Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · EXHIBIT · ECF #183-4

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 1 of 269

Original File 247294.TXT Min-U-Script® with Word Index

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 3 of 269

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

3 ------------------------------------------------x PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,

6 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN 7 GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI,

8 Defendant.

9:39 a.m.

17 of the MILES KWOK, before Kristi Cruz, a Notary 18 Public of the State of New York.

REF:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 4 of 269

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

8 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. 9 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. 10 SARA N. PAHLAVAN, ESQ.

21 BY: MARK A. HARMON, ESQ. 22 JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 5 of

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

3 ALSO PRESENT: 4 ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG, Mandarin Interpreter

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 6 of 269

1 ------------------- I N D E X -------------------

12 --------------- DOCUMENT REQUESTS --------------- 13 PAGE:

18 ---------------- E X H I B I T S ---------------- 19 KWOK DESCRIPTION FOR I.D.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 7 of

1 ------------ E X H I B I T S (Cont'd)------------

2 KWOK DESCRIPTION FOR I.D. 3 Exhibit 5 UBS Hong Kong statement 82

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 8 of 269

2 3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED 4 by and between the attorneys for the 5 respective parties herein, that filing and 6 sealing be and the same are hereby waived. 7 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 8 AGREED that all objections, except as to 9 the form of the question, shall be 10 reserved to the time of the trial. 11 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 12 AGREED that the within deposition may be 13 sworn to and signed before any officer 14 authorized to administer an oath, with 15 the same force and effect as if signed 16 and sworn to before the Court. 17 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 18 AGREED that a copy of the within 19 deposition shall be furnished to counsel 20 for the Witness. 21 22 23 - oOo - 24 25 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 9 of 269

2 video?

MR. HARMON: Same objection.

4 direction. 5 A. Refuse to answer. 6 MR. MOSS:

7 what exhibit are we?

9 record for a second? 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

11 record, the time is 11:43 a.m.

13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

14 the record. The time is 11:44 a.m.

16 YouTube, marked for identification, as of

18 BY MR. MOSS: 19 Q.

20 Exhibit 2, which is a printout from YouTube 21 and it's entitled "Guo Wengui (Kwok Miles) is 22 planning to sell his private jet and yacht." 23 I'd just like to put on the record that 24 Pacific Alliance cited to this YouTube video 25 in its attachment motion, and that in

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 INDEX NO. 652077/2017 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM

2 opposition to its attachment motion Mr. Kwok 3 filed a brief dated May 16, 2018, and relating 4 to this issue on page 15, the brief reads as 5 follows:

7 investigator, "offers no proof beyond his own 8 assertion that the voices are those of Kwok 9 and his associates or that Kwok or anyone 10 associated with him uploaded the audio

12 substantial reason to question both the 13 authenticity of the audio and the motives 14 behind the individual or entity who uploaded 15 it and represented that it was, in fact, Kwok

17 Now I'm going play the audio.

20 THE WITNESS: I refuse to listen. 21 I'm not going to listen. 22 Q.

23 your ears? 24 A. This is all communist.

25 here is all communist. Unless you prove this

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 11 of 269

2 is not communist, then I will listen.

3 have recorded over a million of tax audios, 4 videos that are fake.

5 this is real, otherwise I will not listen to 6 it. What relationship is this to me?

7 you could prove this is what I have said, that 8 this is my words, my audio, my video, then I 9 will listen to it. 10 Q. You refuse to listen to the video?

MR. HARMON:

12 basis and direct the witness not to answer

question. 14 A.

15 suicide if you're going play that.

16 communist. Very simple.

17 number of place that the communist that have 18 been proven by the FBI to be fake.

19 want me to commit suicide?

20 kill me?

21 videos that you would show as outside the 22 parameters that's causing me mental distress, 23 I will reserve my right to sue.

24 attorney to note I reserve my right of the 25 personal attacks by the other party against FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 12 of 269

2 me, and I like to ask for the authenticity of 3 this documents with a person's authenticity. 4 I like to request an investigation of it.

5 done. 6 Q.

7 any questions about the video?

MR. HARMON: Same objection.

9 direction.

10 believe appropriate to ask in discovery. 11 A.

13 responsibility for these actions. 14 MR. MOSS:

15 reflect that when Mr. Kwok asked me to 16 stop playing the video, I stopped playing 17 the video. I will not play it anymore.

19 to this line of questioning and instructed 20 Mr. Kwok not to answer any questions about 21 this video.

23 Mr. Harmon? 24 MR. HARMON: I'm sorry? 25 MR. MOSS: I got it right?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 13 of 269

3 MR. HARMON:

4 I have that right, as opposed to it's my 5 right to something. 6 MR. MOSS: Fair enough.

7 correct, you're instructing the witness -- 8 MR. HARMON:

9 witness not to answer the questions for 10 the reasons I've already stated on the 11 record. 12 Q. What is Golden Spring New York Ltd.? 13 A.

14 company that they have expanded in New York. 15 Q. Who is "they"? 16 A. Hong Kong Golden Spring. 17 Q. Who owns Golden Spring New York? 18 A. Hong Kong Golden Spring owns. 19 Q. Who owns Hong Kong Golden Spring? 20 A. Guo Qiang. 21 THE INTERPRETER:

22 phonetic spelling. 23 Q.

24 yours? 25 A. Yes.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 14 of 269

2 Q. What is the relation? 3 A. My son. 4 Q. Do you have any ownership interest 5 in Golden Spring Hong Kong? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Is Guo Qiang the same son as Mileson 8 or is it a different son? 9 A. It's the same person. 10 Q. Do you have any ownership interest 11 in Golden Spring New York? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So Golden Spring is owned by your 14 son? 15 A. My son also represents the family in 16 owning it. 17 Q. Does the son represent you in owning 18 it? 19 A. No.

21 members in owning it? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Does your son represent Zhang Wei in 24 owning Golden Spring? 25 A. Yes. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 15 of 269

2 Q.

3 Golden Spring? 4 MR. HARMON:

5 the question. 6 A. I'm not really sure. 7 Q.

8 shareholders of Golden Spring? 9 MR. HARMON:

10 the question. 11 A. I'm not sure. I don't know. 12 Q.

13 directors? 14 MR. HARMON:

15 the question. 16 A. I'm not sure. 17 MR. MOSS:

18 don't like that I'm not using one of the 19 entities? 20 MR. HARMON:

22 MR. MOSS: Hong Kong or New York? 23 MR. HARMON:

24 you're talking about, or both. 25 Q.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 16 of 269

2 have employees? 3 A. Yes, there are employees. 4 Q.

5 Golden Spring? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What business is Golden Spring in? 8 A. Invest in real estate, media. 9 Q.

10 Golden Spring New York? 11 A. I'm consultant. 12 Q. What do you do as consultant? 13 A. Their haven't, give advice. 14 Q.

16 Corporation? 17 MR. HARMON:

18 the question. You can answer. 19 A. No. 20 Q.

21 relationship with Genever Holdings LLC? 22 MR. HARMON:

23 the question. 24 A. No. 25 Q.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2021 07:59 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 785 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 17 of 269

2 relationship with either of the Genever 3 companies? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Does Shiny Times New York maintain 6 its offices at 800 Fifth Avenue? 7 A. I do not know.

9 Times has a lease for offices in New York City 10 with a company called Urbana Properties? 11 A. I do not know. 12 Q. Do you know whether or not Golden 13 Spring was ever late on any lease payments for 14 its offices? 15 A. I do not know.

17 Golden Spring? 18 A. CEO. 19 Q. Any other role? 20 A. I'm not really sure. 21 Q. Is she the president? 22 A. Yes, I think so.

24 seized by the Chinese government? 25 DI MR. HARMON:

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 18 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 19 of 269

**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**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 20 of 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

5 BY: LEE VARTAN, ESQ.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 21 of 269

Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff **1 THE COURT: All right. I have an idea for lead 2 counsel for the parties. We need everybody to mute 3 themselves. 4 Mr. Siegal, I would like you and Mr. Harbach to 5 leave the line open with all the people who dialed in. And 6 I would like the three of us, counsel and the Court, to have 7 an offline telephone call. That will take no more than five 8 to ten minutes. Then we will go back to the Microsoft Teams 9 hearing call, all right? 10 MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. 11 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Thank you very much. 13 (Off-the-record discussion was held.) 14 THE COURT: Okay. We are going to resume this 15 hearing. Counsel for each of the parties will make a brief 16 opening statement. Then we will proceed with the 17 cross-examination by the defendant of the plaintiff's direct 18 testimony affiants. 19 Mr. Harbach. 20 MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. 21 I was going to make the opening statement and then turn it 22 over to Mr. Harbach. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. SARNOFF: I will try to be brief, sir. 25 As you recall, PAX demonstrated at the argument on Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 22 of 269

Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff **1 January 14 that the Lady May is and always has been 2 Mr. Kwok's yacht. And this is despite its clumsy attempts 3 to park legal title first in the family business associate 4 and then in his charter.**

**5 Now, as of January 14, what have Mr. Kwok's 6 arguments in opposition been? They were twofold. First he 7 argued that his daughter was actually a current titleholder, 8 something PAX has not disputed and is not the relevant 9 standard. And, two, he suggested that some of our evidence 10 which consists of Kwok's social media posts boasting from 11 his own mouth that the Lady May is his haven't been fully 12 authenticated. But to the extent there is any 13 authentication issue about his own social media -- and there 14 isn't, your Honor -- that would be on Mr. Kwok because it 15 would stem directly from his invocation of the Fifth 16 Amendment during post-judgment asset discovery and his 17 refusal to testify today.**

**18 Now, back at the January 14 argument, you may 19 recall that I predicted that if the Court were to hold an 20 evidentiary hearing -- something I understand the Appellate 21 Division had requested -- Mr. Kwok would not be able to 22 proffer any new evidence other than Mei Guo coming in here 23 and saying in a self-serving way that she owned and 24 controlled the yacht since 2017, and it turns out I was 25 right.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 23 of 269

Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff **1 As we demonstrated on the 14th of January, there 2 isn't a single piece of paper in the record anywhere that, 3 other than the sort of formal corporate title documents, 4 indicates that Ms. Guo acted as the controlling person over 5 the Lady May's operation in the three-and-a-half years since 6 she took legal title in mid-2017 and when the yacht went 7 rogue in violation of your order in late 2020. That's 8 pretty telling, isn't it?**

**9 You may hear Mr. Siegal claim we haven't come up 10 with any hard documentary evidence showing Mr. Kwok's 11 day-to-day operation other than these tweets and social 12 media posts, but, again, that would also be on Mr. Kwok 13 because he's invoked the Fifth Amendment and prevented us 14 from exploring that.**

**15 What I've just described over the past few minutes 16 was the state of the evidentiary record leading into today's 17 hearing. So the question before your Honor is likely what's 18 changed with the filing of the five affidavits that Mr. Kwok 19 submitted on January 28. Absolutely nothing.**

**20 As your Honor can see from the five-exhibit 21 exhibit binder that is defendant's exhibit binder, the first 22 four being the corporate formal documents that have always 23 been in evidence in this case, Mr. Kwok has not put into 24 evidence even one document -- not a contract, not an e-mail, 25 not a text message or anything of that nature -- that**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 24 of 269 Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff **1 indicates that Ms. Guo actually controlled the yacht's 2 operation during the relevant 2017 to late 2020 period. In 3 fact, the only piece of document that she puts in, 4 Defendant's Exhibit 5, is a purported service agreement with 5 an outfit named Phoenix Crew that even assuming it's 6 genuine -- and there are some problems with it which we will 7 get to -- it only went into effect at the end of 2021, a 8 year after Mr. Kwok committed contempt.**

**9 Very briefly, what about the five affidavits that 10 Mr. Kwok has but into evidence? Well, the current captain, 11 Mr. Ivanov, clearly has nothing probative to say because 12 he -- and I mean this pun intended -- first came aboard this 13 past October 2021 when the yacht was already parked 14 illegally in Europe. He confirms, by the way, that he's 15 never has taken direction from or even communicated with 16 Ms. Guo. The same is true for the Yachtzoo SARL 17 representative Russell Stockil whose European management 18 company also first got involved with the fugitive yacht in 19 May 2021 and who similarly never seems never to have spoken 20 with or communicated with Ms. Guo. So given these facts, 21 these two affidavits are not only irrelevant, but they are a 22 serious miscalculation by Mr. Kwok to suggest she actually 23 controlled the yacht operation in mid to late 2021. 24 Mr. Ivanov and Mr. Stockil vividly highlight the total lack 25 of any corresponding evidence that she controlled the yacht** Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 25 of

1 during the relevant period, '17 through '20.

**2 What about the former captain, Craig Heaslop? My 3 partner, David Harbach, will explore on cross-examination 4 some of the problems with that affidavit. But let me just 5 note up front that he says that he only, quote, interacted, 6 unquote, with Ms. Guo when she was aboard the yacht and, 7 quote, sporadically via phone or text message. What 8 Mr. Heaslop doesn't say speaks much louder. He doesn't say 9 he took direction from Ms. Guo or that he understood her to 10 be in control of the yacht. So that gets us to 11 Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Kwok's personal lawyer, and also after 12 that to Ms. Guo.**

**13 Remember that Mr. Mitchell signed a complaint in 14 this state court on Mr. Kwok's behalf in September 2020 15 saying that the Lady May was Mr. Kwok's yacht. Attorney 16 Mitchell even attached an article to that complaint that 17 made this Kwok ownership point both in its caption and in 18 the body of the article. That judicial admission, as your 19 Honor noted two weeks ago, is very problematic for Mr. Kwok, 20 so Mr. Mitchell naturally tries to walk it back by saying he 21 filed a pleading that didn't mean plainly what it said. But 22 he already made this argument to your Honor on December 18. 23 It wasn't credible then, and it isn't credible now. And I 24 am wrapping up, your Honor. So that leaves only Mr. Kwok's 25 daughter, Mei Guo. So let me highlight a few of its main**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 26 of 269

Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff

1 problems.

**2 Ms. Guo says the Lady May, quote, was always 3 intended for her; but this ignores the fact that when her 4 father bought the yacht for \$30 million, he first parked it 5 in his company, Hong Kong International, Hong Kong, and his 6 family business associate Ms. Qu. Only years later was the 7 yacht transferred by Ms. Qu to Ms. Guo for a single dollar. 8 And this, of course, doesn't explain how and why Ms. Qu 9 would voluntarily part with a \$30 million asset simply 10 because the young daughter of a business associate had a 11 lifelong love of the water. Your Honor, I sure wish I had 12 work colleagues like that. To say the least, your Honor, it 13 is highly unusual to play hot potato with a \$30 million 14 asset, but that's not unusual for Mr. Kwok where property is 15 routinely moved around on paper in an endless shell game 16 aimed at shielding his considerable assets while retaining 17 ultimate control over them; the yacht, the Sherry Netherland 18 apartment, and on and on with Mr. Kwok's web of related 19 companies.**

**20 Next, Ms. Guo suggests that she signed and 21 directed some NDAs with Lady May crew members. Again, this 22 appears to be an effort to demonstrate operational control 23 of the yachts. But where are these NDAs, your Honor? They 24 are not in defendant's five-exhibit exhibit binder, and they 25 are nowhere else in evidence today.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 27 of 269

Opening Statement - by Plaintiff - Sarnoff **1 She also says she communicated her instruction to 2 move the yacht out of New York in violation of your Honor's 3 order to her father's shell company, Golden Spring, not to 4 her employer -- not to her employee Craig Heaslop. Let's 5 assume for a moment that that's true. The Court knows 6 exactly what Golden Spring New York is and who controls it. 7 Mr. Kwok.**

**8 We can't even be sure that the Golden Spring story 9 is true, your Honor, because defendant has proffered no 10 corroborating Golden Spring affidavit on this point, and 11 Ms. Guo's hearsay statement is directly at odds with the 12 representation that Golden Spring's counsel made to PAX that 13 no Golden Spring personnel actually knew anything about who 14 owned and controlled the yacht.**

**15 Finally I would note, your Honor, based on the 16 last paragraph of her affidavit it appears that, like her 17 father, Ms. Guo may be someone who doesn't have enough 18 respect for Court authority and Court orders. Taking 19 Ms. Guo at her word, she says she was aware that this Court 20 had ordered the Lady May to return to New York by May 2021 21 but she decided to disregard it. While PAX, of course, 22 doubts that it was actually her decision to keep the yacht 23 abroad as opposed to her father's, contemptuous conduct 24 seems to run in the family.**

25 In summary, your Honor, as the upcoming Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 28 of 269

**1 cross-examinations will reinforce, it is abundantly clear 2 that Mr. Kwok has failed to proffer any probative evidence 3 to date, yet alone evidence sufficient to rebut PAX's clear 4 and convincing showing that Mr. Kwok has and at all relevant 5 times has had a beneficial interest in his Lady May. 6 Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Harbach will take over 7 from here. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 Go ahead, Mr. Siegal. 10 MR. SIEGAL: Thank you, your Honor, and good 11 morning to everyone. 12 John Siegal with the Baker Hostetler law firm 13 representing the defendant, Miles Kwok. With me are my 14 colleagues Tracy Cole who will handle the cross-examination 15 of the plaintiff's witnesses, and Erica Barrow who will 16 handle certain legal issues hopefully later in the hearing. 17 I have always understood that opening statements 18 aren't to argue the evidence which the Court has not yet 19 heard, so I am not going to do that; but opening statements 20 are not an opportunity to mischaracterize otherwise 21 uncontested facts. So let me begin by correcting two things 22 that my Brother Sarnoff said that are just flat contradicted 23 by the record. 24 Number one, Mr. Sarnoff referred to when Mr. Kwok 25 first bought the yacht. It is undisputed, undisputed, Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 29 of 269

**1 conceded in PAX's papers that Mr. Kwok has never owned this 2 yacht. So half of the remand from the Appellate Division 3 regarding ownership is not even contested, and that 4 statement was inaccurate.**

**5 Secondly, Mr. Sarnoff asserted that Golden Spring 6 is the father's company. There is no evidence of that, and 7 there is evidence that Golden Spring is the family office of 8 an extended family that includes not just the defendant 9 Mr. Kwok and his daughter Guo Mei, but his son and other 10 uncles and cousins, all of whom -- many of whom certainly 11 the son does, have their own independent business lives, 12 their own independent sources of funds.**

**13 There is an expression among musicians that if you 14 play something it's close enough for jazz, right? If you 15 get close, maybe it sounds good. But that standard doesn't 16 apply to a court of law, and you can't sit there and say, 17 Oh, there's all these companies and they seem intertwined; 18 therefore, Judge, just ignore the formalities. That is not 19 the standard that applies here.**

**20 Secondly, we are all corporate lawyers. We love 21 documents, but there is nothing in the rule of evidence or 22 in the law that says documentary evidence is required to 23 establish a point. And the best evidence is a witness with 24 personal knowledge who comes in and testifies directly.**

25 Mr. Sarnoff says he would love a colleague who

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 30 of 269

**1 would take title to an asset for him and then transfer it 2 later, not that that's what happened; but if Mr. Sarnoff 3 wants to live in a world where such arrangements occur, let 4 him go live in the People's Republic of China where the 5 government has a practice of arbitrarily willy-nilly seizing 6 assets from people who have fallen out of favor. It's just 7 not an applicable argument. The better argument, Judge, is 8 my son owns an apartment. I may go visit his apartment. I 9 may stay there. The doorman lets me in. He greets me. 10 Other employees of the building, they don't know who owns 11 it. Maybe there is a management company that is an 12 intermediary that gives them directions. That's the more 13 appropriate analogy here. And the argument at the end was 14 literally an argument that the alleged sins of the father 15 should be visited on the daughter.**

**16 So the issue here, the only issue here is who 17 controlled the movement of this yacht during the contempt 18 period. That is the only issue. The beneficial interest 19 under CPLR 5223, which PAX continues to argue, is not the 20 standard. The Appellate Division impliedly made that clear 21 when they remanded for determination of control. The issue 22 of prejudice was already determined by the Appellate 23 Division, but I have been frustrated by their persistence in 24 making this wrong argument so I did a little more research. 25 It is absolutely crystal clear under the law of**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 31 of 269

**1 New York that beneficial ownership -- beneficial interest, 2 rather, not ownership. Beneficial interest under 5223 is 3 not the legal standard on a motion for contempt. And I say 4 that because the Court of Appeals in Commonwealth of the 5 Northern Mariana Islands versus CIBC, 25 NY3d 55, in 2013 6 answered a question certified to the Court of Appeals by the 7 second circuit and held that 5225(b), the turnover statute, 8 does not encompass the issue of control. Control is 9 different than beneficial interest under the turnover 10 statute. They are two different legal standards, they are 11 two different regimes. And the only issue to be determined 12 is who controlled this yacht during the contempt period.**

**13 The issue here is not prejudice. The issue is not 14 whether -- the issue on this motion is not whether this 15 asset would have been reachable by the plaintiff as a 16 judgment creditor if it had been in New York. The issue is, 17 because we have asserted a defense on behalf of Mr. Kwok, 18 that he did not have the ability to comply with the Court's 19 conditional order because he does not control the yacht. 20 The burden is on the plaintiff to establish by clear and 21 convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok had control of that asset 22 during the contempt period.**

23 There is no adverse inference on the issue of 24 control maybe for lots of reasons, but for two very basic 25 reasons.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 32 of 269

**1 First, the defense is that Guo Mei controlled the 2 yacht. Guo Mei is the witness on control. Mr. Kwok is not 3 a missing witness on the issue of control because he is not 4 the witness. Guo Mei is, and she will be in court. So 5 there is no adverse inference on the issue of control.**

**6 The adverse inference doesn't come into play, 7 according to the United States Supreme Court, unless and 8 until the party invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege 9 refuses to testify, quote, in response to probative evidence 10 offered against them. That's the Baxter versus Palmigiano 11 case cited in our brief at Page 8.**

**12 Unless and until Pacific Alliance proffers 13 admissible evidence of control during the period of alleged 14 contempt, there is no adverse inference. And given that 15 Pacific Alliance has proffered no affirmative evidence 16 whatsoever regarding control of the yacht during the 17 contempt period -- all of the smatterings of edited and 18 unreliable video and social media postings which the 19 authenticity and reliability of which will be an issue this 20 morning, all of them long pre-date this Court's contempt 21 order and this Court's conditional contempt order.**

**22 So, your Honor, all of this evidence is irrelevant 23 to the issue of control during the relevant period, and none 24 of it establishes probative evidence of the matter in 25 dispute sufficient to trigger the adverse inference.**

Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 33 of 269 1 So with that, your Honor, I appreciate the 2 opportunity to open and to hold this hearing. My colleague 3 Tracy Cole will handle the cross-examinations on the 4 plaintiff's case.

5 Thank you, Judge.

6 THE COURT: All right.

**7 The only observation I want to make to both 8 parties is that when the contempt order was issued, the 9 Court had before it pleadings immediately prior to the 10 issuance of the contempt order in which Mr. Kwok claimed 11 ownership and control of the vessel. While that is not 12 dispositive, I have observed to you that the contempt 13 sanctions if sustained based on the factual record that must 14 be made and considered persuades the Court that the 15 conditional contempt order was properly issued, the amount 16 of the contempt sanctions at this point in time exceeds the 17 value of the vessel, which is why we had our sidebar 18 conversation prior to the commencement of this hearing.**

19 Plaintiff should call its first witness for 20 cross-examination. Go ahead, Mr. Harbach.

21 MR. HARBACH: Good morning, your Honor. We would 22 be happy to tender Mr. Nat Francis for cross-examination 23 relying on his affidavit, as the Court directed, for his 24 direct testimony.

25 THE COURT: Mr. Francis, raise your right hand. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 34 of 269

1 (Nathaniel Francis is duly sworn/affirmed.) 2 THE COURT: Cross-examination can commence. 3 NATHANIEL FRANCIS, having been called on behalf of 4 Plaintiff, first having been duly sworn, was examined and 5 testified as follows:

7 BY MS. COLE:

Mr. Francis, I am Tracy Cole.

9 affidavit in front of you? 10 THE COURT: Ms. Cole's, your audio is defective. 11 See if you can work it out.

12 their microphone except for Ms. Cole and Mr. Francis. 13 MS. COLE: I tested this yesterday.

14 working okay. Is it working now with everyone muted? 15 THE COURT: It is still suboptimal. 16 MS. COLE: Okay.

17 my cell phone. 18 THE COURT: Yes, there is.

19 visual, and then the audio will come from your cell phone. 20 MS. COLE: I will do that right now.

21 for your patience.

23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 now, so let's proceed. 25 MS. COLE: Thank you very much for your patience.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 35 of 269

1 BY MS COLE:

Mr. Francis, you did several affidavits and you averred 3 that you are a senior investigator and certified fraud examiner, 4 correct?

Correct.

You are not proffering yourself as any kind of expert 7 in technology of social media, correct?

Correct.

And your familiarity with Twitter and Instagram is from 10 using it, and, perhaps, from pulling data from it; but you are 11 not an engineer or anything like that, correct?

That's right.

And you have never worked for any of the social media 14 entities like Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook?

Correct.

And you have no particular expertise in film editing, 17 or manipulation of images, or how they can be altered in a way 18 that would or would not be apparent, correct?

Correct.

So let's start with your affirmation that is Docket 21 Number 1121 relating to PX 25. 22 THE COURT:

23 which contains more than a half dozen proclamations of 24 Mr. Francis; so if you would refer to the particular 25 affirmations by the number in the binder, that would be

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 36 of 269

**18 1 helpful to the Court. 2 MS. COLE: Yes, your Honor. My apologies. 3 THE COURT: That's the purpose of the binder. 4 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, I don't know if anyone 5 else on the call is having this problem, but we are now 6 hearing echoes. 7 THE COURT: Everybody who dialed into the call has 8 muted themselves, so -- 9 BY MS. COLE: 10 Q You are looking now at -- 11 THE COURT: Ms. Cole, your audio is in and out. 12 If we can't resolve these issues, we are going to have to 13 conduct this hearing in open court. So I will give five 14 minutes to work out the technology issues. If you can't 15 work out the issues, we will adjourn and have an open court 16 proceeding because we can't conduct this proceeding with 17 echoes. 18 MS. COLE: Thank you, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Have your tech people investigate 20 this. We will take a five-minute adjournment. 21 (Brief pause) 22 THE COURT: All right. It is 10:37. We can now 23 get started. 24 Go ahead, Ms. Cole. 25 MS COLE: Thank you, your Honor. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 37 of 269

2 BY MS. COLE:

**3 Q Turning to Tab 1, you indicate that you took a 4 screenshot on January 24 of an Instagram post that was dated 5 August 21, 2018. The owner of this Instagram post -- the owner 6 of this Instagram account, do you know who that is? 7 A I know the handle is GuoWenGui. 8 Q And you indicate that the handle refers to a Twitter 9 account at @KwokMiles, correct? 10 A Correct. 11 Q So other than those, what else suggests to you who the**

12 owner of that Instagram account is?

13 A I believe that's it.

14 Q Okay.

15 You don't know who has control over that account, 16 correct?

17 A Correct.

18 Q You don't know who has access to that account, correct? 19 A Correct.

20 Q And you are aware in your personal experience that that 21 there are multiple social media accounts that post pictures and 22 content relating to Mr. Kwok, correct?

23 A I am not sure what you mean by that.

24 Q Are you aware of posts or internet postings that are 25 not attributed to Mr. Kwok or, to your knowledge, have not been

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 38 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole 269

**20 1 posted by him that, nonetheless, relate to him? 2 A I am aware of other folks posting about him, if that's 3 what you are referring to. 4 Q Yes, exactly. 5 So if someone posts pictures of Mr. Kwok, you 6 don't personally assume that those are posted by Mr. Kwok, 7 correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Now, you proffered a specific Instagram post dated 10 August 21, 2018, correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you don't know when it was actually posted? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And you don't know who posted it, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Or the circumstances around which it was posted, 17 correct? 18 A Right. 19 Q And you have no information -- no personal information 20 about the content of the post, you weren't there for any of the 21 events or cannot speak to how it was reported or the writing on 22 it or anything else, correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And you can't tell us who created the image, whether it 25 was manipulated or altered, who wrote those words, whether they Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 39 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

1 were contemporaneous with the image or any other substantive 2 information about the content of that post, correct?

Correct.

Thank you. 5 Let's turn to your Tab 2 -- I apologize.

6 Tab 6, sorry. Tab 6 is an affidavit, Docket Number 1133, 7 relating to a Youtube video entitled "Lady May, Miles Kwok Super 8 Yacht," correct?

Correct.

You agree with me that this exhibit, PX 2, is a 11 collection of different videos that -- my apologies.

12 Tab 6. It is connected to an exhibit that is Lady May Miles Kwok 13 Super Yacht that, I believe, is PX 2. 14 MS. BARROW: Yes, that's correct.

Okay. 16 So you viewed that video, correct, and you said 17 that you navigated your browser to YouTube, correct?

Yes.

You watched the video, you saw that it was pertaining 20 to the user Richard Conley.

21 observed that the metadata suggests the video was uploaded on 22 October 14, 2017, correct?

Yes.

