{"id":"court_ctb_913_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":913,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-10-04","title":"Exhibit B Final Contempt Decision","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit B**\n\n**Final Contempt Decision**\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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 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":"证物 B\n\n最终民事藐视法庭裁定\nSupreme Court of the State of New York, New York County（纽约州最高法院纽约县分院）\n\n主审法官：Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官阁下） 部：IAS MOTION 61EFM\n\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）， 案号：652077/2017\n原告，\n\n对 - 动议日期\nKWOK HO WAN（郭浩云，又名郭浩/KWOK HO、郭文贵/GWO WEN GUI、GUO WENGUI、GUO WEN-GUI、万国浩云/WAN GUE HAOYUN、迈尔斯·郭/MILES KWOK、郭浩云/HAOYUN GUO）、GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（日内瓦控股有限责任公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（日内瓦控股公司）， 动议序号：019\n动议裁决与裁定\n\n被告。 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Hon. Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格法官阁下）\n\n在这一起包含 1,180 项案卷登记记录的 2017 年案件中——其中几乎所有记录均涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云/郭文贵，以下简称「郭」）试图通过将其巨额个人资产放置于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员名下，来逃避并欺骗其债权人——本法院须裁定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙，以下简称「PAX」）是否已承担举证责任，证明本法院应针对郭作出一份最终民事藐视法庭裁定（Order of Civil Contempt）。基于以下理由，本法院同时发出最终民事藐视法庭裁定。\n\nPAX 于 2021年2月3日 获得了针对郭的金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决（NYSCEF 档号 716）。此后，PAX 开展了长达一年的执行判决工作，首先确认随后试图扣押郭在美国境内的资产。PAX 在确认郭所控制的资产时遇到了困难，因为自称多亿万富翁的郭已将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体网络和家庭成员名下。这一计划使得郭能够声称自己没有任何资产，尽管他过着极为奢华的生活——原告已用来自社交\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 913-2 归档 10/04/22 输入 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 3 页，共 11 页\n\n媒体剪报、照片和视频资料将其记录在案，显示郭过着豪奢生活，并炫耀其财富、昂贵豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022年2月2日 的审理笔录所指出的，该证据的证明力微弱，因为提供该证据的证人除了知道这些资料可在各个网站上获取之外，对该「证据」的真实性并无第一手了解。\n\n2022年2月6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言，并接受了交叉询问。该听证会是在 PAX 为寻找和扣押被告郭所有的资产而进行了旷日持久的诉讼程序之后举行的。这些程序除其他事项外确定了郭对名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使统治和控制权，并导致了一系列限制郭及/或名为梅女士号游艇的登记所有人将梅女士号移出本法院司法管辖区的裁定。首份此类裁定于 2020年9月30日 作出（如下文详述），随后于 2020年10月15日 作出裁定，限制「郭先生及/或游艇『梅女士号』的登记所有人」离开管辖区。（NYSCEF 档号 630）。如下文详述，郭在 2020年7月、8月和9月 的大部分时间都在梅女士号上度过。在导致 2020年9月30日 和 10月15日 限制裁定的诉讼程序进行的同时，郭及其同伙于 2020年10月初 安排梅女士号航行至佛罗里达州，随后航行至巴哈马。2021年3月16日，本法院作出了一份附条件的民事藐视法庭裁定，指令若郭未能在 2021年5月31日 之前将梅女士号归还至本法院的管辖范围内，则梅女士号在本法院管辖范围之外每停留一天，他将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（上诉分部第一部门）维持了本法院认定郭构成附条件民事藐视法庭的裁定，认定「每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强烈\n\n促使被告消除其藐视行为，尽管已获准这样做，但他并未表现出任何意愿……」NYSCEF 档号 953, 199 AD3d 423 (2021)。