{"id":"court_ctb_575_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":575,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-07-20","title":"Exhibit A SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit A**\n\n# **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY**\n\n| PRESENT:                                  | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                                                             | PART                       | IAS MOTION 61EFM |\n|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|\n|                                           | Justice                                                                            |                            |                  |\n|                                           | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X |                            |                  |\n|                                           | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND                                             |                            |                  |\n| L.P.,                                     |                                                                                    | INDEX NO.                  | 652077/2017      |\n|                                           | Plaintiff,                                                                         |                            |                  |\n| -<br>v -                                  |                                                                                    | MOTION DATE                |                  |\n| KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN |                                                                                    |                            |                  |\n|                                           | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a                                    | 019<br>MOTION SEQ. NO.     |                  |\n| WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a   |                                                                                    |                            |                  |\n| HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and    |                                                                                    | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |                  |\n|                                           | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,                                                      |                            |                  |\n|                                           |                                                                                    |                            |                  |\n\n Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries – almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 3 of 11\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail *infra,* and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed *infra*, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\nencourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing. . .\" NYSCEF Doc. No. 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021). The Appellate Division further held:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (*see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan*, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law § 753). … The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\n\nPursuant to the Appellate Division's Order, this Court scheduled the February 2, 2022 evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Kwok beneficially owns and controls the yacht. Kwok failed to testify at the February 2, 2022 hearing, having previously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify or respond to discovery requests relating to the Lady May in response to PAX's asset discovery efforts. PX 27, 28, 29, 30.<sup>1</sup> This invocation of the Fifth Amendment notwithstanding, Kwok is an active litigant in multiple fora and he has given prior testimony in this and other proceedings.\n\nKwok also filed a complaint in this court captioned *Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng*, 157025/2020, which references a blog post from Freebeacon.com dated September 8, 2017 in which Kwok complains about \"several incidents involving *his* 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May...\" (Complaint ¶ 8, NYSCEF Doc. No. 001) (\"the Zeng Complaint\"). The Zeng Complaint describes Kwok as an \"outspoken critic of the CCP\" who has gone to great \"lengths to expose the rampant corruption within the CCP and the Chinese government.