Now, you agree that this video looks like a collection 25 of different videos that have been spliced together, correct?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 40 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

**22 1 A Yes. 2 Q They appear to be taken at different places and times, 3 correct? 4 A Right. 5 Q They show different individuals, different time 6 periods? 7 A Correct. 8 Q And you were not a witness to any of the events in the 9 video, correct? 10 A I was not. 11 Q You didn't record any of the segments on the video and 12 you have no idea who did, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q You didn't maintain or operate or install the equipment 15 that recorded any of the segments of the video, and you don't 16 know who did? 17 A Correct. 18 Q You don't know when any of these segments were 19 recorded, where they were recorded geographically in the world, 20 or under what circumstances any of them were recorded, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q You don't know who created this compilation, do you? 23 A No. 24 Q And you don't know for what purpose this compilation 25 was created?**

Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 41 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

**1 A No. 2 Q You know that the name -- that the video is attached to 3 a YouTube account under the name of Richard Conley. You have no 4 other information about this Richard Conley? 5 A I do not. 6 Q You have no other information about who this person 7 might be associated with or anything else, correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q And you would agree that they are subtitled in English 10 that appear on the video, correct? 11 A Correct. 12 Q These subtitles appear throughout the video, and you 13 don't know who created them, correct? 14 A Correct. 15 Q You are not vouching for the accuracy of the subtitles, 16 are you? 17 A I am not. 18 Q In fact, the certified translation of portions of the 19 video that you obtained are inconsistent with the subtitles in 20 some respects, correct? 21 A Could you repeat that? 22 Q You obtained certified translations for a portion of 23 the video, correct -- oh, wait. I may be relying on an earlier 24 one. Just a moment. 25 (Brief pause)**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 42 of 269

Do you know the answer to that question?

No. 3 MR. HARBACH: This isn't exactly an objection.

4 will just note for the Court that in this affidavit at Tab 5 6, Docket Number 1133, there is no representation by 6 Mr. Francis that he obtained a translation for this 7 particular exhibit, so I don't know that he is competent to 8 answer the question counsel has put to him. 9 MS. COLE: It seems that way. Understood.

10 you.

You would agree there is a musical track with the 12 video?

Correct.

And you don't know who created the audio of any portion 15 of it, correct?

Right.

It appears that the segments have been altered at least 18 in the sense that they have been spliced together, correct?

I don't know enough about that type of technology to 20 answer that. 21 MR. HARBACH:

22 whether we are talking about segments of the exhibit at 23 large or segments within the 2:50 to 4:15 window, which is 24 what PAX has proffered and is relying on. 25 MS. COLE: I will start with the full video.

**Francis - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole 25 1 Q Does it appear that the sections that are in that 2 video, do they appear complete to you as though nothing has been 3 removed? 4 A I am not certain. 5 Q And within the section of 2:50 to 4:15, which is the 6 part that they proffer, do you know what section that is? Do you 7 know what I am referring to? 8 A I would have to watch it again. 9 Q Do you know if any section, I guess I should say, 10 appears to be a complete -- as you sit here now, appears to be 11 complete and unaltered? 12 A I don't know. 13 THE COURT: Ms. Cole, Mr. Francis has no firsthand 14 knowledge of anything. He is a certified fraud examiner 15 employed by the plaintiff here. Nothing in Mr. Francis's 16 affidavits, plural, is fully dispositive of the issues on 17 this hearing. So let's try and move along here. 18 MS. COLE: Understood, your Honor. I will make 19 this shorter. 20 Q For any of the exhibits, I think you have testified 21 that you don't have the background to answer the question whether 22 the images were altered, correct? 23 A Correct. 24 Q Or whether they were manipulated in some way, correct? 25 A Correct.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 43 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 44 of 269

1 Q So you cannot testify that they are genuine and 2 accurate and portray what they purport to portray, correct? 3 A I can only testify to where I got them, correct. 4 Q All right. 5 So the only other questions I have for you relate 6 to -- Tab 2, do you have that in front of you? 7 A I do. 8 Q Now, you averred that you took screenshots of two 9 tweets dated May 10 and August 27, 2017 respectively that 10 appeared on the Twitter feed relating to the handle at 11 @KwokMiles, correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Exhibit A is a fair and accurate copy, you say, of the 14 screenshots, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now, is Exhibit A a fair and accurate copy of the 17 tweets as they appeared on the Twitter page @KwokMiles? 18 A Yes. 19 Q To get the screenshot you did not log on to Twitter, 20 search KwokMiles in the search bar, or go to Twitter.com, is that 21 correct, for both of them? 22 A I don't recall exactly how I navigated to it. 23 Q You don't, okay. 24 I am going to show you what I am going to ask -- 25 well, it was marked for identification.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 45 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

**27 1 briefs, pretrial brief as Exhibit -- Erica, could you pull that 2 up? 3 MS. BARROW: Yes, I can share my screen. It 4 previously was filed with the Court and it is Docket Number 5 1169. It was Exhibit B to the Siegal affirmation that was 6 filed on Wednesday. 7 Can I share my screen, your Honor? 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 9 MS. BARROW: Would you like me to share my screen? 10 THE COURT: I can't hear whoever is speaking. 11 MS. BARROW: Your Honor, this is Erica Barrow from 12 Baker Hostetler. Can you hear me now? 13 THE COURT: Yes. 14 MS. BARROW: You should have a hard copy of this, 15 everyone should; but I could also provide a virtual copy. 16 It is NYSCEF 11619. 17 THE COURT: I have a hard copy. 18 MS. BARROW: Okay. 19 Mr. Francis, would you like to see the exhibit? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, please. 21 MS. BARROW: Sure. 22 THE COURT: So you are going to Exhibit it to 23 Mr. Francis? 24 MS. COLE: Yes, your Honor. I would like to show 25 it to Mr. Francis. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 46 of 269

2 MS. BARROW:

3 sharing capabilities. 4 MS COLE: Let me try it this way.

Do you know of a service called Tweet Tunnel?

I do.

Have you ever used Tweet Tunnel?

Used it how? Used it to do what?

Have you ever retrieved tweets from Tweet Tunnel?

I don't know if I have.

Okay. 12 My specific question is going to be whether you 13 retrieved one of these specific tweets from Tweet Tunnel.

14 don't know if you have in front of you the exhibit that 15 Ms. Barrow is talking about and I don't know how to get that in 16 front of you; but that is the purpose of showing you that, to see 17 if that refreshes your recollection as to whether you may have 18 used Tweet Tunnel to retrieve that tweet.

I don't know if I retrieved it from Tweet Tunnel.

Is there a way to -- assuming Tweet Tunnel, do you 21 know -- first of all, do you know what Tweet Tunnel is?

22 you explain what it is, generally?

My understanding is that it archives old tweets.

Is that the extent of your understanding?

Yes.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Page 47 of

1 Q Do you know how it archives the tweets? 2 A I don't. 3 Q Or the mechanisms for importing the tweets? 4 A No. 5 Q Or the security or quality control or verification that 6 they have for the tweets? 7 A No. 8 Q Or how they secure their content, correct? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Okay. We will go back to that tweet. 11 In terms of the KwokMiles account, your 12 understanding is that that account was associated with Mr. Kwok, 13 correct? 14 A Yes. 15 MR. HARBACH:

16 account with which web platform?

17 Twitter or Tweet Tunnel? 18 MS. COLE: My apologies.

19 Twitter. Thank you for helping me out. 20 Q To your understanding, Tweet Tunnel is not Twitter, 21 correct, it is a different website? 22 A Correct. 23 Q So let's go back to Twitter itself. 24 Your understanding is that @KwokMiles is a 25 Twitter -- is associated with Mr. Kwok, correct?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 48 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269

**30 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you know who, if anyone, posted content on that 3 website at any time on that account? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you know if there was any unauthorized use of that 6 account at any time? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q And you haven't actually traced the account to any 9 electronic devices held by Mr. Kwok or anything like that, 10 correct? 11 A Correct. 12 Q The account has been suspended, so there is no way for 13 anyone, any of us at this point to verify content; is that 14 correct? 15 A I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if there 16 is a technological way to do that. 17 Q But certainly you haven't tried to or been able to? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Okay. 20 MS COLE: On the Tweet Tunnel, do we want to 21 stipulate to the accuracy? Would you guys be willing to 22 stipulate to the accuracy of that correspondence, or are we 23 ready to show Mr. Francis? 24 MS. BARROW: It is in the chat that I shared with 25 all participants.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 49 of 269

**31 1 MS COLE: Oh, okay. 2 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, if I may be permitted to 3 address Ms. Cole directly for a moment to, hopefully, 4 streamline this? If we were in the courtroom, I would go 5 over to counsel table and whisper it to her. 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. HARBACH: Ms. Cole, you are welcome to show 8 the -- I think the document you have been looking for is 9 what our law firm sent over to you guys as a placeholder to 10 let you know what the exhibit was. I am alerting you that I 11 don't know whether Mr. Francis has ever seen that version 12 before. That's all. 13 MS. COLE: Okay. I am just curious if it will 14 refresh his recollection. If not, that's fine. 15 MR. HARBACH: Okay. 16 MS. COLE: So let's just take a look. 17 MS. BARROW: Mr. Francis, do you see the document 18 that starts with Exhibit B? 19 THE WITNESS: I see a page that says Exhibit B. I 20 am trying to find the actual content. Okay, I can see it 21 now. 22 BY MS COLE: 23 Q So do you see there are two lines there talking about 24 Figure 1 source and Figure 2 source? 25 A I see Docket Number 1126, Exhibit B, but I am not sure Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 50 of 269

**32 1 what -- then I see the two images. 2 THE COURT: I can't see what you are showing the 3 witness. I am not sure Mr. Harbach can see it either. 4 MR. HARBACH: I have a paper copy. It's black and 5 white. I can try showing it to the camera. 6 THE COURT: I mean, the probative value of this is 7 near zero. Let's not waste the morning on it. 8 Q Mr. Francis, if the answer is you can't recall whether 9 you recovered the tweet from Twitter or from Tweet Tunnel, then 10 that's that the answer. 11 A That's the answer. 12 Q That's fine. 13 MS COLE: Your Honor, I don't believe I have any 14 other questions. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Francis, you are excused. 16 Your next witness, Mr. Harbach? 17 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, I hate to try the 18 Court's patience -- 19 THE COURT: I am not going to entertain any 20 redirect. 21 MR. HARBACH: Okay, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Francis put in six affidavits all 23 with references to various social media platforms. The 24 Court will give that evidence such weight as it deserves. 25 Let's proceed.** FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 51 of 269

**1 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, our next witness we 2 tender for cross-examination is Mr. Todd Price. 3 MS. COLE: Before we call him, can we discuss a 4 proffer of Mr. Price's testimony? Will Mr. Price say the 5 only thing he can offer -- because what his affidavits say 6 is he downloaded from the internet on X day in January. 7 MR. HARBACH: We expect that he will testify 8 consistently with the affidavits that have been proffered to 9 the Court. As I mentioned before, his affidavits contain 10 more than just business record custodian type of stuff, 11 there is more content to them; but that's what we expect him 12 to testify consistent with, with what was submitted to the 13 Court. 14 MS. COLE: Is there anything he can say other 15 than -- other than that it was the accuracy of what appeared 16 on the internet on the day he downloaded it, is there 17 anything else he can speak to? 18 MR. HARBACH: I am not going to answer that 19 open-ended question. You can cross him. 20 MS. COLE: Okay, I will ask him. 21 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, if it is all right with 22 the Court, one of my colleagues, Laura Aronsson is going to 23 tender this witness, so I will let her have this chair. 24 MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. 25 Good morning, your Honor. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

**Price - by Plaintiff - Cross / Cole 34 1 THE COURT: Mr. Price, raise your right hand. 2 (Todd Price is duly sworn/affirmed.) 3 THE COURT: Ms. Cole, cross-examination. 4 TODD PRICE, having been called on behalf of Plaintiff, 5 first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as 6 follows: 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MS COLE: 9 Q Mr. Price, you have testified in your affidavits that 10 you are the chief technology officer at Page Vault, and you were 11 asked -- well, I don't know that you were asked, but you say that 12 you collected information from various websites; is that correct? 13 A Correct. Not personally, but our software did. 14 Q And you can testify that that information that you 15 collected is how it appeared on the website as of the date you 16 collected it; is that the substance of your testimony? 17 A Yes, it is. Yes. 18 Q So because I am not a technical person, as you can 19 tell, you collected content from a website on a certain date, 20 correct? 21 A Yes. Again, just to be clear, it was not me 22 personally. I can only testify that the user of our software 23 collected it and that it existed on a particular date and time on 24 a particular website. 25 Q And your duty, or your company's duty was to preserve** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 52 of Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 53 of 269

**35 1 it as it appeared on that date? 2 A Correct. 3 Q Can you tell us anything further about the accuracy or 4 the authenticity of the content that was downloaded? 5 A I cannot, no. 6 Q Can you tell us anything about the substance of those 7 materials before you captured them that date? 8 A I cannot. 9 Q Then, I don't think I have any further questions. 10 THE COURT: All right. You are excused, 11 Mr. Price. 12 Next witness. 13 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, we don't have any other 14 witnesses. I don't know if your Honor would like me to go 15 through a formal offer of our exhibits now or if it is 16 already clear from what we submitted to the Court. If 17 memory serves, we submitted a column so the Court can see 18 which exhibits are in on consent and which are not. 19 The only other witness that was discussed with our 20 colleagues on the other side as a possible witness was a 21 representative from TransPerfect which is the company that 22 made the translations. And as we represented to counsel in 23 our meet-and-confer calls, that witness who, again, is not 24 here, that witness would only have testified similar to the 25 way Mr. Price just did, that the business records affidavits** Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 54 of 269

**36 1 are -- excuse me, that the certifications of the translation 2 are, in fact, business records of TransPerfect. That person 3 would not have been the one who actually did the 4 translation. It was just a records custodian. So we don't 5 have that witness available for cross. What we would tender 6 to the Court would be those business record affidavits that 7 accompanied the translation. I hope that is clear. 8 Does the Court want me to make a formal tender of 9 the other exhibits or not? 10 THE COURT: You need not make a formal tender of 11 the other exhibits. That's what you did in your submission. 12 Anything from you, Ms. Cole? 13 MS. COLE: Your Honor, I would like to address 14 some of the evidentiary issues and the points that were made 15 by the other side in the brief. I don't know if this is the 16 time to do that. 17 THE COURT: No, this is not the time to do that. 18 You have already briefed the probative value of the 19 witnesses' testimony who appeared this morning. And there 20 is documentary evidence that has been submitted which I**

21 don't believe is controverted. 22 MS. COLE: Well, I would like to address certain

23 other -- you know, they argued about the adverse inference. 24 They made some arguments about the admissibility that I 25 disagree with and some case law that I disagree with. Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 55 of 269

**37 1 THE COURT: Well, let's get all the testimony in 2 the case in. Then we will go through post-hearing issues. 3 MS. COLE: Thank you. 4 THE COURT: So let's have the defense's first 5 witness available for cross-examination by the plaintiff. 6 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, John Siegal here. 7 The first several witnesses are witnesses for Hong 8 Kong International, the owner of the vessel. And Lee Vartan 9 will be presenting those witnesses for cross-examination. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 Mr. Harbach, you are muted. I don't know if you 12 want to be or not. 13 MR. HARBACH: Sorry, your Honor. I was commenting 14 to my colleagues. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. HARBACH: I will note, however, your Honor, 17 that Guo Mei just appearing on the screen; apropos of our 18 conversation before this hearing, if it were up to us -- and 19 perhaps it is not -- we think it would make more sense to 20 the Court to conduct a cross of Ms. Guo after the other 21 witnesses, but I understand it is not our case. 22 THE COURT: Well, the defendants can present their 23 witnesses in whatever order they want for cross-examination. 24 MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor. 25 MR. VARTAN: Good morning, your Honor. Lee Vartan Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR** Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 56 of 269

**38 1 on behalf of Mei Guo. Ms. Guo, as your Honor knows, has 2 submitted an affirmation. We would tender that as her 3 direct testimony and offer her for cross-examination. 4 I will note for the Court, your Honor, that 5 Ms. Guo does need an interpreter, and I believe one is 6 available to her. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I am online. 9 THE COURT: Ms. Guo, please raise your right hand. 10 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, maybe the 11 interpreter needs to be sworn in first? 12 THE COURT: Yes. Please state your name. 13 THE INTERPRETER: Echo Lim. 14 THE COURT: Ms. Lim, you are a certified court 15 interpreter? 16 THE INTERPRETER: No, sir. I am certified but not 17 by the court. 18 THE COURT: Who are you certified by? 19 THE INTERPRETER: I am certified by agency. 20 THE COURT: By who? 21 THE INTERPRETER: Agency. 22 THE COURT: By your agency, all right. 23 Do you swear to interpret Ms. Guo's testimony 24 truthfully and accurately? 25 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir.**

Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 57 of 269

**39 1 THE COURT: All right. 2 Ms. Guo, please raise your right hand. Do you 3 swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 4 Ms. Lim, can you please tell Ms. Guo that she is 5 muted. 6 THE INTERPRETER: I just did. 7 THE COURT: Please explain to Ms. Guo that we are 8 having difficulty hearing her because she is not speaking 9 into the microphone or because the microphone is not active. 10 (Brief pause) 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. Can you hear 12 me now? 13 THE COURT: Yes. 14 Okay. Cross-examination can proceed. 15 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor I could be mistaken, but 16 I don't believe the witness's oath was completed because of 17 the technical problem. 18 (Mei Guo is duly sworn/affirmed.) 19 MR. HARBACH: For the record, Madam Translator, 20 what you just administered to the witness was the standard 21 oath given in Court that she swears to tell the truth; is 22 that right? 23 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir. 24 MR. HARBACH: Thank you. 25 THE COURT: Please proceed. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 58 of 269

1 MEI GUO, having been called on behalf of Defendant, 2 first having been duly sworn through the interpreter, was 3 examined and testified as follows:

5 BY MR. HARBACH:

Ms. Guo, first question, what is the correct way to 7 address you? Is it Mei Guo or Guo Mei?

8 comfortable with?

My Chinese name is Guo Mei, and my English name is Mei 10 Guo, so you can address me as Mei Guo.

Thank you, ma'am. 12 It seems clear this morning that you do speak and 13 understand some English?

Yes.

For the clarity of the record, I will make one request 16 going forward. That is that even if you understand a question I 17 put to you in English, please wait for the interpretation before 18 you answer.

All right.

That way we make sure that you understand my question 21 before you answer it.

All right.

And if at any time you don't understand a question, 24 please just let me know.

All right. Thank you.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Page 59 of

Do you have a copy of the affidavit that you signed and 2 submitted in connection with today's hearing?

I don't have it with me.

4 next to me.

Give me just a moment. I think I can fix that.

Thank you.

I believe I am sharing my screen now.

8 see that, ma'am?

Yes, I see it. 10 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, can the Court see it? 11 THE COURT: Yes.

So Ms. Guo, what is up on the screen for the record is 13 Docket 1162 in this matter.

Okay.

I am going to show you the last page of it.

17 record, this is Page 5 of the exhibit. 18 Is that your signature that appears?

It is my signature.

You read this affidavit or had it translated for you 21 before you signed it, didn't you?

Yes, I have read it.

I realize that it is in English.

24 what you read?

Yes.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 60 of 269

My first question about the affidavit concerns

Paragraph 8. I suppose I should ask if -- can read English,

ma'am?

Yes, I can.

Paragraph 8 is up there on the screen right now.

a moment and read it to yourself and tell me when you are done.

I am done reading.

There is a name mentioned in that paragraph called

Qu Guojiao. And you mentioned that Ms. Qu was a trusted business

partner of your brother's, your uncles, and your cousins.

Yes, but I have something to add on to your earlier

explanation, sir. Guojiao is not the last name.

last name is Qu, Q-U.

Thank you for clarifying.

My question for you is:

father also knows Ms. Qu?

My father know Ms. Qu.

And was Ms. Qu a trusted business partner of your

father's as well?

No, she isn't.

Is that according to your father?

No. This is according to the fact.

Well, whether someone is a trusted business partner has

to do with the mind of the person who is doing the trusting,

doesn't it?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 61 of 269

1 A I don't quite understand your question, sir.

2 please elaborate? 3 Q Let me put it to you this way.

4 the other whether your father trusted Ms. Qu? 5 A I do not know. 6 Q It is true, however, that your father founded Hong Kong 7 International in 2006, right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And that he owned and controlled that entity until 10 October of 2014 when he transferred it to Ms. Qu, right? 11 A As far as I know, yes. 12 Q As far as you know, that transfer was for zero dollars, 13 correct? 14 A Regarding this, I really do not remember very clearly. 15 Q Did your father or Ms. Qu discuss that transfer with 16 you at any time around the time it happened? 17 A No. 18 Q You state in your affidavit at Paragraph 3, which I 19 have now displayed on the screen, that your father fled China to 20 the United States in early 2015. Do you see that there? 21 A Yes, I see it; but in 2015 my father left China from 22 Hong Kong to United States. 23 Q Thank you for clarifying. My point was the timeframe. 24 A Okay. 25 Q Isn't it true that in February of that year, namely

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 62 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

1 2015, that Hong Kong International bought the yacht that is at 2 issue here, correct?

Yes.

And Ms. Qu, who was the owner of Hong Kong 5 International at that time, she didn't come up with the 6 28 million Euros for the yacht, did she?

Correct. She didn't pay for it.

Your father provided the money, didn't he?

Not my father.

Do you know where the money came from?

I do not know where the money coming from, but I have 12 learned that the yacht was bought by my brother.

I understand that.

14 later. 15 Is your testimony that in early 2015 it was your 16 brother who bought the yacht?

Yes, my brother bought it for me.

My question is where the money came from because the 19 bill of sale makes it clear that Hong Kong International 20 purchased the yacht for 28 million Euros.

21 you is where did that money come from, if you know?

I do not know.

So earlier when you said your father did not provide 24 the 28 million, the truth is you really don't know one way or the 25 other, correct?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 63 of 269

**45 1 A I know I don't know where the money coming from, but 2 what I know is that this yacht was bought by my brother for me. 3 Q What do you mean when you say "bought" if you don't 4 know where the money came from? 5 A When someone gives me a gift I do not need to ask the 6 person where the money purchasing the gift coming from, right? 7 Q Fair enough, but are you saying that the yacht was 8 given to your brother as a gift? 9 MR. VARTAN: Objection, misstates the testimony. 10 A -- 11 MR. VARTAN: I have an objection pending to that 12 question. 13 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 14 THE INTERPRETER: The objection has been 15 translated. 16 Q You may answer the question because the Court has 17 overruled the objection. 18 A This yacht was not a gift from someone to my brother. 19 It was a gift from my brother to me. 20 Q You said that several times, and at the risk of trying 21 the Court's patience I am going to try this once more. 22 You told us a moment ago or you agreed with my 23 question about Hong Kong International purchasing the yacht in 24 February of 2015 for 28 million Euros. 25 A Yes.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 64 of 269

And my question to you was where -- I asked you whether

2 Ms. Qu came up with the \$28 million and you said no, correct?

Correct.

And the reason I asked that question was because at the 5 time, it was Ms. Qu that owned and was the sole member of Hong 6 Kong International; isn't that right?

Correct.

I understand your answer that you said a couple of 9 times. You don't know where the 28 million Euros that landed in 10 the hands of the seller of the yacht came from, right?

Yes. I know that this yacht was a gift from my brother 12 to me, so I know that this was my brother's purchase.

14 THE COURT:

15 Hong Kong International to your brother? 16 THE WITNESS:

17 purchased under Hong Kong International it was under the 18 name of Ms. Qu or Qu Guojiao, not under my brother's name. 19 THE COURT:

20 boat went from Hong Kong International to Ms. Qu, and then 21 from Ms. Qu to your brother? 22 THE WITNESS:

23 International to Ms. Qu, then it was transferred to me.

24 has never transferred to my brother. 25 THE COURT:

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 65 of 269

**47 1 after she received the boat from Hong Kong International, 2 correct? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Your brother was not involved in any 5 of the transfers before you acquired the boat, according to 6 your testimony? 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. 8 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Harbach. 9 MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor. 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 11 BY MR. HARBACH: 12 Q Ms. Guo, isn't it true that when Ms. Qu transferred 13 Hong Kong International to you, as you just told his Honor, that 14 was for one dollar; right? 15 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the interpreter needs a 16 clarification. 17 Is it Hong Kong International that is 18 transferring? 19 MR. HARBACH: That is correct. 20 A Yes, it was. 21 Q Have you ever met Ms. Qu? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know what she looks like? 24 A Yes. 25 Q I am going to show you what has been marked for Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 66 of

**48 1 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 53, a photograph. 2 Can you see that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is the person depicted in Plaintiff's 53 Ms. Qu? 5 A The person is slightly different than the person that I 6 met, but I believe it is she. 7 Q How confident are you of that? 8 A I am confident. 9 Q Now, I will put your affidavit back up on the screen. 10 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, this is John Siegal. 11 We object to this. I don't have an Exhibit 12 50-whatever. It was not disclosed. It is not on the 13 exhibit list. I don't have any exhibits higher than 38. So 14 this picture has not been proffered through the pretrial 15 process. 16 MR. HARBACH: Would you like me to respond, Judge? 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 MR. HARBACH: First of all, it is a photograph. 19 It is quite simple. Second of all, it's cross-examination, 20 and that's the reason it hasn't been proffered through the 21 pretrial process. 22 The reason that Mr. Siegel's exhibits only go up 23 to 38 is because during the course of preparing for this 24 hearing I marked things that I wanted to use on cross 25 starting at number 50, so there won't be a whole lot Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 67 of 269

**49 1 exhibits like this. 2 MR. SIEGAL: We object. We get a brief after 3 business hours the night before the hearing, and now we are 4 getting trial by ambush with exhibits that were not 5 disclosed when the Court's order was very clear that trial 6 exhibits were to be disclosed. 7 THE COURT: Mr. Siegal, I am overruling the 8 objection. I want to go on with this hearing. I don't want 9 any obstruction. This witness is here to tell the truth. 10 And in order to tell the truth and for the truth to come 11 out, the plaintiff is entitled to cross-examine her. 12 MR. SIEGAL: Well, your Honor -- 13 THE COURT: It is not trial by ambush. 14 MR. SIEGAL: -- it is violative of the Court's 15 pre-hearing directive, and we object. 16 THE COURT: All right. Your objection is noted. 17 Let's move on. It is 11:45 and we've had fifteen 18 minutes of meaningful testimony. 19 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 20 BY MR. HARBACH: 21 Q Let's go to Paragraph 14 of your affidavit. 22 A Thank you. 23 Q Do you see that on your screen? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Oh, I'm sorry. I have one question before I get to**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 68 of 269

1 that. 2 To your knowledge has Ms. Qu ever set foot on the 3 Lady May?

Not together with me, but I don't know if she had 5 before that.

Okay. 7 Let's now look at Paragraph 14.

8 are solely responsible for directing the Lady May's movements.

Correct.

That's not true when your dad is aboard, is it?

It is true because even if my father needed to board 12 Lady May, he needed my authorization.

I understand your answer, but it doesn't exactly 14 respond to my question. My question is:

15 aboard the Lady May without you, for example, he directs the Lady 16 May's movements, doesn't he?

Your question means that if I am not at sea, if my 18 father is on board, wherever he wants to go he has the freedom to 19 choose; is that so?

That's more or less a summary of it. Sure.

If I am not on board on Lady May, and if my father is 22 on Lady May, whatever the direction he wanted to go to, he has 23 the freedom choose. Sure.

And you mentioned that he requires your authorization 25 to come aboard?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 69 of

**51 1 A Yes. 2 Q But he doesn't require your authorization about where 3 to drop anchor, or where to refuel, or where to stay overnight; 4 right? 5 A -- 6 MR. VARTAN: Just to clarify, are you asking when 7 she is on board or when she is not on board? 8 MR. HARBACH: She can answer both. 9 A I will need to probably give you a brief education 10 about ownership of yacht. 11 All these decisions you just mentioned was not 12 idea significance to be made by the owner of the yacht. It is 13 idea significance made by the -- it is idea significance made by 14 the captain of the yacht. 15 Q Well, I understand what you just said, but your 16 affidavit mentions movements, directing movements. That's why I 17 asked my questions; but I will ask my question a different way 18 and then move on. 19 A Okay. 20 Q When your father has been out on the yacht without you, 21 how many times has he called you to ask your permission about 22 whether he can drop anchor somewhere? 23 MR. VARTAN: Objection. That ignore's Ms. Guo's 24 testimony from a few moments ago. 25 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 70 of 269

1 THE INTERPRETER:

2 sir? I kind of lost my memory about the question just now. 3 MR. HARBACH: Sure.

When your father has been out on the yacht alone or 5 without you, at least; how many times has he called you to ask 6 your permission about whether he is allowed to drop anchor?

Okay. Before my father board the yacht he always get 8 my permission, and before getting the permission he has a 9 detailed itinerary.

10 itinerary to the T.

11 when he was on the yacht.

Do you have any of those itineraries?

My father's safety is very sensitive issue.

14 possible for us to have any printout of his itinerary.

15 itinerary was normally briefed to me over the phone when he 16 called me before he boarded the yacht.

I see. 18 If there is no documentation about these occasions 19 when you say your father sought authorization from you, your 20 testimony is that you just recall that every time he went out he 21 gave you a detailed itinerary of everywhere he was going to go?

