{"id":"court_ctb_50_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":50,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-02-28","title":"EXHIBIT 10 ![](_page_1_Figure_1.jpeg)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 1 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 10**\n\n![](_page_1_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_1_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_2_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_2_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 4 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 11**\n\n**1**\n\n **1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : PART 61 2 -------------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP, 3 Plaintiff(s), 4 - against - 5 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, 6 a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, 7 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC 8 Defendant(s). 9 -----------------------------------------------------X Index No. 652077/2017 10 11 February 2, 2022 - Via Microsoft Teams 12 13 B E F O R E: HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, JSC 14 15 A P P E A R A N C E S: 16 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 18 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. DAVID HARBACH, ESQ. 19 LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. 20 21 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan 22 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 23 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. TRACY COLE, ESQ. 24 ERICA BARROW, ESQ. 25**\n\n```\n2\n 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:\n 2\n 3 CHIESA SHAHINIAN GIANTOMASI PC\n Attorneys for HK International\n 4 11 Times Square, 34th Floor\n New York, New York 10036\n 5 BY: LEE VARTAN, ESQ.\n 6\n 7\n 8 - 0 -\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR\n```\n**Ivanov - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n **1 A Lady May is currently in Genoa, Italy. 2 Q How long has it been there? 3 A I believe the boat arrived approximately a week before 4 I joined the boat, so I would say late September. I am not sure 5 about the exact date. 6 Q Late September of 2021? 7 A Yes, that's correct. 8 Q When was the last time that the Lady May sailed 9 anywhere with you as the captain? 10 A I believe the boat has never sailed with me as a 11 captain. Since I joined the both in early October, the boat has 12 been ported in Genoa. 13 Q It hasn't gone anywhere? 14 A That's correct, sir. 15 MR. HARBACH: One second, Judge, please. 16 (Brief pause) 17 Q Mr. Ivanov, one of my colleagues was curious whether 18 you are on the Lady May at this moment? 19 A Yes, sir, I am indeed. 20 Q Thank you. 21 MR. HARBACH: I have no further questions for this 22 witness. 23 Mr. Ivanov, thank you. 24 THE COURT: You are excused, Mr. Ivanov. 25 Next witness, please. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n **1 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, the defendant would call 2 Craig Heaslop to the stand. 3 Mr. Heaslop likewise has previously submitted an 4 affidavit which the parties and the Court have. We offer 5 that as his direct testimony and again offer him for 6 cross-examination. 7 THE COURT: The affidavit is received. And if you 8 will locate the witness, we will swear him in and have him 9 cross-examined. 10 MR. VARTAN: He sent me a note saying that he is 11 having some difficulty logging in, but he is keeping me 12 posted. 13 THE COURT: Fine. Thank you. 14 (Brief pause) 15 THE COURT: Mr. Heaslop? 16 THE WITNESS: Can you hear me okay? 17 THE COURT: Yes. Can you raise your right hand, 18 please. Witness sworn. 19 (Craig Heaslop is duly sworn/affirmed.) 20 CRAIG HEASLOP, having been called on behalf of 21 Defendant, first having been duly sworn, was examined and 22 testified as follows: 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. HARBACH: 25 Q Sir, can you please tell me how to say your last name?**\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n| | 84 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A
Heaslop. |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Could you please spell your name for the court |\n| 4 | reporter, first and last. |\n| 5 | A
Craig, C-R-A-I-G.
Heaslop, H-E-A-S-L-O-P. |\n| 6 | Q
I want to direct your attention to your screen.
Tell |\n| 7 | me if you can see your affirmation in this case on the screen in |\n| 8 | front of you? |\n| 9 | A
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q
The first question for you is going to be clear down in |\n| 11 | Paragraph 16.
You say there that when you took the Lady May down |\n| 12 | to Florida you left in the first week of October.
Do you |\n| 13 | remember the exact day that you left? |\n| 14 | A
No, I can't. |\n| 15 | Q
Are you familiar with a website on the internet called |\n| 16 | VesselFinder?
Have you ever heard of that? |\n| 17 | A
Yeah, I know VesselFinder. |\n| 18 | Q
Would looking at a VesselFinder plot for the Lady May |\n| 19 | help you remember the exact date that you left New York? |\n| 20 | A
I don't know if it will help me remember it, no. |\n| 21 | Q
Would you be willing to take a look at it? |\n| 22 | A
I can look at it, yeah. |\n| 23 | Q
I have pulled up on the screen -- and this is just for |\n| 24 | refreshment purposes and it will not be offered as an exhibit. |\n| 25 | For the record, I have a Voyage Analyser up on the |\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n**85 1 screen for the Lady May with International Maritime Organization 2 1012359. 3 A That's it. 4 Q Say again? 5 A That's it. 6 Q That's it, okay. 7 So I will zoom in, and I'm also going to point out 8 to you that the operative date range that has been selected is 9 September 1 of 2020 and January 31 of 2022, okay? 10 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I'd object to this. I 11 don't know that this has been provided prior to the hearing. 12 So this would echo Mr. Siegel's objection that -- 13 THE COURT: He can use anything he wishes to 14 attempt to refresh the witness's recollection. If it 15 doesn't refresh the witness's recollection, it doesn't 16 refresh the witness's recollection. 17 MR. VARTAN: Well, that's the other point, your 18 Honor. I don't believe that the witness said this would 19 refresh his recollection. 20 THE COURT: I understand, but let's see what 21 happens when he looks at it. 22 Q I am going to zoom in on New York City, Mr. Heaslop. 23 There appears to be a trajectory from the south of Manhattan out 24 into the Atlantic, and there is a little triangle on that route 25 dated October 9 of 2020.**\n\n**Heaslop - by Defendant - Cross / Harbach**\n\n**86 1 A Yes. 2 Q And a little farther down the track off the coast of 3 New Jersey there is another one that says October 9, 2020. 4 So the question for you is: Does this refresh 5 yours memory that the actual date of departure of the Lady May 6 was October 9 of 2020? 7 A I don't pay much attention to the actual date that we 8 leave. For me it is more what the weather is doing. I pick the 9 day and date on the weather. 10 Q Okay, that's fine. All I can do is ask if it helps you 11 remember. And you said the first week of October. That's pretty 12 darn close if it was the 9th. 13 Okay, let's go back to your affidavit. In 14 Paragraph 17 you say that prior to your departure you had a 15 conversation with Mr. Kwok. 16 My first question is was that conversation in 17 person? 18 A No. 19 Q Your affidavit says that he was a guest on the yacht at 20 the time. Where were you? 21 A Personally? I was on the yacht. 22 Q That's what I was trying to get at, maybe inartfully. 23 You were on the yacht. Mr. Kwok was on the yacht. 24 Was the conversation, nevertheless, over a telephone or 25 something?**\n\n| | 87 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A
No.
Mr. Kwok was not on the yacht when I had that |\n| 2 | conversation with him.
We were docked. |\n| 3 | Q
Okay.
So maybe I just misunderstood your affidavit. |\n| 4 | Read the first sentence of Paragraph 17.
Just read it to |\n| 5 | yourself.
I am just trying to figure out who was a guest on the |\n| 6 | yacht at the time. |\n| 7 | A
Okay.
What I was saying there was that he was a guest. |\n| 8 | I guess that's probably a better way to phrase it.
He wasn't |\n| 9 | physically on the boat when we had that conversation.
He had |\n| 10 | been a guest on the boat. |\n| 11 | Q
I think you said a moment ago you said that when you |\n| 12 | had this conversation with him, you yourself was on the yacht? |\n| 13 | A
I was on the yacht, yes. |\n| 14 | Q
You remember that? |\n| 15 | A
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
And -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Prior to October 2020, when was the |\n| 18 | last time you recall Mr. Kwok being on the yacht? |\n| 19 | THE WITNESS:
Prior to October 2020? |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE WITNESS:
He was on and off the yacht |\n| 22 | throughout the summer as usual.
Specific dates I couldn't |\n| 23 | tell you retrospectively when they came and went. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Was he on the yacht for a significant |\n| 25 | part of the month of July? |\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\n| | 88 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
That was COVID.
Yes, he was. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
How about during the month of August, |\n| 3 | 2020? |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And how about during the month of |\n| 6 | September 2020? |\n| 7 | THE WITNESS:
I believe also, yes. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
And was Ms. Guo on the yacht during |\n| 9 | September 2020? |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
We did see Ms. Guo late in the |\n| 11 | summer.
I am trying to remember what month it was.
I |\n| 12 | couldn't recall exactly what month. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
As between Mr. Kwok and Ms. Guo, how |\n| 14 | would you compare the duration of the time each of them |\n| 15 | spent on the yacht during July, August, and September of |\n| 16 | 2020? |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
During those months Mr. Kwok spent |\n| 18 | more time on the yacht than Ms. Guo. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
A lot more time or a little more time? |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
It was a lot more time. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 22 | I interrupted you, Mr. Harbach. |\n| 23 | MR. HARBACH:
That's all right, your Honor. |\n| 24 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 25 | Q
Do you recall how long prior to your departure you had |\n\n **Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 14 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 12**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 15 of 82\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a*\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot Seq. No. \\_\\_\n\nDefendants.\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and\n\nMILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO,\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\n#### **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n### **TABLE OF CONTENTS** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020\n\n#### **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | |\n|--------------------------|--|\n| BACKGROUND 2 | |\n| ARGUMENT 4 | |\n| CONCLUSION 6 | |\n\n#### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n| Cases | Pages |\n|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.
No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016)………………4 |\n| McCormick v. Axelrod, | 59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4 |\n| Statutes | |\n| | Judiciary Law § 753 …………………………………1, 4 |\n\n| CPLR § 5104 ………………………………….1 | |\n|-----------------------------|--|\n| | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/24/2020 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 689 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/24/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 18 of 82\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, under CPLR § 5104 and Judiciary Law § 753, for an order (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's October 15, 2020 Restraining Order (the \"Order\"); (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht (the \"Lady May\") to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThis Court previously has recognized that Kwok has \"flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted\" its orders, and has made \"intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court.\"[1](#page--1-3) In the words of Yogi Berra, it is déjà vu all over again: there is no doubt that Kwok knowingly has violated this Court's Order restraining him from moving his yacht[2](#page--1-3) outside the Court's jurisdiction and—perhaps worse—he has once again put his counsel in the line of fire by instructing him to *request the Court's permission to move the yacht even though Kwok knew it already had been moved outside of U.S. territorial waters at the time that request was made*. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt, require him immediately to return the yacht to the jurisdiction, and grant whatever additional relief it deems necessary and appropriate to finally stop Kwok from making a mockery of this proceeding.\n\n1 [Dkt. 647](http) at 26:6–8.\n\n2 Any suggestion by Kwok in opposition that the yacht technically is not \"his\" would be disingenuous nonsense. If Kwok advances that false argument (which is directly contradicted by, among other evidence and admissions, Kwok's counsel's request at a recent conference *for Kwok* to be able to move the yacht outside this Court's jurisdiction), PAX will respond on reply. PAX notes, however, that any such argument would be irrelevant to this motion because the Order expressly covers the yacht even if it is held by another registered owner (whether it be a Kwok shell company or family member).\n\n![](_page_18_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\nOn September 30, 2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\")\n\npreventing Kwok from, among other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an\n\ninterest.\"[3](#page--1-3) In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\"[4](#page--1-3) About two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order,\n\nwhich granted PAX's motion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained 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 subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. *Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of* (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) *the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.*[5](#page--1-3)\n\nOn November 12, 2020, the Court held a conference, during which Kwok's counsel\n\n(presumably at his client's instruction) made a specific point to ask this Court if Kwok could\n\nmove the yacht offshore:[6](#page--1-3)\n\n Apparently the boat is registered offshore I believe in the British Virgin Islands, and there is a requirement that it return to its home port at sixmonth intervals. It is not an issue that is going to affect in any way ownership or title, but *it needs to travel offshore at some point for a brief period and then come back into the United States*. And we just wanted to disclose that so that there is no thought that this is being secreted or transferred. This is just an ordinary thing it has to do for licensing purposes.[7](#page--1-3)\n\n7 *Id.* at 13:9–18.\n\n3 [Dkt. 591](http) at 1.\n\n4 *[Id.](http)* at 2.\n\n5 [Dkt. 630.](http)\n\n6 Moss Aff. Ex. 1 (Nov. 12, 2020 Conf. Tr.) at 12:23–25.\n\nThe Court unequivocally responded that Kwok was *not* permitted to remove the yacht from this jurisdiction and would be required to make a motion before doing so:\n\n> You will have to make that application on papers. I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands. I seriously doubt [PAX] wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court . . . You will make a motion with supporting documentation on notice to [PAX], and I will rule on it. What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for [PAX] to levy upon . . . that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for [PAX] to reply.[8](#page--1-3)\n\nAlthough Kwok's counsel responded that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" and would \"provide that information in writing,\"[9](#page--1-3) Kwok made no such motion.\n\n Given their experience with Kwok and his misbehavior, PAX and its counsel were concerned by Kwok's counsel's question and did some research. A few days later—based on publicly available information accessed at MarineTraffic.com—PAX learned that the yacht had in fact departed Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on *November 1, 2020*, and as of November 18, 2020, was located in the Bahamas at or near Old Fort Bay, Nassau.[10](#page--1-3) In other words, Kwok had actually moved the yacht out of United States waters approximately *two weeks after the Order* and *two weeks before his counsel sought permission for Kwok to do precisely that at the*\n\n#### *November 12 conference.*\n\nIn light of this information, PAX's counsel wrote to Kwok's counsel on November 18,\n\n2020, providing the information it had accessed as to the yacht's whereabouts, expressing its\n\n8 *Id.* at 13:19–15:4.\n\n9 *Id.* at 14:2–3, 15:5–6.\n\n10 Moss Aff. Ex. 2 (Nov. 18, 2020 Ltr.) at Ex. A.\n\n![](_page_20_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nconcern \"given Mr. Kwok's history of making misrepresentations throughout this litigation,\" and asking Kwok's counsel to \"confirm the location of the Lady May\" and \"that the vessel will be back in New York within 48 hours.\"[11](#page--1-3)\n\nKwok's counsel never responded. Rather, later that night, Kwok's counsel filed a letter\n\nwith the Court claiming to know nothing and committing to investigate and report back:\n\n[W]e have just become aware this evening that the yacht, the Lady May, referenced in this Court's restraining order (NYSCEF Doc. 630) and discussed during the Pre-Trial conference held before this Court on November 11, 2020, is currently in international waters. Although Plaintiff's counsel has just sent us a letter regarding the purported whereabouts of the yacht, we have not confirmed any details . . . We are attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.[12](#page--1-3)\n\nBut as of today's filing—*five weeks later*—Kwok's counsel has provided no further information\n\nto either the Court or to PAX's counsel. Also as of today, according to MarineTraffic.com, the\n\nyacht is still moored in or around Nassau, Bahamas.[13](#page--1-3)\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\nUnder Judiciary Law section 753:\n\nIn order to find that contempt has occurred in a given case, [(1)] it must be determined that 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\n11 *Id.*\n\n12 Dkt. No. [Dkt. 649.](http)\n\n13 *See* Moss Aff. ¶ 5.\n\n![](_page_21_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n*McCormick v. Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*[, 60 N.Y.2d 652 \\(1983\\);](http) *see also [Financial](http) v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.* [No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\\\*2 \\(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept.](http) [14, 2016\\) \\(Ostrager, J.\\)](http) (citing *[McCormick](http)* and applying the four-pronged test). PAX easily satisfies each of the four elements for contempt here.\n\n*First*, the Order is a lawful order of the Court: an unequivocal mandate that Kwok is \"restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with [the yacht].\"[14](#page--1-3)\n\n*Second*, Kwok disobeyed the Order by causing the yacht to leave the jurisdiction about two weeks after the Court issued the Order (and continues to disobey it).\n\n*Third*, Kwok is a sophisticated party, who is involved with this litigation and obviously had knowledge of the Order. Moreover, his counsel specifically sought clarification of the Order at the November 12 conference,[15](#page--1-3) during which he stated that he \"[u]nderstood\" \"the Court's directive\" that Kwok was required to make a motion before removing the yacht from the jurisdiction.[16](#page--1-3)\n\n*Fourth*, PAX has been prejudiced by Kwok's intentional flouting of the Order. Kwok has been trying for years to frustrate the eventual judgment of this Court, and he has been trying for far longer than that to avoid repaying his debt to PAX. Kwok shields his assets through family members and shell companies, and it will be difficult enough for PAX to collect on assets within the United States. If Kwok were permitted to expand his shell game by hiding his yacht\n\n14 *See supra* n.5.\n\n15 *See supra* n.6.\n\n16 *See supra* n.9.\n\n![](_page_22_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nsomewhere on the open seas outside this Court's jurisdiction, PAX's chances of enforcing against that asset would decrease significantly.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully requests that the Court enter an order, under CPLR 5104 and Judiciary Law section 753, (i) finding Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Order; (ii) directing Kwok immediately to cause the return of his yacht, the Lady May, to the jurisdiction of the Court; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n![](_page_23_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nPlaintiff hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: December 24, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 25 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 13**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 26 of 82\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nIndex No. 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry Ostrager\n\nKWOK HO WAN, *a/k/a* KWOK HO, *a/k/a* GWO WEN GUI, *a/k/a* GUO WENGUI, *a/k/a* GUO WEN-GUI, *a/k/a* WAN GUE HAOYUN, *a/k/a* MILES KWOK, *a/k/a* HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nMot Seq. No. 12\n\nPart 61\n\nDefendants.\n\n#### **MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n#### **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n#### **Page**\n\n| PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 | | | | |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | ARGUMENT 1 | | | |\n| I. | The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved
Outside this Court's Jurisdiction. 1 | | | |\n| II. | The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt. 4 | | | |\n| CONCLUSION 11 | | | | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 28 of 82\n\n### **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021\n\n**Cases**\n\n#### **Pages**\n\n| 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,
2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007) 10 | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,
303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003) 2 | |\n| Bogoni v. Friedlander,
197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994) 6 | |\n| Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,
208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)
10 | |\n| L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg,
2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011) 10 | |\n| Wengui v. Zeng,
Index No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020) 5 | |\n| Other Authorities | |\n| MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, Interfere 2 | |\n| Rules | |\n| N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3 4 | |\n\n![](_page_28_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**1\n\nGiven this case's history, it is not clear whether Kwok's Opposition is the single most disingenuous submission he has made to this Court. But it certainly is up there. With a straight face, Kwok argues that (i) moving and keeping the Lady May outside this Court's jurisdiction did not violate the October 15 Order—even though the Court expressly and repeatedly has said that it did; and (ii) even if moving the yacht were a violation, Kwok should not be sanctioned because he does not own the Lady May—even though he repeatedly has stated, both in a court filing and on social media, that he does. Enough is enough. The Court should hold Kwok in contempt and impose a sanction sufficient to motivate him to comply with the Order and bring his yacht back to this jurisdiction—and keep it here.\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n#### **I. The October 15 Order Prohibited the Lady May from Being Moved Outside this Court's Jurisdiction.**\n\nKwok does not dispute that (i) the October 15 Order restrained, \"in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020,\" both \"Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . 'the Lady May' . . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or *interference* with th[at] asset[]\"; 2 or (ii) the Lady May has been moved out of U.S. waters. Instead, he argues that the move out of the Court's jurisdiction did not technically violate the October 15 Order because\n\n1 This brief refers to (i) Defendant Kwok Ho Wan's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Contempt [\\(Dkt. No. 698\\)](http) as the \"Opposition\" or \"Opp;\" (ii) the Affirmation of Edward Moss in Further Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Moss Reply Aff.\"; and (iii) the Affirmation of Nathaniel Francis in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok as the \"Francis Aff.\" Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok [\\(Dkt. No. 689\\)](http), (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted.\n\n2 [Opp.](http) at 3 (citing [\\(Dkt. No. 630\\)](http)).\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 30 of 82\n\n(i) the Lady May's \"ownership\" has not changed; (ii) \"Plaintiff neither asked for nor received any direction from the Court prohibiting the Lady May's relocation\" at the October 15 hearing; and (iii) the Court explained at the October 15 hearing that ordinary course expenditures—for example, \"if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic\" were permitted.3\n\nThese arguments are frivolous. To begin, Kwok has no answer for why moving the yacht does not count as \"interference\" with the October 15 Order (it does), 4 nor how spending money in the ordinary course on a vacation somehow equates to moving a restrained, multi-million dollar asset outside of the jurisdiction (it does not). Indeed, the Court already has rejected Kwok's \"ordinary-course\" argument. In response to Kwok's counsel's question seeking clarification as to whether the restraining order applied to the payment of legal fees, the Court explained the contours of what it meant by \"ordinary course.\"5 *Immediately after that clarification***,** Kwok's counsel asked whether the Lady May could be moved to the British Virgin Islands because that was \"just an *ordinary thing* that is has to do for licensing purposes.\"6 The Court responded in no uncertain terms that Kwok *was not permitted to move the yacht before making (and winning) a motion seeking leave to do so*. 7\n\n3 [Opp.](http) at 6–9.\n\n4 \"[I]t is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract.\" *[2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_301)*, 303 A.D.2d 299, [301 \\(1st Dep't 2003\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_301) The ordinary meaning of \"to interfere\" is \"to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes.\" MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, *Interfere* (*available at* [http](http)[webster.com/dictionary/interfere\\)](http).\n\n5 *See* [Dkt. 691](http) at 12:23–13:5 (permitting legal fees that are \"customary and reasonable\").\n\n6 *[Id.](http)* at 13:9–18.\n\n7 *[Id.](http)* at 13:19–24.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 31 of 82\n\nWorse, Kwok completely ignores this Court's *repeated, clear, and unequivocal statements* that moving the Lady May *would (and did) violate the Order*. First, at the October 15 hearing (which was expressly incorporated into the October 15 Order that issued later that day), the Court specifically discussed the Lady May and directed Kwok that the yacht and other assets not be moved so that they would be available for collection if PAX were to prevail (*i.e.*, so as not to *interfere* with PAX's potential judgment-enforcement efforts):\n\n> *Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside* and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, *those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.*8\n\nThen, at the November 20 hearing, Kwok's counsel asked \"two questions . . . *clarifying*\n\n*the scope of the restraining order* that the Court has entered\"—one of which was whether the\n\nLady May could be moved outside the jurisdiction (even though, we now know, it already had\n\nbeen moved by that time).9 As noted above, the Court unequivocally answered \"no\"—not\n\nwithout first making and winning a motion and a further Court order:\n\nYou will have to make that application on papers. *I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands*. I seriously doubt Mr. Moss wants that yacht to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court. . . . *What I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for Mr. Moss's client to levy upon*. . . . Mr. Siegal asked me a question about *whether the restraining order can be modified to allow this yacht to move from a US port to the British Virgin Islands*, and I said that's an application that has to be made on formal motion papers with supporting documentation and appropriate opportunity for Mr. Moss to reply.10\n\n 8 [Dkt. No. 647](http) at 22:8–14.\n\n9 Dkt*.* [No. 691](http) at 12:23–25.\n\n10 Dkt*.* [No. 691](http) at 13:19–15:4.\n\nFinally, at the most recent hearing on December 18, the Court again reiterated what should have been quite obvious to Kwok by that point:\n\n> Okay. So, let me ask you, we have an issue *with respect to a boat that I enjoined Mr. Kwok from moving* which he may or may not have *moved in violation of the Court's order*. . . . It seems to me *I ordered the boat not be moved*. 11\n\nGiven the plain meaning of \"interference\" (*see supra* note 4) and the Court's repeated,\n\nunequivocal directives, there is no question that the October 15 Order has been violated. Kwok's\n\nsuggestion otherwise is misleading. 12 And if Kwok argues that he should get a pass because the\n\nyacht already had been moved by the time of the October 15 hearing (*i.e.*, before his counsel\n\nasked and was denied permission to move it), then the answer is quite simple: it should have\n\nbeen brought back *immediately* after the Court issued the October 15 Order.13\n\n#### **II. The Court Should Hold Kwok in Contempt.**\n\nWhile Kwok advances several other meritless arguments for why he personally should\n\n 11 [Dkt. No. 695](http) at 25:15–18, 27:21–22.\n\n12 *See* [N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3\\(a\\)\\(1\\)](http)&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False) (providing that a lawyer's duty of candor toward the tribunal prohibits him or her from knowingly \"mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal\"); *see also* [Dkt. No. 647](http) at 21:11–16 (\"The Court believes . . . that Mr. Kwok has attempted to mislead the Court. The Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court orders, the spirit of court orders.\"), 26:5–9 (\"While orders of the Court are either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going to have closure in this case in January of 2021.\").\n\n13 We take Kwok's counsel at his word that he did not know the Lady May already had been moved out of the jurisdiction when he asked the Court if the Lady May could be moved out of the jurisdiction. But later—after being informed by PAX that the yacht was actually out of the jurisdiction—Kwok's counsel wrote to the Court and explained that because his firm had just been informed by PAX about the yacht's location, \"we have not confirmed any details,\" but were \"attempting to gain additional information and will promptly inform the Court and counsel when we learn anything further.\" [Dkt. No. 649.](http) Contrary to that representation, however, Kwok did not, before responding to this Motion, provide any additional information to the Court about the yacht's location. *See* [N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3\\(b\\)](http)&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False) (\"A lawyer who represents a client before a tribunal and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.\").\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 33 of 82\n\nnot be held in contempt, they all reduce to his core assertion that he does not own—and therefore cannot control the movements of—the Lady May. Who does Kwok think he's kidding?\n\nAs PAX already has demonstrated, Kwok alleged fewer than five months ago—in a September 1, 2020 complaint *he filed i*n New York Supreme Court—that \"pawns of the Chinese Communist Party . . . have attempted to cause Guo [a/k/a Kwok] injury while on *his yacht*.\" *See Wengui v. Zeng*, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), [Dkt. No. 1](http) (Complaint at ¶ 8). That sentence in Kwok's own complaint ends with a footnote that cites and links to (and thereby incorporates by reference) an article by *freebeacon.com* entitled \"Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht *Owned by* Chinese Billionaire,\" which states that \"Guo Wengui, who uses the English name *Miles Kwok, said* several incidents involving *his 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May*, appear to be part of a Chinese government effort to threaten and intimidate him.\"14 It is not surprising, then, that in the context of restraining the Lady May, the Court described it as the \"27 million-dollar yacht *which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned*.\"15\n\nNotably, counsel for the Genever Defendants in this action, Aaron Mitchell, serves as counsel for Kwok personally in *Wengui v. Zeng*. Mr. Mitchell signed the complaint that repeatedly referred to the Lady May as \"his [*i.e.*, Kwok's] yacht\" and incorporated by reference the *freebeacon.com* article reporting that the yacht was \"owned\" by Kwok. Even though Mr. Mitchell supposedly does not represent Kwok in this case, he argued on Kwok's behalf at the December 18 hearing, contending that his September 2020 complaint \"wasn't referring to ownership,\" but rather merely to \"the fact that Mr. Kwok was on that boat,\" and chided PAX's\n\n14 *See [id.](http)* at 3 n.1 (citin[g http](http)[yacht-in-new-york/\\)](http). The complaint also refers to the Lady May as \"his\" (*i.e.*, Kwok's) yacht in Paragraph 7 and in Prayer for Relief (d).\n\n15 [Dkt. No. 647](http) at 22:5–6.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 34 of 82\n\ncounsel for its \"absurd reliance\" on that pleading.16 Given Kwok's track record, perhaps Mr. Mitchell was onto something when he suggested it was \"absurd\" for PAX to actually rely on Kwok's own words.\n\nKwok's Opposition is even more disingenuous; it mischaracterizes PAX as arguing that Kwok owns the yacht in part because he was supposedly a \"guest\" on it (something PAX has never argued), and claims that PAX has no evidence of ownership.17 Even if Kwok's *own pleading*—a judicial admission18—were insufficient to establish ownership (and it is more than sufficient), PAX has much, much more:\n\nOn May 10, 2017, Kwok \"tweeted\" (on his since-suspended Twitter account) the following photo of himself sitting on the Lady May, accompanied by Chinese characters that, translated, state \"I am posting a few photos of the yacht *I gave to my daughter* and named after her. . . . Her name is Lady May. . . . *I bought it for 41 million euro*\":19\n\n16 [Dkt. No. 695](http) at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 [Opp.](http) at 8–9.\n\n18 *See Bogoni v. Friedlander*[, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 \\(1st Dep't 1994\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_291) (An admission in an initial pleading is a \"formal judicial admission\" which is \"evidence of the facts admitted.\").\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n![](_page_34_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_34_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nThen, on August 27, 2017, Kwok (again, on his since-suspended account), referred to the\n\n\"Lady May\" as \"*my ship*\" and recalled that \"two years ago when I was in Miami . . . *I [] signed*\n\n*the most important investment contract of my life*,\" and it \"all seems so meaningful.\"21\n\nBut we have saved the best for last. As an October 14, 2017 YouTube video shows,22\n\nKwok was filmed *stating unequivocally that the boat was his*: 23\n\n> *I decided to sell it* because it has an aluminum body. With an aluminum body, it drifts a bit at sea. It's okay in shallow waters. I wanted to use the heavier one, the bigger one, which is also a Feadship, since it is made of steel. I wanted to go further out to sea. . . . *I advertised it twice*, but my offers were relatively high, about US\\$50 million, 31 million euros, which\n\n 20 *Id*.\n\n21 *Id.*\n\n22 *See* Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3 (directing the Court to minute 2:50 through minute 4:15 in a YouTube video available at [http)](http).\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\nwas around US\\$50 million. When *I listed* it at that higher price, *I had one offer* just below *my* asking price, but *I did not sell it.*\n\n![](_page_35_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_35_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\nThis is all straight from Kwok's mouth: *He* bought the Lady May, *he* had it shipped, *he* decided to list it for sale, and *he* put it in his daughter's name to shield it from creditors. Kwok's contention that he is merely some \"guest\" aboard the yacht is (yet another) flat-out lie.\n\n24 *Id.* The screenshots were taken directly from YouTube and already included the captions, which a certified translation confirms are substantially accurate. *See* Moss Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 37 of 82\n\n Of course, Kwok's contention that he does not own or control the Lady May and that it is really owned by an entity, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, which is wholly owned and controlled by his daughter Mei (pronounced \"May\") Guo, is right on-brand. Kwok is a self-proclaimed billionaire who, when it suits him, pretends to have no assets25 precisely because his practice is to use shell companies and his children and employees to shield his assets. For example, Kwok is now claiming in the Genever bankruptcy case that the Genever Defendants are beneficially owned by another shell company that is owned by his son—despite never disclosing that to the Sherry-Netherland and never making that argument before this Court to try to avoid an attachment.26 And not only has Kwok repeatedly stated that the Lady May is \"his\" (including in the above-described September 2020 complaint that he filed *after* he supposedly gave the yacht to his daughter), but HK International is a mere shell company (i) that did not have the yacht registered in its name until April 2020 (when PAX was in the red zone in this litigation);27 and (ii) with a \"principal office\" address of 162 E. 64th Street—the same address as (surprise!) the offices of Mr. Mitchell—who regularly represents Kwok or his shell entities, depending on the case.28\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n During the October 15 hearing, even before the Court knew that Kwok had moved the yacht, it explained that in this \"2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a\n\n25 [Dkt. No. 580](http) at 100:2–3 (testifying that his net worth is \"negative\"); 101:3–5 (testifying that \"[i]n reality, under the law\" he has \"no\" assets).\n\n26 *See* Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4 (claiming that Bravo Luck is (i) \"the beneficial owner\" of the Sherry-Netherland apartment and (ii) \"a company owned by Mr. Qiang Guo, the son of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok\").\n\n27 *See* [Opp.](http) at 4, n.2.\n\n28 *See* [Dkt. No. 705](http) at 1*.