifECBjkchL lcKemCKe#!T(&!n&(&( `&(#T/0o@/7@po9q79r1:;/0>;s958t>3u32;:/\n++ HfB#!&v\n\n w;6xy;xzzzA{9r1:;/08|`((#)At8@3}30?{9r1:;/08~\\* {9r1:;/0863>72/s3>po9q;>;0t958>19q3072/8/79<8@3{{\\o@9@;>?90389?23;8t\n\nV 8@3{@/03>3?9u320r308z\\* dJBHfKecKcB\n\n  +\nV\n\\*\n+ &(&(\nR -[ - [\n\n -\n\nt\\^23<32>89\\:;/08/<<=>2/;:\n\n### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCE DOC-488.2239073 - Doctor Started Schlered Corder versear Portuges on Portugent Por 2017/2017\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>quot;Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 : NEW XORK COUNTY CLERK 02282222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 FTTEED :\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 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## INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCE DOC: 488. 2239073 - Doct 49.22 2022 2222 2022 22222 22.2020 17.000 2020 17.000 2022\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### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCE DOC: 488. 2239073 - Doctor State Book 2022 2222 - 2020. VEBER VERSEL 2020 2022\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\nFleetwood 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 (1st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0: NEW X2588 COUNTY CLERKS 0228222222 04:333822322222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 FTTEED :\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 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#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0: NEW X2588 COUNTY CLERKS 0228222222 04:33382232220:20:20:20:20:2017/2017 FTTEED :\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#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2017 FILED :\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]n]y 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\nR. OSTRAGE\n\n| CHECK ONE:            |  | CASE DISPOSED               |  |        | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION |  |           |\n|-----------------------|--|-----------------------------|--|--------|-----------------------|--|-----------|\n|                       |  | GRANTED                     |  | DENIED | GRANTED IN PART       |  | OTHER     |\n| APPLICATION:          |  | SETTLE ORDER                |  |        | SUBMIT ORDER          |  |           |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: |  | IINCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN |  |        | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT |  | REFERENCE |","body_zh":"纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n主审法官：BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官　审判庭　IAS MOTION 61EFN\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司），　案号　652077/2017\n原告，\n- 诉 -　动议日期\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（万古豪云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（豪云郭），GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（源丰控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（源丰控股公司），　动议序号　019\n被告。 ---- X　动议裁定 + 命令\nBARRY R. OSTRAGER 法官\n\n在这起始于 2017 年、包含 1,180 项案卷记录的案件中——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵，下称“郭”）通过将其巨额个人资产存放在一系列公司、受信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下来逃避和欺诈其债权人的行为——本法院被要求裁定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，下称“PAX”）是否已承担举证责任，证明本法院应当对郭作出民事藐视法庭的最终命令。基于以下理由，本法院正同时签发一份民事藐视法庭的最终命令。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日获得针对郭的判决书，金额为 $116,402,019.57（NYSCEF 编号 716）。此后，PAX 开展了长达一年的判决执行工作，首先是识别并随后试图扣押郭在美国的资产。PAX 在识别郭所控制的资产时遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的郭将其资产隐匿在由公司实体和家庭成员构成的迷宫中。这种操作使郭得以声称自己没有任何资产，尽管他过着极尽奢华的生活；原告通过社交媒体剪报、照片和录像资料对郭的奢华生活进行了梳理，显示郭挥金如土，并炫耀其财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日的诉讼笔录所指出的，该证据的证明价值有限，因为提供该证据的证人除了知道这些内容可从各个网站上获取之外，对该“证据”的真实性并无一手认知。\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了一场证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证言，并接受了交叉询问。该听证会是在 PAX 为查找和扣押被告郭所拥有的资产而进行了漫长的诉讼程序之后举行的。