When my father boarded the yacht he is my guest.

23 impossible for me to request all my guests that boarded the yacht 24 to give me a very detailed plan for their trip.

I understand that, but just a few minutes ago I

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 71 of 269

**1 understood you to say that whenever your father took the yacht 2 out, number one, he had to get authorization from you which, I 3 suppose, all guests would; and, number two, I believe you said 4 every time he went out he gave you a detailed itinerary. So it's 5 no answer to my -- sorry, Madam Interpreter. Go ahead. Excuse 6 me.**

7 A I will give you an example, sir.

**8 If the yacht is in New York, my father boarded it 9 New York and he told me he is going to Long Island, then I would 10 agree to it. But if he wants to stop half way, it is his freedom 11 as long as it is within the New York area. But if he is taking 12 the yacht to Palm Beach, then he would need to give me a very 13 detailed itinerary.**

14 Q Did your father ever take the yacht out without your 15 permission or knowledge?

16 A Never.

17 Q Let's look at -- well, we are still on Paragraph 14. 18 Excuse me.

19 You talk about in early October of 2020 no longer 20 wishing to use the boat and relating that to Golden Spring.

21 A Yes.

22 Q And then the remainder of the sentence says -- the 23 paragraph says that Golden Spring relayed your directive to 24 Captain Heaslop.

25 A Yes.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 72 of 269

1 Q Do you remember this?

2 A Yes, I remember.

3 Q What exactly was your directive?

**4 A Because my yacht in every October the winter season, 5 due to the reason of the weather, it needs to be parked in 6 Florida, a warmer place. So to me this is a very ordinary 7 request. Golden Spring asked me if I still need to use the yacht 8 because my understanding is that a yacht needs to be moved to a 9 warmer place.**

10 Q I want to make sure I understand the last part of that 11 answer before I ask another question.

12 Did you say that Golden Spring asked you if you 13 wanted to continue to use the yacht?

**14 A It wasn't a request or inquiry, actually, because I 15 already know that the yacht is no longer suitable to be used in 16 New York under the weather conditions. They were just informing 17 me that the yacht needs to move to a warmer place.**

18 Q So Golden Spring was informing you of that decision? 19 A It is not informing. It is more like reporting. 20 Q I see.

**21 So in your affidavit when you say you no longer 22 wish to use the boat for the season due to the weather; was that 23 the reason you relayed the directive, or is it because you heard 24 from Golden Spring that the boat needed to go to Florida?**

25 A Okay. Let me reiterate my answer, sir.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 73 of 269

**1 Every year in the past few years in October, that 2 would be the time to arrange for the yacht to be moved to a 3 warmer place. So this year, that particular year before they 4 moved the yacht to warmer place, they informed me, they told 5 me -- rather, they report to me that the yacht needs to be moved 6 to the warmer place. So it was more like a routine activity. 7 Q I understand. 8 So is it true, then, that your directive in 9 response to that information was, Take the yacht to Florida? 10 A Yes, I agreed to the request sent by the captain. 11 Q Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what your affidavit 12 says. Your affidavit refers to a directive, so that's what I am 13 trying to understand. That was my original question. What 14 exactly was your directive? 15 A My communication with the captain is through a 16 representative of the company. The representative of the company 17 came to me and told me it is about time to move the yacht to a 18 warmer place, so my instruction to the representative is that 19 yes, all right, the yacht needs to move to Florida. That was my 20 directive. 21 THE COURT: What is your relationship with Golden 22 Spring? 23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, Golden Spring helps me 24 to pay all the expenses for my yacht, including the 25 management fees.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 74 of 269

1 THE COURT:

2 Golden Spring? 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 THE COURT:

5 all of the expenses associated with operating and 6 maintaining the yacht? 7 THE WITNESS: Golden Spring belongs to my brother. 8 It is my brother's company.

9 as a gift, I find it very troublesome to form another bank 10 account just to try to manage the yacht; so I requested my 11 brother if he can continue to manage the yacht using his 12 company. He and I came to an agreement with that. 13 THE COURT:

14 brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 16 THE COURT:

17 to you that he would incur the costs of maintaining and 18 operating the yacht? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 THE COURT:

21 maintain and operate the yacht for a year? 22 THE WITNESS:

23 \$3 million US dollars. 24 THE COURT: All right.

25 court reporter a ten-minute break.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Page 75 of

**57 1 follow the testimony all morning. We will resume at 12:15 2 and go to 1:00 and break for lunch. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 4 (Short recess taken) 5 THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. 6 BY MR. HARBACH: 7 Q Ms. Guo, at the time you directed that the yacht go to 8 Florida, were you aware that a temporary restraining order had 9 been entered against your father on September 30? 10 THE INTERPRETER: September 30, right, sir? 11 MR. HARBACH: Yes, of 2020. 12 A I do not know about it at that time. 13 MR. HARBACH: Could I ask the interpreter to 14 please clarify? She did not know about it at the time? 15 THE INTERPRETER: She did not know about it at the 16 time, sir. 17 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I will interpose an 18 objection. I understand that the Court's order was entered 19 in October and not in September. 20 THE COURT: (To the witness) At any time in 2020 21 were you aware that a temporary restraining order was 22 entered against your father prohibiting him from removing 23 the vessel from the territorial United States? 24 THE WITNESS: I learned about this matter around 25 the end of 2020. I can't remember the exact date. It was Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 76 of 269

1 sometime in winter. It possibly is the beginning of 2021. 2 I came to know about it through my lawyer's telephone call. 3 BY MR. HARBACH:

4 Q So when the yacht sailed south for Florida in early 5 October of 2020, your testimony is that you did not know about 6 any restraining order that had been entered on September 30?

**7 MR. VARTAN: Same objection, your Honor, with 8 respect to the date. Certainly if Mr. Harbach has a 9 document he wants to show the witness, I am sure she would 10 be happy to look at it; but I understand the date to be 11 October 15 and not September 30.**

**12 MR. HARBACH: To clarify for counsel and the 13 Court, there is a temporary restraining order issued on 14 September 30 of 2020. It is Document 591 on the Court's 15 docket. My only question about this is whether the witness 16 was aware that that temporary restraining order had been 17 entered.**

**18 MR. VARTAN: Again, your Honor, my understanding 19 is that the September order, not to belabor the point, has 20 nothing at all to do with the Lady May. Granted, I wasn't 21 part of the proceedings at that point, but my understanding 22 is the Lady May is first made mention before your Honor in 23 October, not September 30. So, again, I'd invite 24 Mr. Harbach to show the document to the witness if he has 25 something before him.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 77 of 269

1 THE WITNESS:

2 is that I do not know about it, and I would like to have a 3 look at this document if you have. 4 Thank you. 5 THE COURT:

6 that you became aware of a temporary restraining order 7 relating to the Lady May sometime in late 2020 or, perhaps, 8 early 2021. Is that your testimony? 9 THE WITNESS: Correct. 10 THE COURT:

11 testimony. Can we move on? 12 MR. HARBACH: Sure, your Honor. 13 BY MR. HARBACH:

When you mentioned earlier that Golden Spring gave you 15 a report about the yacht needing to sail south in Florida, that 16 was something that was fairly regular in your experience -- I 17 withdraw that question. I'm sorry. 18 What I mean to ask is:

19 you to exercise direction over the Lady May via Golden Spring?

These type of normal ordinary routine activities, since 21 we -- since all the parties understood the timeframe or the time 22 point, they will just inform me to execute it.

23 guest or I needed the yacht myself, I will directly contact the 24 captain.

I see.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 78 of 269

**1 Based on your experience with Golden Spring, would 2 it be fair to say that as far as you could tell based on your 3 interactions with them, there were people who worked at Golden 4 Spring who knew that you controlled and owned the yacht? 5 A Yes, all of them know. 6 Q All right. 7 Now let's return to your affidavit. I am going to 8 share my screen now to show you Paragraph 20. Can you see it? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Now, in the beginning of this paragraph you mention 11 that you learned through counsel of the Court's order requiring 12 the Lady May to return to New York in May? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. Did you read it, "it" being the order? 15 A I was informed by my lawyer at the time. 16 Q My question is did you read it? 17 A -- 18 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I would just caution 19 Ms. Guo not to go into any conversations she had with her 20 counsel. 21 THE COURT: All she was asked was whether she read 22 the Court's order. 23 MR. VARTAN: Understood. I was just cautioning 24 her in advance of responding. 25 A To answer the question, sir, yes, I have read it. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Page 79 of

Okay. Bear with me just a second, please.

Okay. 3 THE COURT:

4 question? 5 MR. HARBACH: No, your Honor.

6 the document up. Sorry for the delay. I have it now.

What I displayed on the screen now is the order that we 8 have been just talking about.

9 that you have read before?

Can you allow me some time to read it? 11 MR. VARTAN:

12 to aid the witness? Thank you.

Can you go back to the top?

Sure. Let me know when I can continue and I will 15 continue to move it.

The document date shows September 30, 2020.

17 too sure if I have read this document before.

If you will bear with me a moment, I hope to make this 19 clear. It is not intended to be a trick question. 20 THE INTERPRETER:

21 sentence of your question?

I said that I am going to try and help you.

23 intended to be a trick question. 24 What I put on the screen now is Document 728 from 25 the Court's docket. This is the page that has Judge Ostrager's

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 80 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

**62 1 signature. It is dated March 16 of 2021. 2 A Okay. 3 Q And this is the order of the Court that specifically 4 requires that it be returned to New York? 5 A Okay. Okay. 6 Q So my question for you is: Have you ever seen this 7 order before? 8 A Can you please go back to the top of the document and 9 show me again because I want to reconfirm. At this point of time 10 I am not able to confirm it. 11 Q Okay. I will give you a little while longer, but then 12 I will move on because it is not crucial. 13 THE COURT: Can you show her the next page? 14 MR. HARBACH: Yes, your Honor. 15 A I really truly do not recall if I have seen this 16 document before, but I do know the content of this document. 17 Q Okay. Thank you. 18 Returning to your affidavit, you said in 19 Paragraph 20 that you were aware of the Court's order requiring 20 the Lady May to return to New York in May of '21 and that you 21 learned of that through your counsel? 22 A Yes. 23 Q So what I want to make sure I understand is when you 24 learned of the Court's order. I understood you to say to 25 Justice Ostrager a few minutes ago that you thought you learned Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 81 of 269

**1 of a restraining order at the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2 2021, is that correct? 3 A What I remember now is that at the end of 2020 my 4 lawyer called me and informed me that there would be a possible 5 issue as such with Lady May, but I don't remember exactly when I 6 learned about this order, this Court order. It is probably 7 around 2021, beginning of 2021 between the month of March and 8 April. 9 Q Okay. Let me -- 10 MR. HARBACH: I really appreciate your Honor being 11 patient. I am moving as quickly as I can. 12 Q Let me add one more piece to the puzzle. And, again, I 13 am not trying to confuse you. 14 There was a restraining order issued by the Court 15 on October 15 of 2020. I am going to represent that to you, 16 okay? 17 A Okay. 18 Q Do you think that is the order that you learned about 19 toward the end of 2020 from your counsel? 20 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I would object. I think 21 the question has been asked and answered now a number of 22 times. Also, we are beginning to conflate dates. We are 23 looking at Paragraph 20 that talks about a different court 24 order from March. Mr. Harbach is talking now about an order 25 from October. I think he is confusing the witness here.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 82 of 269

**64 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 2 THE COURT: Just rephrase your question. This 3 isn't that hard. 4 Q Ms. Guo, when was the first time you learned about any 5 restraining order from the Court through your counsel? 6 MR. VARTAN: Same objection. Asked and answered 7 multiple times. 8 THE COURT: Overruled. 9 THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question? 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 A I really do not remember the specific date, but it was 12 somewhere around the beginning of 2021. It was somewhere around 13 the beginning of 2021. I really do not remember the specific 14 date. 15 Q After you learned about the order from your counsel, 16 did you discuss it with your father? 17 MR. VARTAN: I'd just ask Mr. Harbach to clarify, 18 your Honor, which order he is talking about. He's mentioned 19 a September order, an October order, a March order? 20 THE COURT: Let's make this easy. 21 Ms. Guo, did you discuss any Court orders relating 22 to the Lady May with your father? 23 THE WITNESS: I did not. I have only discussed it 24 with my lawyers. 25 Q The lawyer representing you today, Mr. Vartan, is that Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

1 the same lawyer who alerted you about the existence of a court

2 order relating to the Lady May?

Yes.

Who is paying for his services?

Golden Spring. 6 MR. HARBACH:

7 to break at 1:00 for lunch? 8 THE COURT: Yes.

9 and Mr. Siegal in the same manner that we did at the 10 beginning of this hearing. 11 MR. HARBACH:

12 do that? The last bit of questioning I have that has to do 13 with this witness involves publication of exhibits and may 14 be a little cumbersome.

15 after lunch. 16 THE COURT: All right. We can do that. 17 For the record, Ms. Guo, I have excluded the press 18 from your testimony because I understand that you were 19 detained and tortured by the CCP and your whereabouts are 20 potentially a matter of interest to the CCP while you seek 21 asylum in the United States.

22 your examination about your whereabouts, the transcript of 23 your examination will be made public.

24 the plaintiff has consented to this arrangement, which is 25 highly unusual.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 84 of 269

**1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor, for my 2 protection over my safety and not allow the media's 3 involvement in this proceeding. Thank you, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: All right. We will break for lunch 5 now. I would like counsel to call me at the same number 6 that I gave you before. 7 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, could I first be heard on 8 one issue? 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 MR. VARTAN: With respect to the remainder of 11 Mr. Harbach's cross-examination, can he give me a rough 12 approximation of how much more time he has so that I can 13 plan for other witnesses? 14 MR. HARBACH: I am happy to do that. I have a 15 couple small factual questions to ask, and then I have three 16 of the videotapes that we proffered to the Court that I want 17 to show some tiny portions of to the witness. My guess is 18 30, 40 minutes. 19 MR. VARTAN: Thank you, Mr. Harbach. 20 Thank you, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay. We will resume at 2:00. 22 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, may we call you towards 23 the end of the lunch break or would you like to hear from us 24 now? 25 THE COURT: I would like to hear from you now.**

**Guo - Defendant - Cross / Guo 67 1 MR. SIEGAL: All right. I will reach out to 2 O'Melveny and we will call you. 3 THE COURT: Great. 4 (L U N C H E O N R E C E S S) 5 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, can I continue my 6 questioning? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 BY MR. HARBACH: 9 Q Ms. Guo, before lunch we talked about all sorts of 10 things, but you mentioned something in one of your answers that I 11 just would like to clarify. 12 A Okay. 13 Q I believe you said in one of your answers that if you 14 needed to use the yacht with some friends, for example, you would 15 just contact the captain directly? 16 A Sometimes I contacted the captain directly. Sometimes 17 I would contact the captain through Golden Spring. 18 Q Do you recall the names of any of the captains you 19 contacted directly? 20 A I communicated mostly with captain that I used earlier, 21 Mr. Craig. Then I also have contacted Momchil, the current 22 captain of the yacht. 23 Q You have contacted each of them directly, is that 24 right? 25 A Yes.** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 85 of

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 86 of 269

Let me show you now an exhibit that has been marked as 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 19. Bear with me one second.

3 the video to one specific part that I want to play for you.

4 sharing my screen now.

5 seconds of this. Then I am going to ask you a question, okay?

Okay.

So first question, Ms. Guo, is that your father who is 9 speaking in the video?

Yes.

I am pausing the video at the 6:59 mark.

12 that location, don't you?

Yes.

That's the interior of the apartment that is at the 15 Sherry Netherlands, correct?

Yes, it is.

I am going to represent to you that this video appears 18 to have been created in approximately November of 2017.

Okay.

Do you recall whether you were present when this 21 interview was taped? 22 MR. VARTAN:

23 this similar to the line of cross-examination that was heard 24 this morning. I don't know that there is any way to know -- 25 I should say for Ms. Guo to know when this video was

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 87 of 269

**1 created. I understand counsel's representation, but we 2 don't have anything beyond that. 3 MR. HARBACH: The question wasn't whether the 4 video was created in November of 2017. I proffered to her 5 that it was created in November 2017 in an attempt to orient 6 her about her memory about whether she was present for it. 7 The question is not the date of it, the question is whether 8 she was present. That's all. 9 MR. VARTAN: That would have to presume it was 10 actually created in November of 2017. 11 THE COURT: No, it wouldn't presume anything. He 12 is just asking whether she was present when this interview 13 took place. The date of the interview is irrelevant for 14 purposes of this question. 15 A I wasn't present. 16 Q Were you living at the Sherry Netherlands at the 17 time -- I'm sorry. Were you living at the Sherry Netherlands in 18 November in 2017? 19 A I stayed there sometimes. I stayed there once in a 20 while. 21 Q I want to show you a different video now. Bear with me 22 just a moment. 23 A Okay. And also I have a question for you. 24 So when you showed me the earlier video, I only 25 see the transcription of what my father say and I didn't hear any Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 88 of 269

**70 1 audio. Can you please show me the video with audio that I can 2 hear? 3 Q I will try and do that for you on the next one. 4 The next one that I want to show you is what has 5 been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. Again, I am just going to 6 play a few seconds here. I will play a few seconds and then ask 7 you a question. For the record I am playing the beginning of 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. 9 The first question is do you know who the woman is 10 who appears on the right-hand side of the screen at the 11 five-second mark? 12 MR. VARTAN: Mr. Harbach, nothing was shared. It 13 didn't work. 14 MR. HARBACH: Sorry. It works. I just forgot to 15 hit a button. 16 Q How is this now? 17 A Yes, I can see it. 18 (Video played.) 19 Q The question is: Do you know who the woman is who 20 appears on the right-hand side of the screen at the five-second 21 mark? 22 A It is one of the crew members that I had before. 23 Q On the Lady May? 24 A Yes, on my Lady May yacht. 25 Q And this scene that we see on the screen right now is Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 89 of 269

**71 1 aboard the Lady May, isn't it? 2 A Yes, on the second floor. 3 Q So I will play a few more seconds now and ask you 4 another question. 5 The man in the center of the screen in the blue 6 T-shirt holding a phone at the 44-second mark is your father, 7 isn't it? 8 MR. VARTAN: Again, Mr. Harbach, that didn't play 9 for the assembled audience. 10 MR. HARBACH: I am trying to get my act together 11 here. I'm sorry. 12 (Video played.) 13 Q Okay. I have it paused right now at the 44-second 14 mark. Can you see that, Ms. Guo? 15 A I can see it now. 16 Q And the question is: That man standing in the center 17 of the screen in the blue T-shirt holding the phone at the 18 44-second mark is your father, isn't it? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, I am going to fast forward to a later part of the 21 video at about the 40-minute mark, and I am going to play a 22 little bit here. 23 (Video played.) 24 Q Ms. Guo, are you able to see that vessel coming into 25 the screen now from left to right at the 40:31 mark? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 90 of 269

**72 1 A Yes, I see it. 2 Q What is that? 3 A This name is Lady May 2. 4 Q How is the Lady May 2 connected to the Lady May? 5 A Both vessels were bought by my brother. 6 Q Who owns the Lady May 2? 7 A My brother. 8 Q Your brother owns it? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. I am going to fast forward a bit more. I'm at 11 the 43:56 mark. That's your father who appears to be holding the 12 device that is making this recording, correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I know it is a little tough, but do you know who the 15 man with the sunglasses on the left-hand side of the screen at 16 the 44-minute mark is? 17 A Even though it is not very clear, I can confirm that 18 this is my then captain, Captain Craig. 19 Q Would that be Craig Heaslop? 20 A Yes, it is. 21 Q I know it is difficult to see, but can you make out 22 this logo that appears on the bottom right-hand side of the video 23 screen? Can you see that? 24 A I can see it clearly, and I can recognize it. 25 Q Okay. It says "Rule of Law Foundation," doesn't it? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR** Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 91 of 269

I cannot see the wording, the writing on it; but I 2 believe that is correct.

What is the Rule of Law Foundation?

I am not able to explain or describe clearly to you 5 because I wasn't involved in this foundation.

Isn't it true that the Rule of Law Foundation whose 7 logo appears on the screen was started by your father?

I really do not know much, but I believe so.

Okay. Thank you. That's it for this video. 10 Now, the last video I am about to show you, 11 Ms. Guo, has been marked and offered as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. 12 And it's the same drill as before.

13 then ask you a question. 14 Just so you know, apparently the audio is not 15 playing for anyone, but my question for the moment is just about 16 the video, okay?

Okay.

Ms. Guo, does the man who appears in Plaintiff's 20 Exhibit 2 in the white suit, white shirt, and white tie; that's 21 your father, isn't it?

Yes. 23 MR. HARBACH:

24 consult with my colleagues, please? 25 THE COURT: Yes.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 92 of 269

**74 1 (Brief pause) 2 MR. HARBACH: I have no further questions. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Guo is about to be excused. 4 Ms. Guo, I indicated to you earlier that I 5 excluded the press from your examination in order to protect 6 your safety because you were previously detained and 7 apparently tortured by the CCP. Your whereabouts could be 8 of interest to them and I was concerned about your safety. 9 Also, the plaintiff consented to have a closed proceeding 10 which I indicated to you is extremely unusual. 11 Nothing in your testimony in any way indicates 12 what your present whereabouts are. As such, when the 13 transcript of these proceedings is transcribed, it will be 14 made public on the court's electronic filing system. 15 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, thank you again for your 16 protection over my safety. I am really, from the bottom of 17 my heart, thanking you for that. 18 THE COURT: All right. Have a nice day. 19 Next witness for cross-examination? 20 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, we would call Russell 21 Stockil on behalf of the defendant. I believe Mr. Stockil 22 is either logged in or about to log in. He is the yacht 23 manager at Yachtzoo SARL. 24 THE COURT: All right. Let's go ahead. 25 MR. HARBACH: Can we have the witness sworn, your Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 93 of 269

1 Honor? 2 (Russell Stockil is duly sworn/affirmed.) 3 THE COURT: Let's proceed. 4 RUSSELL STOCKIL, having been called on behalf of 5 Defendant, first having been duly sworn, was examined and 6 testified as follows:

8 BY MR. HARBACH:

Mr. Stockil, can you please spell your name for the 10 court reporter?

Surname?

Both.

Russell, R-U-S-S-E-L-L. Stockil, s-T-O-C-K-I-L.

Are you the same Russell Stockil who submitted an 15 affidavit to New York State Court in the matter of Pacific 16 Alliance Asia versus Kwok Ho Wan?

That is correct.

Do you have a copy of the affidavit that you submitted 19 in this case, sir?

I do.

Okay. 22 MR. HARBACH:

23 on the docket.

Give me one second, please.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 94 of 269

1 Q I am going to share my screen so it is easier to 2 reference the parts of your affidavit that I am talking about. 3 Can you see that okay, Mr. Stockil? 4 A Yes. 5 Q My first question is about Paragraph 3.

6 the first association or business relationship you ever had with 7 anyone associated with the Lady May? 8 A Yes, that's correct. 9 Q The representatives that you refer to in Paragraph 3, 10 namely the representatives of HK USA who contacted you, none of 11 them was Ms. Mei Guo, correct? 12 A Yes, that's correct. 13 Q In Paragraph 5 you refer to a management contract that 14 Hong Kong USA and Yachtzoo signed on May 1 of last year.

15 didn't attach that contract to your affidavit, did you? 16 A No, I didn't. 17 Q Paragraph 6 refers to some nondisclosure agreements 18 that you say Ms. Guo countersigned.

19 those to your affidavit either, did you? 20 A No, I didn't. 21 Q The end of Paragraph 6 talks about Defendant's 22 Exhibit 5. Do you have a copy of that? 23 A I do have a copy of it, yes. 24 Q Let me put it on the screen here.

25 help.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 95 of 269

**77 1 A Yes, that's correct. 2 Q This is the defense Exhibit 5 that you referred to? 3 A Yes. 4 Q I am going to go to the last page of it here. Just a 5 second. 6 MR. HARBACH: For the record, I am on Page 7 of 8 7 of Defendant's Exhibit 5. This is the signature page for 8 the agreement. 9 Q Isn't it true that this document has been signed 10 electronically? 11 A Yes, that's correct. 12 Q In other words, you didn't witness Mei Guo put pen to 13 paper and sign this thing? 14 A No, I didn't witness that. 15 Q Okay. 16 And I take it, then, your conclusion that she 17 signed it is because of DocuSign or some software that your 18 company uses? 19 A Well, the conclusion is that it was provided to us by 20 the family representative on our request for execution of 21 agreements. 22 Q I understand. 23 So you personally -- I'm not talking about your 24 company. You personally, Russell Stockil, you don't know one way 25 or the other who inserted that signature for Mei Guo, do you? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 96 of 269

**78 1 A No, I can't say that I do. 2 Q Your assumption is that the party who signed this was 3 telling you the truth when they said Mei Guo signed it, right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. 6 And isn't it also in the wrong spot? In other 7 words, shouldn't Ms. Guo have signed on behalf of the 8 organization, not the employer? 9 A On behalf of the organization? 10 Q Let me see if I can help you. I am not trying to play 11 games here. 12 On the very first page the organization is listed 13 as HK USA. Do you see that there? 14 A Yes, that's correct. 15 Q And the employer is listed as Phoenix? 16 A You are correct, yes. 17 Q Okay. That's all I was saying. 18 Returning to your affidavit, Paragraph 7, you say 19 you never met nor spoke with Kwok Ho Wan. The same is true for 20 Mei Guo, right? In other words, you've never met or spoken with 21 her either, correct? 22 A That is correct, yes. 23 Q And Paragraph 9 I think this is self-evident, but I 24 want to make sure. 25 All direction on the Lady May's movements comes**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 97 of 269

**79 1 from Ms. Guo through her representatives. That means, doesn't 2 it, that none of the direction on the Lady May's movements comes 3 from Ms. Guo directly? 4 A Not to us, no. They come through the family office. 5 That's correct. 6 Q Mr. Stockil, do you know what the family office is 7 called or do you know any other names for it? 8 A I believe that it is called the Golden Spring. 9 Q Okay. 10 MR. HARBACH: Can I have a minute, Judge, please? 11 (Brief pause) 12 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, we have no further 13 questions for Mr. Stockil. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Stockil, you are excused. 15 Next witness, please. 16 MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, we would call next 17 Momchil Ivanov who, I believe, is logging in at the moment. 18 MS. BARROW: Your Honor, this is Erica Barrow. 19 While we are waiting, as a matter of housekeeping, did you 20 want the parties to formally move to admit certain documents 21 marked into evidence at some point? 22 THE COURT: Yes. At the conclusion of the hearing 23 each side will formally tender the documents that they wish 24 to have in evidence. 25 MS. BARROW: Thank you, your Honor.**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 98 of 269

THE COURT:

not by formal paper.

MR. VARTAN:

camera, please?

THE WITNESS: You should be able to see me now.

MR. VARTAN: Thank you.

Your Honor, Mr. Ivanov previously submitted an

affidavit in this matter.

testimony and offer him for cross-examination.

THE COURT: All right.

hand.

witness stand and is duly sworn/affirmed.)

THE COURT:

cross-examination, Mr. Harbach.

MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor.

MOMCHIL IVANOV, having been called on behalf of

Defendant, first having been duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

BY MR. HARBACH:

Mr. Ivanov, could you please spell your first and last

name slowly?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 99 of 269

Mr. Ivanov, because the reporter lost the connection we 3 are going to repeat the first couple of questions, okay?

I am ready.

Referring to your affidavit which is up on the screen 6 right now -- and for the record, it is Document 1157.

7 say in Paragraph 2 that you became the captain of the Lady May in 8 approximately October of '21, was that the beginning of your 9 association with that yacht?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

The next question concerns Paragraph 8 where you say 12 you have never met nor spoken with Kwok Ho Wan about the Lady 13 May, its operations, or its movements.

14 respect to Ms. Mei Guo, correct?

Well, I have been doing so not directly with Ms. Mei 16 but via the management company.

I am with you.

18 have ever met or spoken with Ms. Mei Guo?

Not directly sir, no.

Okay. So returning to Paragraph 6 of your affidavit, 21 what you just said is you have not communicated with Ms. Guo 22 directly. That means you never got any orders or direction from 23 Ms. Guo directly, did you?

Yes, that's correct.

Where is the Lady May right now?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 100 of 269

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.

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.

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:

22 witness. 23 Mr. Ivanov, thank you. 24 THE COURT: You are excused, Mr. Ivanov. 25 Next witness, please.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 101 of 269

**83 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? Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 102 of 269

Heaslop.

Okay. Thank you. 3 Could you please spell your name for the court 4 reporter, first and last.

Craig, C-R-A-I-G. Heaslop, H-E-A-S-L-O-P.

I want to direct your attention to your screen.

7 me if you can see your affirmation in this case on the screen in 8 front of you?

Yes.

The first question for you is going to be clear down in 11 Paragraph 16. You say there that when you took the Lady May down 12 to Florida you left in the first week of October.

13 remember the exact day that you left?

No, I can't.

Are you familiar with a website on the internet called 16 VesselFinder? Have you ever heard of that?

Yeah, I know VesselFinder.