*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 38 of 82\n\ngreat deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders . . . [t]he Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets . . . .\"29 The Court further stated that \"we are not going to have any more shell games.\"30 Unfortunately, Kwok's shell games have continued, his dissembling and gamesmanship have only intensified, and he has once again flagrantly violated an order of this Court.\n\n This Court has the discretion to impose a sanction on Kwok sufficient to motivate him to comply with the October 15 Order. Indeed, \"the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce obedience to a court order.\"31 In a separate case against him in Nevada, for example, Kwok was sanctioned \\$250,000 per day until he finally complied with a court order requiring him to meet his most basic discovery obligations.32 The violation here is far worse.\n\n Given Kwok's repeated violation of this Court's orders, his obvious financial means as a self-proclaimed multi-billionaire, and the gravity of and materiality to PAX of the current violation, PAX respectfully requests a sanction—monetary or otherwise—that is sufficient to compel Kwok to comply with the October 15 Order and bring the Lady May back to the jurisdiction immediately.\n\n29 [Dkt. No. 647](http) at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 *[Id.](http)* at 22:7.\n\n31 *[1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2)*, 2007 WL 2701271, at \\*2 (N.Y. [Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007\\);](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2) *see also [Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_42)*, [208 A.D.2d 37, 42 \\(2d Dep't 1995\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_42) (\"A civil contempt penalty is imposed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court's mandate.\")*; [L & R Expl.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) Venture v. Grynberg*[, 2011 WL 1564647, at \\\\*4 \\(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) (\"The court has authority to punish a litigant that disobeys a lawful mandate. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court order or to compensate a party who is injured as a result of disobedience of a court order.\").\n\n32 *See* [Dkt. No. 557](http) at 2 (ordering Kwok to provide the Court with a phone number where he could be reached and either (i) an address where he would accept service of discovery documents, or (ii) and email address where such documents may be sent).\n\n![](_page_38_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, PAX respectfully submits that the Court should hold Kwok in\n\ncontempt and order appropriate sanctions.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n-and-\n\nRobert W. Seiden (rseiden@seidenlegal.com) 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 626-6708\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n![](_page_39_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n#### **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\n PAX hereby certifies that this document complies with the word count provisions of Commercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word, and the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and signature block, is less than 4,200 words.\n\nDATED: January 27, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: */s/ Edward Moss ^* Edward Moss (emoss@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 41 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 14**\n\n## **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER | PART | IAS MOTION 61EFM | |\n|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------|--|\n| | | Justice | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n| | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., | INDEX NO. | 652077/2017 | |\n| | Plaintiff, | | | |\n| | -
v - | MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO. | 012 | |\n| KWOK
HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., | | | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION | |\n| | Defendants. | | | |\n| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X | | | |\n\n#### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nBefore the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.\n\n(\"PAX\") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan (\"Kwok\") in contempt. This Court previously issued\n\nthree orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the \"Lady May.\" On September 30,\n\n2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the \"TRO\") preventing Kwok from,\n\namong other things, \"interference with any property in which he has an interest.\" NYSCEF Doc.\n\nNo. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that \"[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered\n\ncriminal contempt.\" *Id.* On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's\n\nmotion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:\n\nMr. Kwok is restrained 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 subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222, in accordance with the proceedings on the record of October 15, 2020. Specifically, Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of (1) the Residence at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, \"the Lady May\" are restrained from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630. Counsel for Kwok specifically asked the Court whether Kwok could move the yacht from the jurisdiction for licensing purposes. The Court denied this request at the time and directed counsel to make a motion if necessary.\n\nPlaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling. and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000. The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.\n\nA status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.\n\nDated: March 16, 2021\n\n| CHECK ONE: | | CASE DISPOSED | | X
NON-FINAL DISPOSITION | | | |\n|-----------------------|---|----------------------------|--|----------------------------|--|-----------------------|-----------|\n| | X | GRANTED | | DENIED | | GRANTED IN PART | OTHER |\n| APPLICATION: | | SETTLE ORDER | | | | SUBMIT ORDER | |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | | INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN | | | | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 45 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 15**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 46 of 82\n\n **FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/15/2022 09:09 AM** 2022-00609\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6537 T: +1 212 326 2000 F: +1 212 326 2061 omm.com\n\nFebruary 15, 2022\n\n**Stuart Sarnoff** D: +1 212-326-2293 ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n**VIA NYSCEF**\n\nMs. Susanna Molina Rojas Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department 27 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010\n\n#### *Re: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok, et al. (Case Nos. 2022-00609, 2022-00610; New York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/2017)*\n\nDear Ms. Rojas:\n\nWe write on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellee Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") concerning Defendant-Appellant Miles Kwok's request for an interim administrative stay pending his appeal of Justice Ostrager's February 9, 2022 Decision and Order in the abovecaptioned case, as well as the Final Order of Civil Contempt issued the same day. For the reasons set forth below, PAX respectfully requests that the Court deny the entry of an interim stay unless Kwok posts a bond in the amount of \\$134 million pursuant to CPLR § 5519(a)(2).1\n\nThe underlying litigation concerns a 2008 loan from PAX to Kwok, which Kwok has avoided repaying for well over a decade. On December 18, 2020, PAX obtained a judgment against Kwok in the amount of \\$116,402,019.57.2 Kwok appealed that judgment but did not post a bond, and to date has not paid one penny of the outstanding amount, which is now over \\$127 million with accrued interest. In the interim, as Justice Ostrager has repeatedly observed, Kwok has engaged in a series of increasingly elaborate \"shell games\"3 —including, among other things, concealing and shielding his substantial assets in shell companies and family members to avoid satisfying the judgment.\n\n1 This letter addresses only Kwok's request for an interim administrative stay. PAX reserves the right to file a more fulsome brief in opposition to Kwok's motion for a stay pending resolution of Kwok's appeal of Justice Ostrager's February 9, 2022 Decision and Order and the Final Order of Civil Contempt. Exhibits cited as Ex. [NUMBER] are attached to this letter. Exhibits cited as Ex. [LETTER] are attached to the Affirmation of Ira Brad Matetsky in support of Kwok's Stay Motion, Dkt. 3.\n\n2 Ex. 1, Judgment, Feb. 3, 2021, Index No. 652077/2017, Dkt. No. 716, at 2.\n\n3 Ex. 2, Hearing Transcript, Oct. 15, 2020, at 21:13-16, 22:7-14.\n\nThis appeal involves one such willful and unlawful evasion tactic that has already been condemned by this Court. Specifically, after the motion court granted summary judgment in PAX's favor, Justice Ostrager restrained Kwok from transferring ownership in or physically moving his major assets outside the jurisdiction—including an almost \\$70 million Fifth Avenue apartment and the *Lady May*, his luxury yacht worth approximately \\$30 million. Yet, in blatant violation of the motion court's unambiguous directive, Kwok thereafter moved his yacht to the Caribbean and then to Europe. In response, the motion court issued an order of conditional contempt in March 2021, allowing Kwok two months (until May 15, 2021) to return the *Lady May* to New York or else face a daily fine of \\$500,000. This Court unanimously affirmed the motion court's conditional contempt order on November 4, 2021, holding that the contempt determination was proper because PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights.\" *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021). Further, this Court condoned the motion court's imposition of a \\$500,000 fine for each day the yacht remained outside of New York after May 15, 2021, holding that the fine was properly \"intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing.\" *Id.* This Court then instructed the motion court to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\" *Id.*\n\nIn accordance with this Court's directive, the motion court held an evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. Seven witness presented direct testimony by affidavit and each affiant was cross-examined. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued a final order of civil contempt against Kwok, holding that the evidence adduced at the hearing \"clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"4 Imposing the \\$500,000 daily fine previously affirmed by this Court, Justice Ostrager ordered Kwok to remit \\$134 million to PAX within five business days.5\n\nKwok noticed his appeal from that ruling on February 10, 2022, and now seeks both an interim stay and a stay pending appeal. There are two independent reasons the interim stay should be denied. First, Kwok has no likelihood of success on the merits because this Court has already rejected his legal challenges to Justice Ostrager's contempt order. Indeed, all that remained after this Court rejected Kwok's previous contempt-related appeal was for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine \"ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\" 199 A.D.3d at 423. There is no real chance that the Court will reverse the trial court's evidence and credibility-based factual findings on appeal, and, as noted above, Kwok's legal challenges to the contempt order (including to the size of the fine) have already been rejected by this Court.\n\nThe second and more immediate reason for denying an interim stay is that further delay will irreparably harm PAX. CPLR § 5519(a)(2) provides for a stay of \"all proceedings to\n\n4 Ex. A, Dkt. 1181 at 4.\n\n5 *Id.* at 2.\n\nenforce the judgment or order appealed from\" where \"the judgment or order directs the payment of a sum of money, and an undertaking in that sum is given\" such that if the judgment appealed from is affirmed, the appellant \"shall pay the amount directed to be paid by the judgment.\" *See, e.g.*, *CT Chems. (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Vinmar Impex, Inc.*, 189 A.D.2d 727, 729 (1st Dep't 1993) (defendant was not protected from levy because it failed to post an undertaking pursuant to CPLR 5519(a)(2)); *Agai v. Liberty Mut. Agency Corp.*, 118 A.D.3d 830, 832 (2d Dep't 2014) (explaining that the \"posting of the bond\" under CPLR 5519(a)(2) effected a \"stay of enforcement of the order and the judgment,\" which was extinguished upon the court's determination of the appeal). In the event Kwok posts such a bond, PAX would consent to his request for an interim stay and a stay pending appeal, and already has told him so.6 But if Kwok does not post a bond, any delay will vastly increase the likelihood that Kwok will evade satisfying the trial court's contempt judgment, just as he has evaded satisfying the final judgment on the merits.\n\nIndeed, the same day the trial court issued its contempt order (February 9), Kwok took to social media, announcing his plan to \"wage a full-scale war on the PA[X] case,\" and expressing his intention to flee the country.7 Kwok stated that \"I'll probably go to two places very soon …. One is London, the other is Japan.\"8 Kwok then reaffirmed that \"I'll probably move to London and Japan,\" explaining that \"[t]his may happen at any time,\" and that he \"may leave tomorrow, or next week.\"9 It is no coincidence that Kwok's threats to abscond came just hours after Justice Ostrager ordered Kwok to pay \\$134 million to PAX, and Kwok's reaction is—as the motion court wrote in the context of its final contempt ruling—\"of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during this litigation.\"10 Kwok has consistently demonstrated that he has \"utter contempt for [the] Court and the judicial process,\"11 and that he will go to great lengths to avoid satisfying his legal obligations to PAX. Accordingly, as a self-described multibillionaire with access to private jets, Kwok's threats to evade the trial court's reach by fleeing the jurisdiction should be taken at their word. Granting an interim stay would give Kwok more time to plan his escape and thereby greatly jeopardize PAX's ability to enforce the motion court's order, not to mention the underlying \\$127 million judgment.\n\nMeanwhile, there are no equities at all in Kwok's favor. Kwok could have avoided the imposition of even one dollar of a fine had he simply returned his yacht to New York before May 15, 2021, so he has no one to blame for his completely avoidable current situation. Nor can Kwok claim surprise or prejudice. He has known for over a year that the yacht was restrained and that he faced the very real risk of civil contempt sanctions at the rate of \\$500,000 multiplied\n\n6 PAX conveyed its position to Kwok's counsel in a February 13, 2022 email in response to Kwok's counsel asking whether PAX would consent to an interim stay and a stay pending appeal. *See* Ex. 3, Feb. 14 email from S. Sarnoff.\n\n7 Ex. 4, Feb. 9. 2022 GETTR Posts; *see* Ex. 5, Bowden, John, *Fugitive Chinese Billionaire and Bannon Ally Threatens to Leave the US After Judge Orders Him to Pay \\$134m or Face Arrest*, THE INDEPENDENT (Feb. 10, 2022).\n\n8 Ex. 4, Feb. 9. 2022 GETTR Posts.\n\n9 *Id.*\n\n10 Ex. A, Dkt. 1181 at 7.\n\n11 *Id.* at 4.\n\nby the number of days since May 15, 2021—yet he has taken no steps to obviate that fine or purge himself of contempt, as this Court previously recognized. 199 A.D.3d at 423. Kwok was provided a two-month grace period to comply with the motion court's directive and thereby entirely avoid any fine, and he has now had over 275 additional days to return the yacht to New York and thereby suspend the accrual of additional contempt fees. Yet Kwok has consistently refused to take any of these remedial steps, choosing instead to continue to flout and mock the judicial process. 12 Entering an interim stay would only reward what Justice Ostrager has described as Kwok's contemptuous \"machinations,\"13 including, now, his threat imminently to abscond without satisfying either the underlying or civil contempt judgments. Accordingly, the equities weigh against Kwok's request for an interim stay.\n\nFor these reasons, the Court should deny Kwok's request for an interim stay unless Kwok posts a bond of \\$134,000,000 under CPLR § 5519(a)(2).\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nStuart Sarnoff for O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\ncc: All counsel of record\n\n12 Kwok contends that he would be prejudiced absent an interim stay because of the possibility the motion court would subject him to imprisonment. Stay Mot. at 22. But all Kwok has to do to avoid that result is post a bond, which should not be a problem for a self-proclaimed multibillionaire.\n\n13 *Id.* at 7.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 50 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1 TO EX. 15**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 51 of 82\n\n## **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 52 of 82\n\n| | | | , ZVZI | |\n|-----------------------------------|---|------|--------|------|\n| FILE
. D | | | | |\n| Feb 03 2021 | | 3 rd | Clerk | |\n| NEW YORK
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE | 2 | | Feb. | 2021 |\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 53 of 82\n\n![](_page_52_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 54 of 82\n\n![](_page_53_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 55 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 2 TO EX. 15**\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 56 of 82\n\n1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: TRIAL TERM PART 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, - against - KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO a/k/a GWO WEN GUI a/k/a GUO WENGUI a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN a/k/a MILES KWOK a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Index No. 652077/2017 October 15, 2020 Teams Proceeding B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Justice A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys at Law 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys at Law 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. (Appearances continued on next page.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n#### 1 of 28\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 57 of 82\n\n| 1 | A P P E A R A N C E S:
(Continuing) |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC
Attorneys at Law |\n| 3 | 162 East 64th Street
New York, New York 10065 |\n| 4 | BY:
AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ. |\n| 5 | |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | Terry-Ann Volberg, CSR, CRR
Official Court Reporter |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | tav |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 58 of 82\n\n21\n\n| | Proceedings |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the \"adverse party,\" and Mr. Kwok's assets not previously |\n| 2 | the subject of prior discovery and court orders relating to |\n| 3 | a transfer. |\n| 4 | Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Does anybody from Genever want |\n| 6 | to say anything? |\n| 7 | MR. MITCHELL:
No, your Honor.
I think that was |\n| 8 | well said.
I join Ms. Carvalho in her argument. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 10 | Look, this is a 2017 case.
We've had multiple |\n| 11 | motions relating to Mr. Kwok's assets.
The Court believes, |\n| 12 | as reflected in the September 15, 2020, order that Mr. Kwok |\n| 13 | has attempted to mislead the Court.
The Court believes that |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game |\n| 15 | with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court |\n| 16 | orders, the spirit of court orders.