\" The *Washington Post* reported that a former advisor to President Trump, Steve Bannon, was arrested in 2020 while on board the Lady May, and described Mr. Bannon as a friend and business\n\n<sup>1</sup> \"PX\" refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 5 of 11\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44. 2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n<sup>2</sup> \"Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 6 of 11\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title to the yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 7 of 11\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had *ignored* the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 8 of 11\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753—and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"—where, as here, the Court \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" *Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\n*Fleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing *McCormick v Axelrod*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. *See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P*., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1 st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 9 of 11\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . .\").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.'\" *Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran*, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" *Id*. (quoting *Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); *Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc*., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 10 of 11\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. *S.E.C. v. Durante*, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\*10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), *aff'd*, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); *LiButti v. United States*, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" *Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n# **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 575-1 Filed 07/20/22 Entered 07/20/22 13:26:18 Page 11 of 11\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]nly after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. *See People v. Primo*, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\n**CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED** X **NON-FINAL DISPOSITION** X **GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE**","body_zh":"附件 A\n纽约州最高法院 纽约县\n\n出席法官：Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官） 审判庭：IAS Motion 61EFM\n法官\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n原告，\n- 诉 -\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云），又名 KWOK HO（郭浩），又名 GWO WEN GUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），又名 GUO WEN-GUI（郭文贵），又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN（万古皓云），又名 MILES KWOK（迈尔斯·郭），又名 HAOYUN GUO（皓云郭），GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC（杰纳弗控股有限责任公司），以及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰纳弗控股公司），\n被告。\n案号：652077/2017\n动议日期：\n动议序号：019\n动议决定书兼命令\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\n在这起 2017 年立案且包含 1,180 项案卷记录的案件中——其中几乎所有记录均涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，下称“Kwok”）通过将巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、受信赖的心腹以及家族成员名下，企图逃避并欺诈其债权人——本法院需就原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，下称“PAX”）是否已尽到举证责任以证明本法院应作出针对 Kwok 的民事蔑视法庭最终裁定作出认定。基于下述理由，本法院现同时签发民事蔑视法庭最终裁定。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日获得了针对 Kwok 金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF 案卷第 716 号）。此后，PAX 历经长达一年的努力以执行其判决，首先查明随后试图查封 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在查明由 Kwok 实际控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称亿万富翁的 Kwok 将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体网络和家族成员名下。该方案使 Kwok 能够坚称自己没有任何资产，尽管他过着奢靡的生活——原告利用社交媒体剪辑、照片和录像资料对此进行了记录，显示 Kwok 生活豪奢，炫耀其财富、昂贵豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日的庭审笔录所指出的，该证据的证明力有限，因为提交该证据的证人除知悉可从各网站获取该材料外，对该等“证据”的真实性并无第一手直接认知。\n已归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 案卷第 1181 号 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 575-1 提交于 07/20/22 录入于 07/20/22 13:26:18 第 3 页，共 11 页\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证词并接受了交叉盘问。该听证会是在 PAX 为查找并查封被告 Kwok 名下资产而进行旷日持久的法律程序之后举行的。除其他事项外，这些程序确立了 Kwok 对名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使管辖与控制权，并促使法院发布了一系列限制令，禁止 Kwok 和/或该 Lady May 游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本法院的司法管辖区。首份此类裁定于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发，详见下文，随后于 2020 年 10 月 15 日签发的裁定限制“Kwok 先生和/或……游艇‘Lady May’的登记所有人”离开司法管辖区（NYSCEF 案卷第 630 号）。如下文详述，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在 Lady May 上度过。