Would looking at a VesselFinder plot for the Lady May 19 help you remember the exact date that you left New York?

I don't know if it will help me remember it, no.

Would you be willing to take a look at it?

I can look at it, yeah.

I have pulled up on the screen -- and this is just for 24 refreshment purposes and it will not be offered as an exhibit. 25 For the record, I have a Voyage Analyser up on the

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 103 of 269

**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.** FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 104 of 269

Yes.

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:

5 yours memory that the actual date of departure of the Lady May 6 was October 9 of 2020?

I don't pay much attention to the actual date that we 8 leave. For me it is more what the weather is doing.

9 day and date on the weather.

Okay, that's fine.

11 remember. And you said the first week of October.

12 darn close if it was the 9th. 13 Okay, let's go back to your affidavit.

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?

No.

Your affidavit says that he was a guest on the yacht at 20 the time. Where were you?

Personally? I was on the yacht.

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?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 105 of 269

No. Mr. Kwok was not on the yacht when I had that 2 conversation with him. We were docked.

Okay. So maybe I just misunderstood your affidavit. 4 Read the first sentence of Paragraph 17.

5 yourself. I am just trying to figure out who was a guest on the 6 yacht at the time.

Okay. What I was saying there was that he was a guest. 8 I guess that's probably a better way to phrase it.

9 physically on the boat when we had that conversation.

10 been a guest on the boat.

I think you said a moment ago you said that when you 12 had this conversation with him, you yourself was on the yacht?

I was on the yacht, yes.

You remember that?

Yes.

Okay.

17 THE COURT:

18 last time you recall Mr. Kwok being on the yacht? 19 THE WITNESS: Prior to October 2020? 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 THE WITNESS:

22 throughout the summer as usual.

23 tell you retrospectively when they came and went. 24 THE COURT:

25 part of the month of July?

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 106 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 269

**88 1 THE WITNESS: That was COVID. Yes, he was. 2 THE COURT: How about during the month of August, 3 2020? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 THE COURT: And how about during the month of 6 September 2020? 7 THE WITNESS: I believe also, yes. 8 THE COURT: And was Ms. Guo on the yacht during 9 September 2020? 10 THE WITNESS: We did see Ms. Guo late in the 11 summer. I am trying to remember what month it was. I 12 couldn't recall exactly what month. 13 THE COURT: As between Mr. Kwok and Ms. Guo, how 14 would you compare the duration of the time each of them 15 spent on the yacht during July, August, and September of 16 2020? 17 THE WITNESS: During those months Mr. Kwok spent 18 more time on the yacht than Ms. Guo. 19 THE COURT: A lot more time or a little more time? 20 THE WITNESS: It was a lot more time. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 I interrupted you, Mr. Harbach. 23 MR. HARBACH: That's all right, your Honor. 24 BY MR. HARBACH: 25 Q Do you recall how long prior to your departure you had**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 107 of 269

this conversation with Mr. Kwok where he said he would no longer

be a guest on the yacht, how long before you left?

From memory, it was a few days.

the window presented itself fairly soon after, and we just packed

the both up and left.

You say you remember that you were on the yacht and you

spoke to Mr. Kwok by phone.

he was?

No, I don't believe he did.

Paragraph 17 of your affidavit says that you had a

subsequent conversation with a representative of Hong Kong USA

and confirmed that the yacht was no longer needed in New York.

That person wasn't Mei Guo, was it?

No.

MR. HARBACH:

Honor, so if I take a few seconds here it might be

worthwhile.

THE COURT: Take your time.

When Mr. Kwok told you that he was no longer going to

be a guest on the yacht, did he also tell you that there was a

temporary restraining order in place that had been issued by the

Court on September 30?

No.

MR. SIEGAL: Objection. Misstates the record.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 108 of 269 1 Move to strike. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. 3 MR. SIEGAL:

5 THE COURT: The witness has answered the question. 6 The subject of a temporary restraining order did not come up 7 during a conversation that Mr. Kwok had with this witness 8 when Mr. Kwok ceased being a guest on the boat.

10 there had been a temporary restraining order on the yacht? 11 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 12 THE COURT:

13 there had been a temporary restraining order on the yacht? 14 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 15 THE COURT:

16 been a temporary restraining order on the movement of the 17 yacht? 18 THE WITNESS:

19 memory. 20 THE COURT:

21 that there was a temporary restraining order on the yacht? 22 THE WITNESS: I can't recall the exact date.

23 think it was from a broker. 24 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 25 THE WITNESS: I can't recall the exact date.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 109 of 269 1 THE COURT:

2 this? 3 THE WITNESS:

4 sure. 5 BY MR. HARBACH:

Was that after your resignation?

No. That was prior.

And did you say a moment ago you learned it from a 9 broker?

I think it might have been, yeah, from memory.

11 didn't know if there was any truth behind it, quite honestly, or 12 just broker talk.

When the yacht was in Nassau and Freeport to be 14 repaired and inspected, do you know approximately how long those 15 repairs took?

Yeah. They took longer than we thought.

17 with equipment. It took, pretty much, five months.

So that's from approximately when to approximately 19 when?

We went to Freeport in January.

21 right through to -- I think we left in May, so it would have been 22 probably early May-ish.

So from January to early May the yacht's, essentially, 24 out of commission?

Yes. We were in the dry dock. Shafts removed.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 110 of 269

**1 to renew our shafts which the company ended up sending the wrong 2 size. It took nearly a month for them to produce new ones and 3 get them in from Europe. Then they sent the ones that were wrong 4 so we had to wait for new ones again. So no one could move the 5 boat even if they wanted to. 6 Q If I represented to you that VesselFinder suggests that 7 the yacht was in Freeport until at least May 30, would that sound 8 plausible to you? 9 A Yes. 10 Q If I understand your testimony correctly, at the time 11 that you tendered your resignation which was the end of May, you 12 had heard about a restraining order or something from a broker, 13 but nobody associated with the Lady May or HK USA had said a word 14 to you about it? 15 A No. 16 Q Is that correct? 17 A That's correct, yeah, nothing from HK office to that 18 effect. 19 Q Did the possibility of a restraining order being on the 20 boat that you heard about through a broker have anything to do 21 with your decision to resign?**

**22 MR. VARTAN: Objection, your Honor, to relevance. 23 THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 24 Q Looking at Paragraph 24 referring to your first two 25 years as the captain, your interactions with Mr. Kwok were,**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 111 of 269

**1 pretty much, whenever he was aboard the yacht. 2 My question for you is: When he was aboard, he 3 directed the movements of the yacht, right? I don't mean he 4 piloted it, but he told you where he wanted to go? 5 A Yeah. 6 Q And so that covers -- your first two years as the 7 ship's captain would have been from September of '17 to September 8 of 2019, correct? 9 A Correct. That's two years after I started, yeah. 10 Q Then you also talk about your final year having some 11 limited interactions with him via phone or text message. That 12 would have been from May of 2020 until May of 2021, 13 approximately? 14 A I can't really recall the dates that specifically, but 15 yeah. 16 Q You can correct me because you'd know, but it just 17 occurred to me that there is a gap between your first two years 18 and your last year, because you worked there three years and 19 eight months. So maybe you didn't mean anything by it, but I am 20 trying to figure out between September of '19 and May of '20, 21 what can you say about your interactions with Mr. Kwok? 22 A They were business-like, it was more formal. 23 Q Okay. 24 A As I worked there longer, I grew -- developed more of, 25 I guess, a relationship with the family. They had more trust in Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 112 of 269

1 me as the captain, so our interactions became less formal as time 2 went on.

3 Q Okay.

**4 MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, at this point I was 5 going to question Mr. Heaslop about the Rule of Law 6 Foundation video that I questioned Ms. Guo about mainly to 7 have him authenticate that it is the Lady May and that it is 8 Mr. Kwok appearing in the video and identifying himself in 9 the video; but if in your Honor's view that would be 10 cumulative and unnecessary, then I won't do it.**

11 THE COURT: It is cumulative and unnecessary 12 unless this witness knows something about the Rule of Law, 13 the relevance of which presently is unclear.

14 MR. HARBACH: Okay. In that case, I will forego 15 that.

**16 Q So, toward the end of that paragraph, Paragraph 24, 17 when you are talking about your interactions with Mei Guo, you 18 say that you had some interactions with her when she was aboard 19 and then also sporadically via phone and text message.**

20 I take it from what you said already that none of 21 those interactions were about the yacht's movements, correct? 22 A Correct.

23 Q Finally, Paragraph 25, just to make sure the horse is 24 dead, that first sentence about your receiving direction about 25 the movement of the yacht exclusively from those three companies

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 113 of 269

**1 listed which you understood to be the family's office; meaning 2 that, therefore, not from Ms. Mei Guo herself, correct? 3 A Sorry, can you ask that question again? 4 Q Sure, because it was terrible. 5 Your affidavit says you received direction about 6 the movement of the yacht exclusively from HK International 7 representatives, representatives of Hong Kong USA, or Golden 8 Spring New York Limited. So my question to you is: That means, 9 does it not, that none of the direction you received was directly 10 from Ms. Mei Guo, correct? 11 A Correct. 12 THE COURT: You did testify, sir, that during 13 July, August, and September of 2020 Mr. Kwok was a frequent 14 guest on the yacht, and presumably he told you where he 15 wanted to go? 16 THE WITNESS: That's right, your Honor. There's, 17 like, local movements in the northern area or the southern 18 area where the guests are using the boat. There's direction 19 about where they want to go, what they want to do on any 20 given day. 21 What I meant -- what I was talking about about not 22 having direction was for the repositioning of the yacht 23 seasonally between the northeast and the southeast. That 24 came from the office. 25 THE COURT: I see. So if Mr. Kwok wanted to go to Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR**

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 114 of 269

**96 1 Nantucket, you would take him there? 2 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, yeah. 3 THE COURT: If he wanted to go to Bar Harbor, 4 Maine, you would take him to Bar Harbor, Maine? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: And the same for any of the guests 8 on the both. 9 MR. HARBACH: Thank you your Honor. Unless you 10 have any other questions, we do not. 11 THE COURT: Okay. This witness is excused. 12 I believe there is one more witness. 13 MR. VARTAN: Yes, your Honor. I would turn things 14 back over to Mr. Siegal. 15 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, the last witness on the 16 defense list is Aaron Mitchell regarding the complaint 17 previously filed, should the Court wish to hear 18 cross-examination of Mr. Mitchell. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Mitchell, raise your right hand. 20 (Aaron Mitchell is duly sworn/affirmed.) 21 THE COURT: Okay. Let's proceed. 22 MR. HARBACH: Thank you, your Honor. 23 Mr. Mitchell, thank you for being here today. We 24 have no questions and no cross-examination for the witness. 25 THE COURT: All right. That was short and sweet. Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR** Proceedings FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 115 of 269

**97 1 You are excused, Mr. Mitchell. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: All right. I don't need closing 4 statements. 5 Do you think you can have your post-trial 6 submissions by the end of the day on Friday? 7 MR. SIEGAL: Well, I think, your Honor, on how 8 quickly we can get a rough transcript which we would 9 obviously like to reference in preparing post-trial 10 submissions. 11 THE COURT: I will ask the court reporter without 12 intending to impose any unreasonable burdens on her. 13 (Brief pause) 14 THE COURT: I will make the post-trial submissions 15 due Monday at 10 a.m. All I want is a memo and proposed 16 findings of fact. 17 MR. SIEGAL: Your Honor, if we are not going to 18 have the transcript until -- 19 THE COURT: This is not rocket science, 20 Mr. Siegal. I can do this with no post-trial submissions if 21 you prefer. 22 MR. SIEGAL: No, I would not. We appreciate the 23 opportunity. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 So if you have anything to tell me, you will tell Rachel C. Simone, CSR, RMR, CRR** FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 116 of 269

1 me tomorrow by conference call at noon.

2 anything to tell me by conference call at noon, I will just 3 proceed to have the transcript fully transcribed and 4 uploaded on the Court's electronic filing system.

5 rule, certainly, no later than Wednesday of next week. 6 MR. SIEGAL:

7 a joint call of counsel. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Have a nice day.

10 The foregoing is hereby certified to be a true and 11 accurate transcript of the proceedings.

Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 117 of

\$ activities (1) against (3) apartment (4) 33:22,24 59:20 14:10;57:9,22 8:18;12:8,8;68:14 around (7) \$2 (1) activity (1) agency (3) apologies (3) 8:15;20:16;43:16; 56:22 55:6 38:19,21,22 18:2;21:11;29:18 57:24;63:7;64:12,12 actual (3) ago (8) apologize (1) arrange (1) \$28 (1) 31:20;86:5,7 7:19;45:22;51:24; 21:5 55:2 46:2 actually (10) 52:25;59:5;62:25; apparent (1) arrangement (1) \$3 (1) 4:7;6:1,22;9:13,22; 87:11;91:8 17:18 65:24 56:23 20:12;30:8;36:3; agree (5) apparently (2) arrangements (1) \$30 (3) 54:14;69:10 21:10,24;23:9; 73:14;74:7 12:3 8:4,9,13 add (3) 24:11;53:10 Appeals (2) arrived (1) 42:11;63:12;65:23 agreed (2) 13:4,6 82:3 @ address (5) 45:22;55:10 appear (6) article (2) 31:3;36:13,22;40:7, agreement (3) 16:23;22:2;23:10, 7:16,18

19:9;26:11,17; 10 6:4;56:12;77:8 12;25:1,2 Asia (1) 29:24 adjourn (1) agreements (2) appeared (6) 75:16 18:15 76:17;77:21 26:10,17;33:15; assembled (1) A adjournment (1) ahead (6) 34:15;35:1;36:19 71:9 18:20 10:9;15:20;18:24; appearing (2) asserted (2) Aaron (2) administered (1) 47:8;53:5;74:24 37:17;94:8 11:5;13:17 96:16,20 39:20 aid (1) appears (14) asset (6) ability (1) admissibility (1) 61:12 8:22;9:16;24:17; 4:16;8:9,14;12:1; 13:18 36:24 aimed (1) 25:10,10;41:18; 13:15,21 able (7) admissible (1) 8:16 68:17;70:10,20; assets (2) 4:21;30:17;41:7; 14:13 alerted (1) 72:11,22;73:7,19; 8:16;12:6 62:10;71:24;73:4; admission (1) 65:1 85:23 associate (3) 7:18 alerting (1) Appellate (4) 4:3;8:6,10 80:5 admit (1) 31:10 4:20;11:2;12:20,22 associated (6) aboard (9) 79:20 alleged (2) applicable (1) 23:7;29:12,25;56:5; 6:12;7:6;50:10,15, advance (1) 12:14;14:13 12:7 76:7;92:13 25;71:1;93:1,2;94:18 60:24 Alliance (3) applies (1) association (2) abroad (1) adverse (6) 14:12,15;75:16 11:19 76:6;81:9 9:23 13:23;14:5,6,14,25; allow (2) apply (1) assume (2)

5:19;12:25;96:2 36:23 61:10;66:2 11:16 9:5;20:6 abundantly (1) affiants (1) allowed (1) appreciate (3) assuming (2) 10:1 3:18 52:6 15:1;63:10;97:22 6:5;28:20 access (1) affidavit (36) alone (2) appropriate (1) assumption (1) 19:18 7:4;9:10,16;15:23; 10:3;52:4 12:13 78:2 accompanied (1) 16:9;21:6;24:4;41:1, along (1) approximately (7) asylum (1) 36:7 14,20;42:1;43:18; 25:17 68:18;81:8;82:3; 65:21 according (4) 48:9;49:21;51:16; altered (4) 91:14,18,18;93:13 Atlantic (1) 14:7;42:21,22;47:5 54:21;55:11,12;60:7; 17:17;20:25;24:17; approximation (1) 85:24 account (14) 62:18;75:15,18;76:2, 25:22 66:12 attach (2) 19:6,9,12,15,18; 15,19;78:18;80:8; always (5) April (2) 76:15,18 23:3;29:11,12,16; 81:5,20;83:4,7;86:13, 4:1;5:22;8:2;10:17; 63:8;76:5 attached (3) 30:3,6,8,12;56:10 19;87:3;89:10;95:5 52:7 apropos (1) 7:16;23:2;26:25 accounts (1) affidavits (12) ambush (2) 37:17 attempt (2) 5:18;6:9,21;17:2; 49:4,13 arbitrarily (1) 69:5;85:14 19:21 25:16;32:22;33:5,8,9; Amendment (3) 12:5 attempts (1) accuracy (5) 34:9;35:25;36:6 4:16;5:13;14:8 archives (2) 4:2 23:15;30:21,22; affirmation (4) among (1) 28:23;29:1 attention (2) 33:15;35:3 17:20;27:5;38:2; 11:13 area (3) 84:6;86:7 accurate (4) 84:7 amount (1) 53:11;95:17,18 Attorney (1) 26:2,13,16;98:11 affirmations (1) 15:15 argue (2) 7:15

38:24 17:25 analogy (1) 10:18;12:19 attributed (1) acquired (1) affirmative (1) 12:13 argued (2) 19:25 47:5 14:15 Analyser (1) 4:7;36:23 audience (1) act (1) again (16) 84:25 argument (8) 71:9 71:10 5:12;8:21;25:8; anchor (3) 3:25;4:18;7:22; audio (7) acted (1) 34:21;35:23;58:18, 51:3,22;52:6 12:7,7,13,14,24 16:10,19;18:11; 5:4 23;62:9;63:12;70:5; answered (4) arguments (2) 24:14;70:1,1;73:14 active (1) 71:8;74:15;83:5;85:4; 13:6;63:21;64:6; 4:6;36:24 August (6)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (1) \$2 - August Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 118 of

19:5;20:10;26:9; 7:14;13:17;16:3; 82:16;83:14;89:19; 17;37:22;39:4,11,14; 4:4 88:2,15;95:13 34:4;38:1;40:1;74:21; 97:13 40:10;41:5,10;42:2,4; chat (1) authenticate (1) 75:4;78:7,9;80:17; briefed (2) 43:1;48:2;51:8,22; 30:24 94:7 83:20 36:18;52:15 52:1;56:11;59:11; chief (1) authenticated (1) behind (1) briefly (1) 60:8;61:10,11,13,14; 34:10 4:12 91:11 6:9 62:8,13;63:11;64:9; China (3) authentication (1) belabor (1) briefs (1) 65:16;66:11,12;67:5; 12:4;43:19,21 4:13 58:19 27:1 70:1,1,17;71:14,15; Chinese (1) authenticity (2) belongs (1) broker (5) 72:17,21,23,24,24; 40:9 14:19;35:4 56:7 90:23;91:9,12; 73:23;74:25;75:9; choose (2) authority (1) beneficial (6) 92:12,20 76:3;78:10;79:10; 50:19,23 9:18 10:5;12:18;13:1,1, Brother (19) 80:3;83:16,17,25; CIBC (1)

authorization (5) 2,9 10:22;44:12,16,17; 84:7,22;85:13;86:10; 13:5 50:12,24;51:2; best (1) 45:2,8,18,19;46:11, 93:16,21;95:3;97:5,8, circuit (1) 52:19;53:2 11:23 15,21,24;47:4;56:7, 20 13:7 available (3) better (2) 11,14;72:5,7,8 capabilities (1) circumstances (2) 36:5;37:5;38:6 12:7;87:8 brother's (5) 28:3 20:16;22:20 averred (2) beyond (1) 42:10;46:12,18; captain (20) cited (1) 17:2;26:8 69:2 56:8,16 6:10;7:2;51:14; 14:11 aware (9) bill (1) browser (1) 53:24;55:10,15; City (1) 9:19;19:20,24;20:2; 44:19 21:17 59:24;67:15,16,17,20, 85:22 57:8,21;58:16;59:6; binder (6) building (1) 22;72:18,18;81:7; claim (1) 62:19 5:21,21;8:24;17:22, 12:10 82:9,11;92:25;93:7; 5:9

44:13;65:12;71:22; burdens (1) 67:18 clarification (1) back (12) 72:10 97:12 caption (2) 47:16 3:8;4:18;7:20; black (1) business (13) 7:17;41:13 clarify (6) 29:10,18,23;48:9; 32:4 4:3;8:6,10;11:11; captured (1) 24:21;51:6;57:14; 61:13;62:8;86:13; blue (2) 33:10;35:25;36:2,6; 35:7 58:12;64:17;67:11 91:3;96:14 71:5,17 42:9,18,23;49:3;76:6 case (9) clarifying (2) background (1) board (6) business-like (1) 5:23;14:11;15:4; 42:14;43:23 25:21 50:11,18,21;51:7,7; 93:22 36:25;37:2,21;75:19; clarity (2) Baker (2) 52:7 button (1) 84:7;94:14 29:15;40:15 10:12;27:12 boarded (4) 70:15 caution (1) clear (14) bank (1) 52:16,22,23;53:8 60:18 10:1,3;12:20,25;

56:9 boasting (1) C cautioning (1) 13:20;34:21;35:16; bar (3) 4:10 60:23 36:7;40:12;44:19; 26:20;96:3,4 boat (17) call (19) CCP (3) 49:5;61:19;72:17; Barrow (16) 46:20,25;47:1,5; 3:7,9;15:19;16:16; 65:19,20;74:7 84:10 10:15;21:14;27:3,9, 53:20;54:22,24;82:3, 18:5,7;33:3;52:10; ceased (1) clearly (4) 11,11,14,18,21;28:2, 4,10,11;87:9,10;90:8; 58:2;66:5,22;67:2; 90:8 6:11;43:14;72:24; 15;30:24;31:17; 92:5,20;95:18 74:20;79:16;83:1; cell (2) 73:4 79:18,18,25 body (1) 98:1,2,6,7 16:17,19 clip (1) based (4) 7:18 called (15) center (2) 73:12 9:15;15:13;60:1,2 both (9) 16:3;28:5;34:4; 71:5,16 close (3) basic (1) 7:17;15:7;26:21; 40:1;42:8;51:21;52:5, certain (5) 11:14,15;86:12 13:24 51:8;72:5;75:12; 16;63:4;75:4;79:7,8; 10:16;25:4;34:19; closed (1) Baxter (1) 82:11;89:5;96:8 80:17;83:20;84:15 36:22;79:20 74:9 14:10 bottom (2) calls (1) certainly (4) closing (1) Beach (1) 72:22;74:16 35:23 11:10;30:17;58:8; 97:3 53:12 bought (9) came (11) 98:5 clumsy (1) Bear (4) 8:4;10:25;44:1,12, 6:12;44:10,18;45:4; certifications (1) 4:2 61:1,18;68:2;69:21 16,17;45:2,3;72:5 46:2,10;55:17;56:12; 36:1 coast (1) became (3) break (6) 58:2;87:23;95:24 certified (10) 86:2 59:6;81:7;94:1 56:25;57:2;65:7,11; camera (2) 13:6;17:3;23:18,22; Cole (43) begin (1) 66:4,23 32:5;80:4 25:14;38:14,16,18,19; 10:14;15:3;16:7,8, 10:21 brief (20) can (84) 98:10 12,13,16,20,23,25;

beginning (10) 3:15,24;14:11; 5:20;16:2,11,16,18; chair (1) 17:1,22;18:2,9,11,18, 58:1;60:10;63:1,7, 16:22;18:21;23:25; 17:17;18:22;26:3; 33:23 24,25;19:2;24:9,25; 22;64:12,13;65:10; 70:7;81:8 27:1;28:1;36:15; 39:10;49:2;51:9;74:1; 27:3,7,12;31:20;32:3,

5:18 25:13,18;27:24;28:4;

Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 119 of

14,20;34:3,8;36:12, 13,22;37:3 Cole's (1) 16:10

Kwok February 2, 2022 cousins (2) 11:10;42:10 covers (1) 93:6 COVID (1) 88:1 CPLR (1) 12:19 Craig (9) 7:2;9:4;67:21;

colleague (2) 11:25;15:2 colleagues (7) 8:12;10:14;33:22; 35:20;37:14;73:24; 82:17 collected (5) 34:12,15,16,19,23 collection (2) 21:11,24 column (1) 35:17 comfortable (1) 40:8 coming (5) 4:22;44:11;45:1,6; 71:24 commence (1) 16:2 commencement (1) 15:18 commenting (1) 37:13 commission (1) 91:24 committed (1) 6:8 common (1) 59:18 Commonwealth (1) 13:4 communicated (5) 6:15,20;9:1;67:20; 81:21 communication (1) 55:15 companies (3) 8:19;11:17;94:25 company (14) 6:18;8:5;9:3;11:6; 12:11;35:21;55:16, 16;56:8,12;77:18,24; 81:16;92:1 company's (1) 34:25 compare (1) 88:14 competent (1) 24:7 compilation (2) 22:22,24 complaint (3) 7:13,16;96:16 complete (3) 25:2,10,11 completed (1) 39:16

conceded (1) 11:1 concerned (1) 74:8 concerns (2) 42:1;81:11 conclusion (3) 77:16,19;79:22 conditional (3) 13:19;14:21;15:15 conditions (1) 54:16 conduct (4) 9:23;18:13,16; 37:20 conference (2) 98:1,2 confident (2) 48:7,8 confirm (2) 62:10;72:17 confirmed (1) 89:12 confirms (1) 6:14 conflate (1) 63:22 confuse (1) 63:13 confusing (1) 63:25 Conley (3) 21:20;23:3,4 connected (2) 21:12;72:4 connection (3) 41:2;81:1,2 consent (1) 35:18 consented (2) 65:24;74:9 considerable (1) 8:16 considered (1) 15:14 consistent (1) 33:12 consistently (1) 33:8 consists (1) 4:10 consult (1) 73:24 contact (3) 59:23;67:15,17 contacted (5) 67:16,19,21,23; 76:10 contain (1) 33:9 contains (1) 17:23 contemporaneous (1) corroborating (1)