This is going to come |\n| 17 | to an end on or shortly after January 15, 2021, when we have |\n| 18 | the trial on the alter ego issue, but between now and the |\n| 19 | commencement of the January 15, 2021, trial Mr. Kwok and any |\n| 20 | entities that he directly or indirectly controls are |\n| 21 | restrained from alienating or transferring any property that |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok has a direct or indirect interest including most |\n| 23 | specifically the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel |\n| 24 | which was the subject of 2018 discovery and a consent order |\n| 25 | to which counsel for Mr. Kwok referenced, and also the yacht |\n\ntav\n\n#### 21 of 28\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 59 of 82\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n22\n\n25\n\n22\n\n#### Proceedings\n\nwhich Mr. Kwok has at various times claimed ownership of. So the net result is that I exercise my discretion under CPLR 5229 to restrain any further transfers of the Sherry-Netherland apartment which Mr. Kwok once owned, and the 27 million-dollar yacht which Mr. Kwok once claimed to have owned.\n\nSo we are not going to have any more shell games. Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside, and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.\n\nIn the interim, between now and the January 15, 2021 trial on the alter ego issues, the plaintiff can conduct discovery of any of the entities that claim to own the Sherry-Netherland apartment or the yacht, and counsel for Genever and counsel for Mr. Kwok are directed to forthwith provide counsel for the plaintiff with information identifying the record owners of those two assets. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nThat's the order of the Court.\n\nMS. CARVALHO: Your Honor, could I ask for some clarification? 23 24\n\nWe understand the order of the Court today,\n\n#### tav\n\n#### 22 of 28\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 60 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 3 TO EX. 15**\n\n| From: | Sarnoff, Stuart M. |\n|----------|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| Sent: | Sunday, February 13, 2022 3:24 PM |\n| To: | Ira B. Matetsky |\n| Cc: | Metlitsky, Anton; Mark C. Zauderer; Jason T. Cohen |\n| Subject: | Re: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok |\n\nMr. Matetsky:\n\nAssuming Mr. Kwok posts a bond in the amount of the February 9, 2022 contempt judgment, PAX will consent to a stay pending appeal. Absent the bond, PAX will oppose any stay request, whether interim or otherwise.\n\n-Stuart.\n\n### **O'Melveny**\n\n**Stuart M. Sarnoff** Partner ssarnoff@omm.com O: +1-212-326-2293 C: +1-646-573-6299\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Website | LinkedIn | Twitter\n\n*This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.*\n\nOn Feb 13, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Ira B. Matetsky wrote:\n\n#### [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]\n\nDear Mr. Sarnoff:\n\nWe are appellate counsel in this action for Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Myles Kwok. We will be moving in the Appellate Division, First Department tomorrow for a stay of the contempt orders pending appeal. We will also be seeking an interim stay until the motion can be heard and determined. Please advise whether your client will consent.\n\nWe will provide you with copies of the motion papers when they are finalized and will advise when the parties are to appear on the application.\n\nRegards,\n\n **Ira B. Matetsky** *Partner*\n\n360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 **Main:** 212.922.9250 **Direct:** 212.922.9149 **Fax:** 212.922.9335 IMatetsky@ganfershore.com\n\n![](_page_61_Picture_3.jpeg)\n\n Celebrating Over 40 Years Serving Clients\n\nNOTE: The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information. Although this E-Mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender or Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. This E-Mail is not intended to create a binding agreement of any kind, nor is it intended to be a binding counter-offer to any offer that may be pending, unless otherwise expressly stated. It is intended to be an informal response to any pending proposal, part of an ongoing negotiation which awaits a written agreement signed by the party or parties to be charged before being legally binding. For this E-Mail to create any form of a binding agreement, it must include an affirmative statement to that effect.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 63 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 4 TO EX. 15**\n\n![](_page_63_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_64_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_64_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_65_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_65_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_66_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_66_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_67_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_67_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_68_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_68_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 70 of 82\n\n## **EXHIBIT 5 TO EX. 15**\n\n# **Fugitive Chinese billionaire and Bannon ally threatens to leave the US after judge orders him to pay \\$134m or face arrest**\n\n**The Independent**\n\n**Feb 10, 2022 15:25**\n\nCopyright 2022 Independent Digital News and Media Limited All Rights Reserved\n\n**Author:** John Bowden **Section:** NEWS,WORLD,AMERICAS,US POLITICS **Print Edition:** The Independent (United Kingdom) **Length:** 506 words **Highlight:** Chinese billionaire faces threat of arrest from furious judge\n\n## **Body**\n\nA judge on Thursday issued a furious order targeting a Chinese billionaire and ally of Steve [Bannon](http) , a member of [Donald](http) Trump 's inner circle, ordering him to either pay \\$134m or face arrest for his violation of a previous court order.\n\nIn a ruling, a judge from the New York County [Supreme](http) Court excoriated Guo Wengui [for hiding billions of dollars' worth of assets around the US and](http) elsewhere including in the form of a superyacht named the Lady May. Judge\n\n2/11/22, 9:28 AM Nexis Newsdesk™ Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 72 of 82\n\n> Barry Ostrager faulted Mr Guo in his ruling for hiding the craft outside of US jurisdiction in the Bahamas in violation of a previous order.\n\n\"Those proceedings established, among other things, that [Guo] exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining [Guo] and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction,\" wrote the judge.\n\nNevertheless, \"[Guo] and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas,\" the court filing continues, adding that a subsequent judgement ordered Mr Guo to return the yacht to US waters or face a fine of \\$500,000 per day.\n\nThat fine has now compounded to a \\$134m fee that Mr Guo was ordered on Thursday to pay within five business days, or risk arrest.\n\n\"The Court has the authority to hold [Mr Guo] in civil contempt ... and '\"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment'\", wrote the judge.\n\nMr Guo subsequently announced plans to flee the US on a livestream first reported by J Michael Waller of the Center for Security Policy, where he reportedly talked about leaving for Japan or possibly the UK. He will likely not return to China, where he is accused of a host of crimes including rape, any time soon. Mr Guo has denied the accusations which he claims are linked to his criticism of China's Communist Party.\n\nMr Bannon was arrested on the Lady May in 2020. He was charged, at the time, with fraud in relation to the \"We Build The Wall\" scheme, a privately-fundraised effort to construct fencing along stretches of land near the US-Mexico border. Mr Bannon was later pardoned by Mr Trump as one of his last acts before leaving Washington.\n\nHe also previously served on the board of a nonprofit, the Rule of Law Society, which is tied to Mr Guo. The New York Times reported that Mr Bannon and Mr Guo began working together shortly after Mr Bannon was ousted from the White House by then-chief of staff John Kelly.\n\nIt isn't clear if the wealthy businessman has ever interacted with Donald Trump [personally, but he was reported by the Times to be a](http) member at Mr Trump's Mara-Lago club in Florida. It was [reported in 2017](http) by The Wall Street Journal that Mr Trump, while president, decided against extraditing Mr Guo to China after learning of his membership at the club.\n\n2/11/22, 9:28 AM Nexis Newsdesk™ Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 73 of 82\n\nRead More\n\nPresident [Joe Biden drops in approval ratings -latest](http)\n\nAOC [optimistic Pelosi will allow for ban on stock trading for Congress](http)\n\nTrump [backer, 4 others charged with voter fraud in Wisconsin](http)\n\n## **Classification**\n\n**Industry:** Streaming Media (73%)\n\n## **Subject:**\n\nJudges (91%), Decisions & Rulings (90%), Law Courts & Tribunals (90%), Negative Personal News (90%), Wealthy People (90%), Arrests (89%), Communism (89%), US Presidential Candidates 2012 (89%), US Presidential Candidates 2016 (89%), US Presidential Candidates 2020 (89%), Crime, Law Enforcement & Corrections (78%), Criminal Fines (78%), Criminal Offenses (78%), Fines & Penalties (78%), Fraud & Financial Crime (78%), Jurisdiction (78%), Litigation (78%), Negative News (78%), Public Policy (78%), Rule Of Law (78%), Political Parties (73%), Sexual Assault (73%), Supreme Courts (73%), Pardons (61%)\n\n**Load Date:** Feb 10, 2022 16:52\n\n![](_page_72_Picture_11.jpeg)\n\n[About](htt) [Privacy Policy](htt) [Cookies](http) Terms & Conditions\n\n![](_page_72_Picture_13.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 74 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 16**\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 50-2 | Filed 02/28/22 | | Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 | | Page 75 of 82 | |\n|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| jE
'
ILED | FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/15/2022 03:13 PM
: APPELLATE | 1ST
DIVISION
- | DEPT | 02/l4/2022 | 02
: 37 | PM | 2022-00609
2022-0
0609 |\n| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5
NYSCEF | . 3
DOC.
NO | suMMARY
STATEMENT
EXPEDITED
SERVICE
(SUBMITTED | oN
AND/OR
BY
MOVING PARTY) | APPLICATION
INTERIM | 1uit
RELIEF | )
VED
NYSCEF
: | RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022
/14/2
02
022 |\n| | February 14, 2022
Date: | | | Case# | | 2022-00609;2022-00610 | |\n| | Title
of | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. | | Index/Indict/Docket# | 652077/2017 | | |\n| | Matter
Kwok Ho Wan, a/k/a,
v. | et
al. | | | | | |\n| | Appeal
Defendant
by | [Z]
Order
D
iudgment
of
D
from Decree | IZJ
Supreme
Surrogate•sO
D
Family | Count~e_w_Y_o_rk
Court entere.d on | ____
_
Feb. 9 | ,20
2022 | |\n| | of
Name
Barry
R.
Ostrager
Judge | | | Notice
of
Appeal
Feb. 10
filed on | | 22
.20 | |\n| | If
from
administrative determination, state agency | | | ___________________ | | _ | |\n| | Breach
of
Contract
of
Nature
action | | | | | | |\n| | proceeding
or | ---==------------------------------ | | | | | |\n| | Provisions
of
~-~:::~tent
t:jdecree | _A_I
appealed from | _I | __________________ | | _ | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | This application by | appellant
a stay
fo~
is
respondent | of | a contempt order pending appeal. | | | |\n| | | Defendant-Appellant seeks a stay prior to February 16, | | 2022, | by
which date | | |\n| | he has been ordered | pay a \\$134,000,000
to | | contempt fine
to | Plaintiff. | | |\n| | If
applying for a stay, state reason why requested | | The \\$134,000,000 | contempt fine is excessive, | | | |\n| | disproportionate, and unconstitutional, and the motion court has invoked | | | | the prospect | | |\n| | of
imprisonment
if | it is not paid within five business days, i.e. by February 16, | | | | 2022. | |\n| | Has any undertaking been posted | N
_o_.
_________
_ | _ | If\"yes\", | state amount and type | ___
_ | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | Has application been made to
No.
court below for this
relief | ~~-------- | If
\"yes\", state | Disposition---------------,-- | | | |\n| | Has there been any prior application
here
in
this court | ___________
_ | lf\"yes\",
and nature | state dates
______________ | | _ | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | Has adversary been advised
of
this application
_ | Y~e~s~·---------- | Does he/she
No.
consent | ~~-------------- | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n| Attorney for Movant | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Name Ira Brad Matetsky and Jason T. Cohen | O'Melvany & Myers LLP |\n| Address 360 Lexington Avenue | 7 Times Square |\n| New York, New York 10017 | New York, New York 10036 |\n| | 212-326-2000 |\n| Tel. No. 212-365-3391 (cell); 2120922-9149 (office) | New York |\n| Emai I