上诉分部进一步裁定：\n\n动议法院认定被告构成民事藐视法庭属于其自由裁量权范围内，因为原告以明确且有说服力的证据证明被告违反了其明知的法院合法、明确的指令，且该违反应当导致原告的权利受损（参见 El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。……指令动议法院继续进行证据听证会，以解决关于游艇的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，以解决郭是否为该游艇的实际所有人及控制人这一问题。郭未在 2022年2月2日 的听证会上作证，他此前在回应 PAX 的资产披露请求时，援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》权利，拒绝就涉及梅女士号的事项作证或作出披露答复。PX 27, 28, 29, 30.1 尽管援引了第五修正案，郭在多个审理场所中均是积极的诉讼当事人，且他曾在此案及其他诉讼程序中提供过先前的证言。\n\n郭还在本法院提起了一项诉状，标题为 Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok v Hong Zeng，案号 157025/2020，其中引用了来自 Freebeacon.com 日期为 2017年9月8日 的一篇博客文章，其中郭抱怨「涉及其 152 英尺机动游艇梅女士号的数起事件……」（起诉书第 8 段，NYSCEF 档号 001）（简称「Zeng 起诉书」）。Zeng 起诉书将郭描述为「中共直言不讳的批评者」，其「竭尽全力揭露 CCP（中国共产党）和中国政府内部猖獗的腐败」。The Washington Post（《华盛顿邮报》）报道称，特朗普总统的前顾问 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）于 2020 年在梅女士号上被捕，并将班农先生描述为郭的朋友和商业\n\n1「PX」指原告的庭审证据。\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 913-2 归档 10/04/22 输入 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 5 页，共 11 页\n\n伙伴，「郭是一名在网络上公开批评中国政府的人士，曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但目前因涉嫌诈骗、勒索和行贿而受到北京当局的通缉。」其他新闻媒体亦报道称，班农先生曾多次使用郭的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n听证会上从被告证人口中获取的证言明确且令人信服地证明了郭是梅女士号的实际所有人并对其进行控制，并且对本法院及司法程序表现出极度的蔑视。\n\n郭曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，简称「HK International」）的唯一股东。听证会上获取的证言表明，2014 年郭将 HK International 100% 的股权无偿转让给了名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。屈女士是郭氏家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。此后，郭逃离中国，2015年2月23日，HK International 以 2800 万英镑（£ 28 million GBP）购买了梅女士号。听证会上提出的任何证言均未证明购买梅女士号的资金来源，但郭的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）无可争辩的证言表明，屈女士并未提供购买游艇的资金。笔录 44.2 因此，合理的推定是郭向 HK International 提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，屈女士于 2017年6月17日 左右，以 $1 或无偿将梅女士号的所有权转让给了郭的女儿郭美。笔录 47。根据郭女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 档号 1162），郭女士最终将梅女士号的所有权转让给了当前的所有权持有人 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，简称「HK USA」）。郭女士进一步断言她是 HK USA 的唯一所有者，尽管\n\n2「Tr.」指证据听证会的笔录，电子归档于 NYSCEF 档号 1179。\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 913-2 归档 10/04/22 输入 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 6 页，共 11 页\n\n梅女士号每年数百万美元的所有费用（包括燃油、维护以及船长和船员的费用）均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，简称「Golden Spring」）支付，该公司据称是郭氏家族办公室。\n\n在听证会上，郭女士作证称其兄弟为她购买了梅女士号。笔录 46。本法院无法采信这一证言，因为没有任何证据表明郭女士的兄弟参与了导致郭女士获得该游艇所有权的公司交易。而且，在回答本法院的提问时，郭女士确实承认其兄弟未参与她取得游艇之前发生的任何转让交易。笔录 47。\n\n听证会上获取的其他证言表明，郭每年夏天都会频繁登上游艇，而郭女士则很少在游艇上。审理笔录 88:8-20。梅女士号的船长作证称，郭在 2020年7月、8月和9月 的大部分时间都在游艇上，这与他夏季的惯常做法一致。审理笔录 87:24-88:7。