21:1 contempt (14) 6:8;12:17;13:3,12, 22;14:14,17,20,21; 15:8,10,12,15,16 contemptuous (1) 9:23 content (11) 19:22;20:20;21:2; 29:8;30:2,13;31:20; 33:11;34:19;35:4; 62:16 contested (1) 11:3 continue (5) 54:13;56:11;61:14, 15;67:5 CONTINUED (1) 47:10 continues (1) 12:19 contract (3) 5:24;76:13,15 contradicted (1) 10:22 control (18) 7:10;8:17,22;12:21; 13:8,8,19,21,24;14:2, 3,5,13,16,23;15:11; 19:15;29:5 controlled (10) 4:24;6:1,23,25; 9:14;12:17;13:12; 14:1;43:9;60:4 controlling (1) 5:4 controls (1) 9:6 controverted (1) 36:21 conversation (11) 15:18;37:18;86:15, 16,24;87:2,9,12;89:1, 11;90:7 conversations (1) 60:19 convincing (2) 10:4;13:21 copy (10) 26:13,16;27:14,15, 17;32:4;41:1;75:18; 76:22,23 corporate (3) 5:3,22;11:20 correcting (1) 10:21 correctly (1) 92:10 correspondence (1) 30:22 corresponding (1) 6:25 9:10

costs (2) 56:17,20 counsel (17) 3:2,6,15;9:12;24:8, 21;31:5;35:22;58:12; 60:11,20;62:21; 63:19;64:5,15;66:5; 98:7 counsel's (1) 69:1 countersigned (1) 76:18 couple (3) 46:8;66:15;81:3 course (3) 8:8;9:21;48:23 COURT (196) 3:1,6,12,14,23; 4:19;7:14;9:5,18,18, 19;10:8,18;11:16; 13:4,6;14:4,7;15:6,9, 14,23,25;16:2,10,15, 18,23;17:22;18:1,3,7, 11,13,15,19,22;24:4; 25:13;27:4,8,10,13, 17,22;31:6;32:2,6,15, 19,22,24;33:9,13,22; 34:1,3;35:10,16,17; 36:6,8,10,17;37:1,4, 10,15,20,22;38:4,7,9, 12,14,14,17,18,20,22; 39:1,7,13,21,25; 41:10,11;45:13,16; 46:14,19,19,25;47:4, 8;48:17;49:7,13,16; 51:25;55:21;56:1,4, 13,16,20,24,25;57:5, 20;58:13;59:5,10; 60:21;61:3;62:3,13; 63:6,14,23;64:2,5,8, 10,20,21;65:1,8,16; 66:4,9,16,21,25;67:3, 7;69:11;73:25;74:3, 18,24;75:3,10,15; 79:14,22;80:1,10,14; 81:1;82:24;83:4,7,13, 15,17;84:3;85:13,20; 87:17,20,24;88:2,5,8, 13,19,21;89:18,23; 90:2,5,12,15,20,24; 91:1;92:23;94:11; 95:12,25;96:3,6,11, 17,19,21,25;97:3,11, 11,14,19,24;98:8,16 courtroom (1) 31:4 Court's (16) 13:18;14:20,21; 32:18;45:21;49:5,14; 57:18;58:14;60:11, 22;61:25;62:19,24; 72:18,19;83:2,19,20; 84:5 C-R-A-I-G (1) 84:5 created (10) 20:24;22:22,25; 23:13;24:14;68:18; 69:1,4,5,10 credible (2) 7:23,23 creditor (1) 13:16 Crew (3) 6:5;8:21;70:22 cross (4) 33:19;36:5;37:20; 48:24 cross-examination (30) 3:17;7:3;10:14; 15:20,22;16:2,6;19:1; 33:2;34:3,7;37:5,9, 23;38:3;39:14;40:4; 47:10;48:19;66:11; 68:23;74:19;75:7; 80:9,15,20;83:6,23; 96:18,24 cross-examinations (2) 10:1;15:3 cross-examine (1) 49:11 cross-examined (1) 83:9 crucial (1) 62:12 crystal (1) 12:25 cued (1) 68:2 cumbersome (1) 65:14 cumulative (2) 94:10,11 curious (2) 31:13;82:17

current (3) 4:7;6:10;67:21 currently (1) 82:1 custodian (2) 33:10;36:4 D

Pacific Alliance Asia v Kwok February 2, 2022 dad (1) 50:10 darn (1) 86:12 data (1) 17:10 date (22) 10:3;34:15,19,23; 35:1,7;57:25;58:8,10; 61:16;64:11,14;69:7, 13;82:5;84:19;85:8; 86:5,7,9;90:22,25 dated (5) 19:4;20:9;26:9; 62:1;85:25 dates (3) 63:22;87:22;93:14 daughter (5) 4:7;7:25;8:10;11:9; 12:15 David (1) 7:3 day (8) 33:6,16;74:18; 84:13;86:9;95:20; 97:6;98:8 days (1) 89:3 day-to-day (1) 5:11 dead (1) 94:24 December (1) 7:22 decided (1) 9:21 decision (3) 9:22;54:18;92:21 decisions (1) 51:11 defective (1) 16:10 defendant (10) 3:17;9:9;10:13; 11:8;40:1;74:21;75:5; 80:18;83:1,21 defendants (1) 37:22 defendant's (5) 5:21;6:4;8:24; 76:21;77:7 defense (4) 3:25;5:1 departure (3) 86:5,14;88:25 depicted (1) 48:4 describe (1) 73:4 described (1) 5:15 deserves (1) 32:24 despite (1) 4:2 detailed (5) 52:9,21,24;53:4,13 detained (2) 65:19;74:6 determination (1) 12:21 determined (2) 12:22;13:11 developed (1) 93:24 device (1) 72:12 devices (1) 30:9 dialed (2) 3:5;18:7 different (13) 13:9,10,11;21:11, 25;22:2,5,5;29:21; 48:5;51:17;63:23; 69:21 difficult (1) 72:21 difficulty (2) 39:8;83:11 direct (6) 3:17;15:24;38:3; 80:8;83:5;84:6 directed (4) 8:21;15:23;57:7; 93:3 directing (2) 50:8;51:16 direction (12) 6:15;7:9;50:22; 59:19;78:25;79:2; 81:22;94:24;95:5,9, 18,22 directions (1) disagree (2) 36:25,25 disclosed (3) 48:12;49:5,6 disclosure (1) 65:21 discovery (1) 4:16 discuss (4) 33:3;43:15;64:16, 21 discussed (2) 35:19;64:23 discussion (1) 3:13 displayed (2) 43:19;61:7 dispositive (2) 15:12;25:16 dispute (1) 14:25 disputed (1) 4:8 disregard (1) 9:21 Division (4) 4:21;11:2;12:20,23 dock (1) 91:25 docked (1) 87:2 Docket (9) 17:20;21:6;24:5; 27:4;31:25;41:13; 58:15;61:25;75:23 document (18) 5:24;6:3;31:8,17; 58:9,14,24;59:3;61:6, 16,17,24;62:8,16,16; 75:22;77:9;81:6 documentary (3) 5:10;11:22;36:20 documentation (1) 52:18 documents (5) 5:3,22;11:21;79:20, 23 DocuSign (1) 77:17 dollar (2) 8:7;47:14 dollars (2) dozen (1) 17:23 drill (1) 73:12 drop (3) 51:3,22;52:6 dry (1) 91:25 due (4) 54:5,22;80:25; 97:15 duly (13) 16:1,4;34:2,5; 39:18;40:2;75:2,5; 80:13,18;83:19,21; 96:20 duration (1) 88:14 during (18) 4:16;6:2;7:1;12:17; 13:12,22;14:13,16,23; 48:23;52:10;88:2,5,8, 15,17;90:7;95:12 duty (2) 34:25,25 E earlier (7) 23:23;42:11;44:23; 59:14;67:20;69:24; 74:4 early (8) 43:20;44:15;53:19; 58:4;59:8;82:11; 91:22,23 easier (1) 76:1 easy (1) 64:20 Echo (2) 38:13;85:12 echoes (2) 18:6,17 edited (1) 14:17 editing (1) 17:16 education (1) 51:9 effect (2) 6:7;92:18 electronically (1) 77:10 else (7) 8:25;16:11;18:5; 19:11;20:22;23:7; 33:17 e-mail (1) 5:24 employed (1) 25:15 employee (1) 9:4 employees (1) 12:10 employer (3) 9:4;78:8,15 encompass (1) 13:8 end (11) 6:7;12:13;57:25; 63:1,3,19;66:23; 76:21;92:11;94:16; 97:6 ended (1) 92:1 endless (1) 8:15 engineer (1) 17:11 English (6) 23:9;40:9,13,17; 41:23;42:2 enough (4) 9:17;11:14;24:19; 45:7 entered (5) 57:9,18,22;58:6,17 entertain (1) 32:19 entities (1) 17:14 entitled (2) 21:7;49:11 entity (1) 43:9 equipment (2) 22:14;91:17 Erica (4) 10:15;27:1,11; 79:18 essentially (1) 91:23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 120 of 269

13:17;14:1;77:2; 96:16 defense's (1) 37:4 delay (1) 61:6 delays (1) 91:16 demonstrate (1) 8:22 demonstrated (2) 12:12 directive (8) 49:15;53:23;54:3, 23;55:8,12,14,20

directly (15) 4:15;9:11;11:24; 31:3;59:23;67:15,16, 19,23;79:3;81:15,19, 22,23;95:9 directs (1) 50:15 Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (4) dad - even

84:10,11;86:2 downloaded (4) 21:20;33:6,16;35:4

effort (1) 8:22 eight (1) 93:19 either (4)

32:3;74:22;76:19; 78:21 elaborate (1) 43:2 electronic (3) 30:9;74:14;98:4

done (2) 42:6,7 doorman (1) 12:9 doubts (1) 9:22 down (3)

establish (2) 11:23;13:20 establishes (1) 14:24 Europe (2) 6:14;92:3 European (1) 6:17 Euros (4)

5:24;6:5,15;7:16; 19,25;41:17;48:1,11, family (9) 8:4;10:25;14:1;15:19; Foundation (5) 9:8;11:3;40:16;50:11; 13;68:1,2;70:5,8; 4:3;8:6;9:24;11:7, 16:4;28:21;34:5;37:4, 72:25;73:3,5,6;94:6

72:17;92:5 73:11,20;76:22;77:2, 8;77:20;79:4,6;93:25 7;38:11;40:2,6;42:1; founded (1) events (2) 7;84:24 family's (1) 48:18;58:22;64:4; 43:6 20:21;22:8 exhibits (11) 95:1 66:7;68:8;70:9;75:5; four (1) everybody (2) 25:20;35:15,18; far (3) 76:5,6;78:12;80:18, 5:22 3:2;18:7 36:9,11;48:13,22; 43:11,12;60:2 22,24;81:3;83:21; Francis (19) everyone (4) 49:1,4,6;65:13 farther (1) 84:4,10,12;86:11,16; 15:22,25;16:1,3,8, 10:11;16:11,14; existed (1) 86:2 87:4;90:20;92:24; 12;17:2,24;24:6;

27:15 34:23 fast (2) 93:6,17;94:24 25:13;27:19,23,25; everywhere (1) existence (1) 71:20;72:10 firsthand (1) 30:23;31:11,17;32:8,

evidence (26) expect (2) 8:4;9:17;12:14; five (5) Francis's (1) 4:9,22;5:10,23,24; 33:7,11 42:16,17,21;43:4,6, 3:7;5:18;6:9;18:13; 25:15 6:10,25;8:25;10:2,3, expenses (2) 15,19,21;44:8,9,23; 91:17 fraud (2)

18;11:6,7,21,22,23; 55:24;56:5 50:11,14,18,21;51:20; five-exhibit (2) 17:3;25:14 13:21;14:9,13,15,22, experience (3) 52:4,7,19,22;53:1,8, 5:20;8:24 freedom (3) 24;32:24;36:20; 19:20;59:16;60:1 14;57:9,22;64:16,22; five-minute (1) 50:18,23;53:10 79:21,24 expert (1) 68:8;69:25;71:6,18; 18:20 Freeport (3) evidentiary (3) 17:6 72:11;73:7,21 five-second (2) 91:13,20;92:7 4:20;5:16;36:14 expertise (1) father's (5) 70:11,20 frequent (1)

exact (6) 17:16 9:3,23;11:6;42:19; fix (1) 95:13 57:25;82:5;84:13, explain (4) 52:13 41:5 Friday (1) 19;90:22,25 8:8;28:22;39:7; favor (1) flat (1) 97:6 exactly (9) 73:4 12:6 10:22 friends (1) 9:6;20:4;24:3; explanation (1) February (2) fled (1) 67:14 26:22;50:13;54:3; 42:12 43:25;45:24 43:19 front (6)

55:14;63:5;88:12 explore (1) feed (1) floor (1) 7:5;16:9;26:6; examination (4) 7:3 26:10 71:2 28:14,16;84:8 65:22,23;74:5; exploring (1) fees (1) Florida (9) frustrated (1) 89:15 5:14 55:25 54:6,24;55:9,19; 12:23 examined (6) expression (1) few (11) 57:8;58:4;59:15; fugitive (1) 16:4;34:5;40:3; 11:13 5:15;7:25;51:24; 84:12;91:3 6:18

75:5;80:18;83:21 extended (1) 52:25;55:1;62:25; folks (1) full (1) examiner (2) 11:8 70:6,6;71:3;89:3,16 20:2 24:25 17:3;25:14 extent (2) fifteen (1) follow (1) fully (3) example (3) 4:12;28:24 49:17 57:1 4:11;25:16;98:3 50:15;53:7;67:14 extremely (1) Fifth (3) following (1) funds (1) exceeds (1) 74:10 4:15;5:13;14:8 52:9 11:12

15:16 Figure (4) follows (6) further (5) except (1) F 31:24,24;87:5; 16:5;34:6;40:3; 35:3,9;74:2;79:12;

excluded (2) Facebook (1) filed (4) foot (1) 65:17;74:5 17:14 7:21;27:4,6;96:17 50:2 G exclusively (2) fact (6) filing (3) forego (1) 94:25;95:6 6:3;8:3;23:18;36:2; 5:18;74:14;98:4 94:14 game (1)

excuse (3) 42:22;97:16 film (1) foregoing (1) 8:15 36:1;53:5,18 facts (2) 17:16 98:10 games (1) excused (7) 6:20;10:21 final (1) forgot (1) 78:11 32:15;35:10;74:3; factual (2) 93:10 70:14 gap (1) 79:14;82:24;96:11; 15:13;66:15 Finally (2) form (1) 93:17 97:1 failed (1) 9:15;94:23 56:9 gave (4)

execute (1) 10:2 find (3) formal (8) 52:21;53:4;59:14; 59:22 fair (4) 31:20;56:9;81:17 5:3,22;35:15;36:8, 66:6 execution (1) 26:13,16;45:7;60:2 findings (1) 10;80:2;93:22;94:1 generally (1) 77:20 fairly (3) 97:16 formalities (1) 28:22 exercise (1) 59:16,18;89:4 fine (5) 11:18 Genoa (2)

59:19 fallen (1) 16:23;31:14;32:12; formally (2) 82:1,12 exhibit (34) 12:6 83:13;86:10 79:20,23 genuine (2) 5:21,21;6:4;8:24; familiar (1) firm (2) former (1) 6:6;26:1 17:22;21:10,12;24:7, 84:15 10:12;31:9 7:2 geographically (1) 22;26:13,16;27:1,5, familiarity (1) first (44) forward (3) 22:19

19,22;28:14;31:10,18, 17:9 4:3,6;5:21;6:12,18; 40:16;71:20;72:10 gets (1)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (5) events - gets FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 122 of

7:10 guys (2) 13;25:17;37:18;39:8; 36:13;37:6,13,16,24, 52:23 gift (8) 30:21;31:9 41:2;48:24;49:3,8; 25;38:1,4,10;39:11, inaccurate (1) 45:5,6,8,18,19; 65:10;79:22;85:11 15;41:10;46:16,22; 11:4 46:11;56:9,16 H hearsay (1) 47:3,9,13;48:10; inartfully (1)

56:8 half (3) heart (1) 56:15,22;57:17;58:7, includes (1) given (5) 11:2;17:23;53:10 74:17 18,22;59:12;60:18; 11:8 6:20;14:14;39:21; hand (7) Heaslop (14) 61:5;62:14;63:10,20; including (1) 45:8;95:20 15:25;34:1;38:9; 7:2,8;9:4;53:24; 64:18;65:6;66:1,3,7, 55:24 gives (2) 39:2;80:11;83:17; 72:19;83:2,3,15,19, 20,22;67:5;68:22; inconsistent (1) 12:12;45:5 96:19 20;84:1,5;85:22;94:5 73:23;74:15,20;75:1; 23:19 Golden (28) handle (6) H-E-A-S-L-O-P (1) 79:12,16,18,25;80:7, incur (1) 9:3,6,8,10,12,13; 10:14,16;15:3;19:7, 84:5 16;83:1;85:10,18; 56:17 11:5,7;53:20,23;54:7, 8;26:10 held (3) 88:23;89:16;92:22; indeed (1) 12,18,24;55:21,23; hands (1) 3:13;13:7;30:9 94:4;95:16;96:9,13, 82:19 56:2,4,7,14;59:14,19; 46:10 help (6) 15,22;97:2,7,17 independent (2) 60:1,3;65:5;67:17; happened (2) 56:4;61:22;76:25; Honor's (2) 11:11,12 79:8;95:7 78:10;84:19,20 9:2;94:9 indicate (2)

good (5) happens (1) helpful (1) hope (2) 19:3,8 10:10;11:15;15:21; 85:21 18:1 36:7;61:18 indicated (2) 33:25;37:25 happy (3) helping (1) hopefully (2) 74:4,10 government (1) 15:22;58:10;66:14 29:19 10:16;31:3 indicates (3) 12:5 Harbach (94) helps (2) horse (1) 5:4;6:1;74:11 Granted (1) 3:4,11,19,22;7:3; 55:23;86:10 94:23 individuals (1) 58:20 10:6;15:20,21;18:4; hereby (1) Hostetler (2) 22:5 Great (1) 24:3,21;29:15;31:2,7, 98:10 10:12;27:12 inference (6) 67:3 15;32:3,4,16,17,21; herself (1) hot (1) 13:23;14:5,6,14,25; greets (1) 33:1,7,18,21;35:13; 95:2 8:13 36:23 12:9 37:11,13,16,24;39:15, higher (1) hours (1) inform (1) grew (1) 19,24;40:5;41:10; 48:13 49:3 59:22 93:24 47:8,9,11,19;48:16, highlight (2) housekeeping (1) information (8) guess (4) 6:24;7:25 79:19 20:19,19;21:2;23:4, 18;49:19,20;51:8; 25:9;66:17;87:8; 52:3;57:6,11,13;58:3, highly (2) 6;34:12,14;55:9 93:25 8,12,24;59:10,12,13; 8:13;65:25 I informed (3) guest (10) 61:5,11;62:14;63:10, himself (1) 55:4;60:15;63:4 52:22;59:23;86:19; 24;64:17;65:6,11; 94:8 idea (5) informing (3) 87:5,7,10;89:2,21; 66:14,19;67:5,8;69:3; hit (1) 3:1;22:12;51:12,13, 54:16,18,19 90:8;95:14 70:12,14;71:8,10; 70:15 13 inquiry (1) guests (4) 73:23;74:2,25;75:8, HK (6) identification (2) 54:14 52:23;53:3;95:18; 22;77:6;79:10,12; 76:10;78:13;90:12; 26:25;48:1 inserted (1) 96:7 80:15,16,21;82:15,21; 92:13,17;95:6 identifying (1) 77:25 Guo (74) 83:24;88:22,23,24; Ho (3) 94:8 inspected (1) 4:22;5:4;6:1,16,20; 89:15;91:5;94:4,14; 75:16;78:19;81:12 ignore (1) 91:14 7:6,9,12,25;8:2,7,20; 96:9,22 hold (2) 11:18 Instagram (7) 9:17,19;11:9;14:1,2, Harbach's (1) 4:19;15:2 ignores (1) 17:9,14;19:4,5,6, 4;37:17,20;38:1,1,5,9; 66:11 holding (3) 8:3 12;20:9

39:2,4,7,18;40:1,6,7, Harbor (2) 71:6,17;72:11 ignore's (1) install (1) 7,9,10,10;41:12,14; 96:3,4 honestly (1) 51:23 22:14 47:12;57:7;60:19; hard (4) 91:11 illegally (1) instruction (2) 64:4,21;65:17;67:9; 5:10;27:14,17;64:3 Hong (20) 6:14 9:1;55:18 68:8,25;71:14,24; hate (1) 8:5,5;37:7;43:6,22; image (2) intended (4) 73:11,19;74:3,4; 32:17 44:1,4,19;45:23;46:5, 20:24;21:1 6:12;8:3;61:19,23 76:11,18;77:12,25; hear (11) 15,17,20,22;47:1,13, images (3) intending (1) 78:3,7,20;79:1,3; 5:9;27:10,12;39:11; 17;76:14;89:11;95:7 17:17;25:22;32:1 97:12 81:14,18,21,23;88:8, 61:20;66:23,25; Honor (104) immediately (1) interacted (1) 10,13,18;89:13;94:6, 69:25;70:2;83:16; 3:10,11,20;4:14; 15:9 7:5 17;95:2,10 96:17 5:17,20;7:19,22,24; impliedly (1) interactions (8) Guojiao (3) heard (7) 8:11,12,23;9:9,15,25; 12:20 60:3;92:25;93:11, 42:9,12;46:18 10:19;54:23;66:7; 10:6,10;14:22;15:1, importing (1) 21;94:1,17,18,21 Guo's (3) 21;18:2,4,18,25; interest (8)

9:11;38:23;51:23 hearing (19) 25:18;27:7,11,24; impose (1) 10:5;12:18;13:1,2, GuoWenGui (1) 3:9,15;4:20;5:17; 31:2;32:13,17,21; 97:12 9;56:1;65:20;74:8 19:7 10:16;15:2,18;18:6, 33:1,21,25;35:13,14; impossible (1) interior (1) Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (6) gift - interior

Pacific Alliance Asia v 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022

68:14 44:2;52:13;63:5;66:8 94:12 12:25;31:9;36:25; 12:3,4 intermediary (1) issued (5) Kong (20) 72:25;73:3,6;94:5,12 lives (1) 12:12 15:8,15;58:13; 8:5,5;37:8;43:6,22; lawyer (5) 11:11 International (17) 63:14;89:22 44:1,4,19;45:23;46:6, 7:11;60:15;63:4; living (2) 8:5;37:8;43:7;44:1, issues (7) 15,17,20,22;47:1,13, 64:25;65:1 69:16,17 5,19;45:23;46:6,15, 10:16;18:12,14,15; 17;76:14;89:11;95:7 lawyers (2) local (1) 17,20,23;47:1,13,17; 25:16;36:14;37:2 Kwok (51) 11:20;64:24 95:17 85:1;95:6 Italy (1) 4:14,21;5:12,18,23; lawyer's (1) locate (1)

internet (4) 82:1 6:8,10,22;7:17,19; 58:2 83:8 19:24;33:6,16; itineraries (1) 8:14;9:7;10:2,4,13, lead (1) location (1) 84:15 52:12 24;11:1,9;13:17,21; 3:1 68:12 interpose (1) itinerary (7) 14:2;15:10;19:22,25; leading (1) log (2) 57:17 52:9,10,14,15,21; 20:5,6;21:7,12;29:12, 5:16 26:19;74:22 interpret (1) 53:4,13 25;30:9;75:16;78:19; learned (13) logged (1) 38:23 Ivanov (12) 81:12;86:15,23;87:1, 44:12;57:24;60:11; 74:22

interpretation (1) 6:11,24;79:17;80:3, 18;88:13,17;89:1,7, 62:21,24,25;63:6,18; logging (2) 40:17 7,12,17,22;81:2; 20;90:7,8,9;92:25; 64:4,15;90:20;91:1,8 79:17;83:11 interpreter (22) 82:17,23,24 93:21;94:8;95:13,25 least (4) logo (2) 38:5,8,10,11,13,15, KwokMiles (2) 8:12;24:17;52:5; 72:22;73:7 16,19,21,25;39:6,23; J 26:20;29:11 92:7 long (7) 40:2;45:14;47:15,15; Kwok's (9) leave (2) 14:20;53:9,11;82:2;

52:1;53:5;57:10,13, January (10) 4:2,5,10;5:10;7:11, 3:5;86:8 88:25;89:2;91:14 15;61:20 4:1,5,18;5:1,19; 14,15,24;8:18 leaves (1) longer (9) interrupted (1) 19:4;33:6;85:9;91:20, 7:24 53:19;54:15,21; 88:22 23 L Lee (2) 62:11;89:1,12,20; intertwined (1) jazz (1) 37:8,25 91:16;93:24 11:17 11:14 lack (1) left (8) look (7) interview (3) Jersey (1) 6:24 43:21;71:25;84:12, 31:16;50:7;53:17;

68:21;69:12,13 86:3 Lady (48) 13,19;89:2,5;91:21 58:10;59:3;84:21,22 into (11) John (3) 4:1,11;5:5;7:15;8:2, left-hand (1) looking (5) 5:16,23;6:7,10; 10:12;37:6;48:10 21;9:20;10:5;21:7,12; 72:15 18:10;31:8;63:23; 14:6;18:7;39:9;60:19; joined (2) 50:3,8,12,15,15,21, legal (5) 84:18;92:24 71:24;79:21;85:24 82:4,11 22;58:20,22;59:7,19; 4:3;5:6;10:16;13:3, looks (4) investigate (1) joint (1) 60:12;62:20;63:5; 10 21:24;28:2;47:23;

18:19 98:7 64:22;65:2;70:23,24; less (2) 85:21 investigator (1) Judge (8) 71:1;72:3,4,4,6;76:7; 50:20;94:1 lost (3) 17:3 11:18;12:7;15:5; 78:25;79:2;81:7,12, lets (1) 52:2;81:1,2 invite (1) 48:16;61:25;79:10; 25;82:1,8,18;84:11, 12:9 lot (3) 58:23 82:15;98:6 18;85:1;86:5;92:13; lifelong (1) 48:25;88:19,20 invocation (1) judgment (1) 94:7 8:11 lots (1)

invoked (1) judicial (1) 46:9 5:17 louder (1)

invoking (1) July (3) 24:23 83:3 love (3) 14:8 87:25;88:15;95:13 larger (1) Lim (3) 8:11;11:20,25 involved (3) Justice (1) 61:11 38:13,14;39:4 lunch (6) 6:18;47:4;73:5 last (17) limited (2) 57:2;65:7,15;66:4,

involvement (1) 9:16;41:16;42:12, 93:11;95:8 23;67:9

involves (1) 65:12;73:10;76:14; 3:5;68:23 M 65:13 keep (2) 77:4;80:22;82:8; lines (1) irrelevant (3) 9:22;16:18 83:25;84:4;87:18; 31:23 ma'am (4) 6:21;14:22;69:13 keeping (1) 93:18;96:15 list (2) 40:11;41:8;42:3;

Island (1) 83:11 late (7) 48:13;96:16 59:5 53:9 kind (2) 5:7;6:2,23;59:7; listed (3) Madam (2) Islands (1) 17:6;52:2 82:4,6;88:10 78:12,15;95:1 39:19;53:5 13:5 knew (2) later (6) literally (1) main (1) issuance (1) 9:13;60:4 8:6;10:16;12:2; 12:14 7:25 knowledge (5) 44:14;71:20;98:5 little (9) Maine (2)

issue (20) 11:24;19:25;25:14; Laura (1) 12:24;44:13;62:11; 96:4,4 4:13;12:16,16,18, 50:2;53:15 33:22 65:14;71:22;72:14; mainly (1) 21;13:8,11,13,13,14, knows (4) law (11) 85:24;86:2;88:19 94:6 16,23;14:3,5,19,23; 9:5;38:1;42:16; 10:12;11:16,22; live (2) maintain (2)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (7) intermediary - maintain Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 124 of 269

22:14;56:21 maintaining (2) 56:6,17 makes (1) 44:19 making (3) 12:24;72:12;90:4 man (4) 71:5,16;72:15; 73:19 manage (2) 56:10,11 management (5) 6:17;12:11;55:25; 76:13;81:16 manager (1) 74:23 Manhattan (1) 85:23 manipulated (2) 20:25;25:24 manipulation (1) 17:17 manner (1) 65:9 many (3) 11:10;51:21;52:5 March (4) 62:1;63:7,24;64:19 Mariana (1) 13:5 Maritime (1) 85:1 mark (10) 68:11;70:11,21; 71:6,14,18,21,25; 72:11,16 marked (7) 26:25;47:25;48:24; 68:1;70:5;73:11; 79:21 materials (1) 35:7 matter (7) 14:24;41:13;57:24; 65:20;75:15;79:19; 80:8 May (69) 4:1,11,18;5:9;6:19; 7:15;8:2,21;9:17,20, 20;10:5;12:8,9;21:7, 12;23:23;26:9;28:17; 31:2;45:16;50:3,12, 15,21,22;58:20,22; 59:7,19;60:12,12; 62:20,20;63:5;64:22; 65:2,11,13;66:22; 70:23,24;71:1;72:3,4, 4,6;76:7,14;80:14; 81:7,13,25;82:1,8,18; 84:11,18;85:1;86:5; 91:21,23;92:7,11,13; 93:12,12,20;94:7

maybe (8) 11:15;12:11;13:24; 38:10;76:24;86:22; 87:3;93:19 May-ish (1) 91:22 May's (5) 5:5;50:8,16;78:25; 79:2 mean (8) 6:12;7:21;19:23; 32:6;45:3;59:18;93:3, 19 meaning (1) 95:1 meaningful (1) 49:18 means (4) 50:17;79:1;81:22; 95:8 meant (1) 95:21 mechanisms (1) 29:3 media (8) 4:10,13;5:12;14:18; 17:7,13;19:21;32:23 media's (1) 66:2 meet-and-confer (1) 35:23 Mei (28) 4:22;7:25;11:9; 14:1,2,4;37:17;38:1; 39:18;40:1,7,7,9,9,10; 41:14;76:11;77:12, 25;78:3,20;81:14,15, 18;89:13;94:17;95:2, 10 member (1) 46:5 members (2) 8:21;70:22 memo (1) 97:15 memory (8) 35:17;52:2;69:6; 86:5;89:3,3;90:19; 91:10 mention (3) 58:22;60:10;90:4 mentioned (8) 33:9;42:8,9;50:24; 51:11;59:14;64:18; 67:10 mentions (1) 51:16 message (4) 5:25;7:7;93:11; 94:19 met (6) 47:21;48:6;78:19, 20;81:12,18 metadata (1) 21:21 microphone (3) 16:12;39:9,9 Microsoft (2) 3:8;80:1 mid (1) 6:23 mid-2017 (1) 5:6 might (3) 23:7;89:16;91:10 Miles (3) 10:13;21:7,12 million (11) 8:4,9,13;44:6,20, 24;45:24;46:2,9; 56:22,23 mind (1) 42:24 minute (1) 79:10 minutes (8) 3:8;5:15;18:14; 49:18;52:25;59:5; 62:25;66:18 miscalculation (1) 6:22 mischaracterize (1) 10:20 missing (1) 14:3 misstates (2) 45:9;89:25 mistaken (1) 39:15 misunderstood (1) 87:3 Mitchell (10) 7:11,13,16,20; 96:16,18,19,20,23; 97:1 M-O-M (1) 80:24 Momchil (4) 67:21;79:17;80:12, 17 moment (14) 9:5;23:24;31:3; 41:5;42:6;45:22; 61:18;69:22;73:15, 23;79:17;82:18; 87:11;91:8 moments (1) 51:24 Monday (1) 97:15 money (8) 44:8,10,11,18,21; 45:1,4,6 month (7) 63:7;87:25;88:2,5, 11,12;92:2

months (3) 88:17;91:17;93:19 more (24) 3:7;12:12,24;17:23; 33:10,11;37:19; 45:21;50:20;54:19; 55:6;63:12;66:12; 71:3;72:10;86:8; 88:18,19,19,20;93:22, 24,25;96:12 morning (10) 10:11;14:20;15:21; 32:7;33:25;36:19; 37:25;40:12;57:1; 68:24 most (1) 40:7 mostly (1) 67:20 motion (2) 13:3,14 mouth (1) 4:11 move (13) 9:2;25:17;49:17; 51:18;54:17;55:17, 19;59:11;61:15; 62:12;79:20;90:1; 92:4 moved (5) 8:15;54:8;55:2,4,5 movement (4) 12:17;90:16;94:25; 95:6 movements (10) 50:8,16;51:16,16; 78:25;79:2;81:13; 93:3;94:21;95:17 moving (1) 63:11 much (9) 3:12;7:8;16:25; 56:20;66:12;73:8; 86:7;91:17;93:1 multiple (2) 19:21;64:7 musical (1) 24:11 musicians (1) 11:13 must (1) 15:13 mute (2) 3:2;16:11 muted (4) 16:14;18:8;37:11; 39:5 myself (1) 59:23 N name (16) 49:3