imatetsky@ganfershore.com | |\n| Appearing by _lr_a_B_. _M_a_te_ts_k-'-y--------- | Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com); 212-326-2293 |\n| Jason T. Cohen Qcohen@ganfershore.com); 646-250-4141 | Anton Metlitsky (ametlitsky@omm.com); 212-316-2291 |\n| Mark C. Zauderer (mzauderer@ganfershore.com); 917-331-7762 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | (Do not \\Hite below this line) |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| DISPOSITION
Appellant's application for a stay is denied. | February 15, 2022 |\n| | Dnte |\n| ___
0 pposition
&-_· +-/_J_t_,/_J_J-- | Fili'
__
1,/ 2:A
J'-1/,__J_f_\"\"-'/())~, a_&_.tl)
Reply |\n| Motion Date ___
I
__
EXPEDITE ---\"'-V_;_'
PHONE ATTORNEYS | __
_
I
I
__________
______
DECISION BY
_
_ |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 77 of 82\n\n# **EXHIBIT 17**\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM: PART 61 -------------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, - against - INDEX # 6520772017 KWOK HO WAN a/k/a KWOK HO a/k/a GWO WEN GUI a/k/a GUO WENGUI a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN a/k/a MILES KWOK a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------X Motion September 22, 2021 Microsoft Teams Teleconference B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, Justice of the Supreme Court A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorneys for the Plaintiff 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 By: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for the Defendant 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 By: MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 78 of 82\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | | | | | Doc 50-2 | Filed 02/28/22
Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Page 79 of 82 | | |\n|----------|---------------|--|---------------------------------|--|--|----------|---------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--------------------------|--|--|--|------------------------------------------|--|--|--|-----------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | | | A P P E A R A N C E S: (Cont'd) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC | | | | Attorneys for Defendant Genever Holdings | | | | | | |\n| 4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | White Plains, NY 10601 | | | | 99 Church Street, 4th Floor | | | | | | |\n| 5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | By: AARON MITCHELL, ESQ. | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15
16 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | MICHELE PANTELOUKAS | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Senior Court Reporter | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\n\n#### 15 Proceedings yesterday another motion to approve the settlement was filed in the Bankruptcy Court. Yet PAX now seeks to undermine the bankruptcy protect; harm other interested parties and creditors; and deprive Genever relief available to it in the Bankruptcy Court, which would allow it to seek to extend the automatic stay to non-debtor entities. As Your Honor can see, PAX is all over the place. It wants the Sherry and it wants it now. But the fact of the matter is that these issues are being addressed by other Courts right now. And those Courts will be making determinations shortly. PAX is not harmed by waiting for the BVI and Bankruptcy Courts to determine these issues, as the status quo has been maintained by freeze orders and restraints. PAX should not forum shop its way into a faster resolution of these pending issues. Lastly, should this Court be inclined to grant PAX's motion to appoint a receiver, the receiver should not be PAX. PAX is not disinterested as a judgment creditor, and should be disqualified from acting as a receiver. In fact, in the Bankruptcy Court PAX itself has acknowledged the importance of appointing an independent third party. We ask that the Court deny PAX's motion in its entirety. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Mitchell. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 80 of 82\n\nmlp\n\n 16 Proceedings MR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, Aaron Mitchell for Genever defendants. Ms. Carvalho hit on all of the points that I was going to address, so I don't need to add anything further at this time. THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else want to tell me anything? I don't need to hear from Mr. Moss again. All right. Mr. Kwok identified his ownership interest in Genever Holdings BVI as his only asset worth more than \\$10,000 in response to PAX's post-judgment interrogatories, which is document number 756 in this case at page nine. The ownership of shares in a company can be turned over in satisfaction of a money judgment, the same way as any other personal property. CPLR section 5225 extends to shares of stock as well as money. Therefore, this Court believes that there is no impediment to directing that the shares that Mr. Kwok owns in Genever Holdings BVI be turned over to PAX. The Court is not inclined to appoint any receiver. And the Court's order directing the turnover is expressly conditioned on the approval of the BVI Court overseeing the related action in the BVI, in which Justice Jack has issued a stay. It is undisputed that the Sherry Netherland 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 81 of 82\n\nmlp\n\n#### 17 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 82 of 82\n\nProceedings\n\napartment is owned by Genever Holdings, which is a subsidiary of Genever BVI. And Genever Holdings is involved in bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of New York. This Court has ruled that until and unless the bankruptcy stay in the Genever Holdings bankruptcy is lifted, this Court cannot hold a trial on the issue of alter ego as against Genever New York and Genever BVI. And so any action which PAX may wish to take with respect to Genever Holdings requires the approval of Judge Garrity in the New York bankruptcy proceedings involving Genever New York, because Genever New York is in bankruptcy. All this Court is doing today is directing, subject to the approval of the BVI Court, which has issued a stay order, is instructing Genever BVI's registered agent to update Genever BVI's registered members to reflect that PAX, or its designee, is the legal owner of Mr. Kwok's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16\n\nshares in Genever Holdings BVI. And that's the resolution of motion sequence 18.\n\n17\n\n18\n\nAny questions or comments? Mr. Moss, you are muted. MR. MOSS: Your Honor, sorry about that. Your Honor, if I may, I have two brief ones. The first one is, I just want to clarify, on subject to approval of the BVI Court, do you simply mean that we need to get Justice Jack's permission in order for 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nmlp","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交日期 02/28/22 登记日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 1 页，共 82 页\n证据附件 10\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交日期 02/28/22 登记日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 4 页，共 82 页\n证据附件 11\n纽约州纽约县最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK） ：第 61 庭\n-------------------------------------------------X\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙企业），\n原告，\n- 诉 -\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n被告。\n-----------------------------------------------------X 索引号 652077/2017\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日——通过 Microsoft Teams\n\n审判长：尊敬的 BARRY OSTRAGER 法官，JSC\n\n出庭律师：\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥睿律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n出庭律师：STUART SARNOFF 律师\nDAVID HARBACH 律师\nLAURA ARONSSON 律师\n\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan 代理律师\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n出庭律师：JOHN SIEGAL 律师\nTRACY COLE 律师\nERICA BARROW 律师\n\n出庭律师续：\n\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN GIANTOMASI PC（Chiesa Shahinian Giantomasi 律师事务所）\nHK International（香港国际）代理律师\n11 Times Square, 34th Floor\nNew York, New York 10036\n出庭律师：LEE VARTAN 律师\n\n- 0 -\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nIvanov——由被告方传唤——交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n问：Lady May 目前位于意大利热那亚。\n问：它在那里多久了？\n答：我相信该船在我上船大约一周前抵达，所以我会说是 9 月下旬。我不确定具体日期。\n问：2021 年 9 月下旬？\n答：是的，正确。\n问：Lady May 最后一次在您担任船长的情况下航行到任何地方，是什么时候？\n答：我相信该船从未在我担任船长的情况下航行过。自我于 10 月初加入该船以来，该船一直停泊在热那亚。\n问：它没有去过任何地方？\n答：正确，先生。\nHARBACH 律师：法官，请稍等。\n（短暂停顿）\n问：Ivanov 先生，我的一位同事想知道，您此刻是否在 Lady May 上？\n答：是的，先生，我确实在。\n问：谢谢。\nHARBACH 律师：我对该证人没有进一步问题。\nIvanov 先生，谢谢。\n法庭：Ivanov 先生，您可以离席。请传下一位证人。\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\nVARTAN 律师：法官阁下，被告方传唤 Craig Heaslop（克雷格·希斯洛普）出庭作证。\nHeaslop 先生此前同样已提交一份宣誓书，各方当事人和法庭均已持有该宣誓书。我们将该宣誓书作为其直接证言提交，并再次让其接受交叉询问。\n法庭：接收该宣誓书。如您找到证人，我们将令其宣誓并对其进行交叉询问。\nVARTAN 律师：他给我发来信息，说他登录遇到一些困难，但他一直向我通报情况。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n（短暂停顿）\n法庭：Heaslop 先生？\n证人：您能清楚听到我说话吗？\n法庭：能。请您举起右手。证人宣誓。\n（Craig Heaslop 已依法宣誓／确认。）\nCRAIG HEASLOP 经被告方传唤，在依法宣誓后，接受询问并作如下证言：\n交叉询问\n由 HARBACH 律师进行：\n问：先生，您能告诉我您的姓氏如何发音吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n答：Heaslop。\n问：好的。谢谢。\n请您为法庭书记员拼写您的姓名，包括名字和姓氏。\n答：Craig，C-R-A-I-G。Heaslop，H-E-A-S-L-O-P。\n问：我想请您注意您的屏幕。请告诉我，您能否看到您面前屏幕上本案中的确认书？\n答：能。\n问：第一个问题将直接涉及第 16 段。您在其中称，您将 Lady May 驶往佛罗里达州时，于 10 月第一周离开。您记得离开的确切日期吗？\n答：不，我不记得。\n问：您是否熟悉一个名为 VesselFinder 的互联网网站？您听说过吗？\n答：是的，我知道 VesselFinder。\n问：查看 Lady May 在 VesselFinder 上的航迹图，是否有助于您回忆起您离开纽约的确切日期？\n答：我不知道这是否能帮助我回忆起来，不能。\n问：您愿意看一下吗？\n答：我可以看一下，是的。\n问：我已在屏幕上调出——这仅用于唤起记忆，且不会作为证据附件提交。为记录在案，我在屏幕上调出了 Lady May 的 Voyage Analyser，其国际海事组织编号为\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n屏幕上的 Lady May 的国际海事组织编号为 1012359。\n答：就是这个。\n问：请再说一遍？\n答：就是这个。\n问：就是这个，好的。\n那么我将放大，我还要向您指出，所选的有效日期范围是 2020 年 9 月 1 日至 2022 年 1 月 31 日，好的？\nVARTAN 律师：法官阁下，我对此提出异议。我不知道这是否在听证会前已被提供。因此，这将呼应 Siegel 律师的异议，即——\n法庭：他可以使用他希望使用的任何材料，尝试唤起证人的记忆。如果该材料未能唤起证人的记忆，那么就未能唤起证人的记忆。\nVARTAN 律师：嗯，这也是另一点，法官阁下。我不认为证人称这会唤起其记忆。\n法庭：我明白，但让我们看看他查看后会发生什么。\n问：Heaslop 先生，我将放大纽约市。看起来有一条轨迹从曼哈顿南部通往大西洋，在该航线上有一个小三角形，日期为 2020 年 10 月 9 日。\n\nHeaslop——由被告方传唤——交叉询问 / Harbach\n\n答：是。\n问：在该航迹更远一些、位于新泽西州海岸外的地方，还有另一个标记，显示 2020 年 10 月 9 日。因此，我要问您的是：这是否唤起您的记忆，即 Lady May 实际离港日期为 2020 年 10 月 9 日？\n答：我不太注意我们离开的实际日期。对我来说，更重要的是天气情况。我根据天气选择日子和日期。\n问：好的，没问题。我所能做的只是问它是否有助于您回忆。您说是 10 月第一周。如果是 9 日，那已经非常接近了。\n好的，让我们回到您的宣誓书。在第 17 段中，您称在离开前，您与 Kwok 先生进行了一次谈话。我的第一个问题是，该谈话是否当面进行？\n答：不是。\n问：您的宣誓书称，他当时是游艇上的客人。您当时在哪里？\n答：就我个人而言？我在游艇上。\n问：那正是我试图询问的，也许问得不够妥当。您在游艇上。Kwok 先生在游艇上。然而，该谈话是通过电话或其他方式进行的吗？\n\n答：不是。我与 Kwok 先生进行该谈话时，他不在游艇上。我们停靠在码头。\n问：好的。那么也许我误解了您的宣誓书。请阅读第 17 段的第一句。只需自己读一下。我只是试图弄清楚当时谁是游艇上的客人。\n答：好的。我在其中想表达的是，他是客人。我想这可能是更好的表述方式。我们进行该谈话时，他并不实际在船上。他曾是船上的客人。\n问：我想您刚才说过，当您与他进行该谈话时，您本人在游艇上？\n答：是的，我在游艇上。\n问：您记得这一点？\n答：是。\n问：好的。并且——\n法庭：在 2020 年 10 月之前，您记得 Kwok 先生最后一次在游艇上是什么时候？\n证人：在 2020 年 10 月之前？\n法庭：是。\n证人：如往常一样，他整个夏季都断断续续地在游艇上。具体日期，我无法事后告诉您他们何时来、何时离开。\n法庭：他在 7 月份的大部分时间都在游艇上吗？\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n证人：那是 COVID 期间。是的，他在。\n法庭：2020 年 8 月期间呢？\n证人：是。\n法庭：2020 年 9 月期间呢？\n证人：我相信也是，是的。\n法庭：Guo 女士在 2020 年 9 月期间是否在游艇上？\n证人：我们在夏末见过 Guo 女士。我正试图回忆是哪个月。我无法准确记得是哪一个月。\n法庭：就 Kwok 先生与 Guo 女士而言，您会如何比较他们各自在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月期间在游艇上停留的时长？\n证人：在那些月份，Kwok 先生在游艇上停留的时间比 Guo 女士多。\n法庭：多很多还是多一点？\n证人：多很多。\n法庭：好的。\n我打断您了，Harbach 律师。\nHARBACH 律师：没关系，法官阁下。\n由 HARBACH 律师进行：\n问：您记得在您离开前多久，您曾\n\nRachel C. Simone，CSR，RMR，CRR\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交日期 02/28/22 登记日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 14 页，共 82 页\n证据附件 12\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 接收日期：12/24/2020 案号 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交日期 02/28/22 登记日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 15 页，共 82 页\n\n纽约州纽约县最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK）\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名\n\n诉\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\n尊敬的 Barry Ostrager 法官\n\n第 61 庭\n\n动议序号 \\_\\_\n\n被告。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司），及\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名 HAOYUN GUO，\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就被告 KWOK 提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录\n目录 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 接收日期：12/24/2020\n页码\n\n初步陈述 1\n\n背景 2\n论证 4\n结论 6\n判例目录\n\n判例　页码\n\nFinancial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.\nNo. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917（纽约州纽约县最高法院，2016 年 9 月 14 日）………………4\nMcCormick v. Axelrod，59 N.Y.2d 574，经修订，60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)……………………………………………4\n法规\nJudiciary Law § 753 …………………………………1, 4\n\nCPLR § 5104 ………………………………….1\n\n提交：纽约县书记官 12/24/2020 04:11 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 689 NYSCEF 接收日期：12/24/2020 案号 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交日期 02/28/22 登记日期 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 18 页，共 82 页\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）谨提交本法律备忘录，以支持其依据 CPLR § 5104 和 Judiciary Law § 753 提出的动议，请求作出命令：(i) 认定被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）因不遵守法庭于 2020 年 10 月 15 日作出的限制令（下称“该命令”）而藐视法庭；(ii) 命令 Kwok 立即促使其游艇（下称“Lady May”）返回法庭管辖范围；以及 (iii) 准予法庭认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n初步陈述\n\n本法庭此前已认定，Kwok 曾“蔑视或极其宽泛地解释”其命令，并作出“误导法庭的故意或非故意失实陈述”。[1] 用 Yogi Berra 的话说，这又是似曾相识的一幕：毫无疑问，Kwok 明知故犯地违反了本法庭禁止其将游艇[2] 移出法庭管辖范围的命令；而且——或许更糟的是——他再次通过指示其律师请求法庭准许移动游艇，而将其律师置于尴尬境地，尽管 Kwok 知道在提出该请求时，该游艇已经被移至美国领海之外。法庭应认定 Kwok 藐视法庭，要求其立即将游艇返回管辖范围，并准予其认为为最终阻止 Kwok 嘲弄本程序所必需和适当的任何额外救济。\n\n1 [Dkt. 647] 第 26:6–8 页。\n\n2 Kwok 如主张反对意见，称该游艇在技术上并非“他的”，则纯属不真诚的无稽之谈。若 Kwok 提出该虚假论点（该论点直接与包括 Kwok 律师在近期一次庭审会议上请求允许 Kwok 将游艇移出本院管辖范围在内的证据和承认相矛盾），PAX 将在答复中予以回应。然而，PAX 指出，任何此类论点均与本动议无关，因为该命令明确涵盖该游艇，即使其由另一登记所有人持有（无论该登记所有人为 Kwok 的空壳公司还是家庭成员）。\n\n背景\n\n2020 年 9 月 30 日，本院作出临时限制令（Temporary Restraining Order，以下简称“TRO”），禁止 Kwok，除其他事项外，“干涉其拥有权益的任何财产”。[3] 本院在作出 TRO 时指出，“任何违反……的行为均应被视为刑事藐视法庭”。[4] 约两周后，即 2020 年 10 月 15 日，本院作出该命令，准许 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制 Lady May：\n\nKwok 先生被禁止直接或间接作出或促成对其拥有权益的任何财产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干涉，并被禁止支付或以其他方式处分现已到期或此后到期应支付给他的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情况，并依照 2020 年 10 月 15 日庭审记录中的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生及／或（1）Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）的住所和（2）游艇“Lady May”的登记所有人，均被禁止作出或促成对该等资产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干涉。[5]\n\n2020 年 11 月 12 日，本院举行庭审会议，在会议期间，Kwok 的律师（推定系依其客户指示）特意向本院询问 Kwok 是否可以将该游艇移至境外：[6]\n\n显然，该船登记于境外，我相信是在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），且有一项要求，即其必须每六个月返回其母港一次。这不会以任何方式影响所有权或产权，但其需要在某个时候短暂驶往境外，然后返回美国。我们只是希望披露此事，以免有人认为该船正被藏匿或转让。这只是其因许可目的而必须履行的一项常规事项。[7]\n\n7 同上，第 13 页第 9–18 行。\n\n3 [Dkt. 591]，第 1 页。\n\n4 [同上]，第 2 页。\n\n5 [Dkt. 630。]\n\n6 Moss 宣誓书附件 1（2020 年 11 月 12 日庭审会议记录），第 12 页第 23–25 行。\n\n本院明确回应，Kwok 不得将游艇移出本管辖范围，并且在此之前必须提出动议：\n\n你们必须通过书面材料提出该申请。我不了解任何关于一项在美国受到限制的资产应被允许前往 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的要求。我非常怀疑 [PAX] 希望该游艇处于本院管辖范围之外……你们将向 [PAX] 送达通知后，提交附有支持性文件的动议，我将对此作出裁决。我不会允许 Kwok 先生将游艇移至 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），然后使其可能无法供 [PAX] 执行扣押……该申请必须通过正式动议文件提出，附具支持性文件，并给予 [PAX] 适当机会作出答复。[8]\n\n尽管 Kwok 的律师答复称其“明白”“本院的指示”，并将“以书面形式提供该信息”，[9] Kwok 并未提出任何此类动议。\n\n鉴于其与 Kwok 的经历及其不当行为，PAX 及其律师对 Kwok 律师的提问感到担忧，并进行了调查。数日后，PAX 根据从 MarineTraffic.com 获得的公开信息得知，该游艇事实上已于 2020 年 11 月 1 日离开 Fort Lauderdale, Florida（佛罗里达州劳德代尔堡），且截至 2020 年 11 月 18 日，位于 Bahamas（巴哈马）Nassau（拿骚）Old Fort Bay（旧堡湾）或其附近。[10] 换言之，Kwok 实际上在该命令作出约两周后，且在其律师于 11 月 12 日庭审会议上请求准许 Kwok 实施该行为之前两周，已将游艇移出美国水域。\n\n鉴于该信息，PAX 的律师于 2020 年 11 月 18 日致函 Kwok 的律师，提供其所获得的有关游艇所在位置的信息，表示其“鉴于 Kwok 先生在本诉讼过程中一贯作出虚假陈述的历史”而感到担忧，并要求 Kwok 的律师“确认 Lady May 的位置”及“确认该船将在 48 小时内返回纽约”。[11]\n\nKwok 的律师从未答复。相反，当晚稍后，Kwok 的律师向本院提交了一封信，声称对此一无所知，并承诺进行调查并予以回复：\n\n我们于今晚方才得知，本院限制令（NYSCEF Doc. 630）中提及并在 2020 年 11 月 11 日于本院举行的审前会议中讨论的游艇 Lady May，目前处于国际水域。尽管原告律师刚刚向我们发来一封有关该游艇据称所在位置的信函，我们尚未确认任何细节……我们正试图获得更多信息，并将在得知任何进一步信息后立即通知本院及律师。[12]\n\n但截至今日提交本文件之时——五周后——Kwok 的律师仍未向本院或 PAX 的律师提供任何进一步信息。截至今日，根据 MarineTraffic.com，该游艇仍停泊于 Bahamas（巴哈马）Nassau（拿骚）或其周边地区。[13]\n\n论证\n\n根据 Judiciary Law（司法法）第 753 条：\n\n为认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，[(1)] 必须确定一项明确表达无歧义指令的合法法院命令已生效。[(2)] 必须以合理确定性表明该命令未被遵守。[(3)] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，尽管并不要求该命令实际上已送达该方。[(4)] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了损害。\n\n11 同上。\n\n12 Dkt. No. [Dkt. 649。]\n\n13 见 Moss 宣誓书第 5 段。\n\nMcCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583，经修正，60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)；另见 Financial v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc., No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 14, 2016) (Ostrager, J.)（援引 McCormick 并适用四要件检验）。PAX 在本案中轻易满足藐视法庭的四项要件。\n\n第一，该命令是本院的一项合法命令：其无歧义地指令 Kwok 被“禁止作出或促成对[该游艇]进行任何出售、让与、转让或干涉”。[14]\n\n第二，Kwok 在本院作出该命令约两周后促使游艇离开本管辖范围，从而违反了该命令（且仍在违反该命令）。\n\n第三，Kwok 是一名精明的当事人，其参与本诉讼，且显然知悉该命令。此外，其律师在 11 月 12 日庭审会议上专门请求澄清该命令，[15] 期间其表示其“明白”本院的“指示”，即 Kwok 在将游艇移出本管辖范围前必须提出动议。[16]\n\n第四，PAX 因 Kwok 故意蔑视该命令而受到损害。Kwok 多年来一直试图阻挠本院最终作出的判决，且其试图逃避偿还其对 PAX 所负债务的时间远长于此。Kwok 通过家庭成员和空壳公司隐匿其资产，而 PAX 即使对位于美国境内的资产进行追偿也将足够困难。若允许 Kwok 通过在本院管辖范围外的公海某处藏匿其游艇来扩大其空壳游戏，PAX 对该资产实施执行的机会将大幅降低。\n\n14 见上文注 5。\n\n15 见上文注 6。\n\n16 见上文注 9。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 恭请本院根据 CPLR 5104 和 Judiciary Law（司法法）第 753 条作出命令，(i) 认定 Kwok 因违反该命令而构成藐视法庭；(ii) 指示 Kwok 立即促使其游艇 Lady May 返回本院管辖范围；及 (iii) 准予本院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2020 年 12 月 24 日　纽约州纽约市　谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP　签字人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n-及-\n\nRobert W. Seiden（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金 L.P.）的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\n原告特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17（商事庭规则第 17 条）的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制；不包括抬头、标题及签名栏，本法律备忘录的总字数少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：2020 年 12 月 24 日　纽约州纽约市　谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP　签字人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金 L.P.）的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 50-2　Filed 02/28/22　Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53　Page 25 of 82\n\n附件 13\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM　INDEX NO. 652077/2017　NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709　RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021　Case 22-50073　Doc 50-2　Filed 02/28/22　Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53　Page 26 of 82\n\n纽约州最高法院　纽约县\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金 L.P.），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\n法官：Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），\n\n动议序号：12\n\n第 61 庭\n\n被告。\n\n支持原告 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就对被告 KWOK 提出藐视法庭命令动议的进一步法律备忘录\n\n目录\n\n页码\n\n初步陈述　1\n\n论证　1\n\nI.　2020 年 10 月 15 日命令禁止将 Lady May 移出本院管辖范围。　1\n\nII.　本院应认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭。　4\n\n结论　11\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/27/2021 09:30 PM　INDEX NO. 652077/2017　Case 22-50073　Doc 50-2　Filed 02/28/22　Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53　Page 28 of 82\n\n法源目录　NYSCEF DOC. NO. 709　RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/27/2021\n\n判例\n\n页码\n\n1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC,\n2007 WL 2701271 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007)　10\n\n2619 Realty, LLC v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.,\n303 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dep't 2003)　2\n\nBogoni v. Friedlander,\n197 A.D.2d 281 (1st Dep't 1994)　6\n\nDep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.,\n208 A.D.2d 37 (2d Dep't 1995)\n\nL & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg,\n2011 WL 1564647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011)　10\n\nWengui v. Zeng,\nIndex No. 157025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020)　5\n\n其他依据\n\nMERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM，Interfere　2\n\n规则\n\nN.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3　4\n\n初步陈述1\n\n鉴于本案的历史情况，尚不清楚郭文贵的反对意见书是否是他向本院提交的最不真诚的一份文件。但它肯定名列前茅。郭文贵面不改色地辩称：(i) 将Lady May（“五月女士”号）移出并留置于本院管辖范围之外并未违反October 15命令——尽管本院已明确且反复表示其确已违反；以及(ii) 即使移动该游艇构成违反，郭文贵也不应受到制裁，因为他并不拥有五月女士号——尽管他在法院提交的文件及社交媒体上均一再表示自己拥有该游艇。够了。本院应认定郭文贵藐视法庭，并施加足以促使其遵守该命令、将其游艇带回本管辖范围并使其留在此处的制裁。\n\n论证\n\n一、October 15命令禁止将五月女士号移出本院管辖范围。\n\n郭文贵并不否认：(i) October 15命令“依照2020年October 15庭审记录中的程序”，限制“郭文贵和／或……‘五月女士号’……的登记所有人，对该资产作出或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干预”；2 或(ii) 五月女士号已被移出美国水域。相反，他辩称，将其移出本院管辖范围在技术上并未违反October 15命令，因为\n\n1 本简要书状将：(i) 被告Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）提交的《关于原告要求作出藐视法庭命令之动议的反对法律备忘录 [Dkt. No. 698]》称为“反对意见书”或“Opp.”；(ii) Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）进一步支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）针对被告郭文贵提出的藐视法庭命令动议的声明书称为“Moss Reply Aff.”；及(iii) Nathaniel Francis（纳撒尼尔·弗朗西斯）支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.针对被告郭文贵提出的藐视法庭命令动议的声明书称为“Francis Aff.”。除非另有说明，(i) 已定义术语具有《支持Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.针对被告郭文贵提出的藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录 [Dkt. No. 689]》中赋予其的含义，(ii) 所有强调均为后加，及(iii) 所有内部引注及引文均予省略。\n\n2 [Opp.] at 3（引自 [Dkt. No. 630]）。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 709 NYSCEF 收讫：01/27/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交 02/28/22 录入 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 30 页，共 82 页\n\n(i) 五月女士号的“所有权”并未改变；(ii) 原告在October 15庭审中“既未请求，也未获得本院禁止五月女士号迁移的任何指示”；以及(iii) 本院在October 15庭审中说明，日常经营支出——例如，“如果郭先生想在冠状病毒疫情期间休假”——是允许的。3\n\n这些论点毫无根据。首先，郭文贵无法解释为何移动该游艇不构成对October 15命令的“干预”（其确属干预），4 也无法解释为何在日常经营中为休假花钱竟等同于将一项受限制的、价值数百万美元的资产移出本管辖范围（两者并不等同）。事实上，本院已经驳回了郭文贵关于“日常经营”的论点。为回应郭文贵律师请求澄清限制令是否适用于支付律师费的问题，本院说明了其所称“日常经营”的范围。5 在该澄清之后，郭文贵的律师立即询问，是否可以将五月女士号移至British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛），因为这“只是其为取得许可所必须做的一件日常事项”。6 本院以毫不含糊的措辞答复称，在提出并胜诉一项请求许可如此行事的动议之前，郭文贵不得移动该游艇。7\n\n3 [Opp.] at 6–9。\n\n4 “本州法院通常会查阅词典，以确定合同中词语的通常及普通含义。”2619 Realty, LLC（2619房地产有限责任公司）v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co.（忠实与保证保险公司）, 303 A.D.2d 299, 301 (1st Dep't 2003). “干预”的通常含义是“以妨碍或阻碍的方式介入”。MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM，Interfere（可查阅：http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interfere）。\n\n5 参见 [Dkt. 691] at 12:23–13:5（准许“惯常且合理”的律师费）。\n\n6 [Id.] at 13:9–18。\n\n7 [Id.] at 13:19–24。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 709 NYSCEF 收讫：01/27/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交 02/28/22 录入 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 31 页，共 82 页\n\n更糟的是，郭文贵完全无视本院一再作出的明确、清楚且毫不含糊的声明，即移动五月女士号将会（且确已）违反该命令。首先，在October 15庭审中（该庭审记录被明确纳入当日稍后作出的October 15命令），本院专门讨论了五月女士号，并指示郭文贵不得移动该游艇及其他资产，以便在PAX胜诉时可供执行（即，不得干预PAX可能采取的判决执行工作）：\n\n无论这些资产由何处持有，它们均应继续留在其目前所在之处；如认定目前列为这些资产所有人的实体是郭先生的另一个自我，或完全受郭先生支配和控制，则这些资产将可用于满足原告获得的任何判决。8\n\n随后，在November 20庭审中，郭文贵的律师提出“两个问题……以澄清本院已作出的限制令的范围”——其中一个问题是五月女士号是否可以移出本管辖范围（尽管我们现在知道，当时该游艇已经被移走）。9 如上所述，本院毫不含糊地回答“不能”——除非先提出并胜诉一项动议，并取得本院进一步命令：\n\n你们必须以书面提出该项申请。我不了解任何要求，即一项在美国受到限制的资产应被允许前往英属维尔京群岛。我严重怀疑莫斯先生希望那艘游艇处于本院管辖范围之外。……我不会允许郭先生将游艇移至英属维尔京群岛，然后该游艇可能无法供莫斯先生的当事人扣押执行。……Siegal先生询问我，是否可以修改限制令，允许该游艇从美国港口移至英属维尔京群岛；我答复称，该申请必须以正式动议文件提出，附具支持文件，并给予莫斯先生适当机会作出答复。10\n\n8 [Dkt. No. 647] at 22:8–14。\n\n9 Dkt. [No. 691] at 12:23–25。\n\n10 Dkt. [No. 691] at 13:19–15:4。\n\n最后，在最近一次December 18庭审中，本院再次重申了截至当时对郭文贵而言本应十分明显的事项：\n\n好的。那么让我问你，我们有一个涉及一艘船的问题：我曾禁止郭先生移动该船，而他可能已经违反本院命令移动了该船。……我认为我已命令不得移动该船。11\n\n鉴于“干预”的通常含义（见上文脚注4）以及本院反复作出的毫不含糊指示，毫无疑问，October 15命令已被违反。郭文贵提出相反主张具有误导性。12 即使郭文贵辩称，由于该游艇在October 15庭审时已经被移走（即，在其律师请求并被拒绝许可移动该游艇之前），他应获得免责，答案也很简单：本院作出October 15命令后，该游艇本应立即被带回。13\n\n二、本院应认定郭文贵藐视法庭。\n\n尽管郭文贵提出若干其他毫无根据的论点，试图说明为何其个人不应被认定藐视法庭，但这些论点都归结为其核心主张：他并不拥有——因而无法控制——五月女士号的移动。郭文贵以为他能蒙骗谁？\n\n11 [Dkt. No. 695] at 25:15–18, 27:21–22。\n\n12 参见 [N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1)]（规定律师对法庭的诚实义务禁止其明知而“向法庭作出虚假的事实或法律陈述”）；另参见 [Dkt. No. 647] at 21:11–16（“本院认为……郭先生曾试图误导本院。本院认为，如原告所主张，郭先生正在就其资产玩弄障眼法，并且即使未违反法院命令的文字，也违反了法院命令的精神。”），26:5–9（“尽管法院命令要么被公然无视，要么被极其宽泛地解释，并且已向本院作出故意或非故意、误导本院的不实陈述，我们将在2021年January结案。”）。\n\n13 我们接受郭文贵律师所言，即在其向本院询问五月女士号能否移出本管辖范围时，他不知道该游艇已经被移出本管辖范围。但后来——在PAX告知其该游艇实际上已在本管辖范围之外后——郭文贵的律师致函本院并说明，由于其律所刚刚获PAX告知该游艇的位置，“我们尚未确认任何细节”，但“正试图获得更多信息，并将在获悉任何进一步情况时立即告知本院和律师”。[Dkt. No. 649.] 然而，与该陈述相反，在对本动议作出答复之前，郭文贵未向本院提供任何有关该游艇位置的进一步信息。参见 [N.Y. R. Professional Conduct 3.3(b)]（“在法庭前代表当事人的律师，如知悉某人意图从事、正在从事或已从事与该程序有关的犯罪或欺诈行为，应采取合理补救措施，包括在必要时向法庭披露。”）。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件号 709 NYSCEF 收讫：01/27/2021 案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 提交 02/28/22 录入 02/28/22 21:19:53 第 33 页，共 82 页\n\n如PAX已经证明，不足五个月前——在其于2020年September 1向New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提交的一份起诉状中——郭文贵主张，“中国共产党的棋子……曾试图在郭文贵［又名Kwok］位于其游艇上时使其受到伤害。”见Wengui v. Zeng, Index No. 157025/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 2, 2020), [Dkt. No. 1]（起诉状第8段）。郭文贵本人起诉状中的该句以一则脚注结束，该脚注援引并链接至（从而通过引用并入）freebeacon.com上一篇题为“Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht Owned by Chinese Billionaire”的文章；该文章称，“使用英文名Miles Kwok的郭文贵表示，数起涉及其152-foot机动游艇五月女士号的事件，似乎属于中国政府威胁和恐吓他的行动。”14 因此，在限制五月女士号的背景下，本院将其称为“郭先生曾声称拥有的价值27 million-dollar的游艇”，并不令人意外。15\n\n值得注意的是，本案 Genever Defendants（Genever 被告方）的代理律师 Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）亦担任 Kwok（郭文贵）本人在 Wengui v. Zeng 一案中的代理律师。米切尔先生签署了该起诉状，其中多次将 Lady May 称为“他的［即 Kwok 的］游艇”，并通过援引纳入了 freebeacon.com 的一篇文章；该文章报道该游艇由 Kwok“拥有”。尽管米切尔先生据称并不在本案中代理 Kwok，但他在 12月18日的庭审中代表 Kwok 提出辩论，主张其 2020年9月的起诉状“并非指所有权”，而只是指“Kwok 先生在那艘船上的事实”，并斥责 PAX 的代理律师对该诉状的“荒谬依赖”。16 鉴于 Kwok 的过往记录，当米切尔先生暗示 PAX 实际依赖 Kwok 本人的言辞是“荒谬的”时，他或许说到了点子上。\n\n14 见[同上]第 3 页脚注1（引自 http://yacht-in-new-york/）。\n\n15 [Dkt. No. 647] at 22:5–6.