在导致 2020 年 9 月 30 日和 10 月 15 日限制令的程序进行的同时，Kwok 及其同伙于 2020 年 10 月初安排 Lady May 驶往佛罗里达州，随后驶往巴哈马群岛。2021 年 3 月 16 日，本法院签发了一项附条件的民事蔑视法庭裁定，责令若 Kwok 未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 送回本法院的管辖范围内，则 Lady May 留在本法院管辖范围之外的每一天，他都将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（纽约州最高法院上诉分部第一部）维持了本法院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事蔑视法庭的裁定，认定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其蔑视法庭行为，尽管被告获准这样做，但他并未表现出任何消除意愿……”NYSCEF 案卷第 953 号，199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分部进一步认定：\n\n动议法院认定被告构成民事蔑视法庭是在其裁量权范围内行事，因为原告以清楚且令人信服的证据证明被告违反了其明知的法院合法、明确的指令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（参见 El-Dehdan 诉 El-Dehdan 案，26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law（《司法法》）§ 753）。……责令动议法院进行证据听证会，以解决关于游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。\n\n根据上诉分部的裁定，本法院安排于 2022 年 2 月 2 日举行证据听证会，以解决 Kwok 是否实际享有该游艇的实益所有权并对其进行控制的问题。Kwok 未能在 2022 年 2 月 2 日的听证会上作证，此前在回应 PAX 的资产调查取证时，他曾援引《第五修正案》赋予的权利，拒绝就涉及 Lady May 的事宜作证或回应证据开示请求。原告证据 27、28、29、30。1 尽管援引了《第五修正案》，Kwok 仍是多个法庭的积极诉讼参与人，且曾在此案及其他诉讼程序中提供过先前的证词。\n\nKwok 还在本法院提起过一起案由为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng（郭文贵又名迈尔斯·郭诉曾宏），案号 157025/2020 的诉讼，其中引用了来自 Freebeacon.com 日期为 2017 年 9 月 8 日的博客文章，Kwok 在文中抱怨“涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇 Lady May 的几起事件……”（起诉书第 8 段，NYSCEF 案卷第 001 号）（下称“《曾案起诉书》”）。《曾案起诉书》将 Kwok 描述为一名“直言不讳的中共批评者”，他曾竭尽全力“揭露中共和中国政府内部的猖獗腐败”。《华盛顿邮报》报道称，前总统特朗普的顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在 Lady May 游艇上被捕，并将班农先生描述为 Kwok 的朋友兼商业伙伴，“一名在网络上直言不讳批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但现因欺诈、敲诈勒索和行贿指控受到北京当局通缉。”其他新闻媒体也报道称，班农先生曾不止一次乘坐 Kwok 的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n1 “PX”指原告庭审证据。\n已归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 案卷第 1181 号 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 575-1 提交于 07/20/22 录入于 07/20/22 13:26:18 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n听证会上由被告方证人口中所提出的证言以清楚且令人信服的方式证明，Kwok 实际享有 Lady May 的实益所有权并对其进行控制，且对本法院及司法程序表现出彻底的蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，下称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上提出的证言确立了 Kwok 于 2014 年在无对价的情况下将 HK International 100% 的股权转让给一名名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。Qu 女士是 Kwok 家族受信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，HK International 于 2015 年 2 月 23 日以 2800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了 Lady May。听证会上提出的证言未能证明购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 之女 Mei Guo（郭美）无可反驳的证言确立了 Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。庭审笔录 44。2 因此，合理的推定是 Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，Qu 女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日左右以 $1 美元或无对价将 Lady May 的所有权转让给 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。庭审笔录 47。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 案卷第 1162 号），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给当前的所有权持有者 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，下称“HK USA”）。Guo 女士进一步声明她是 HK USA 的唯一所有人，尽管 Lady May 每年数百万美元的全部费用，\n\n2 “Tr.”指证据听证会的笔录，电子归档于 NYSCEF 案卷第 1179 号。\n已归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 案卷第 1181 号 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 575-1 提交于 07/20/22 录入于 07/20/22 13:26:18 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\n包括燃料费、维护费以及船长和船员的薪水，均由据称是 Kwok 家族办公室的 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“Golden Spring”）支付。\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士作证称是她哥哥为她购买了 Lady May。庭审笔录 46。法院无法采信此证词，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的哥哥参与了促成 Guo 女士取得该游艇产权的公司交易。而且，在回答法院提问时，Guo 女士确实承认其哥哥未参与在她获得游艇之前发生的任何转让。庭审笔录 47。\n\n听证会上提出的其他证言确立了 Kwok 每年夏天都频繁在游艇上，而 Guo 女士则极少登艇。庭审笔录 88:8-20。Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与他在夏季的一贯做法一致。庭审笔录 87:24-88:7。在本法院签发 2020 年 9 月 30 日限制令后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被送往佛罗里达州随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并随后于 2021 年 10 月被派往意大利，据称是遵照 Golden Spring 的指示。Guo 女士承认她知晓本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的限制令以及本法院随后的 2021 年 3 月 16 日要求将 Lady May 送回法院管辖范围内的裁定。庭审笔录 55；57-60；62。\n\nGuo 女士作证称，一方面她负责指挥 Lady May 的行程，但另一方面她又作证称，出于对 Kwok 安全的高度担忧，任何行程都不会留下记录。庭审笔录 52。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在没有她陪同的情况下登上游艇时，他有权自由选择去往任何想去的地方。庭审笔录 50。然而，根本问题在于究竟是谁在 2020 年 10 月指示将该游艇移出本法院的司法管辖区。Guo 女士声称在 2020 年 10 月初她不再希望\n已归档：纽约县巡回法院书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 案卷第 1181 号 NYSCEF 接收日期：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 575-1 提交于 07/20/22 录入于 07/20/22 13:26:18 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给 Golden Spring，而 Golden Spring 继而将她的指令传达给当时的船长 Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。庭审笔录 53。\n\n在进一步盘问下，Guo 女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她游艇需要移往更温暖的地方。庭审笔录 55。