Kwok February 2, 2022 23:2,3;38:12;40:9, 9;42:8,12,13;46:18, 18;72:3;75:9;80:23, 24;83:25;84:3 named (1) 6:5 namely (2) 43:25;76:10 names (2) 67:18;79:7 Nantucket (1) 96:1 Nassau (1) 91:13 Nat (1) 15:22 Nathaniel (2) 16:1,3 naturally (1) 7:20 nature (1) 5:25 navigated (2) 21:17;26:22 NDAs (2) 8:21,23 near (1) 32:7 nearly (1) 92:2 need (9) 3:2;16:11;36:10; 38:5;45:5;51:9;53:12; 54:7;97:3 needed (6) 50:11,12;54:24; 59:23;67:14;89:12 needing (1) 59:15 needs (7) 38:11;47:15;54:5,8, 17;55:5,19 Netherland (1) 8:17 Netherlands (3) 68:15;69:16,17 nevertheless (1) 86:24 new (21) 4:22;9:2,6,20;13:1, 16;53:8,9,11;54:16; 60:12;62:4,20;75:15; 84:19;85:22;86:3; 89:12;92:2,4;95:8 Next (14) 8:20;32:16;33:1; 35:12;41:4;62:13; 70:3,4;74:19;79:15, 16;81:11;82:25;98:5 nice (2) 74:18;98:8 night (1)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (8) maintaining - night

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 125 of

nobody (1) 52:18 22:14;56:21 51:3 3:2,15;15:8;59:21; 92:13 occur (1) operating (2) overruled (6) 79:20;83:4 nondisclosure (1) 12:3 56:5,18 45:13,17;51:25; partner (4) 76:17 occurred (1) operation (4) 64:8;90:2;92:23 7:3;42:10,18,23 none (5) 93:17 5:5,11;6:2,23 overruling (1) parts (1) 14:23;76:10;79:2; October (22) operational (1) 49:7 76:2 94:20;95:9 6:13;21:22;43:10; 8:22 own (4) party (2) nonetheless (1) 53:19;54:4;55:1; operations (1) 4:11,13;11:11,12 14:8;78:2 20:1 57:19;58:5,11,23; 81:13 owned (6) past (3)

98:1,2,6 63:15,25;64:19;81:8;

85:8 4:23;9:14;11:1;

nor (2) 86:3,6,11;87:17,19 opportunity (3) owner (7) 16:21,25;32:18; 78:19;81:12 odds (1) 10:20;15:2;97:23 19:5,5,12;37:8; 45:21 normal (1) 9:11 opposed (1) 44:4;51:12;56:14 patient (1) 59:20 off (2) 9:23 ownership (7) 63:11 normally (1) 86:2;87:21 opposition (1) 7:17;11:3;13:1,2; pause (13) 52:15 offer (6) 4:6 15:11;51:10;56:1 16:22;18:21;23:25; northeast (1) 33:5;35:15;38:3; order (52) owns (4) 28:1;39:10;74:1; 95:23 80:9;83:4,5 5:7;9:3;13:19; 12:8,10;72:6,8 75:25;79:11;80:25; Northern (2) offered (3) 14:21,21;15:8,10,15; 82:16;83:14;89:19; 13:5;95:17 14:10;73:11;84:24 37:23;49:5,10;57:8, P 97:13 note (6) office (6) 18,21;58:6,13,16,19; paused (1) 7:5;9:15;24:4; 11:7;79:4,6;92:17; 59:6;60:11,14,22; Pacific (3) 71:13 37:16;38:4;83:10 95:1,24 61:7,8;62:3,7,19,24; 14:12,15;75:15 pausing (1) noted (2) officer (1) 63:1,6,6,14,18,24,24; packed (1) 68:11 7:19;49:16 34:10 64:5,15,18,19,19,19; 89:4 PAX (6)

14:11;26:17;31:19; 3:25;4:8;9:12,21;

nowhere (1) Off-the-record (1) 19 34:10;41:16,17; PAX's (2) 8:25 3:13 ordered (1) 61:25;62:13;77:4,6,7; 10:3;11:1 Number (12) old (1) 9:20 78:12 pay (4) 10:24;17:21,25; 28:23 orders (3) Palm (1) 44:7;55:24;56:4; 21:6;24:5;27:4;31:25; O'Melveny (1) 9:18;64:21;81:22 53:12 86:7 48:25;53:2,3;63:21; 67:2 ordinary (2) Palmigiano (1) paying (1)

NY3d (1) 45:21;69:19 organization (4) paper (5) pen (1) 13:5 one (29) 78:8,9,12;85:1 5:2;8:15;32:4; 77:12 NYSCEF (1) 5:24;10:24;23:24; orient (1) 77:13;80:2 pending (2) 27:16 28:13;33:22;36:3; 69:5 papers (1) 45:11;61:3 38:5;40:15;43:3; original (1) 11:1 people (4) O 44:24;47:14;49:25; 55:13 paragraph (31) 3:5;12:6;18:19; 53:2;63:12;66:8; Ostrager (1) 9:16;42:2,5,8; 60:3

Ostrager's (1) 43:18;49:21;50:7; People's (1)

object (6) 82:15,17;86:3;92:4; 61:25 53:17,23;60:8,10;

48:11;49:2,15; 96:12 otherwise (1) 13,17,21;78:18,23; 17:10;37:19;59:7 63:20;68:22;85:10 ones (3) 10:20 81:7,11,20;84:11; period (8) objection (17) 92:2,3,4 out (23) 86:14;87:4;89:10; 6:2;7:1;12:18; 24:3;45:9,11,13,14, online (1) 4:24;9:2;12:6; 92:24;94:16,16,23 13:12,22;14:13,17,23 17;49:8,16;51:23,25; 38:8 16:11;18:11,14,15; park (1) periods (1) 57:18;58:7;64:6; only (20) 29:19;49:11;51:20; 4:3 22:6 85:12;89:25;92:22,23 6:3,7,21;7:5,24;8:6; 52:4,20;53:2,4,14; parked (3) permission (5) observation (1) 12:16,18;13:11;15:7; 67:1;72:21;81:17; 6:13;8:4;54:5 51:21;52:6,8,8; 15:7 26:3,5;33:5;34:22; 85:7,23;87:5;91:24; part (8) 53:15 observed (2) 35:19,24;48:22; 93:20 8:9;25:6;54:10; permitted (1) 15:12;21:21 58:15;64:23;69:24 outfit (1) 56:16;58:21;68:3; 31:2 obstruction (1) open (4) 6:5 71:20;87:25 persistence (1)

23:19,22;24:6 33:19 10:6;19:15;31:5,9; particular (6) 5:4;23:6;34:18; obviously (1) opening (4) 52:15;59:19;66:2; 17:16,24;24:7; 36:2;42:24;45:6;48:4, 97:9 3:16,21;10:17,19 74:16;86:24;96:14 34:23,24;55:3 5,5;86:17;89:13 occasions (1) operate (2) overnight (1) parties (6) personal (4)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (9) nobody - personal Pacific Alliance Asia v Kwok February 2, 2022 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 126 of 269

7:11;11:24;19:20; 20:19 personally (6) 20:6;34:13,22; 77:23,24;86:21 personnel (1) 9:13 person's (1) 42:12 persuades (1) 15:14 pertaining (1) 21:19 Phoenix (2) 6:5;78:15 phone (9) 7:7;16:17,19;52:15; 71:6,17;89:7;93:11; 94:19 photograph (2) 48:1,18 phrase (1) 87:8 physically (1) 87:9 pick (1) 86:8 picture (1) 48:14 pictures (2) 19:21;20:5 piece (3) 5:2;6:3;63:12 piloted (1) 93:4 place (9) 54:6,9,17;55:3,4,6, 18;69:13;89:22 placeholder (1) 31:9 places (1) 22:2 plainly (1) 7:21 plaintiff (10) 13:15,20;15:19; 16:4;25:15;34:4;37:5; 49:11;65:24;74:9 plaintiff's (10) 3:17;10:15;15:4; 48:1,4;68:2;70:5,8; 73:11,19 plan (2) 52:24;66:13 platform (1) 29:16 platforms (1) 32:23 plausible (1) 92:8 play (12) 8:13;11:14;14:6; 68:3,4;70:6,6;71:3,8,

21;73:12;78:10 played (5) 68:7;70:18;71:12, 23;73:18 playing (2) 70:7;73:15 pleading (1) 7:21 pleadings (1) 15:9 please (27) 27:20;38:9,12;39:2, 4,7,25;40:17,24;43:2; 57:14;61:1;62:8;70:1; 73:24;75:9,24;79:10, 15;80:4,10,22;82:15, 25;83:18,25;84:3 plot (1) 84:18 plural (1) 25:16 point (14) 7:17;9:10;11:23; 15:16;30:13;43:23; 58:19,21;59:22;62:9; 79:21;85:7,17;94:4 points (1) 36:14 ported (1) 82:12 portion (2) 23:22;24:14 portions (2) 23:18;66:17 portray (2) 26:2,2 possibility (1) 92:19 possible (3) 35:20;52:14;63:4 possibly (1) 58:1 post (6) 19:4,5,21;20:9,20; 21:2 posted (7) 20:1,6,12,14,16; 30:2;83:12 post-hearing (1) 37:2 posting (1) 20:2 postings (2) 14:18;19:24 post-judgment (1) 4:16 posts (4) 4:10;5:12;19:24; 20:5 post-trial (4) 97:5,9,14,20 potato (1) 8:13 potentially (1) 65:20 practice (1) 12:5 pre-date (1) 14:20 predicted (1) 4:19 prefer (1) 97:21 pre-hearing (1) 49:15 prejudice (2) 12:22;13:13 preparing (2) 48:23;97:9 present (7) 37:22;68:20;69:6,8, 12,15;74:12 presented (1) 89:4 presenting (1) 37:9 presently (1) 94:13 preserve (1) 34:25 press (2) 65:17;74:5 presumably (1) 95:14 presume (2) 69:9,11 pretrial (3) 27:1;48:14,21 pretty (5) 5:8;86:11;91:3,17; 93:1 prevented (1) 5:13 previously (5) 27:4;74:6;80:7; 83:3;96:17 Price (8) 33:2,4;34:1,2,4,9; 35:11,25 Price's (1) 33:4 printout (1) 52:14 prior (8) 15:9,18;85:11; 86:14;87:17,19; 88:25;91:7 privilege (1) 14:8 probably (4) 51:9;63:6;87:8; 91:22 probative (6) 6:11;10:2;14:9,24; 32:6;36:18 problem (2)

18:5;39:17 problematic (1) 7:19 problems (3) 6:6;7:4;8:1 proceed (10) 3:16;16:24;32:25; 39:14,25;57:5;75:3; 80:14;96:21;98:3 proceeding (4) 18:16,16;66:3;74:9 proceedings (4) 58:21;74:13;80:25; 98:11 process (2) 48:15,21 proclamations (1) 17:23 produce (1) 92:2 proffer (4) 4:22;10:2;25:6; 33:4 proffered (9) 9:9;14:15;20:9; 24:24;33:8;48:14,20; 66:16;69:4 proffering (1) 17:6 proffers (1) 14:12 prohibiting (1) 57:22 properly (1) 15:15 property (1) 8:14 proposed (1) 97:15 protect (1) 74:5 protection (2) 66:2;74:16 provide (2) 27:15;44:23 provided (3) 44:8;77:19;85:11 public (2) 65:23;74:14 publication (1) 65:13 pull (2) 27:1;61:5 pulled (1) 84:23 pulling (1) 17:10 pun (1) 6:12 purchase (1) 46:12 purchased (2) 44:20;46:17 purchasing (2) 45:6,23 purport (1) 26:2 purported (1) 6:4 purpose (3) 18:3;22:24;28:16 purposes (2) 69:14;84:24 put (9) 5:23;24:8;32:22; 40:17;43:3;48:9; 61:24;76:24;77:12 puts (1) 6:3 puzzle (1) 63:12 PX (3) 17:21;21:10,13 Q Qu (25) 8:6,7,8;42:9,9,13, 16,17,18;43:4,10,15; 44:4;46:2,5,18,18,20, 21,23,25;47:12,21; 48:4;50:2 Q-U (1)

42:13 quality (1) 29:5 quickly (2) 63:11;97:8 quite (3)

R Rachel (1) 98:15 raise (7) 15:25;34:1;38:9; 39:2;80:10;83:17; 96:19 range (1) 85:8 rather (2) 13:2;55:5 reach (1) 67:1 reachable (1) 13:15 read (14) 41:20,22,24;42:2,6; 60:14,16,21,25;61:9, 10,17;87:4,4 reading (1) 42:7 ready (2)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (10) personally - ready

Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 127 of

30:23;81:4 19:8;55:12;76:17 92:1 respects (1) route (1) realize (1) refresh (6) repaired (1) 23:20 85:24 41:23 31:14;85:14,15,16, 91:14 respond (2) routine (2) really (9) 19;86:4 repairs (1) 48:16;50:14 55:6;59:20 43:14;44:24;62:15; refreshes (1) 91:15 responding (1) routinely (1) 63:10;64:11,13;73:8; 28:17 repeat (3) 60:24 8:15 74:16;93:14 refreshment (1) 23:21;52:1;81:3 response (2) rule (7) reason (5) 84:24 rephrase (1) 14:9;55:9 11:21;72:25;73:3,6; 46:4;48:20,22;54:5, refuel (1) 64:2 responsible (1) 94:5,12;98:5

reasons (2) refusal (1) 55:5;59:15 restraining (18) 9:24 13:24,25 4:17 reported (1) 57:8,21;58:6,13,16; Russell (7) rebut (1) refuses (1) 20:21 59:6;63:1,14;64:5; 6:17;74:20;75:2,4, 10:3 14:9 reporter (6) 89:22;90:3,6,10,13, 13,14;77:24 recall (15) regarding (4) 56:25;75:10;81:2; 16,21;92:12,19 R-U-S-S-E-L-L (1) 3:25;4:19;26:22; 11:3;14:16;43:14; 84:4;97:11;98:16 resume (3) 75:13 32:8;52:20;62:15; 96:16 reporter's (1) 3:14;57:1;66:21 67:18;68:20;87:18; regimes (1) 81:1 retaining (1) S 88:12,25;89:7;90:22, 13:11 reporting (1) 8:16 25;93:14 regular (1) 54:19 retrieve (1) safety (5) received (5) 59:16 repositioning (1) 28:18 52:13;66:2;74:6,8, 46:25;47:1;83:7; reinforce (1) 95:22 retrieved (3) 16 95:5,9 10:1 represent (2) 28:9,13,19 sail (1) receiving (1) reiterate (1) 63:15;68:17 retrospectively (1) 59:15 94:24 54:25 representation (3) 87:23 sailed (3)

recognize (3) related (1) 6:17;35:21;55:16, returned (1) 44:19 61:8;68:11;72:24 8:18 16,18;77:20;89:11 62:4 same (11) recollection (6) relating (8) representatives (5) Returning (3) 6:16;58:7;64:6; 28:17;31:14;85:14, 17:21;19:22;21:7; 76:9,10;79:1;95:7,7 62:18;78:18;81:20 65:1,9;66:5;73:12; 15,16,19 26:10;53:20;59:7; represented (2) revising (1) 75:14;78:19;81:13; reconfirm (1) 64:21;65:2 35:22;92:6 89:15 96:7 62:9 relationship (3) representing (2) Richard (3) sanctions (2) record (19) 55:21;76:6;93:25 10:13;64:25 21:20;23:3,4 15:13,16 5:2,16;10:23;15:13; relayed (2) Republic (1) right (65) SARL (2) 22:11;29:15;33:10; 53:23;54:23 12:4 3:1,9;4:25;11:14; 6:16;74:23 36:6;39:19;40:15; relevance (2) request (6) 15:6,25;16:20;17:12; Sarnoff (8) 41:12,17;65:17;70:7; 92:22;94:13 40:15;52:23;54:7, 18:22;20:18;22:4; 3:20,20,24;10:22, 75:22;77:6;81:6; relevant (5) 14;55:10;77:20 24:16;26:4;33:21; 24;11:5,25;12:2 84:25;89:25 4:8;6:2;7:1;10:4; requested (2) 34:1;35:10;38:7,9,22; saw (1) recorded (4) 14:23 4:21;56:10 39:1,2,22;40:19,22, 21:19 22:15,19,19,20 reliability (1) require (1) 25;41:3;42:5;43:7,10; saying (7) recording (1) 14:19 51:2 45:6;46:6,10;47:14; 4:23;7:15,20;45:7; 72:12 relying (3) required (1) 49:16;51:4;55:19; 78:17;83:10;87:7 records (3) 15:23;23:23;24:24 11:22 56:24;57:5,10;60:6; scene (1)

32:9 remand (1) requiring (2) 74:18,24;78:3,20; science (1)

redirect (1) 11:2 60:11;62:19 80:10,10;81:6,25; screen (31) 32:20 remanded (1) research (1) 83:17;88:21,23; 27:3,7,9;28:2; refer (3) 12:21 12:24 91:21;93:3;95:16; 37:17;41:7,12;42:5; 17:24;76:9,13 Remember (16) resign (1) 96:19,25;97:3 43:19;48:9;49:23; reference (2) 7:13;43:14;54:1,2; 92:21 right-hand (3) 60:8;61:7,24;68:4; 76:2;97:9 57:25;63:3,5;64:11, resignation (2) 70:10,20;72:22 70:10,20,25;71:5,17, references (1) 13;84:13,19,20; 91:6;92:11 risk (1) 25;72:15,23;73:7; 32:23 86:11;87:14;88:11; resolve (1) 45:20 76:1,24;81:5;84:6,7, referred (2) 89:6 18:12 rocket (1) 23;85:1 10:24;77:2 removed (2) respect (4) 97:19 screenshot (2) referring (4) 25:3;91:25 9:18;58:8;66:10; rogue (1) 19:4;26:19 20:3;25:7;81:5; removing (1) 81:14 5:7 screenshots (2) 92:24 57:22 respectively (1) rough (2) 26:8,14 refers (3) renew (1) 26:9 66:11;97:8 sea (1)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (11) realize - sea FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 128 of

50:17 93:7,7,20;95:13 sign (1) sorry (17) stand (2) search (2) serious (1) 77:13 21:6;27:8;37:13; 80:13;83:2

26:20,20 6:22 signature (5) 39:11;47:15;49:25; standard (6) season (2) serves (1) 41:18,19;62:1;77:7, 53:5;55:11;59:17; 4:9;11:15,19;12:20; 54:4,22 35:17 25 61:3,6,20;69:17; 13:3;39:20 seasonally (1) service (2) signed (10) 70:14;71:11;90:24; standards (1) 95:23 6:4;28:5 7:13;8:20;41:1,21; 95:3 13:10 second (8) services (1) 76:14;77:9,17;78:2,3, sort (1) standing (1)

68:2;71:2;75:24;77:5; set (1) significance (3) sorts (1) start (2) 82:15 50:2 51:12,13,13 67:9 17:20;24:25 Secondly (2) several (3) significant (1) sought (1) started (3) 11:5,20 17:2;37:7;45:20 87:24 52:19 18:23;73:7;93:9 seconds (5) Shafts (2) similar (2) sound (1) starting (1) 68:5;70:6,6;71:3; 91:25;92:1 35:24;68:23 92:7 48:25 89:16 share (5) similarly (1) sounds (1) starts (1)

section (3) 27:3,7,9;60:8;76:1 6:19 11:15 31:18 25:5,6,9 shared (2) Simone-Ivanac (1) source (2) state (5) sections (1) 30:24;70:12 98:15 31:24,24 5:16;7:14;38:12; 25:1 sharing (3) simple (1) sources (1) 43:18;75:15 secure (1) 28:3;41:7;68:4 48:19 11:12 statement (4) 29:8 shell (2) simply (1) south (3) 3:16,21;9:11;11:4 security (1) 8:15;9:3 8:9 58:4;59:15;85:23 statements (3) 29:5 Sherry (4) single (2) southeast (1) 10:17,19;97:4

seek (1) 8:17;68:15;69:16, 5:2;8:7 95:23 States (5) 65:20 17 sins (1) southern (1) 14:7;43:20,22; seem (1) shielding (1) 12:14 95:17 57:23;65:21 11:17 8:16 sit (2) speak (4) statute (2) seems (4) ship's (1) 11:16;25:10 20:21;33:17;40:12; 13:7,10 6:19;9:24;24:9; 93:7 six (1) 65:8 stay (2) 40:12 shirt (1) 32:22 speaking (3) 12:9;51:3 segments (6) 73:20 size (1) 27:10;39:8;68:9 stayed (2) 22:11,15,18;24:17, Short (2) 92:2 speaks (1) 69:19,19 22,23 57:4;96:25 slightly (1) 7:8 stem (1)

seizing (1) shorter (1) 48:5 specific (7) 4:15 12:5 25:19 slowly (1) 20:9;28:12,13; still (3) selected (1) show (18) 80:23 64:11,13;68:3;87:22 16:15;53:17;54:7 85:8 22:5;26:24;27:24; small (2) specifically (2) stipulate (2) self-evident (1) 30:23;31:7;41:16; 66:15;73:12 62:3;93:14 30:21,22 78:23 47:25;58:9,24;60:8; smatterings (1) spell (3) Stockil (14) self-serving (1) 62:9,13;66:17;68:1; 14:17 75:9;80:22;84:3 6:17,24;74:21,21; 4:23 69:21;70:1,4;73:10 social (8) spent (2) 75:2,4,9,13,14;76:3; seller (1) showed (1) 4:10,13;5:11;14:18; 88:15,17 77:24;79:6,13,14

46:10 69:24 17:7,13;19:21;32:23 spliced (2) s-T-O-C-K-I-L (1) sending (1) showing (5) software (3) 21:25;24:18 75:13 92:1 5:10;10:4;28:16; 34:13,22;77:17 spoke (2) stop (2) senior (2) 32:2,5 sole (2) 78:19;89:7 53:10;91:20 17:3;98:16 shows (1) 46:5;56:14 spoken (4) story (1) sense (2) 61:16 solely (1) 6:19;78:20;81:12, 9:8 24:18;37:19 side (7) 50:8 18 streamline (1) sensitive (1) 35:20;36:15;70:10, someone (5) sporadically (2) 31:4 52:13 20;72:15,22;79:23 9:17;20:5;42:23; 7:7;94:19 strike (1)

sent (4) sidebar (1) 45:5,18 spot (1) 90:1 31:9;55:10;83:10; 15:17 sometime (2) 78:6 Stuart (1) 92:3 Siegal (27) 58:1;59:7 Spring (27) 3:20 sentence (4) 3:4,10;5:9;10:9,10, Sometimes (3) 9:3,6,8,10,13;11:5, stuff (1) 53:22;61:21;87:4; 12;27:5;37:6,6;48:10, 67:16,16;69:19 7;53:20,23;54:7,12, 33:10 94:24 10;49:2,7,12,14;65:9; somewhere (3) 18,24;55:22,23;56:2, subject (1) September (22) 66:22;67:1;89:25; 51:22;64:12,12 4,7,14;59:14,19;60:1, 90:6 7:14;57:9,10,19; 90:3;96:14,15;97:7, son (3) 4;65:5;67:17;79:8; submission (1)

58:6,11,14,19,23; 17,20,22;98:6 11:9,11;12:8 95:8 36:11 61:16;64:19;82:4,6; Siegel's (2) soon (1) Spring's (1) submissions (4) 85:9;88:6,9,15;89:23; 48:22;85:12 89:4 9:12 97:6,10,14,20

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (12) search - submissions Pacific Alliance Asia v Kwok February 2, 2022 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 129 of

80:8 16:4;34:5;38:11; submitted (11) 40:2;74:25;75:5;

75:14,18;80:7;83:3 16:1;34:2;39:18; suboptimal (1) 75:2;80:13;83:19;

subtitled (1) 19:3;21:5,6,6,12;

4:9 24:22;28:15;29:16; suggests (4) 31:23;61:8;63:24; 8:20;19:11;21:21; 64:18;76:2;77:23;

42:2;53:3 17:7;18:14;24:19;

54:10;58:9;59:12; 57:8,21;58:13,16;

16:1;34:2;39:18; 16:5;25:20;34:5,9; 75:2;80:13;83:19; 35:24;40:3;59:5;75:6;

T 4:17;14:9;26:1,3; 33:7,12;34:14,22;

24:4;26:6 3:18;15:24;33:4; table (1) 34:16;36:19;37:1; 31:5 38:3,23;44:15;45:9; talk (3) 47:6;49:18;51:24; 53:19;91:12;93:10 52:20;56:13;57:1; talked (1) 58:5;59:8,11;65:18; 67:9 74:11;80:9;83:5;

3:8;80:1 3:6;59:5;66:15;

10:5;22:2;45:20;

telling (3) 46:9;51:21;52:5;

15:22;33:2,23;36:5, 4:17;8:25;64:25;

29:11 21:25;24:18;50:4;

45:22;47:13;53:9; 55:4,17;89:20;93:4; 95:14 tomorrow (2) 98:1,6 took (11) 5:6;7:9;19:3;26:8; 53:1;69:13;84:11; 91:15,16,17;92:2 top (2) 61:13;62:8 tortured (2) 65:19;74:7 total (1) 6:24 tough (1) 72:14 toward (2) 63:19;94:16 towards (1) 66:22 traced (1) 30:8 track (2) 24:11;86:2 Tracy (3) 10:14;15:3;16:8 trajectory (1) 85:23 transcribed (2) 74:13;98:3 transcript (6) 65:22;74:13;97:8, 18;98:3,11 transcription (1) 69:25 transfer (3) 12:1;43:12,15 transferred (6) 8:7;43:10;46:14,23, 24;47:12 transferring (1) 47:18 transfers (1) 47:5 translated (2) 41:20;45:15 translation (5) 23:18;24:6;36:1,4,7 translations (2) 23:22;35:22 Translator (1) 39:19 TransPerfect (2) 35:21;36:2 trial (3) 49:4,5,13 triangle (1) 85:24 trick (2) 61:19,23 tried (1) 30:17

tries (1) 7:20 trigger (1) 14:25 trip (2) 52:10,24 trips (1) 52:9 troublesome (1) 56:9 true (15) 6:16;9:5,9;42:15; 43:6,25;47:12;50:10, 11;55:8;73:6;77:9; 78:19;81:13;98:10 truly (1) 62:15 trust (1) 93:25 trusted (4) 42:9,18,23;43:4 trusting (1) 42:24 truth (9) 39:3,3,21;44:24; 49:9,10,10;78:3; 91:11 truthfully (1) 38:24 try (9) 3:24;25:17;28:4; 32:5,17;45:21;56:10; 61:22;70:3 trying (12) 31:20;45:20;55:13; 56:25;61:5;63:13; 71:10;78:10;86:22; 87:5;88:11;93:20 T-shirt (2) 71:6,17 Tunnel (12) 28:5,7,9,13,18,19, 20,21;29:17,20; 30:20;32:9 turn (4) 3:21;21:5;80:3; 96:13 Turning (1) 19:3 turnover (2) 13:7,9 turns (1) 4:24 Tweet (15) 28:5,7,9,13,18,18, 19,20,21;29:10,17,20; 30:20;32:9,9 tweets (9) 5:11;26:9,17;28:9, 13,23;29:1,3,6 twelve (1) 68:4

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (13) submit - Twitter

Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 130 of 269

17:9,14;19:8;26:10, uploaded (2) 9,11,17,25;69:4,21, 74:11;77:24;87:8 witness (89) 17,19;29:17,19,20,23, 21:21;98:4 24;70:1,18;71:12,21, weather (5) 11:23;14:2,3,4; 25;32:9 USA (7) 23;72:22;73:9,10,16, 54:5,16,22;86:8,9 15:19;22:8;27:20;

Twittercom (1) 76:10,14;78:13; 18;94:6,8,9 web (2) 31:19;32:3,16;33:1, 26:20 89:11;90:12;92:13; videos (2) 8:18;29:16 23;35:12,19,20,23,24; two (15) 95:7 21:11,25 website (6) 36:5;37:5;39:11,20; 4:9;6:21;7:19; use (8) videotapes (1) 29:21;30:3;34:15, 46:16,22;47:3,7;49:9; 10:21;13:10,11,24; 30:5;48:24;53:20; 66:16 19,24;84:15 55:23;56:3,7,15,19, 26:8;31:23;32:1;53:3; 54:7,13,22;67:14; view (1) websites (1) 22;57:3,20,24;58:9, 92:24;93:6,9,17 85:13 94:9 34:12 15,24;59:1,9;61:12; twofold (1) used (6) viewed (1) Wednesday (2) 63:25;64:1,9,23; 4:6 28:7,8,8,18;54:15; 21:16 27:6;98:5 65:13;66:1,17;74:15,

type (3) 67:20 violation (2) week (4) 19,25;77:12,14; 24:19;33:10;59:20 user (2) 5:7;9:2 82:3;84:12;86:11; 79:15;80:5,13;82:22, 21:20;34:22 violative (1) 98:5 25;83:8,16,18;85:18; U uses (1) 49:14 weeks (1) 87:19,21;88:1,4,7,10, 77:18 virtual (1) 7:19 17,20;90:5,7,9,11,14, ultimate (1) using (3) 27:15 weight (1) 18,22,25;91:3;94:12; 8:17 17:10;56:11;95:18 visit (1) 32:24 95:16;96:2,5,7,11,12, unaltered (1) usual (1) 12:8 welcome (1) 15,24;97:2