在本法院 2020年9月30日 的限制裁定之后，梅女士号于 2020年10月 被派往佛罗里达州，随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并于 2021年10月 据称在 Golden Spring 的指示下被派往意大利。郭女士承认她知晓本法院 2020年9月30日 的限制裁定以及本法院随后于 2021年3月16日 作出的指令将梅女士号归还至本法院管辖范围的裁定。笔录 55; 57-60; 62。\n\n郭女士作证称，一方面她负责规划梅女士号的行程路线，但另一方面又作证称由于郭的安全是一大顾虑，因此不会对任何行程留下书面记录。笔录 52。她进一步作证称，当其父亲在没有她陪同的情况下登上游艇时，他有权自由选择任何想去的地方。笔录 50。然而，根本问题在于究竟是谁在 2020年10月 指示将游艇移出本法院的司法管辖区。郭女士声称在 2020年10月初 她不再希望\n归档：纽约县巡回书记官 02/09/2022 04:33 PM 案号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1181 NYSCEF 接收：02/09/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 913-2 归档 10/04/22 输入 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 7 页，共 11 页\n\n使用游艇，并将该指示传达给了 Golden Spring，后者随后将她的指令传达给了当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）。笔录 53。\n\n在进一步的询问下，郭女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将游艇移至气候更暖和的地方。笔录 55。随后，郭女士重复了她已被撤回的证言，即她兄弟将游艇赠予了她，并且她陈述其兄弟是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有人。笔录 56。鉴于本法院于 2020年9月30日 作出了一项临时限制令（temporary restraining order），限制郭\n\n……直接或促使对任何其享有权益的财产进行任何出售、转让、让与或干预，或支付、另行处置现已到期或此后应向其清偿的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情况以及在正常业务过程中进行的除外，\n\n因此该证言不可采信。\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591。值得注意的是，Lady May（梅夫人号）当时的船长 Captain Heaslop（希斯洛普船长）作证称，在 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州的“几天前”（显然是在本院 2020 年 9 月 30 日裁定作出之后），Kwok（郭先生）曾告诉 Heaslop 船长，郭将不再作为 Lady May 上的宾客。庭审记录（Tr.）89。Heaslop 船长还反驳了 Ms. Guo（郭女士）关于郭女士曾就游艇航行向 Heaslop 船长发出指示的证言。Tr. 94。\n\n郭女士还承认随后阅读过法院 2021 年 3 月 16 日要求在 2021 年 5 月 31 日前将 Lady May 归还至本院管辖范围内的裁定（NYSCEF Doc. No. 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与自己的律师（其律师服务由 Golden Spring 出资支付）讨论过该裁定，并且她无视了该裁定。\n\nYachtzoo SARL 游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 订有日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，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）也作出了同样的证言。Tr. 82。简而言之，郭女士关于其拥有并\nFILED: 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 8 of 11\n\n控制 Lady May 的证言在任何方面均不可采信。郭女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使了支配和控制权，且除作为阻碍其父亲的债权人对 Lady May 进行扣押执行的伎俩外，未提供任何其取得 Lady May 占有权的证实材料。\n\n与郭就 Lady May 所策划的障眼法相关的诡计，与郭在本案诉讼悬而未决的五年期间所采取的所有其他规避和藐视行为如出一辙，这也是本案有 1,180 项案卷记录的原因。\n\n本院有权根据 Judiciary Law（《司法法》）\n\n§ 753 认定郭构成民事藐视法庭——并“通过罚款和监禁[对其]予以惩处”——在此种情况下（正如本案中），法院“明确认定[郭的]行为旨在或实际上挫败、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 条提出了四项要件：\n\n在特定案件中认定发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 明确表达不容置疑指令的法院合法裁定当时处于生效状态。[2] 必须具有合理确定性地表明该裁定已被违抗……[3] 此外，被认定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)）。本案中提出的证言满足该标准的每一项要素。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）亦作此示意。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已经]以清晰且令人信服的证据证明[郭]违反了\nFILED: 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 9 of 11\n\n法院合法、明确的指令，且其对此知情，并且该等违反而导致原告的权利受到损害……”）。