\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 709　NYSCEF 收件日期：01/27/2021　Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 34 of 82\n\nKwok 的 Opposition（反对书）更为不诚实；其歪曲 PAX 的主张，称 PAX 部分因 Kwok 据称是游艇上的一名“客人”而主张 Kwok 拥有该游艇（PAX 从未作出过该主张），并声称 PAX 没有所有权证据。17 即使 Kwok 本人的诉状——一项司法承认18——不足以证明所有权（而且其绰绰有余），PAX 还拥有远比这多得多的证据：\n\n2017年5月10日，Kwok 在其现已被暂停的 Twitter 账户上“发推”发布了以下其本人坐在 Lady May 上的照片，并附有中文文字，译为：“我正在发布几张我送给女儿并以她的名字命名的游艇照片。. . . 她的名字是 Lady May。. . . 我花了 41 million euro 买下它”：19\n\n16 [Dkt. No. 695] at 26:23–27:12.\n\n17 [Opp.] at 8–9.\n\n18 见 Bogoni v. Friedlander, 197 A.D.2d 281, 291–292 (1st Dep't 1994)（初始诉状中的承认是一项“正式司法承认”，且为“所承认事实的证据”。）。\n\n19 Francis Aff. Ex. A.\n\n随后，2017年8月27日，Kwok（再次是在其现已被暂停的账户上）将“Lady May”称为“我的船”，并回忆道：“两年前我在迈阿密时。. . . 我[]签署了我一生中最重要的投资合同”，而且这一切“似乎都如此有意义。”21\n\n但我们把最有力的证据留到了最后。如 2017年10月14日的一段 YouTube 视频所示，22 Kwok 被拍到明确无误地表示该船是他的：23\n\n我决定卖掉它，因为它是铝制船体。铝制船体在海上会有些漂移。在浅水区没有问题。我想使用那艘更重、更大的，也是 Feadship，因为它是钢制的。我想驶向更远的海域。. . . 我登广告两次，但我的报价相对较高，大约 US$50 million，31 million euros，也就是大约 US$50 million。当我以那个较高的价格挂牌时，有一个报价略低于我的要价，但我没有卖掉它。\n\n20 同上。\n\n21 同上。\n\n22 见 Moss Reply Aff. ¶ 3（指引法院参阅 YouTube 视频中第 2:50 分至第 4:15 分，可于 http:// 查阅）。\n\n23 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 4.\n\n这全部出自 Kwok 本人之口：他买下了 Lady May，他让人将其运送，他决定将其挂牌出售，并且他将其登记在女儿名下以躲避债权人。Kwok 声称自己只不过是游艇上的某位“客人”，是又一个彻头彻尾的谎言。\n\n24 同上。截图直接取自 YouTube，且已经包含字幕；经认证的译文确认该等字幕基本准确。见 Moss Aff. Ex. 4。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 709　NYSCEF 收件日期：01/27/2021　Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 37 of 82\n\n当然，Kwok 主张其并不拥有或控制 Lady May，且其实际由一个实体 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC（HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC）拥有；该实体完全由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅，发音为“May”）拥有并控制，这完全符合其一贯作风。Kwok 是一名自称的亿万富翁，在对其有利时，正是因为其惯常做法是利用空壳公司以及其子女和雇员来保护其资产，便假装没有任何资产25。例如，Kwok 现正于 Genever bankruptcy case（Genever 破产案）中主张，Genever 被告方的受益所有人是另一家由其儿子拥有的空壳公司——尽管其从未向 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）披露此事，也从未在本法院提出该主张以试图避免扣押。26 而且，Kwok 不仅多次表示 Lady May 是“他的”（包括在上述其于据称将游艇赠与其女儿后于 2020年9月提交的起诉状中），而且 HK International 只是一家空壳公司：(i) 直到 2020年4月才将游艇登记在其名下（当时 PAX 在本诉讼中处于危险境地）；27 以及 (ii) 其“主要办事处”地址为 162 E. 64th Street——与米切尔先生事务所的地址相同（令人惊讶！）；米切尔先生会因案件而定期代理 Kwok 或其空壳实体。28\n\n* * *\n\n在 10月15日的庭审中，甚至在法院知悉 Kwok 已移动游艇之前，法院即说明，在这起“2017 年案件中，存在大量策略性周旋、大量虚假陈述以及一些对法院命令的公然漠视。. . . [本]法院认为，正如原告所主张的，Kwok 先生正在利用其资产进行空壳游戏。. . .。”29 法院还表示，“我们不会再容许任何空壳游戏。”30 不幸的是，Kwok 的空壳游戏仍在继续，其虚假陈述和策略性周旋只会愈演愈烈，而且他再次公然违反了本法院的一项命令。\n\n25 [Dkt. No. 580] at 100:2–3（证称其净资产为“负数”）；101:3–5（证称“[i]n reality, under the law”，其拥有“no”资产）。\n\n26 见 Moss Reply Aff. Ex. 5 at ¶ 4（主张 Bravo Luck：(i) 是 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的“受益所有人”；以及 (ii) 是“Mr. Qiang Guo, the son of Mr. Kwok Ho Wan a/k/a Miles Kwok”拥有的一家公司）。\n\n27 见 [Opp.] at 4, n.2.\n\n28 见 [Dkt. No. 705] at 1。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 01/27/2021 09:30 PM　案号 652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号 709　NYSCEF 收件日期：01/27/2021　Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 38 of 82\n\n“存在大量策略性周旋、大量虚假陈述以及一些对法院命令的公然漠视。. . . [本]法院认为，正如原告所主张的，Kwok 先生正在利用其资产进行空壳游戏。. . .。”29 法院还表示，“我们不会再容许任何空壳游戏。”30 不幸的是，Kwok 的空壳游戏仍在继续，其虚假陈述和策略性周旋只会愈演愈烈，而且他再次公然违反了本法院的一项命令。\n\n本法院有权酌情对 Kwok 施加足以促使其遵守 10月15日命令的制裁。事实上，“民事藐视法庭的目的在于强制遵守法院命令。”31 例如，在内华达州另一起针对他的案件中，Kwok 被处以每日 $250,000 的制裁，直至其最终遵守一项要求其履行最基本证据开示义务的法院命令。32 本案中的违反行为严重得多。\n\n鉴于 Kwok 一再违反本法院的命令、其作为自称的数十亿美元富翁所具备的明显财力，以及当前违反行为的严重性及其对 PAX 的实质重要性，PAX 谨请法院施加足以迫使 Kwok 遵守 10月15日命令并立即将 Lady May 带回本辖区的制裁——无论金钱性或其他制裁。\n\n29 [Dkt. No. 647] at 24:9–11; 21:13–15.\n\n30 [Id.] at 22:7.\n\n31 见 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v. Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 2007 WL 2701271, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2007)；另见 Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 37, 42 (2d Dep't 1995)（“民事藐视法庭的处罚并非为惩罚，而是为赔偿受损害的私人当事人，或强制遵守法院的命令。”）；L & R Expl. Venture v. Grynberg, 2011 WL 1564647, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 19, 2011)（“法院有权处罚不遵守合法命令的诉讼当事人。民事藐视法庭的目的在于强制遵守法院命令，或赔偿因不遵守法院命令而受到损害的一方。”）。\n\n32 见 [Dkt. No. 557] at 2（命令 Kwok 向法院提供可联系到他的电话号码，以及：(i) 其接受送达证据开示文件的地址，或 (ii) 可向其发送该等文件的电子邮件地址）。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，PAX 谨请法院认定 Kwok 构成藐视法庭，并下令施加适当制裁。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021　New York, New York　谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP　签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\nEdward Moss（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n以及\n\nRobert W. Seiden（rseiden@seidenlegal.com）\n1120 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 626-6708\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\nPAX 特此证明，本文件符合 Commercial Division Rule 17 的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用 Microsoft Word 编制，且本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括案由栏、标题及签名栏，少于 4,200 字。\n\n日期：January 27, 2021　New York, New York　谨此提交，\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP　签署人：/s/ Edward Moss\nEdward Moss（emoss@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 41 of 82\n\n证物 14\n\n纽约州最高法院　纽约郡\n\n出庭法官：HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER　审判庭　IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.，　案号　652077/2017\n原告，\n\n诉　　动议日期\n动议序号　012\nKWOK HO WAN，又名 KWOK HO，等人，　动议裁定及命令\n被告。\n\nHON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\n现由法院审理原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提出的第 012 号动议，要求认定被告 Kwok Ho Wan（“Kwok”）构成藐视法庭。本法院此前已发布三项命令，限制 Kwok 对名为“Lady May”的游艇所享有的权益。2020年9月30日，本法院作出 Temporary Restraining Order（“TRO”），禁止 Kwok，除其他事项外，“干涉其拥有权益的任何财产”。NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。在作出 TRO 时，法院指出，“任何违反行为。. . . 均将被视为刑事藐视法庭。”同上。2020年10月15日，法院作出该命令，批准了 PAX 根据 CPLR 5229 提出的动议，并明确限制 Lady May：\n\nKwok 先生不得直接或间接出售、让与、转让或干涉其拥有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处分目前应付或日后到期应付给他的任何债务，但须遵守 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情形，并应符合 2020年10月15日庭审记录中的程序。具体而言，Kwok 先生及／或以下财产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的住宅，以及 (2) 游艇“Lady May”，不得出售、让与、转让或干涉该等资产。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 630。Kwok 的代理律师特别询问法院，Kwok 是否可以为取得许可之目的将游艇移出本辖区。法院当时驳回了该请求，并指示律师如有必要应提出动议。\n\n原告提出本动议，是因为尽管有上述命令，“Lady May”号已被移至美国境外。\n\n本院已审阅双方就PAX申请认定Kwok（郭文贵）藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论Kwok先生的任何律师是否违反《职业行为准则》，显然，在本院就游艇“Lady May”号下落及所有权进行的程序中，存在数量不可容忍的投机取巧、掩饰和欺骗行为。\n\n被告主张，尽管本院对游艇移动施加了限制，“Lady May”号仍是为进行“日常”“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围。与其逐一列举被告Kwok在本应更知分寸的律师协助下所实施的诸多“空壳把戏”，本院在以下范围内准许藐视法庭动议：自May 15, 2021之后，游艇每在本院管辖范围外停留一天，被告Kwok即被处以$500,000罚款。与游艇所有权及控制权有关的其他限制继续有效。\n\n状态会议仍定于May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am举行。\n\n日期：March 16, 2021\n\n请选择一项：案件已处置　X\n非最终处置\n\nX　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：包括移送/重新分配　受托人任命　移请审理\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 45 of 82\n附件15\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 46 of 82\n\n已提交：上诉分庭—第一部门 02/15/2022 09:09 AM 2022-00609\n\nNYSCEF文件编号4 已由NYSCEF接收：02/15/2022\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧华律师事务所） Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6537 电话：+1 212 326 2000 传真：+1 212 326 2061 omm.com\n\nFebruary 15, 2022\n\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫） 直线电话：+1 212-326-2293 ssarnoff@omm.com\n\n经由NYSCEF提交\n\nSusanna Molina Rojas女士\n书记官\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department（纽约州最高法院上诉分庭第一司法部门）\n27 Madison Avenue\nNew York, NY 10010\n\n事由：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉Kwok等案（Case Nos. 2022-00609, 2022-00610; New York County Clerk's Index No. 652077/2017）\n\nRojas女士：\n\n我方代表被上诉人原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）致函，就上诉人被告Miles Kwok（郭文贵）请求在其就上述案件中Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）February 9, 2022 Decision and Order以及同日作出的Final Order of Civil Contempt提出上诉期间获得临时行政中止执行一事发表意见。基于下述理由，PAX恭请贵院驳回临时中止执行申请，除非Kwok依CPLR § 5519(a)(2)提交金额为$134 million的保证金。1\n\n本案基础诉讼涉及PAX于2008年向Kwok提供的一笔贷款，Kwok十余年来一直逃避偿还该贷款。December 18, 2020，PAX取得针对Kwok的判决，金额为$116,402,019.57。2 Kwok对该判决提出上诉但未提交保证金，且迄今未支付任何一分钱的未偿款项；连同累积利息，该金额现已超过$127 million。在此期间，正如Justice Ostrager一再指出的，Kwok实施了一系列日益复杂的“空壳把戏”3——包括但不限于，将其大量资产隐匿和庇护于空壳公司及家庭成员名下，以逃避履行该判决。\n\n1 本函仅涉及Kwok提出的临时行政中止执行请求。PAX保留就Kwok申请在其针对Justice Ostrager的February 9, 2022 Decision and Order以及Final Order of Civil Contempt的上诉获得中止执行一事，提交更为完整的反对意见书的权利。引用为Ex. [NUMBER]的附件随本函附上。引用为Ex. [LETTER]的附件随Ira Brad Matetsky（艾拉·布拉德·马泰茨基）为支持Kwok中止执行动议所作的宣誓陈述（Dkt. 3）附上。\n\n2 Ex. 1, Judgment, Feb. 3, 2021, Index No. 652077/2017, Dkt. No. 716, at 2.\n\n3 Ex. 2, Hearing Transcript, Oct. 15, 2020, at 21:13-16, 22:7-14.\n\n本次上诉涉及一种此类故意且违法的规避手段，该手段已受到贵院谴责。具体而言，在动议法院作出有利于PAX的简易判决后，Justice Ostrager限制Kwok转让其主要资产的所有权或将其主要资产实际移出管辖范围——其中包括一套价值近$70 million的第五大道公寓，以及其价值约$30 million的豪华游艇“Lady May”号。然而，Kwok公然违反动议法院明确无误的指令，随后将其游艇移至加勒比地区，继而移至欧洲。作为回应，动议法院于March 2021作出附条件的藐视法庭命令，允许Kwok在两个月内（至May 15, 2021）将“Lady May”号送回纽约，否则将面临每日$500,000的罚款。贵院于November 4, 2021一致维持动议法院作出的附条件藐视法庭命令，认定藐视法庭裁决适当，因为PAX已“以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的法院合法、明确命令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利。”Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021). 此外，贵院认可动议法院对游艇在May 15, 2021后仍位于纽约境外的每一天处以$500,000罚款，认定该罚款适当地“旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准用两个月完成此事，他却毫无意愿这样做。”Id. 随后，贵院指示动议法院“进行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。”Id.\n\n依照贵院指示，动议法院于February 2, 2022举行证据听证。七名证人以宣誓书形式提供直接证言，且每名宣誓人均接受交叉询问。February 9, 2022，Justice Ostrager对Kwok作出民事藐视法庭最终命令，认定听证中提出的证据“清楚且令人信服地表明，Kwok实益拥有并控制‘Lady May’号，且其对本院及司法程序极端蔑视。”4 在施加此前经贵院维持的每日$500,000罚款时，Justice Ostrager命令Kwok在五个营业日内向PAX支付$134 million。5\n\nKwok于February 10, 2022提交对该裁定的上诉通知，现同时请求临时中止执行及上诉期间中止执行。临时中止执行应被驳回，存在两个独立理由。第一，Kwok在实体问题上毫无胜诉可能，因为贵院已驳回其对Justice Ostrager藐视法庭命令提出的法律异议。事实上，在贵院驳回Kwok先前与藐视法庭有关的上诉后，剩余事项仅为初审法院举行证据听证，以确定“游艇的所有权和控制权，并评估适当的处罚。”199 A.D.3d at 423. 贵院在上诉中推翻初审法院基于证据和证人可信度作出的事实认定，毫无现实可能；且如上所述，贵院已经驳回Kwok对藐视法庭命令提出的法律异议（包括对罚款金额的异议）。\n\n驳回临时中止执行的第二个且更为紧迫的理由是，进一步拖延将对PAX造成不可弥补的损害。CPLR § 5519(a)(2)规定，如“该判决或命令指示支付一笔金钱，且已就该金额提供担保”，从而在被上诉判决获维持时，上诉人“应支付判决指示支付的金额”，则“中止执行被上诉判决或命令的一切程序”。参见，例如，CT Chems. (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Vinmar Impex, Inc., 189 A.D.2d 727, 729 (1st Dep't 1993)（被告未依CPLR 5519(a)(2)提交担保，故不受执行扣押保护）；Agai v. Liberty Mut. Agency Corp., 118 A.D.3d 830, 832 (2d Dep't 2014)（说明依CPLR 5519(a)(2)“提交保证金”使“命令和判决的执行中止”，该中止在法院对上诉作出裁定后失效）。如Kwok提交该等保证金，PAX将同意其临时中止执行及上诉期间中止执行请求，并已将此告知Kwok。6 但如Kwok未提交保证金，任何拖延都将极大增加Kwok逃避履行初审法院藐视法庭判决的可能性，正如其逃避履行实体争议最终判决一样。\n\n4 Ex. A, Dkt. 1181 at 4.\n\n5 Id. at 2.\n\n事实上，在初审法院作出藐视法庭命令（February 9）的同一天，Kwok在社交媒体上宣布其计划“对PA[X]案件发动全面战争”，并表示其意图逃离美国。7 Kwok称：“我可能很快会去两个地方……一个是伦敦，另一个是日本。”8 随后，Kwok再次确认“我可能会搬到伦敦和日本”，并解释说“[这]可能随时发生”，且他“可能明天或下周离开。”9 Kwok发出逃离威胁恰在Justice Ostrager命令其向PAX支付$134 million数小时后，这并非巧合；Kwok的反应正如动议法院在其最终藐视法庭裁定中所写，是“与Kwok在本诉讼期间采取的所有其他规避和藐视行为如出一辙。”10 Kwok一贯表明，其对“法院及司法程序极端蔑视”，11 且其将不遗余力逃避履行对PAX承担的法律义务。因此，作为一名自称的亿万富翁，并可使用私人飞机，Kwok以逃离管辖范围来规避初审法院管辖的威胁，应当被按其字面意思理解。准许临时中止执行将给予Kwok更多时间策划逃离，从而严重危及PAX执行动议法院命令的能力，更不必说执行基础争议中$127 million的判决。\n\n与此同时，衡平因素没有任何一项有利于Kwok。若Kwok仅在May 15, 2021之前将其游艇送回纽约，他本可避免被处以哪怕一美元的罚款，因此，对于其完全可以避免的当前处境，他无可归咎于他人。Kwok也不能主张意外或受损害。他一年多来一直知悉游艇受到限制，且其面临以$500,000乘以的实际民事藐视法庭制裁风险。\n\n6 PAX在February 13, 2022的一封电子邮件中，将其立场告知Kwok的律师，该邮件系回应Kwok律师询问PAX是否会同意临时中止执行及上诉期间中止执行。参见Ex. 3, Feb. 14 email from S. Sarnoff.\n\n7 Ex. 4, Feb. 9. 2022 GETTR Posts; see Ex. 5, Bowden, John, Fugitive Chinese Billionaire and Bannon Ally Threatens to Leave the US After Judge Orders Him to Pay $134m or Face Arrest, THE INDEPENDENT (Feb. 10, 2022).\n\n8 Ex. 4, Feb. 9. 2022 GETTR Posts.\n\n9 Id.\n\n10 Ex. A, Dkt. 1181 at 7.\n\n11 Id. at 4.\n\n自 2021年5月15日以来的天数计算——但正如本院先前所认定，他未采取任何措施以避免该罚款或消除其藐视法庭状态。199 A.D.3d at 423。Kwok（郭文贵）获给予两个月的宽限期以遵守动议法院的指令，从而完全避免任何罚款；其现又已有超过 275 天的时间将该游艇返还纽约，从而暂停额外藐视法庭费用的累积。然而，Kwok 一贯拒绝采取任何此类补救措施，而是选择继续蔑视和嘲弄司法程序。12 准许临时中止仅会奖赏 Ostrager 法官所称 Kwok 充满藐视意味的“诡计”，13 其中现包括其威胁即将逃离，且不履行基础判决或民事藐视法庭判决。因此，衡平因素不利于 Kwok 提出的临时中止请求。\n\n基于上述理由，除非 Kwok 依据 CPLR § 5519(a)(2) 提交 $134,000,000 的保证金，否则法院应驳回其临时中止请求。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n_____________________________________\n\nStuart Sarnoff，代表 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\n抄送：所有登记在案的律师\n\n12 Kwok 主张，如未获临时中止，其可能因动议法院对其处以监禁而受到不利影响。Stay Mot. at 22。但 Kwok 为避免该结果所需做的只是提交保证金；对于一名自称拥有数十亿美元资产者而言，这不应成为问题。\n\n13 Id. at 7.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 50 of 82\n证物 1，附于 EX. 15\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 51 of 82\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 52 of 82\n\n已提交\n2021年2月03日　第3书记员\n纽约\n县书记员办公室　2021年2月2日\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 53 of 82\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2021 12:28 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 716 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 54 of 82\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 55 of 82\n证物 2，附于 EX. 15\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 56 of 82\n\n1 纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court of the State of New York）\n纽约县：审判庭第 61 部\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n原告，\n— 诉 —\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司），\n被告。