25:11 87:22 visited (1) 31:7 witnesses (8) unauthorized (1) 12:15 weren't (1) 10:15;35:14;37:7,7, 30:5 V visual (1) 20:20 9,21,23;66:13 unclear (1) 16:19 what's (1) witnesses' (1) 94:13 value (3) vividly (1) 5:17 36:19 uncles (2) 15:17;32:6;36:18 6:24 whatsoever (1) witness's (5) 11:10;42:10 various (2) voluntarily (1) 14:16 39:16;59:10;85:14, uncontested (1) 32:23;34:12 8:9 whenever (2) 15,16

10:21 Vartan (34) vouching (1) 53:1;93:1 woman (2) under (10) 37:8,25,25;45:9,11; 23:15 whereabouts (4) 70:9,19 12:19,25;13:2,9; 51:6,23;57:17;58:7, Voyage (1) 65:19,22;74:7,12 word (2) 22:20;23:3;46:17,17, 18;60:18,23;61:11; 84:25 wherever (1) 9:19;92:13 18;54:16 63:20;64:6,17,25; 50:18 wording (1) understood (9) 66:7,10,19;68:22; W whisper (1) 73:1 7:9;10:17;24:9; 69:9;70:12;71:8; 31:5 words (4) 25:18;53:1;59:21; 74:20;79:16;80:3,6; wait (3) white (4) 20:25;77:12;78:7,

60:23;62:24;95:1 83:1,10;85:10,17; 23:23;40:17;92:4 32:5;73:20,20,20 20 undisputed (2) 92:22;96:13 waiting (1) whole (2) work (5) 10:25,25 Vault (1) 79:19 39:3;48:25 8:12;16:11;18:14, United (5) 34:10 walk (1) whose (2) 15;70:13 14:7;43:20,22; verification (1) 7:20 6:17;73:6 worked (4) 57:23;65:21 29:5 Wan (3) willing (2) 17:13;60:3;93:18, unless (4) verify (1) 75:16;78:19;81:12 30:21;84:21 24 14:7,12;94:12;96:9 30:13 wants (4) willy-nilly (1) working (2)

unnecessary (2) version (1) 12:3;50:18;53:10; 12:5 16:14,14 94:10,11 31:11 58:9 window (2) works (1) unquote (1) versus (3) warmer (7) 24:23;89:4 70:14 7:6 13:5;14:10;75:16 54:6,9,17;55:3,4,6, winter (2) world (2) unreasonable (1) vessel (5) 18 54:4;58:1 12:3;22:19 97:12 15:11,17;37:8; waste (1) wish (4) worthwhile (1) unreliable (1) 57:23;71:24 32:7 8:11;54:22;79:23; 89:17 14:18 VesselFinder (4) watch (1) 96:17 wrapping (1)

unusual (4) 84:16,17,18;92:6 25:8 wishes (1) 7:24 8:13,14;65:25; vessels (1) watched (1) 85:13 writing (2) 74:10 72:5 21:19 wishing (1) 20:21;73:1 up (19) via (5) water (1) 53:20 wrong (4) 5:9;7:5,24;27:2; 7:7;59:19;81:16; 8:11 withdraw (1) 12:24;78:6;92:1,3 37:18;41:12;42:5; 93:11;94:19 way (21) 59:17 wrote (1) 44:5;46:2;48:9,22; video (40) 4:23;6:14;17:17; within (3) 20:25 61:6;68:2;81:5;84:23, 14:18;21:7,16,19, 24:9;25:24;28:4,20; 24:23;25:5;53:11

25;89:5;90:6;92:1 20,21,24;22:9,11,15; 30:12,16;35:25;40:6, without (5) upcoming (1) 23:2,10,12,19,23; 20;43:3,3;44:24; 50:15;51:20;52:5; 9:25 24:12,25;25:2;68:3,7, 51:17;53:10;68:24; 53:14;97:11 yacht (111)

Min-U-Script® Rachel C. Simone (14) Twittercom - yacht Pacific Alliance Asia v FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/07/2022 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 131 of 269

4:2,24;5:6;6:13,18, 18:22 4:24;6:2;21:22; 23,25;7:6,10,15;8:4,7, 1012359 (1) 26:9;68:18;69:4,5,10, 5

11:2;12:17;13:12,19; 11:45 (1) 2018 (2) 5 (6) 14:2,16;21:8,13;44:1, 49:17 19:5;20:10 6:4;41:17;76:13,22; 6,12,16,20;45:2,7,18, 1121 (1) 2019 (1) 77:2,7

51:10,12,14,20;52:4, 1126 (1) 2020 (27) 50 (1) 7,11,16,22,23;53:1,8, 31:25 5:7;6:2;7:14;53:19; 48:25 12,14;54:4,7,8,13,15, 1133 (2) 57:11,20,25;58:5,14; 50-whatever (1)

17;55:2,4,5,9,17,19, 21:6;24:5 59:7;61:16;63:1,3,15, 5223 (2) 24;56:6,8,10,11,18, 1156 (1) 19;85:9,25;86:3,6; 12:19;13:2 21;57:7;58:4;59:15, 75:22 87:17,19;88:3,6,9,16; 5225b (1) 23;60:4;67:14,22; 1157 (1) 93:12;95:13 13:7 70:24;74:22;81:9; 81:6 2021 (15) 53 (2) 86:19,21,23,23;87:1, 11619 (1) 6:7,13,19,23;9:20; 48:1,4 6,12,13,18,21,24; 27:16 58:1;59:8;62:1;63:2, 55 (1) 88:8,15,18;89:2,6,12, 1162 (1) 7,7;64:12,13;82:6;

91:13;92:7;93:1,3; 1169 (1) 2022 (1) 58:14

8:23 57:1 19:5;20:10;62:20;

6:1;91:23;94:21 4:1,5,18;21:22; 24 (3) 21:6,6,12;24:5; Yachtzoo (3) 49:21;50:7;53:17 19:4;92:24;94:16 76:17,21;81:20 6:16;74:23;76:14 14th (1) 25 (3) 6:59 (1)

56:21;76:14;93:10,18 58:11;63:15 26:9 7

5:5;8:6;55:1;92:25; 62:1;84:11 5:19;44:6,20,24; 7 (2) 93:6,9,17,18 17 (5) 45:24;46:9 77:6;78:18

60:12;62:4,20;75:15; 68:2;93:20 30 (10) 8 (5) 84:19;85:22;89:12; 57:9,10;58:6,11,14, 14:11;42:2,5;77:6;

17:14;21:7,17;23:3 31:24;72:3,4,6;73:11, 38 (2) 9 (4)

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 132 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Melissa M. Carvalho direct dial: 212.589.4289 mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com

Edward Moss O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036

Re: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al., Index no. 652077/2017

Dear Eddie:

In furtherance of our conversations relating to Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s Fourth Set of Requests for the Production of Documents, dated November 6, 2020 ("Document Requests"), and Mr. Kwok's responses and objections thereto, please allow the following to memorialize the state of our discussions to date as well as to supplement and/or amend Mr. Kwok's responses where necessary.

- 1. Mr. Kwok continues to stand by his objection to the definition of "Family Member" used throughout Plaintiff's Document Requests. Specifically, Mr. Kwok objects to the definition of "Family Member" as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of CPLR §5229 disclosure, and exceeds the scope of this Court's October 15, 2020 Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 630) ("Order"), which authorizes discovery on the Sherry-Netherland residence, the Lady May yacht, and "other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly." Mr. Kwok further objects to the definition of "Family Member" to the extent it seeks to bring into its definition individual third parties whom he does not control. - 2. Mr. Kwok continues to stand by his objection to the defined Time Period used throughout Plaintiff's Document Requests. Specifically, Plaintiff has defined the relevant time period as follows: "Unless otherwise specified, the applicable time period for each Interrogatory is January 1, 2008, up to and including the date of production (the "Time Period")." Mr. Kwok objects to the "Time Period" as it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the scope of CPLR §5229 disclosure, and exceeds the scope of this

> Court's Order, which authorizes discovery on the Sherry-Netherland residence, the Lady May yacht, and "other assets that Mr. Kwok may own, whether directly or indirectly." The relevant Time Period for purposes of this disclosure is October 15, 2020 (the date of the CPLR §5229 proceedings on the record) through the present date in order to identify any assets that Mr. Kwok "may own, whether directly or indirectly" to satisfy a judgment.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 134 of 269

- 3. Document Requests 8: As we have reported to you, Mr. Kwok responds that there are no documents or communications in his possession, custody, or control with Stephenson Wong, Kingdom Rich, or a Registered BVI Agent. It is our understanding that in response to this disclosure, PAX has revised Document Request 8 to seek *documents and communications with William Je regarding any of Mr. Kwok's assets, investments, bank accounts, equities, stakes, or holdings*. Mr. Kwok is checking to see whether he has documents or communications responsive to your revised request. - 4. Document Request 10: We believe that there are no further issues to discuss or address as PAX has been unable to provide a basis for its belief that Mr. Kwok has an ownership interest in the accounts listed in (c) through (i). - 5. Document Request 12: Without waiving Mr. Kwok's objection to the Time Period defined by Plaintiff in its Document Requests, Mr. Kwok will produce his 2019 tax returns to Plaintiff. - 6. Document Request 13: Without waiving Mr. Kwok's objection to the Time Period defined by Plaintiff in its Document Requests, Mr. Kwok will produce the Genever entity 2019 tax returns to Plaintiff. - 7. Document Request 15: It is our understanding that PAX is seeking any assets/financial disclosures that would have been made in connection with Mr. Kwok's application for asylum. We have previously referred you to Form I-589, the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, which does not request any information relating to an applicant's assets. Please also see www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-gchapter-3, which, as has been explained to us by immigration counsel, specifically excludes asylum applicants from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Mr. Kwok responds that no asset/financial information has been provided by him in connection with his application for asylum. - 8. Document Request 16: It is our understanding that PAX would accept the "source of all payments" made by Mr. Kwok in lieu of a document production. Mr. Kwok responds that his expenses during the relevant time period have been paid for by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. - 9. Document Requests 17: We will await a list of proposed electronic search terms from PAX.

> 10. Document Request 18: We are confirming that Mr. Kwok does not have responsive Bravo Luck and/or Genever documents in his possession, custody, or control. If he does have responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, then they will be produced to the extent that they are not duplicative of the documents already produced in this action.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 135 of 269

- 11. Document Requests 19-22: We are confirming that Mr. Kwok does not have responsive Bravo Luck and/or Genever documents in his possession, custody, or control. If he does have responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, then they will be produced to the extent that they are not duplicative of the documents already produced in this action. - 12. With respect to Document Request 21, could you please provide copies of the trust agreement(s) referenced in that request? We are told that Mr. Kwok only has a copy of the trust agreement and it is our understanding that it has already been produced to PAX. - 13. Document Request 31: We hereby amend the response to this request in accordance with Mr. Kwok's response to PAX's interrogatory number 29 seeking this same disclosure.1 As discussed, documents responsive to this request have been previously produced in this litigation by The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. and any further information would need to be sought directly from Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and/or Bravo Luck. Mr. Kwok has located the loan agreement with Itakura Nan Nan and he will produce it. - 14. Document Request 35: Mr. Kwok responds that this information is not in his possession, custody, or control, and will need to be obtained directly from the Genever entities. We note that at least one Genever entity has disclosed its debts in its bankruptcy petition. The documents previously produced in this action by The Sherry-Netherland also provide relevant and responsive documents. - 15. Document Request 36: Mr. Kwok responds that he does not have responsive documents in his custody, possession, or control, and maintains, as we have discussed, that the only entities listed in this request which he has an interest in are: Genever Holdings Corporation; Genever Holdings LLC; and Shiny Times Holdings, Ltd.2

I will be in touch when I have additional information.

1 Mr. Kwok owes Itakura Nan Nan \$27,000.00. The following are creditors of Genever Holdings, LLC: The Sherry-Netherland - \$891,262.06; Bravo Luck Limited - \$67,5000,000.00; Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. - \$1,800,000.00; and Qiang Guo - \$5,000,000.00.

2 Shiny Times was seized by the Chinese government in 2017.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2021 10:54 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 136 of 269

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 137 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 138 of 269

> 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 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : CIVIL TERM : PART 61 ------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff, INDEX NO: -against- 652077/2017 KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, 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 MICROSOFT TEAMS May 27, 2021 B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE BARRY OSTRAGER, J U S T I C E A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Attorney for the Plaintiff Times Square Tower New York, New York 10036 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. BAKER HOSTETLER, LLP Attorney for the Defendant 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: MELISSA CARVALHO, ESQ. JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC Attorney for the Defendant GENEVER 162 E. 64th Street New York, New York 10065 BY: AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 139 of

BY:

ESQ.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 140 of

COURT:

right. Mr.

2 motion. 3 MR. MOSS:

Honor.

motion.

order.

subpoena.

case.

judgment.

Mr.

name.

19 Springs.

21 Mr.

Mr.

front.

money.

lifestyle.

admission.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 141 of

Mr.

3 party.

others.

8 apartment.

Mr.

10 responses.

Honor. 12 Mr.

expenses.

Judge?

CPLR?

judgment?

20 here.

Springs.

them.

Mr.

filings.

documents.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 142 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 corporate forum. We have employees. But it doesn't dispute that it only has one business which is to serve Highness Kwok. It doesn't even say what the business is besides a family office for his business. They say we have employees that include security. That's Mr. Kwok's bodyguard who comes to -- who comes with him to my office when I depose him and hands him bottled water because he's afraid that we're agents of the communists and my water at my firm is going to kill him. I mean, Judge, this is not a real company. They pay for Mr. Kwok's people. If Tim Cook got sued for something unrelating to his capacity in Apple, Apple doesn't pay those fees. Apple doesn't pay his maintenance. This is Mr. Kwok's piggy bank that he set up with his own money. The principal argument that is in Golden Spring's papers is that Golden Springs is a third party and so we

should only be entitled to information about assets that it holds for or transactions that it has conducted with Miles Kwok. 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's basically like saying it's a bank; right. You get that we subpoena the bank which we've done. We get Mr. Kwok's information, but we don't get information about the bank itself. We don't get information about the bank's other customers. That's a nice argument for a bank, but it completely ignores the context that Golden Springs is not a

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 143 of Judge.

financial information.

Proceedings third party. It is the entity that holds Mr. Kwok's money, and it is the entity that pays his legal expenses. So it's assets are his assets. It's transactions are his transactions. And it's financial information is his The suggestion in the papers that Mr. Kwok and Miss Wang and all of his people should be able to pick and choose and determine which information at Golden Springs relates to Mr. Kwok and which doesn't is a recipe for disaster here, Mr. Kwok denies even being involved with Golden Springs. He denies being involved with the entity that owns the boat that we all know he owns because he said he owns

the boat on YouTube, the boat which, by the way, is still out of the jurisdiction 15 days incurring \$500,000 a day.

Mr. Kwok is the same guy who denies owning his apartment that Miss Wang says -- told the Court under oath that he owns it.

So the limitation that they're trying to put in here, only things relating to Mr. Kwok, that's nonsense in this case, and it's just a recipe for us to get nothing.

22 23 24 25 Golden Springs also argues on the subpoena that we have to prove alterego to get discovery into it's assets. Well, that's just made up. There is no case to support that. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 144 of 269

standard.

standard.

banks.

alteregos.

alterego.

information.

Mr.

information.

easier.

expenses.

motion.

scope.

times.

astounding.

blunderbuss.

expedition.

flagrant.

substance.

all.

server. Nothing.

much.

discussion.

scope.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 145 of 269

there is an actual burden. I want to just end on one particular argument on the subpoena point because I expect Mr. Alter will focus on it. We ask -- we do. He's right. We ask for information about 60 people and entities, no one knowing to be associated with Kwok.

Mr. Alter quips in the brief, well, known by whom? Known by whom? Known by us, Judge. Known by us based on spending a lot of money and lot of time to dig through public records, court filings, social media accounts because that's the game Mr. Kwok has forced us to play.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The reason we have to ask for this information is because Golden Springs is the hub. We can't spend the rest of our lives chasing 100 entities. I mean, my grandkids would be doing this. Golden Springs is the entity that has the information. It's produced documents relating to Shiny Times, the entity that was involved in the underlying case. It has the documents. It is the hub of the empire. If it doesn't have information about a couple of these entities, if we're wrong about one or two, okay, fine. Then they should run the search and tell us they don't have it and not produce it. But run the search terms, collect the ESI and provide the documents.

24 25 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Moss. I understand your argument. I also understand that Mr. Kwok is incurring FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 146 of

penalties.

Mr.

play.

Springs. 5 MR. ALTER:

Honor.

muddied.

Mr.

Springs.

opposite.

office.

14 that.

Mr.

Springs.

that.

his.

this.

COURT:

Mr.

Mr.

antics.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 147 of NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021

funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's lifestyle, and Mr. Kwok leads a rather extravagant lifestyle, purports to have zero assets whatsoever.

So the plaintiff is a judgment creditor. The plaintiff knows that Golden Springs is funding expenses for Mr. Kwok. Not minor inconsequential expenses. Major expenses. And the judgment creditor is entitled to have discovery of the entity that is funding Mr. Kwok's expenses.

The judgment creditor is also entitled to an order directing Golden Springs not to transfer, dispose or otherwise dissipate whatever assets Golden Springs has because the best evidence that has been made available to the Court compellingly suggests that any assets that Golden Springs has were provided to Golden Springs by Mr. Kwok.

Now if the discovery that the judgment creditor is seeking from Golden Springs disproves that, well, then we have a different situation than the situation we now have.

18 19 20 21 22 Under the CPLR, a judgment creditor is entitled to discovery of third parties of which in this case may well be alteregos of Mr. Kwok, but it's not necessary for the judgment creditor to establish that Golden Springs is an alterego of Mr. Kwok.

23 24 25 MR. ALTER: You know, your Honor, we haven't - that's not our position. That's the straw man that has been presented. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 148 of

THE COURT: Well, be that as it may, unless you can persuade me otherwise, I am granting the judgment creditor's motions in their entirety. As Mr. Moss outlined, he is perfectly prepared to meet and confer and discuss limitations on specific requests that he's made if you can then state to him good cause for that. But we're past playing games here. MR. ALTER: Well, your Honor, I'm not here to play games, and if the Court has made it's decision, would it allow me to make my record. THE COURT: Yes. Make your record. MR. ALTER: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. First of all, our argument is not that you have to pierce the corporate veil in order to get third-party discovery under the CPLR for judgment creditors. It's a relevance argument, and we've already said that there are aspects such as discovery as between Golden Spring and the actual judgment debtor is relevant and appropriate. So we

haven't taken a position that is all out of line with what the law provides.

21 22 23 24 25 What we have said and what Mr. Moss has proven in his argument is they take the position that Mr. Kwok is Golden Spring and Golden Spring is Mr. Kwok; and therefore, they are entitled to go through the entire file of Golden Spring. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 149 of 269

Well, you know, your Honor, that's called piercing the corporate veil, and it's our position that if they want documents independent of the judgment debtor where they make no connection or efforts to make a connection whatsoever, then, yes, they do have to pierce the corporate veil, but that isn't the sum total of our argument.

Our argument is that the requests are exceedingly overbroad and that they are irrelevant. And in fact, let's go for a moment to the facts that Mr. Moss says are overwhelming in this case.

If you look at the submission that was actually presented on this motion, there is absolutely no facts presented with regard to the 64 nonparties for which they seek discovery having nothing to do with the judgment debtor. Just -- not even having anything to do with Golden Spring. They just want discovery to 64 nonparties.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Now your Honor, we heard Mr. Moss say that he knows there is a connection. Well, wouldn't it be enlightening for the Court to know what that connection is before there is a ruling that Golden Spring has to produce documents that otherwise are clearly irrelevant. So that's why we assert that those documents should not be discovered unless and until Mr. Moss and PAX comes forward with actual proof that there is a connection. We don't have that.

And with regard to the proof, the overwhelming FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 150 of

Mr.

Mr.

company.

that.

expenses.

okay.

family.

company.

office.

requests.

Mr.

Mr.

injunction.

party.

constrained.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 151 of 269 Proceedings 14 not grant prejudgment asset freezes, and that is exactly

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 what PAX is trying to do now. They are trying to enjoin Golden Spring from expending any of it's own assets for any purpose, and that is contrary to the law. Now, they argue that your Honor has a power to enforce restraining orders. Of course you do. And Golden Spring was served with a restraining order, and Golden Spring acts at it's peril if it transfers any property with which Mr. Kwok -- in which Mr. Kwok has an interest, but a Court's enforcement of a restraining notice is not the tantamount to an injunction. It's an after-the-fact litigation based upon allegations that there had been a violation of the notice. They're two entirely separate things. So your Honor, respectfully, there isn't either a

jurisdictional basis for the injunction nor is there a compelling factual basis for one because they have the relief that the CPLR has provided for.

Now, if the Court is going to go ahead and enter certain orders as your Honor has described, I request a few things, a few clarification points.

22 23 24 25 First of all, we would request the Court post a bond. Order that PAX post a bond. They are seeking an injunction against Golden Spring from using any of it's assets. And pursuant to the CPLR 6312(b), a bond is FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 152 of

1 necessary.

relief.

posted.

lawyers.

employees? 6 Mr.

8 contractors.

that?

10 Spring?

order.

appeal.

order;

Mr.

21 executioner.

presented.

23 adjudicated.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 153 of

assets.

law.

Honor.

COURT:

right.

points.

Mr.

past.

Mr.

will.

11 bond.

p.m.

Mr. Moss.

17 concerns. 18 MR. ALTER:

concerns.

20 attorneys.

pay.

COURT:

issue.

24 them. 25 MR. ALTER: Okay. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 154 of 269

COURT:

Mr.

5 transport.

million. 7 Mr.

10 courts.

heard? 12 MR. MITCHELL:

Mitchell.

defendants.

14 clarification.

apartment.

Mr.

record.

COURT:

22 clarification.

Mr.

Mr.

apartment.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 155 of 269

1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Moss has been pursuing enforcement of a judgment for years now, and it's been my misfortune to have to have presided over these many, many, many motions and hearings, none of which are producing the results that the Court has ordered because Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly through his companies ignores Court orders.

But Golden Springs presumably will comply with the Court's order, and Golden Springs, you know, may seek a stay in the Appellate Division either tomorrow or today or on June 1. And if the Appellate Division stays the Court's order, then the Court's order will be stayed.

Otherwise, the Court expects Golden Springs to comply with the Court's orders subject to PAX's posting of \$500,000 bond in the event it's determined that there's any overreach here and subject to Golden Springs being able to pay identified lawyers and identified employees in accordance with the schedule.

MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I just ask one clarification?

THE COURT: Yes. 21 22 23 24 MR. SARNOFF: The obligation of PAX to post a bond, is that specifically in respect of the restraining order part of the -- of your decision today? THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SARNOFF: And separate -- so there is no --

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2021 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 833 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 156 of

1 THE COURT: With respect to the restraining order. 2 MR. SARNOFF: So there is no -- there is no stay 3 with respect to the obligation of Golden Spring to comply 4 with the subpoena. Is that correct? 5 THE COURT: That's correct. 6 MR. SARNOFF: Thank you, sir. 7 THE COURT: Anything else from anybody else? 8 All right.

9 consistent with the transcript of the proceedings of today. 10 I would strongly urge counsel to order an expedited copy of 11 the transcript of proceedings of today so that in the event 12 Golden Springs seeks a stay from the the Appellate Division, 13 there is a clear record reflecting what the Court has 14 ordered. 15 Have a nice day and a nice weekend.

16 safe and thank you.

18 CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORIGINAL MINUTES TAKEN OF THIS PROCEEDING.

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 157 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 158 of 269

> SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,

v.

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. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR A TURNOVER ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT MILES KWOK AND APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 159 of 269

I. The Court Should Order Kwok to Turn Over His Shares in Genever BVI. 3 II. The Court Should Direct Kwok to Execute an Instrument of Transfer. 5 A. The Court Should Also Direct Kwok to Send the Executed Instrument of Transfer to Intertrust to Ensure that the Register of

B. The Court Should Order Kwok to Execute and Deliver a Corporate Resolution Instructing Intertrust to Update the Register of Members.

C. The Court Should Appoint a Receiver Over Kwok's Shares in Genever BVI.

III. Kwok's Anticipated "Defenses" Are Specious 8 A. Genever NY's Questionable Bankruptcy is Irrelevant to PAX's Requested Relief.

B. Kwok's Predictable Pretense that his Son, through Bravo Luck, is the Beneficial Owner of the Genever Entities and the Residence Is

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 160 of

856 Eighth, LLC v. Pizza Pasta Etc., Corp, Index No. 2020 161413/2019, WL 3451892 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 24, 2020) 7

AP MA Funding, LLC v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, No. 150755/2020, 2020 WL 2219962 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 7, 2020) 5

No. 16-CV-9027, 2019 WL 6976972 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2019) 9, 10 Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., No. 151885/2015, 2018 WL 7051063 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018) 5, 6 Daum Glob. Holdings Corp. v. Ybrant Digital

No. 13-CV-3135, 2018 WL 2122816 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2018) 10

v.

No. 12528/2011, 2011 WL 6989896 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.

60 Misc. 3d 963 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), aff'd, 169 A.D.3d 580 (1st Dep't 2019) 6 Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co.,

No. 650390/2017, 2018 WL 3385045 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 11, 2018) 7, 8

No. 102725/10, 2013 WL 9528299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 6, 2013) 6 Spotnana, Inc. v. Am. Talent Agency, Inc., No. 09-CV-3698, 2013 WL 227546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) 10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 161 of 269

v.

No. 80-CV-6535, 1990 WL 13278 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 1990) 9

Defendant Miles Kwok ("Kwok") has not paid Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. ("PAX") a dime on the more-than-\$116 million judgment this Court entered against him months ago. To the contrary, as PAX has explained to the Court in prior submissions, Kwok has gone to great lengths to thwart PAX's ability to enforce the judgment, including filing a questionable bankruptcy for the New York shell company through which he holds his Sherry-Netherland Residence (Genever Holdings, LLC or "Genever NY"), keeping his yacht, the "Lady May," out of this jurisdiction in flagrant contempt of the Court's orders, and stonewalling—and causing his associates and shell companies to stonewall—PAX's legitimate collection-related discovery efforts.

As PAX already has demonstrated in great detail, one of Kwok's principal judgmentthwarting strategies has been to shield his assets in shell companies held by family members and underlings, all while claiming that he himself is virtually penniless, but at the same time readily accessing millions of dollars to fund his lavish lifestyle and enormous legal expenses. Indeed, in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery requests, Kwok stated—before taking the Fifth Amendment in connection with a reported federal criminal investigation against him1 —that the only asset of any value he holds is his 100% interest in Defendant Genever Holdings Corporation ("Genever BVI"), a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.2

Under black letter New York Law, PAX is entitled to turnover of Kwok's assets, including shares held in a foreign business entity like Genever BVI, to enforce (at least part of) its judgment against Kwok. Accordingly, as set forth in detail below, PAX brings this motion

1 [Dkt. No. 760.] 2 Genever BVI is the 100% parent of supposedly "bankrupt" Genever NY, which in turn owns the Residence. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 163 of 269

under [CPLR 5225]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) and [5228]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5228) to request that the Court issue an order (i) directing Kwok to turn over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership in Genever BVI; (ii) directing Kwok to execute an Instrument of Transfer by which he conveys his shares in Genever BVI to PAX or its designee; (iii) directing Kwok to send the executed Instrument of Transfer to Genever BVI's registered agent; (iv) directing Kwok to execute and deliver to Genever BVI's registered agent a corporate resolution instructing that Genever BVI's Register of Members be updated to reflect the new 100% ownership (to ensure the update occurs in the event that the registered agent requires instructions to update Genever BVI's Register of Members); and (v) appointing a receiver over Kwok's Genever BVI shares, including with the power (a) to instruct Genever BVI's registered agent to update Genever BVI's Register of Members to reflect PAX or a designee as its sole legal owner, and (b) to exercise voting rights with respect to all of Genever BVI's shares.