\n\nPAX 遭受持续“损害”的程度取决于 PAX 是否已证明其最终可以对 Lady May 进行扣押执行以清偿其目前针对郭的数亿美元判决。根据 CPLR（《民事诉讼法与规则》）§ 5225，在债务人持有必要“权益”的情况下，“金钱或其他动产”可予扣押执行。为满足这一要求，“判决债务人无须对财产享有法定所有权；享有实益权益即已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物享有[一]项权利或期待……不同于对该物的法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引 Black's Law Dictionary（《布莱克法律词典》）, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。郭对 Lady May 拥有的远不止是实益权益。郭不仅控制着该游艇，而且似乎是他提供了购买游艇的资金，并且他是主要享有该游艇使用权的人。\n\n关键因素是“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（引用 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持对判决债务人关于其因将财产权益转让给女儿而不再持有该财产权益之主张的驳回）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（准许判决债权人的移交财产动议，尽管判决债务人坚称其已将财产转让给一家公司，因为即使属实，证据亦显示其对该财产“保留了控制权和/或权益”））。\nFILED: 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 10 of 11\n\n证据清晰且令人信服地证明，郭对 Lady May 享有实益权益并对其进行控制。关于后一方面，本院注意到 Zeng（曾）案的起诉，并从记录中的所有事实推断出郭采取了非常规手段以包庇该游艇免受其债权人的追索。此外，郭的“家族办公室”资助了该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n本院认定，郭女士的证言不仅自相矛盾、掩盖真相，而且在很大程度上被 Heaslop 船长、Ivanov 船长和 Stockil 先生的证言所削弱，他们声明在郭女士直接或间接拥有该游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未接受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断的依据”。DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。只要需要或允许进行事实认定（包括在藐视法庭动议的情境中），即可适用不利推断。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，“事实审理者可针对未作证的证人，依据对方证据所允许的限度作出最强有力的推断。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（对未出庭的被告适用不利推断，因该被告“对于证据所提出的实质性问题应当知情”）。\n\nPAX 有权依据上述两条途径获得不利推断。郭在回应 PAX 的判决后证据开示时（包括在回应专门针对 Lady May 的要求时），援引了其反对自证其罪的第五修正案权利。尽管郭\nFILED: 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 913-2 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 11 of 11\n\n辩称此处适用不利推断是不妥当的，因为“只有在初步证明一份证据具有真实性之后，当事人始有义务对其作出回应”，但这一主张不攻自破。PAX 已提出大量可采证据，证明郭对 Lady May 享有必要的实益权益并对其进行控制。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（解释称如果证据“倾向于证明实质性事实的存在或不存在，即本案中直接争议的事实”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 已停留在本院管辖范围之外达 268 天。根据本院处以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 134,000,000.00 美元，这超过了 PAX 近 1.2 亿美元的未受偿判决金额，并且是 Lady May 购买价格 28,000,000 英镑的数倍。然而，如果身家亿万的诉讼当事人既可以试图利用纽约及美国其他地方的法院程序，同时又明知并故意违反法院裁定，那么法治将荡然无存。郭必须在本院附有登入通知（Notice of Entry）的裁定送达后五个工作日内向 PAX 汇付 134,000,000.00 美元。若未按期缴纳罚款，本院准备根据《司法法》第 753 条行使其全部权力。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\n请勾选一项：案件终结 X 非最终处置 X 准予 驳回 部分准予 其他 申请：拟定裁定 提交裁定 若适用请勾选：包含移送/重新指派 破产管理人/受托人指定 移交调查","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CCP","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3603,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-10-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-10-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:48:02"}