Guo 女士随后重申了她撤回的证词，即她哥哥把游艇送给了她，并声明她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。庭审笔录 56。鉴于法院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发了限制 Kwok 的临时限制令，该证词不可采信，该限制令限制 Kwok\n\n……除 CPLR（《民事诉讼法与规则》）5222 规定的例外情况及正常经营过程外，不得进行或导致任何买卖、转让、让与或干预其享有权益的任何财产，亦不得支付或以其他方式处置现已到期或此后将到期的应付予他的任何债务。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May 号当时船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）作证称，Kwok 先生在 Lady May 号于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州前“几天”（且显然是在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日裁定下达之后），曾告知 Captain Heaslop 其将不再作为 Lady May 号上的客人。Tr. 89。Captain Heaslop 亦驳斥了 Ms. Guo（郭女士）关于其曾就游艇航行向 Captain Heaslop 下达指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认，其随后阅读了法院于 2021 年 3 月 16 日作出的要求 Lady May 号在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前返回本法院管辖范围内的裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与其律师（其法律服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她对该裁定未予理睬。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托克尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 订立了日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，并且他与 HK USA 及 Golden Spring 进行沟通，但从未与郭女士沟通。Tr. 78。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫船长）的证言亦是如此。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭女士关于其拥有并控制 Lady May 号的证言在任何方面均不可采信。郭女士看似为一名二十多岁的女性，未提供任何证据证明其对 Lady May 号行使了支配与控制权，亦未提供任何确认其取得 Lady May 号占有权的依据，这完全是一种旨在掩护 Lady May 号免遭其父亲债权人扣押执行的花招。\n\n郭文贵就 Lady May 号精心策划的转移视线与障眼法（shell game）中的种种操弄，与其在本案诉讼悬而未决的五年间所采取的每一次规避和蔑视法庭行为如出一辙，这正是本案案卷记录多达 1,180 条的原因。\n\n根据《Judiciary Law》（司法法）第 753 条，法院有权判定郭文贵构成民事藐视法庭——并“通过罚款和监禁对其予以惩戒”——如果在本案中法院“明确认定郭文贵的行为旨在或实际已经破坏、损害、阻碍或损害了民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济途径”。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引 N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。第 753 条规定了四项要件：\n\n在特定案件中认定发生藐视法庭行为，必须确定：[1] 明确表达不容置疑指令的法院合法裁定处于有效状态。[2] 必须能合理确信该裁定已被违抗……[3] 此外，被控藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的裁定，尽管该裁定并非必须已实际送达该当事人……[4] 最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了损害。\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案所出示的证言符合本标准的每一项要件。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）亦有此表示。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已经]以高度盖然性的明确有力证据证明，[郭文贵]违反了其知晓的法院合法、明确的指令，且该违反行为导致原告的权利受到了损害……”）。\n\nPAX 所持续遭受“损害”的程度，取决于 PAX 是否已证明其最终能够扣押执行 Lady May 号以清偿其对郭文贵持有的如今已达数亿美元的判决款项。根据 CPLR（民事权利与救济法）§ 5225，在债务人持有必要“权益”的情况下，“金钱或其他个人财产”可予扣押执行。为满足该项要件，“判决债务人无须对财产拥有法定所有权；享有实益权益即可。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物所享有的权利或期待权……与对该物的法定所有权相对。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。郭文贵对 Lady May 号享有的远不止实益权益。郭文贵不仅控制该游艇，而且看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享受使用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于“该财产是否如同[实益所有人]直接收到该财产一样使其受益”。出处同上（援引 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦参见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持对判决债务人主张其因将权益转让给其女儿而不再持有财产权益的驳回决定）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（准许判决债权人的财产交出动议，尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，因为即使属实，证据亦显示其“保留了对该财产的控制权和/或权益”））。\n\n证据以高度盖然性明确有力地证明，郭文贵在 Lady May 号中享有实益权益并对其拥有控制权。关于后者，法院注意到曾案的提起，并从案卷全部事实中作出推论，即郭文贵采取了异乎寻常的手段以掩护该游艇免遭其债权人追索。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”资助该游艇的日常运营与维护。\n\n法院认定，郭女士的证言不仅自相矛盾、闪烁其词，而且被船长 Heaslop 与 Ivanov 以及 Stockil 先生的证言严重削弱，后者均表示，在郭女士直接或间接拥有游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未听从过郭女士关于游艇方面的指示。\n\n此外，纽约州确立的法律规定，当事人在民事诉讼中援引《第五修正案》“可构成作出不利事实推论的依据”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。在需要或允许作出事实认定的任何时候均可适用不利推论，包括在藐视法庭动议的情境中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120–25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实审理者可在相反证据允许的最大限度内，对未出庭作证的证人作出最强烈的推论”。Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（对未出庭且“通晓证据所提出的实质性问题”的被告适用不利推论）。\n\nPAX 有权通过上述两种途径获得不利推论。针对 PAX 判决后的证据开示程序，包括针对专门关于 Lady May 号的请求，郭文贵均援引了其反抗强迫自证其罪的《第五修正案》权利。尽管郭文贵辩称此处不宜适用不利推论，因为“只有在初步证明一份证据具有真实性之后，当事人方有义务对其作出回应”，但该抗辩根本站不住脚。PAX 已经出示了大量可采证据，证明郭文贵对 Lady May 号拥有必要的实益权益及控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（阐释证据如果“倾向于证明实质性事实的存在或不存在，即属于本案直接争议的事实”，则具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 号脱离本法院管辖范围已达 268 天。根据本法院课处并经上诉法庭确认的每日 500,000 美元罚款计算，由此产生的罚款总额将达到 134,000,000.00 美元，该金额超过了 PAX 近 1.2 亿美元的未清偿判决款项，亦是 Lady May 号购买价格 2,800 万英镑的数倍。然而，如果亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以在纽约及美国其他地方同时寻求利用法院诉讼程序，却明知且故意违反法院裁定，法治将不复存在。郭文贵必须在本院裁定连同录入通知送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 支付 134,000,000.00 美元。若未按期足额缴纳罚款，本法院准备行使《司法法》第 753 条项下的全部职权。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n勾选一项：案件已结案 X 非终局处置 X 准许 驳回 部分准许 其他申请：拟定裁定 提交裁定 勾选是否适用：包含移送/重新分派 受托人指定 查阅参照","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3600,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:47:54"}