这些程序查明（除其他事项外）郭对一艘名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使了实际支配与控制权，并促使法院作出一系列限制令，限制郭和/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范围。第一项此类命令于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发，下文将详述，随后是 2020 年 10 月 15 日的命令，该命令限制“郭先生和/或……游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开司法管辖区（NYSCEF 编号 630）。按下文详述，郭在 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 日限制令的诉讼程序进行的同时，郭及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往 Florida（佛罗里达州），随后驶往 Bahamas（巴哈马）。2021 年 3 月 16 日，本法院签发了一项民事藐视法庭附条件命令，责令郭若未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 归还至本法院管辖范围内，则 Lady May 留在本法院管辖范围之外的每一天，他都将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（上诉分部第一部）维持了本法院认定郭构成附条件民事藐视法庭的命令，裁定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强烈……\n\n郭的合伙人，“一名在网络上直言不讳批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但目前因涉嫌欺诈、勒索和行贿罪名被北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体也曾报道，Bannon（班农）先生曾不止一次乘坐郭的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n在听证会上由被告证人口中获取的证言清楚且具有说服力地证明，郭是 Lady May 的实益所有人并对其拥有控制权，且郭对本法院和司法程序表现出极端的藐视。\n\n郭曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，下称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上所取的证言查明，郭在 2014 年以零对价将其在 HK International 的 100% 股权转让给了一位名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。屈女士是郭氏家族受信赖的商业伙伴。此后，郭逃离中国，2015 年 2 月 23 日，HK International 以 2,800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了 Lady May。听证会上采纳的证言均未查明购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但郭的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）无可反驳的证言查明，屈女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。Tr. 44。因此，合理的推论是郭向 HK International 提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，屈女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日左右以 1 美元或零对价将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了郭的女儿郭美。Tr. 47。根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 编号 1162），郭女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了当前的所有权持有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，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开支，包括燃油费、维护费以及船长和船员的费用，均由据称是郭氏家族办公室的 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“Golden Spring”）支付。\n\n在听证会上，郭女士作证称是她哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。Tr. 46。本法院无法采信这一证言，因为没有任何证据表明郭女士的哥哥参与了导致郭女士取得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且，在回答本法院的提问时，郭女士确实承认在她取得该游艇之前发生的任何转让交易中，她的哥哥均未参与。Tr. 47。\n\n在听证会上采纳的其他证言查明，郭每年夏天都会频繁登上该游艇，而郭女士则很少登艇。Trial Tr. 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，郭在 2020 年的 7 月、8 月和 9 月有相当长的一部分时间都在游艇上，这与他夏季的惯常做法一致。Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7。在本法院签发 2020 年 9 月 30 日限制令之后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被送往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并随后于 2021 年 10 月被派往 Italy（意大利），据称是按照 Golden Spring 的指示。郭女士承认她知晓本法院 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 归还至本法院管辖范围内的命令。Tr. 55；57-60；62。\n\n郭女士作证称，一方面游艇的行程是由她指示的，但另一方面又作证称郭的安全问题非常令人担忧，以至于不会对任何行程留下书面记录。Tr. 52。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在她未陪同的情况下登上游艇时，他有权自由选择去往任何想去的地方。Tr. 50。然而，根本性的问题在于，是谁在 2020 年 10 月指示将游艇移出本法院的管辖范围。郭女士声称在 2020 年 10 月初她不再希望使用该游艇，并将该指令传达给了 Golden Spring，Golden Spring 随后将她的指令传达给了当时的船长 Heaslop（希斯洛普）船长。Tr. 53。\n\n在进一步询问下，郭女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将游艇移至更温暖的地方。Tr. 55。郭女士随后重复了她此前已撤回的证言，即她哥哥把游艇给了她，并声明她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。Tr. 56。鉴于本法院曾于 2020 年 9 月 30 日作出临时限制令，该证言不可信，该命令限制郭：\n\n……对其享有权益的任何财产进行或导致进行任何出售、让与、转让或干涉，或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，但 CPLR 5222 所规定的例外情况及在正常业务过程中进行的除外。\n\nNYSCEF 编号 591。值得注意的是，Lady May 当时的船长希斯洛普船长作证称，在 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州的“几天前”（且显然是在本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日命令签发之后），郭先生曾告诉希斯洛普船长，郭将不再作为宾客登上 Lady May。Tr. 89。希斯洛普船长还反驳了郭女士关于郭女士曾就游艇航行向希斯洛普船长下达指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认随后阅读了本法院 2021 年 3 月 16 日要求在 2021 年 5 月 31 日前将 Lady May 归还至本法院管辖范围内的命令（NYSCEF 编号 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与她的律师（其律师费由 Golden Spring 支付）讨论过该命令，并且她忽视了该命令。