\nIndex No. 652077/2017\nOctober 15, 2020\nTeams 庭审程序\n出庭法官：\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官\n出庭人员：\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n律师事务所\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n代理律师：\nSTUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨尔诺夫），ESQ.\nEDWARD MOSS（爱德华·莫斯），ESQ.\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克与霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n律师事务所\n45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor\nNew York, New York 10111\n代理律师：\nJOHN SIEGAL（约翰·西格尔），ESQ.\nMELISSA CARVALHO（梅丽莎·卡瓦略），ESQ.\nERICA BARROW（埃丽卡·巴罗），ESQ.\n（出庭人员续见下一页。）\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 57 of 82\n\n1 出庭人员：\n（续）\n\n2 LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n律师事务所\n3 162 East 64th Street\nNew York, New York 10065\n4 代理律师：\nAARON A. MITCHELL（亚伦·A·米切尔），ESQ.\n\n8 Terry-Ann Volberg（特里-安·沃尔伯格），CSR，CRR\n官方法庭记录员\n\ntav\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 58 of 82\n庭审程序\n\n1 “不利当事人”，以及此前未曾成为与财产转让有关的证据开示和法院命令对象的 Kwok 先生资产。\n2\n3\n4 谢谢您，法官阁下。\n5 法院：好的。Genever 是否有人想要发言？\n6\n7 MITCHELL 律师：没有，法官阁下。我认为刚才说得很好。\n8 我加入 Carvalho 女士的论证。\n9 法院：好的。\n10 请看，这是一起 2017 年的案件。我们已经就 Kwok 先生的资产处理过多项\n11 动议。法院认为，\n12 如 2020年9月15日命令所反映，Kwok 先生\n13 曾试图误导法院。法院认为，\n14 正如原告所主张，Kwok 先生正在就其资产玩弄障眼法，\n15 并且即使未违反法院命令的文字规定，\n16 也违反了法院命令的精神。这一情况将在\n17 2021年1月15日或其后不久终结，届时我们将\n18 就替身实体问题进行审判；但自现在起至\n19 2021年1月15日审判开始期间，Kwok 先生及其直接或间接控制的任何实体\n20\n21 均被禁止处分或转让 Kwok 先生直接或间接享有权益的任何财产，其中尤其包括\n22\n23 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）的公寓，\n24 该公寓曾是 2018 年证据开示及一项同意命令的对象，\n25 Kwok 先生的律师曾提及该同意命令；以及该游艇\n\ntav\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/10/2020 02:41 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 59 of 82\n庭审程序\n\nKwok 先生曾在不同时期声称拥有该游艇。因此，最终结果是，我依据 CPLR 5229 行使酌处权，禁止进一步转让 Kwok 先生曾拥有的 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，以及 Kwok 先生曾声称拥有的价值 2700 万美元的游艇。\n\n因此，我们不会再有任何障眼法。无论这些资产由何处持有，它们将继续被持有于其现时所在地；如果认定目前列为这些资产所有人的实体是 Kwok 先生的替身实体，或完全受 Kwok 先生支配和控制，则这些资产将可用于满足原告取得的任何判决。\n\n在此期间，即自现在起至 2021年1月15日就替身实体问题进行审判期间，原告可以对任何声称拥有 Sherry-Netherland 公寓或该游艇的实体进行证据开示；并命令 Genever 的律师和 Kwok 先生的律师立即向原告律师提供识别该两项资产登记所有人的信息。15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\n这是法院的命令。\n\nCARVALHO 女士：法官阁下，我能否请求作出一些澄清？23 24\n\n我们理解今日法院的命令，\ntav\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 60 of 82\n证物 3，附于 EX. 15\n\n发件人：Sarnoff, Stuart M.\n\n发送时间：Sunday, February 13, 2022 3:24 PM\n收件人：Ira B. Matetsky\n抄送：Metlitsky, Anton；Mark C. Zauderer；Jason T. Cohen\n主题：回复：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok\n\nMatetsky 先生：\n\n假设 Kwok 先生提交金额为 February 9, 2022 藐视法庭判决金额的保证金，PAX 将同意在上诉期间中止执行。如未提交该保证金，PAX 将反对任何中止请求，无论是临时中止还是其他中止。\n\n-Stuart.\nO'Melveny\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M·萨尔诺夫）合伙人 ssarnoff@omm.com 办公：+1-212-326-2293 手机：+1-646-573-6299\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 网站　LinkedIn　Twitter\n\n本信息及任何随附文件载有来自 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 律师事务所的可能属保密和/或受特权保护的信息。如您并非预定收件人，您不得阅读、复制、分发或使用该信息。如您误收本传送信息，请立即通过回复电子邮件通知发件人，然后删除本信息。\n\nOn Feb 13, 2022, at 3:07 PM, Ira B. Matetsky wrote:\n[外部信息]\n\n尊敬的 Sarnoff 先生：\n\n我们是本案中 Kwok Ho Wan 又名 Myles Kwok 的上诉律师。明日我们将向 Appellate Division, First Department（上诉分庭第一部门）提出动议，请求在上诉期间中止执行藐视法庭命令。我们还将请求临时中止，直至该动议得到审理和裁定。请告知您的当事人是否同意。\n\n待动议文件最终定稿后，我们将向您提供副本，并将告知各方何时应就该申请出庭。\n\n谨致问候，\n\nIra B. Matetsky（艾拉·B·马泰茨基）合伙人\n\n360 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 总机：212.922.9250 直线：212.922.9149 传真：212.922.9335 IMatetsky@ganfershore.com\n\n庆祝服务客户逾 40 年\n\n注：本电子邮件所载信息属保密信息，并可能受法律特权保护。如您并非预定收件人，您不得阅读、使用或传播该信息。尽管本电子邮件及任何附件被认为不含可能影响接收并打开该电子邮件的任何计算机系统的病毒或其他缺陷，但收件人有责任确保其不含病毒；发件人或 Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹与扎德勒律师事务所）不对因使用本电子邮件而以任何方式产生的任何损失或损害承担责任。除非另有明确说明，本电子邮件无意形成任何形式的具有约束力的协议，也无意构成对任何可能尚待处理的要约作出的具有约束力的反要约。本电子邮件旨在作为对任何尚待处理提议的非正式回复，是正在进行的谈判的一部分；在拟被追究责任的一方或多方签署书面协议之前，该谈判不具有法律约束力。为使本电子邮件形成任何形式的具有约束力的协议，其必须包含明确表明该效果的陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 63 of 82\n证物 4，附于 EX. 15\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 70 of 82\n证物 5，附于 EX. 15\n逃亡中的中国亿万富翁、Bannon 的盟友，在法官命令其支付 $134m 否则面临逮捕后威胁离开美国\n\nThe Independent（独立报）\n\nFeb 10, 2022 15:25\n\n版权所有 2022 Independent Digital News and Media Limited 保留所有权利\n\n作者：John Bowden（约翰·鲍登）　栏目：NEWS,WORLD,AMERICAS,US POLITICS　印刷版：The Independent（United Kingdom）　篇幅：506 字　摘要：中国亿万富翁面临愤怒法官的逮捕威胁\n正文\n\n周四，一名法官发布了一项严厉命令，针对一名中国亿万富翁及 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）的盟友；后者是 Donald Trump（唐纳德·特朗普）核心圈子的一员。该命令要求其要么支付 $134m，要么因违反此前法院命令而面临逮捕。\n\n在一项裁决中，来自 New York County Supreme Court（纽约县最高法院）的一名法官严厉谴责 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），称其在美国各地及其他地方隐藏价值数十亿美元的资产，其中包括一艘名为 Lady May 的超级游艇。法官\n\n2/11/22, 9:28 AM Nexis Newsdesk™ Case 22-50073 Doc 50-2 Filed 02/28/22 Entered 02/28/22 21:19:53 Page 72 of 82\n\nBarry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官在其裁决中指责 Guo 先生违反此前命令，将该船藏匿于美国司法管辖范围之外的巴哈马。\n\n“这些程序确立了，除其他事项外，[Guo] 对一艘名为 Lady May 的游艇行使支配权和控制权，并导致作出一系列命令，禁止 [Guo] 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出法院的司法管辖范围，”该法官写道。\n\n尽管如此，法院提交的文件继续写道：“[Guo（郭文贵）]及其同伙作出安排，使 Lady May（梅夫人号）于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，此后再前往巴哈马。”该文件补充称，后续判决书命令郭先生将该游艇驶回美国水域，否则将面临每日 $500,000 的罚款。\n\n该罚款现已累积为 $134m；郭先生被命令于周四在五个工作日内缴纳该笔款项，否则可能被逮捕。\n\n法官写道：“本院有权认定[郭先生]构成民事藐视法庭……并‘以罚款和监禁处罚[他]’。”\n\n郭先生随后在一次直播中宣布了逃离美国的计划；该直播最先由 Center for Security Policy（安全政策中心）的 J Michael Waller（J·迈克尔·沃勒）报道。据报道，他谈到前往日本，或可能前往英国。他短期内很可能不会返回中国；他在中国被指控犯有包括强奸在内的多项罪行。郭先生否认这些指控，并称这些指控与其批评中国共产党有关。\n\nMr Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May（梅夫人号）上被捕。当时，他被控与“We Build The Wall（我们建设边境墙）”计划有关的欺诈；该计划是一项由私人筹资、旨在于美墨边境附近若干地段修建围栏的活动。Mr Bannon 后来获 Mr Trump（唐纳德·特朗普）赦免，这是特朗普离开华盛顿前的最后行动之一。\n\n他此前还曾担任非营利组织 Rule of Law Society（法治协会）的董事会成员，该组织与郭先生有关。《纽约时报》报道，Mr Bannon 在被时任白宫办公厅主任 John Kelly（约翰·凯利）赶出白宫后不久，便开始与郭先生合作。\n\n尚不清楚这名富有商人是否曾亲自与 Donald Trump（唐纳德·特朗普）互动，但《纽约时报》报道，他是特朗普位于佛罗里达州的 Mara-Lago（海湖庄园）俱乐部会员。《华尔街日报》于 2017 年报道称，特朗普担任总统期间，在得知郭先生是该俱乐部会员后，决定不将郭先生引渡至中国。\n\n2/11/22, 9:28 AM Nexis Newsdesk™ 案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 于 02/28/22 提交，于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 73 页，共 82 页\n\n阅读更多\n\n总统 Joe Biden（乔·拜登）的支持率下降——最新消息\n\nAOC（亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯）乐观地认为 Pelosi（南希·佩洛西）将允许禁止国会议员进行股票交易\n\nTrump（特朗普）支持者及另外 4 人在威斯康星州被控选民欺诈\n\n分类\n\n行业：流媒体媒体（73%）\n主题：\n\n法官（91%）、裁决与裁定（90%）、法院与法庭（90%）、负面个人新闻（90%）、富有人士（90%）、逮捕（89%）、共产主义（89%）、2012 年美国总统候选人（89%）、2016 年美国总统候选人（89%）、2020 年美国总统候选人（89%）、犯罪、执法与惩教（78%）、刑事罚款（78%）、刑事犯罪（78%）、罚款与处罚（78%）、欺诈与金融犯罪（78%）、管辖权（78%）、诉讼（78%）、负面新闻（78%）、公共政策（78%）、法治（78%）、政党（73%）、性侵害（73%）、最高法院（73%）、赦免（61%）\n\n载入日期：Feb 10, 2022 16:52\n\n[关于] [隐私政策] [Cookies] 条款与条件\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 于 02/28/22 提交，于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 74 页，共 82 页\n\n证据附件 16\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 50-2　于 02/28/22 提交　于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记　第 75 页，共 82 页\n\n已提交　提交：上诉分庭—第一部门 02/15/2022 03:13 PM\n上诉分庭—第一部门　02/14/2022　02:37 PM　2022-00609\n2022-00610\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 5\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 3\n\n快速送达简要说明\n（由动议方提交和／或代表动议方提交）临时救济申请\n\nNYSCEF：已接收 NYSCEF：02/15/2022\n\nFebruary 14, 2022\n日期：　案件编号　2022-00609；2022-00610\n事项标题\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）　索引／起诉书／案卷号　652077/2017\n事项\nKwok Ho Wan（郭文贵），又名，诉　等人。\n上诉\n被告\n由　[Z]　裁定\nD　判决书\nD　源自判令　[Z]\nSupreme Court（最高法院）\nSurrogate’s Court（遗嘱检验法院）\nD　Family Court（家庭法院）　纽约县\n法院于　____　作出\n法官姓名　Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）\n上诉通知书于　Feb. 10　22　提交\n如系对行政决定提出上诉，请说明行政机关　___________________\n\n诉讼或程序性质\n违约\n被上诉裁定／判决书／判令的条款　___________________\n\n本申请由上诉人提出，申请在上诉期间暂停执行藐视法庭命令。\n\n被告—上诉人寻求在 February 16, 2022 之前暂停执行；其被命令最迟于该日向原告缴纳 $134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n如申请暂停执行，请说明申请理由　$134,000,000 的藐视法庭罚款过高、不成比例且违宪；作出动议裁判的法院已表示，如该款项未在五个工作日内，即最迟于 February 16, 2022 前缴纳，将可能实施监禁。\n\n是否已提供任何担保　否。\n\n如“是”，请说明金额和类型　________\n\n是否已向下级法院申请该项救济　否。\n如“是”，请说明处理结果　_______________\n\n此前是否曾向本院提出任何申请　___________\n如“是”，请说明日期及性质　______________\n\n对方是否已获告知本申请　是。　其是否同意　否。\n\n动议申请人代理律师\n\n姓名　Ira Brad Matetsky（艾拉·布拉德·马特茨基）和 Jason T. Cohen（杰森·T·科恩）　O'Melvany & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n地址　360 Lexington Avenue　7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10017　New York, New York 10036\n212-326-2000\n电话　212-365-3391（手机）；2120922-9149（办公室）　New York\n电子邮箱\nimatetsky@ganfershore.com\n出庭律师　Ira B. Matetsky　Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）（ssarnoff@omm.com）；212-326-2293\nJason T. Cohen（杰森·T·科恩）（jcohen@ganfershore.com）；646-250-4141　Anton Metlitsky（安东·梅特利茨基）（ametlitsky@omm.com）；212-316-2291\nMark C. Zauderer（马克·C·扎德勒）（mzauderer@ganfershore.com）；917-331-7762\n\n（请勿在此线以下书写）\n\n处理结果\n上诉人提出的暂停执行申请被驳回。　February 15, 2022\n日期\n异议\n答复\n动议日期　___\n加急处理　是\n电话通知律师　___\n由　___　作出决定\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 于 02/28/22 提交，于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 77 页，共 82 页\n\n证据附件 17\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院纽约县）：民事审判庭：第 61 分庭\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙），\n原告，\n诉\n案号 # 6520772017\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n被告。\n\n动议\nSeptember 22, 2021\nMicrosoft Teams 电话会议\n\n出席法官：\nSUPREME COURT（最高法院）法官 THE HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER（尊敬的巴里·奥斯特拉格法官）\n\n出庭人员：\n\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n原告代理律师\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n代理律师：\nEDWARD MOSS（爱德华·莫斯），ESQ.\nSTUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），ESQ.\n\nBAKER HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯特勒律师事务所）\n被告代理律师\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, NY 10111\n代理律师：\nMELISSA CARVALHO（梅利莎·卡瓦略），ESQ.\nERICA BARROW（埃丽卡·巴罗），ESQ.\n\n1　出庭人员：（续）\n\n3　LAWALL & MITCHELL LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）　Genever Holdings（Genever 控股公司）被告代理律师\n4　White Plains, NY 10601　99 Church Street, 4th Floor\n5　代理律师：AARON MITCHELL（亚伦·米切尔），ESQ.\n\n24　MICHELE PANTELOUKAS（米歇尔·潘特洛卡斯）\n25　高级法庭记录员\n\n15　庭审记录　就在昨天，另一项批准和解的动议已在破产法院提交。然而，PAX 现寻求破坏破产保护，损害其他利害关系人和债权人，并剥夺 Genever 在破产法院可获得的救济；该救济将允许其寻求将自动中止延伸至非债务人实体。正如法庭阁下所见，PAX 的立场前后不一。它想要 Sherry（谢里），而且现在就想要。但事实上，这些问题目前正由其他法院处理。这些法院将很快作出裁定。等待英属维尔京群岛法院和破产法院确定这些问题不会损害 PAX，因为现状已由冻结命令和限制措施维持。PAX 不应通过选择法院来谋求更快解决这些待决问题。最后，如本院倾向于准许 PAX 指定接管人的动议，则接管人不应为 PAX。PAX 作为判决债权人并非无利害关系，因而应被取消担任接管人的资格。事实上，PAX 本身已在破产法院承认指定独立第三方的重要性。我们请求本院全数驳回 PAX 的动议。谢谢，法庭阁下。\n法庭：好的。Mitchell 先生。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 于 02/28/22 提交，于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 80 页，共 82 页\n\nmlp\n\n16　庭审记录\nMITCHELL 先生：法庭阁下，我是代表 Genever 被告的 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。Carvalho 女士已经谈及我原本要处理的所有要点，因此此时我无需进一步补充。\n法庭：好的。还有其他人想告诉我什么吗？我不需要再次听取 Moss 先生的陈述。好的。Kwok 先生在答复 PAX 的判决后书面问询时，将其在 Genever Holdings BVI（Genever BVI 控股公司）的所有权权益列为其唯一价值超过 $10,000 的资产；该内容见本案第 756 号文件第九页。公司股份的所有权可以与任何其他动产一样，为清偿金钱判决而移交。CPLR section 5225 适用于股票股份，也适用于金钱。因此，本院认为，没有任何障碍阻止命令将 Kwok 先生在 Genever Holdings BVI 所持有的股份移交给 PAX。本院不倾向于指定任何接管人。本院命令移交的命令明确以负责审理英属维尔京群岛相关诉讼、且 Jack 法官已作出中止命令的 BVI Court（英属维尔京群岛法院）的批准为条件。无争议的是，Sherry Netherland\n\n1　2　3　4　5　6　7　8　9　10　11　12　13　14　15　16　17　18　19　20　21　22　23　24　25\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 于 02/28/22 提交，于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 81 页，共 82 页\n\nmlp\n17　案件 22-50073 文件 50-2 于 02/28/22 提交，于 02/28/22 21:19:53 登记 第 82 页，共 82 页\n\n庭审记录\n\n该 Sherry Netherland 公寓由 Genever Holdings 所有，而 Genever Holdings 是 Genever BVI 的子公司。Genever Holdings 正在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）进行破产程序。本院已裁定，除非且直至 Genever Holdings 破产案中的破产中止被解除，本院不得就针对 Genever New York（Genever 纽约）和 Genever BVI 的另我问题进行审判。因此，PAX 希望就 Genever Holdings 采取的任何行动，均须经负责 Genever New York 破产程序的纽约破产程序中的 Garrity 法官批准，因为 Genever New York 正在破产中。本院今日所做的一切，是在 BVI Court 已作出中止命令的批准前提下，指示 Genever BVI 的注册代理人更新 Genever BVI 的登记成员，以反映 PAX 或其指定人是 Kwok 先生在 Genever Holdings BVI 所持股份的合法所有人。这就是对第 18 号动议序列的处理结果。\n有任何问题或意见吗？Moss 先生，您被静音了。\nMOSS 先生：法庭阁下，抱歉。法庭阁下，如可允许，我有两点简短意见。第一点是，我想澄清一下，关于以 BVI Court 批准为条件，您的意思是否仅是我们需要获得 Jack 法官的许可，以便\n\n19　20　21　22　23　24　25\n\nmlp","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","GETTR","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":557,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":580,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":591,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":647,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":649,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":691,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":695,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":698,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":705,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":15455,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-02-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-02-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:53:09"}