\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 签订了一份日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，他曾与 HK USA 以及 Golden Spring 进行沟通，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）也给出了相同的证言。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭女士关于其拥有并控制 Lady May 的证言在任何方面都不能予以采信。郭女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使了支配与控制权，也未提供任何确认其取得 Lady May 占有权的证据，除非这是一种掩饰手段，旨在包庇 Lady May 免遭其父亲的债权人扣押。\n\n郭就 Lady May 所精心策划的“空壳骗局”相关的花招，与郭在本诉讼悬而未决的五年期间所采取的每一次逃避和藐视行为如出一辙，这正是本案案卷记录多达 1,180 项的原因。\n\n根据 Judiciary Law（《司法法》），本法院有权判定郭构成民事藐视法庭\n\n§ 753——以及“通过罚金和监禁对[其]予以惩处”——在诸如本案中，法院“明确认定[Kwok（郭文贵）]的作为意图使民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济落空、受损、受阻或受不利影响，或实际造成了上述后果”。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要在具体案件中认定构成藐视法庭，必须确定[1]法院有一项明确表达确定命令的合法裁定处于生效状态。[2]必须以合理的确定性表明该命令未被遵从……[3]此外，被认定构成藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的裁定，尽管并不要求该裁定必须已实际送达该当事人……[4]最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了不利影响。\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）亦作此示意。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX（太平洋联盟）已]以清晰且令人信服的证据证明，[郭文贵]违反了\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 0: NEW X2588 COUNTY CLERKS 0228222222 04:333822322222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 FTTEED :\n\n法院的一项合法、明确的命令，且其对该命令知情，并证明该等违反行为导致原告的权利受到了不利影响…… ”）。\n\nPAX 持续遭受“不利影响”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否证明了其最终可以就 Lady May（梅号游艇）进行强制执行以清偿其目前对郭文贵持有的数亿美元判决书。根据 CPLR § 5225，在债务人持有必要“权益”的情况下，“金钱或其他动产”可予扣押执行。为满足这一要求，“判决债务人无需对财产拥有法定所有权；享有实益权益即可。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物所享有的一项权利或期待权……与对该物享有法定所有权相对。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。郭文贵在 Lady May 上享有的远不止实益权益。郭文贵不仅控制着该游艇，而且似乎是他提供了购买资金，且他也是主要享受该游艇使用权的人。\n\n关键因素在于“财产的实益所有人”是否如同“直接收到该财产一样”。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)（维持对判决债务人主张的驳回，该主张称其因已将财产权益转让给其女儿而不再持有该财产权益）；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，证据亦显示其对该财产“保留了控制权和/或权益”））。\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 0: NEW X2588 COUNTY CLERKS 0228222222 04:33382232220:20:20:20:20:2017/2017 FTTEED :\n\n证据清晰且令人信服地证明，郭文贵在 Lady May 上持有实益权益并对其拥有控制权。关于后者，本院注意到 Zeng（曾）案的起诉，并从记录在案的所有事实中作出推定：郭文贵采取了非常规步骤以使其游艇免受其债权人追索。此外，郭文贵的“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，Guo 女士（郭女士）的证言不仅前后自相矛盾、掩饰推诿，而且被 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长和 Stockil 先生的证言严重削弱，后者声明在郭女士直接或间接持有该游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未听取过郭女士关于游艇相关的任何指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律确立的规则是，当事人在民事诉讼中援引 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）“可构成不利事实推定的基础”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。在必要或允许进行事实认定的任何时候均可适用不利推定，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，根据缺席证人规则，“事实裁决者可对未能出庭作证的证人，根据对方证据所允许的范围作出最强烈的推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未能出庭的被告“本应对证据所提出的实质性争议知情”的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权通过上述两种途径获得不利推定。郭文贵在回应 PAX 的判决后证据开示时援引了其反对自证其罪的 Fifth Amendment 权利，包括在回应专门针对 Lady May 的要求时。虽然郭文贵\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2017 FILED :\n\n辩称此处不宜适用不利推定，因为“唯有在初步证明一份证据具有真实性之后，当事人才有义务对其作出回应”，但这一论点本身站不住脚。PAX 已经提供了大量具有可采性的证据，证明郭文贵在 Lady May 上拥有必要的实益权益并对其拥有控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（解释如果证据“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”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022年2月7日，Lady May 滞留于本院司法管辖区之外已达 268 天。根据本院施加并经 Appellate Division 确认的每日 $500,000 的罚金计算，所得罚金总额将达 $134,000,000.00，该数额已超过 PAX 近 1.2 亿美元的未受偿判决金额，且是 Lady May 购买价格 GBP £ 28 million 的数倍。然而，如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以在明知且蓄意违反法院命令的同时，试图利用纽约及美国其他各地的法院程序，那么法治将不复存在。郭文贵必须在本院带有送达通知的裁定送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 $134,000,000.00。若罚金未能按时支付，本院准备行使 Judiciary Law § 753 项下的全部职权。\n\n日期：2022年2月9日\n\nR. OSTRAGER\n\n勾选一项：案件了结　非终局处置\n\n准许　驳回　部分准许　其他\n申请：和解裁定　提交裁定\n如适用请勾选：包含移交/重新分配　信托指定　参考转审","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3238,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:37:28"}