On February 3, 2021, the Clerk of Court entered judgment against Kwok in the amount of \$116,402,019.57 (the "Judgment"). In attempting to enforce the Judgment—which to this day remains entirely unpaid and is accruing 9% post-judgment interest—PAX served discovery on Kwok, including an interrogatory asking him to identify "any [a]ssets that have a value greater than \$10,000 in which [he has] an [i]nterest or ha[s] had an [i]nterest since January 1, 2015."3 Despite claiming to be a billionaire and managing to fund his luxury Residence and an army of high-priced lawyers representing him and his related shell businesses in numerous lawsuits, Kwok identified only one asset, responding, "*I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. Genever Holdings Corporation is the sole shareholder of*

3 [Dkt. No. 756] at 9. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 164 of 269

Genever Holdings, LLC, its only asset."4 Kwok's post-judgment admission that he owns Genever BVI is consistent with the evidentiary record that was before this Court on PAX's prejudgment attachment motions, which included (i) an affidavit submitted on Kwok's behalf by Yvette Wang, in which she swore that "Mr. Kwok is the sole shareholder of Genever BVI" and to which she attached Genever BVI's register of members "confirming that Mr. Kwok is its sole shareholder"; 5 and (ii) documents produced to PAX by the Sherry-Netherland, listing Kwok as the sole shareholder of Genever BVI, which the Sherry-Netherland received from Kwok in connection with his application to purchase the Residence. 6

I. The Court Should Order Kwok to Turn Over His Shares in Genever BVI.

CPLR Article 52 authorizes a judgment creditor to file a motion to compel turnover of a

judgment debtor's assets. See Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd[., 12 N.Y.3d 533, 537 \(2009\).]

[CPLR 5225\(a\)]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) states:

Upon motion of the judgment creditor . . . where it is shown that the judgment debtor is in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which he has an interest, the court shall order that the judgment debtor pay the money, or so much of it as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment, to the judgment creditor and, if the amount to be so paid is insufficient to satisfy the judgment, to deliver any other personal property, or so much of it as is of sufficient value to satisfy the judgment, to a designated sheriff. (emphasis added.)

As this Court has recently found, [CPLR 5225]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) "extends to shares of stock, as well as

money." AP MA Funding, LLC v. [Wells Fargo Clearing Services,]&userEnteredCitation=2020+WL+2219962) LLC, No. 150755/2020, 2020

[WL 2219962, at \\*1 \(N.Y. Sup. Ct.]&userEnteredCitation=2020+WL+2219962) May 7, 2020) (Ostrager, J.). Thus, Kwok's Genever BVI

"corporate shares constitute personal property subject to the enforcement procedures set forth in

4 *Id.*5 Dkt. No. 182 at ¶ 4; [Dkt. No. 183.] 6 See, e.g., [Dkt. No. 289] at SN 0161, SN 0206. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 165 of 269

Article 52." Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.[, No. 151885/2015, 2018 WL]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063) [7051063, at \\*6 \(N.Y.]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063) Sup. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018); see also Ninth Ave. Realty, LLC [v. Guenancia]&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+9528299), [No. 102725/10, 2013 WL 9528299, at \\*2 \(N.Y. Sup. Ct.]&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+9528299) Sept. 6, 2013). Under [CPLR 5225\(a\),]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) the Genever BVI share "certificates must be turned over even if they are not located in New York at this time," and Kwok "is required to take whatever actions are necessary . . . to have the shares of stock brought to New York so that they can be turned over." Colfin[, 2018 WL]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063) [7051063, at \\*7 \(]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+7051063)citing Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co.[, 41 A.D.3d 25, 31 \(1st]) [Dep't 2007\)\)]); see also Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc.[, 60 Misc. 3d 963, 980 \(N.Y. Sup.] Ct. 2018), aff'd[, 169 A.D.3d 580 \(1st Dep't 2019\)] ("[A]n overarching principle of New York law [is] that where there is personal jurisdiction over the parties, one party cannot hide its assets outside of New York state so as to render any judgment obtained in New York unenforceable."); Koehler[, 12 N.Y.3d at 541] ("[A] New York court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant may order him to turn over out-of-state property . . . ."). Intangible assets, such as corporate shares, are subject to turnover under [CPLR 5225]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) because they are both "property which could be assigned or transferred," [CPLR 5201,]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5201) and "property against which a money judgment may be enforced," [CPLR 6202.]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+6202) 7

Turnover is appropriate even though Genever BVI is an out-of-state corporation. See, e.g., Leo v. LD Holdings, Inc.[, 150 A.D.3d 620, 620 \(1st Dep't 2017\)]) (affirming order directing the turnover of shares in out-of-state corporation); [Adelaide Prods., Inc. v.]&userEnteredCitation=39+A.D.3d+254) BKN Int'l AG, 39 [A.D.3d 254, 255 \(1st Dep't 2007\)]&userEnteredCitation=39+A.D.3d+254) ("unissued stock certificate [in German company was] subject

7 Failure to abide by a court's turnover order under [CPLR 5225]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) has resulted in the imposition of contempt sanctions. See [Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP Int'l Fin. Co.], 58 A.D.3d 498, 499 [\(1st Dep't 2009\)] (judgment debtors held in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order requiring them to satisfy a judgment, turn over stock certificates, transfer ownership of its subsidiaries to judgment creditors, and turn over bank accounts to the creditors).

of [] turnover proceeding" under CPLR 5225); Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan[, 739 F. Supp. 2d]&userEnteredCitation=739+F.+Supp.+2d+636) [636, 641 \(S.D.N.Y. 2010\)]&userEnteredCitation=739+F.+Supp.+2d+636) ("Turnover orders directed against judgment debtors are effective against assets regardless of their location."). II. The Court Should Grant the Additional, Ancillary Relief Necessary to Effectuate the Turnover. A. The Court Should Direct Kwok to Execute an Instrument of Transfer.

Under BVI law, the first step in transferring share ownership is for the share owner to execute an "Instrument of Transfer." (Willins Aff. ¶ 4.)

Under Article 52 of the CPLR, the Court has the power to order Kwok to execute an Instrument of Transfer because it "may order any person to execute and deliver any document necessary to effect payment or delivery." [CPLR 5225\(c\);]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) see also Gryphon[, 41 A.D.3d]) at 35 (holding "the IAS court . . . should have ordered [judgment debtor] to execute documents transferring ownership interests" and "judgment debtor should be required to execute appropriate instruments"); LSQ Funding Grp., L.C. v. Werther[, No. 650390/2017, 2018 WL 3385045, at \\*2]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045) n.2 (N.Y. Sup. [Ct. July 11, 2018\)]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045) (explaining that the court "clearly has the authority under CPLR § 5225(c) to order [the judgment debtor] to execute a simple [document]"—which would result in the turnover of property to PAX, the judgment creditor); Muhl v. [Ardra Ins. Co.], 246 [A.D.2d 413, 413 \(1st Dep't 1998\)] ("An order for execution . . . of documents under CPLR 5225(c) may [] be issued against a party whose debt liability has been established."); [856 Eighth,]) LLC v. Pizza Pasta Etc., Corp[, Index No. 2020 161413/2019, 2020 WL 3451892, at]) \*5 (N.Y. [Sup. Ct. June 24, 2020\)]) (same). The Court should do so here. B. *The Court Should Also Direct Kwok to Send the Executed Instrument of Transfer to Intertrust to Ensure that the Register Of Members Is Updated.*

Under BVI law, the next step to transferring corporate ownership is updating the corporation's Register of Members, which can be done by the corporation's registered agent—in FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 167 of 269

Genever BVI's case, Intertrust Corporate Services (BVI) Limited ("Intertrust"). (Willins Aff. ¶ ¶ 5–6.) To accomplish this, the Court should direct Kwok "to have the [executed Instrument of Transfer] sent to" Intertrust, so that it updates Genever BVI's Register of Members to reflect the terms of the transfer. LSQ Funding[, 2018 WL 3385045 at \\*2 n.2]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045) (directing judgment debtor to send resignation letter to country club, which would result in the release of a leviable membership deposit). The Court has this power under the CPLR. See [id.]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+3385045); see also [Gryphon]), 41 [A.D.3d at 35]) ("The court . . . may use CPLR 5225(c) to order the debtor to execute and deliver" documents to third parties to effectuate the turnover of assets.) (citing Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. ¶ 5225.21) (emphasis added). C. *The Court Should Order Kwok to Execute and Deliver a Corporate Resolution Instructing Intertrust to Update the Register of Members.*

Following Kwok's execution and delivery of the Instrument of Transfer, Intertrust may then seek instructions authorizing the updating of the Register of Members to reflect the new ownership. (Willins Aff. ¶ 7.) In that event, Intertrust would accept a corporate resolution signed by Kwok as the sole director of Genever BVI,8 instructing Intertrust to update the Register of Members according to the Instrument of Transfer. (Id.) Under [CPLR 5225\(c\),]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) and for all the reasons stated supra in Sections II.A–B, the Court may direct Kwok to execute a corporate resolution and to send that document to Intertrust. PAX respectfully requests that the Court order Kwok to do so in order to account for the possibility that Intertrust will require such an instruction.

8 See [Dkt. No. 289] at SN 0163 (showing "Mr Ho Wan Kwok" as the only director of Genever BVI). FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 168 of 269 D. The Court Should Appoint a Receiver Over Kwok's Shares in Genever BVI.

Under [CPLR 5225\(a\),]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5225) turnover of property (such as corporate shares) to the sheriff "must be made for the sole purpose of a sale to satisfy the judgment." Udel v. Udel[, 370 N.Y.S.2d 426,] [428 \(Civ.] Ct. 1975) (citing [CPLR 5233;]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5233) N.Y. Civ. Prac., Weinstein-Korn-Miller, Sec. 5225.06). But because of the "lack of marketability" of the Genever BVI shares, and "the difficulty in determining [their] true value, it is unlikely that a turn over [sic] to the sheriff would result in satisfying the judgment." Udel[, 370 N.Y.S.2d at 428.] In cases such as this, [CPLR 5228]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5228) provides for the appointment of a receiver to collect property—the Genever BVI shares—and to take actions "designed to satisfy the judgment." See also [Fresh Meadow Food Servs.,]&userEnteredCitation=2011+WL+6989896) LLC v. R.B. 175 Corp.[, No. 12528/2011, 2011 WL 6989896, at \\*3 \(N.Y. Sup. Ct.]&userEnteredCitation=2011+WL+6989896) Oct. 18, 2011) (A court may "appoint a receiver to administer, collect, improve, lease, repair or sell any real or personal property of the judgment debtor, or to do any other acts designed to satisfy the judgment.").

New York courts consider several factors when determining whether to appoint a receiver for a judgment debtor's assets, including: "(1) alternative remedies available to the creditor; (2) the degree to which receivership will increase the likelihood of satisfaction [of the judgment]; and (3) the risk of fraud or insolvency if a receiver is not appointed." [Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC] v. Falor[, 926 N.E.2d 1202, 1212 \(N.Y. 2010\)] (quoting [United States v.]) Zitron, No. 80-CV-6535, [1990 WL 13278, at \\*1–2 \(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 1990\)\)]).

All three factors weigh in PAX's favor. There are few if any alternative remedies available to PAX because Kwok has represented that he has no other assets besides the Genever BVI shares—which have no readily ascertainable market value. See supra at 4. A receiver will also increase the likelihood of recovery because, as noted above, Kwok has displayed a "pattern . . . of dodging proper payment and avoiding compliance with the Court's orders." [Blue]&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6976972) Citi LLC v. 5Barz Int'l Inc.[, No. 16-CV-9027, 2019 WL 6976972, at \\*2 \(S.D.N.Y.]&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6976972) Dec. 20, 2019) FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 169 of 269

(appointing receiver over, inter alia, corporate shares). Moreover, the risk of insolvency is apparent because Kwok claims to have no other assets and has a history of putting his shell companies into (questionable) bankruptcy. See supra at 4. The appointment of a receiver is particularly warranted where, as here, the property is "intangible, lacks a ready market, and presents nothing that a sheriff can work with at an auction." Blue Citi[, 2019 WL 6976972, at \\*2;]&userEnteredCitation=2019+WL+6976972) see also Spotnana, Inc. v. Am. Talent Agency, Inc., [No. 09-CV-3698, 2013 WL 227546, at \\*6]&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+227546) [\(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013\)]&userEnteredCitation=2013+WL+227546) (explaining that the defendants' "ownership of closely-held entities conducting business internationally" are just the "sort of intangible interests that lack a ready market for which receivership is especially appropriate").

The receiver could be a third party, PAX, or its designee. Under [CPLR 5228,]&userEnteredCitation=cplr+5228) "the judgment creditor may itself be appointed receiver." [Daum Glob. Holdings Corp. v. Ybrant]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+2122816) Digital Ltd.[, No. 13-CV-3135, 2018 WL 2122816, at \\*2 \(S.D.N.Y.]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+2122816) May 8, 2018). In Daum, the court issued an order "compelling [the judgment debtor] to turn over [its] stock certificates" to the judgment creditor that had been appointed receiver. Id. [at \\*4.]&userEnteredCitation=2018+WL+2122816) The Court should appoint PAX here because PAX is in the best position to take action designed to satisfy the Judgment. III. Kwok's Anticipated "Defenses" Are Specious.

Although this should be an open-and-shut motion, PAX anticipates that Kwok and his shell companies (through different lawyers but all acting at Kwok's direction) will litter the record with arguments that turnover is inappropriate for two principal reasons. Both would be specious. A. Genever NY's Questionable Bankruptcy is Irrelevant to PAX's Requested Relief.

PAX expects that Kwok may point to the fact that Genever NY is in bankruptcy, with an automatic stay in place, as a basis to oppose this motion. But even assuming the questionable FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 170 of 269

bankruptcy of Genever BVI's subsidiary were properly filed and maintained, chapter 11 does not preclude (and is irrelevant to) PAX's entitlement to turnover relief against the non-debtor parent BVI company.9 The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay is limited to the debtor's estate: "operat[ing] as a stay of any act to obtain property of the estate or of property from the estate." In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.[, 38 B.R. 75, 78 \(Bankr. D.]&userEnteredCitation=38+B.R.+75) Vt. 1984). Shares of Genever BVI—the debtor's foreign parent—are not part of the debtor's estate and so are not affected by either the (questionable) Genever NY bankruptcy filing or its related limited automatic stay. B. *Kwok's Predictable Pretense that his Son, through Bravo Luck, is the Beneficial Owner of the Genever Entities and the Residence Is Frivolous.*

Kwok's newly minted fiction (first floated in the recent bankruptcy and BVI proceedings) is that one of his other shell companies that he claims is now 100% owned by his son—Bravo Luck—is the true beneficial owner of Kwok's two Genever shell entities. But this is just Kwok being Kwok, again suggesting that one of his offspring owns (through, of course, a shell company with no offices, employees, or other business or holdings) assets that are really his. This latest Kwok ploy is as frivolous as all his others.

If necessary, PAX will demonstrate at the appropriate time that (i) Kwok's new position is entirely inconsistent with his clear, repeated judicial admissions and legal arguments in this case over the past four years, and (ii) the belatedly produced, so-called "trust agreement" which PAX expects Kwok will try to rely on to claim that Bravo Luck beneficially owns

9 PAX entered into a settlement agreement (pending approval by the court) in the bankruptcy case to address stay relief and a consensual process for the sale of the Residence (with proceeds to be retained in an escrow account), while the non-bankruptcy litigation is resolved. Nothing in that settlement agreement affects (or limits) PAX's rights to enforce the Judgment against nondebtor third parties here. PAX reserves all of its rights in the event that the settlement agreement (as submitted for approval) is not approved and/or there is a material change in circumstances with respect to the status of the debtor (Genever NY) or Kwok. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 171 of 269

Genever BVI and Genever NY—is a fraudulent, backdated document that is not worth the paper on which it was printed. Indeed, the Sherry-Netherland certainly does not believe that Bravo Luck is the rightful owner of the entities owning the Residence10 and—critically—in four years of litigation, Kwok never once dared raise this dishonest argument before this Court.

It is also possible that Bravo Luck may seek to intervene in this proceeding to try to oppose this motion (if it even has standing). If it does so, we expect that Kwok (through Bravo Luck) will try to make this specious trust deed argument with a straight face. But to avoid having to make that argument before this Court, Bravo Luck may first try to argue that the matter should be decided in the BVI because PAX filed there and the Bravo Luck issue is already teed up before the BVI court. That would be the wrong result. PAX filed the BVI action before PAX obtained its judgment against Kwok, and thus turnover was not an option at that time. Given this new, post-judgment posture, PAX is now pursuing its statutory turnover rights here, and given this Court's longstanding familiarity with this case and its unique issues, PAX respectfully submits that, if it is raised at all, the Bravo Luck issue is appropriate to be heard by this Court.

For the reasons above, PAX respectfully asks the Court to issue an order (i) directing Kwok to turn over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership in Genever BVI; (ii) directing Kwok to execute an Instrument of Transfer by which he conveys his shares in Genever BVI to PAX or its designee; (iii) directing Kwok to send the executed Instrument of Transfer to

10 After Bravo Luck surfaced in the bankruptcy, the Sherry-Netherland submitted a filing informing the bankruptcy court that "Kwok and his personal attorney represented, among other things, that Kwok was the beneficial owner of the Debtor [Genever NY] and the Debtor's parent, Genever [BVI]" and that the Sherry-Netherland approved the sale "[i]n reliance upon those representations." Joinder and Reservation of Rights at ¶ 2, In re Genever Holdings LLC, No. 20-12411-jlg (S.D.N.Y. Jan 27, 2021) [\(ECF No. 45\)]. The Sherry-Netherland also called out Kwok's and Genever NY's related "misrepresentations and fraudulent behavior." Id. at ¶ 4. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2021 12:05 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 846 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2021 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 172 of 269

Genever BVI's registered agent; (iv) directing Kwok to execute and deliver to the registered agent a corporate resolution instructing that Genever BVI's Register of Members be updated to reflect the new 100% ownership); and (v) appointing a receiver over Kwok's Genever BVI shares, including with the power to instruct the Genever BVI registered agent to update Genever BVI's Register of Members to reflect PAX or its designee as the sole legal owner and to exercise voting rights with respect to all of Genever BVI's shares.

DATED: June 21, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'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

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

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.

DATED: June 21, 2021 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'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

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 174 of 269

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER PART IAS MOTION 61EFM

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,

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 MOTION SEQ. NO. 018

GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Before the Court is Motion 018 by PAX for a post-judgment turnover pursuant to CPLR 5255 of Kwok's shares in Genever Holdings Corporation ("Genever BVI") and other relief. In accordance with the transcript of proceedings of September 22, 2021, the motion is granted to the extent of directing Kwok to take the steps necessary to effect the turnover his shares in Genever BVI to PAX. This order is expressly subject to the approval of Justice Adrian Jack who issued a stay in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI") in the related BVI litigation. The Court declines to appoint a receiver at this time.

ORDERED that Kwok Ho Wan take whatever steps are necessary in the British Virgin Islands to turnover all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership interest in Genever Holdings Corporation ("Genever BVI"); and it is further

ORDERED that this decision and order is expressly contingent on the approval of Justice Jack in the related proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. Any actions affecting Genever

Holdings LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Genever BVI, are subject to the jurisdiction of Justice Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving Genever Holdings LLC, in which PAX is participating.

A status conference is scheduled for November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 177 of 269

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1078 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 178 of 269 NOTICE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING IS TO PUNISH YOU FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SUCH PUNISHMENT MAY CONSIST OF A FINE, IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH ACCORDING TO LAW.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,

v.

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.

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT MILES KWOK FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 TURNOVER ORDER

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed January 7, 2022 Memorandum of Law in Support of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'s ("PAX") Motion for an Order of Civil Contempt as to Defendant Miles Kwok for his Failure to Comply with the Court's September 22, 2021 Turnover Order, and the Affirmation of Stuart Sarnoff, Esq., dated January 7, 2022, and the exhibits attached thereto, and the Affidavit of Andrew Willins, dated January 7, 2022, and the exhibits attached thereto, PAX will move the Court at the New York County Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, NY 10007, on the 25th day of January, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon after that as counsel may be heard, for an order, under N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753 and N.Y. CPLR § 5104, (i) finding Defendant Miles Kwok in contempt of Court for disobeying the Court's September 22, 2021 Turnover Order; and (ii) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, under CPLR 2214(b), answering papers, if

any, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least seven days before the return date of

this motion.

DATED: January 7, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Stuart Sarnoff Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000

By: /s/ Edward Moss Edward Moss (emoss@cahill.com) Lauren Riddell (lriddell@cahill.com) 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 (212) 701-3838

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 180 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 181 of 269

> SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,

v.

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. **REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT MILES KWOK FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 TURNOVER ORDER** TABLE OF CONTENTS FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 182 of 269

I. The Turnover Order is an Unequivocal Mandate that Does Not Require Bankruptcy Court Approval—and Kwok Knows it 2 II. There is No Impediment to Kwok Initiating Compliance with the Turnover Order.

III. Kwok's Failure to Comply Prejudices PAX. 5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 183 of 269

Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.,

907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at *4 (Sup. Ct. 2010) 4

McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 (1983) 6

In his attempt to avoid a second civil contempt sanction, Kwok has filed another misleading pleading with this Court.

First, Kwok's Opposition1 falsely argues that the Court conditioned its Turnover Order on PAX obtaining Bankruptcy Court pre-approval—even though, as Kwok knows, this Court did no such thing. In fact, the Court expressly rejected that argument both on the record at the September 22, 2021 hearing and in the written Turnover Order itself.

Kwok then takes that misrepresentation to the next level. He claims that even though the Turnover Order's only condition precedent was satisfied on December 6, 2021—when BVI Justice Jack modified his prior orders to enable the Genever BVI share transfer—he nevertheless cannot initiate the turnover process by issuing the Stop Notice to Bravo Luck until PAX similarly obtains Bankruptcy Court pre-approval. That is also wrong. Bankruptcy Court approval is not a condition precedent to Kwok issuing the Stop Notice. In fact, Kwok's compliance with the Turnover Order does not implicate the Bankruptcy Court at all. As this Court recognized,2 Genever BVI is not a party to the New York bankruptcy proceeding and is not encumbered by the automatic stay governing debtor Genever NY. Rather, Kwok has complete control over Genever BVI and is entirely free to issue notice to Bravo Luck (i.e., Kwok's son) at any time; he has just refused to do so. Thus, with every passing day, Kwok willfully violates the Turnover Order by failing to "take whatever steps are necessary in the [BVI] to turn[]over all share certificates with respect to his 100% ownership" in Genever BVI.

1 This brief refers to PAX's January 7, 2022 opening brief [\(Dkt. No. 1079\)] as the "Motion" or "Mot." and Kwok's January 18, 2022 opposition brief [\(Dkt. No. 1104\)] as the "Opposition" or "Opp." Unless otherwise specified, (i) defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Motion, (ii) all emphasis is added, and (iii) all internal citations and quotations are omitted. 2 See [Dkt. No. 1086] (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:12–18\)]. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 185 of 269

Finally, Kwok argues that his disregard for the Court's lawful Turnover Order has not prejudiced PAX because there already are other court orders in place—the BVI freeze orders and the Bankruptcy Court automatic stay over Genever NY's assets—that are sufficient to protect PAX's interests. That is ironic; as this Court well knows, court orders provide PAX no protection against Kwok. One need only look to the current location of Kwok's "restrained" yacht, the Lady May—floating beyond the Court's jurisdiction off the coast of Italy despite incurring a \$500,000 daily fine—as Exhibit A for that proposition.

Kwok has repeatedly demonstrated little regard for this Court's authority. More than six weeks have elapsed since Justice Jack cleared the way for Kwok to begin to comply with the Turnover Order, but he has failed and refused to take even the first step. The Court should once again hold Kwok in civil contempt.

I. The Turnover Order is an Unequivocal Mandate that Does Not Require Bankruptcy Court Approval—and Kwok Knows it.

Kwok asserts that because the Turnover Order provides that "[a]ny actions affecting Genever [NY], a wholly owned subsidiary of Genever BVI, are subject to the jurisdiction of [Judge] Garrity in the Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of New York involving Genever [NY],"3 PAX is required to obtain the Bankruptcy Court's pre-approval before Kwok is obligated to takes steps to effect turnover of his Genever BVI shares.4 This is false, and Kwok knows it; he and the Genever Defendants briefed and argued the same position in connection with PAX's turnover motion and this Court rejected it.

3 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.] 4 [Opp. at 6–8.] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 186 of 269

The Turnover Order—which Kwok did not appeal—was contingent only on Justice Jack

modifying his prior orders in the related BVI action, which Justice Jack did on December 6,

2021.5 Kwok knows full well that the Turnover Order's reference to the Bankruptcy Court

actually derives from the Court's consideration and repudiation of Kwok's argument that PAX

was seeking to circumvent the bankruptcy proceedings and the automatic stay.6 This is because

PAX sought turnover only of Kwok's shares of Genever BVI—a non-debtor third party to which

the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay does not apply. 7 As the Court explained, Kwok's

turnover to PAX of his Genever BVI shares affects Genever BVI, *not Genever NY:*8

It is undisputed that the Sherry Netherland apartment is owned by Genever [NY], which is a subsidiary of Genever BVI. Genever [NY] is involved in bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of New York …. And so any action which PAX may wish to take with respect to Genever [NY] requires approval of Judge Garrity in the New York bankruptcy proceedings involving Genever [NY], because Genever [NY] is in bankruptcy. *All this Court is doing today is directing … 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 shares in Genever [] BVI*. 9

Though one would not know it from Kwok's Opposition, his counsel has in fact

expressly acknowledged—in an October 8, 2021 letter to PAX—that the only hurdle to Kwok

initiating the turnover process was Justice Jack's since-modified freeze orders: "[i]n order to

comply with the Court's Turnover Order," "Mr. Kwok will be acting in accordance with any

subsequent court order issued by Justice Jack as it relates to any modification of the stay orders

5 See [Dkt. No. 1089.] Specifically, on December 6, 2021, Justice Jack modified his prior order to "[p]ermit [Kwok] to transfer the shares registered in his name in [Genever BVI] to [PAX] in compliance with the Turnover Order," and to "[p]ermit [Genever BVI] (and its Registered Agent) to update the Register of Members of [Genever BVI] to reflect the transfer by [Kwok] of the shares registered in his name to [PAX]."

6 See [Dkt. No. 874 at 4–6;] [Dkt. No. 896 at 4–5.] 7 [Dkt. No. 899 at 10] (citing In re Bray Enterprises, Inc.[, 38 B.R. 75, 78 \(Bankr. D. Vt. 1984\)\)]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_164_78).

8 See [Dkt. No. 904 at 1–2.] 9 [Dkt. No. 1086] (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [17:2–17\)]. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 187 of 269

or relating to the shares of Genever BVI."10 Tellingly, Kwok's counsel did not claim back in October that Bankruptcy Court pre-approval was also required—because he knew it was not. Making this argument now is just Kwok's latest antic to try to avoid contempt while continuing to flout the Turnover Order.

No matter how many times Kwok tries to suggest otherwise,11 this Court has already ruled—in the Turnover Order that Kwok did not appeal—that turnover of Kwok's Genever BVI shares to PAX does not require Bankruptcy Court pre-approval.12 II. There is No Impediment to Kwok Initiating Compliance with the Turnover Order.

Next, Kwok builds on his false "bankruptcy pre-approval requirement" premise by injecting a new, equally flawed argument relating to Bravo Luck's issuance of the December 10, 2021 Stop Notice. Specifically, Kwok now suggests that he cannot even have Genever BVI (i.e., himself) provide notice to Bravo Luck (i.e, his son) until PAX first obtains Bankruptcy Court approval.13 This is circular nonsense. As explained above, the Turnover Order included only one condition precedent, and that was fully satisfied in early December when Justice Jack modified his prior BVI orders to enable turnover.14

10 See [Dkt. No. 1081.] 11 Kwok's attempt to relitigate this issue after it was rejected and not appealed is not only improper, but futile. The Court's decision was correct in September 2021, and remains so today.

12 In the context of this motion, Kwok's observation that courts "generally defer" to the Bankruptcy Court concerning the applicability of the automatic stay is a non sequitur. The single case Kwok cites, [Cap. One, N.A. v. Waterfront Realty II LLC.]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0), addressed whether individual guarantors who filed for bankruptcy protection should have the automatic stay extend to their wholly owned property. [26 Misc.3d 1215\(A\), 907 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2010 WL 334851, at \\*4 \(Sup.]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) [Ct. 2010\).]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_4) That situation is inapposite here, as Genever BVI is the non-debtor parent company of Genever NY, not its wholly owned property.

13 See Opp. [at 8–9.] 14 See supra at 3. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 188 of 269

As the sole owner and director of Genever BVI,15 Kwok unquestionably has the unfettered ability to send the Stop Notice—which he is legally obligated to do under the Turnover Order's express mandate that he "take whatever steps are necessary" in the BVI to effectuate turnover."16 Kwok's new suggestion that giving notice would somehow "circumvent the procedural process" "currently underway" in the BVI17 is baseless, as there is no ongoing BVI proceeding that in any way addresses turnover or inhibits Kwok from beginning to comply with the Turnover Order by issuing notice to Bravo Luck. Moreover, none of the requisite steps that Kwok must take to effect turnover are contingent in any way on either PAX or the Bankruptcy Court doing anything. Nevertheless, over six weeks have passed since Bravo Luck (i.e., Kwok's son) issued a Stop Notice, and in the interim Kwok defiantly has not taken any steps towards compliance with that order.

Enough is enough. The Court should sanction Kwok's blatant disobedience and gamesmanship.18 III. Kwok's Failure to Comply Prejudices PAX.

Finally, Kwok argues that PAX has not been prejudiced by his failure to comply with the Turnover Order because judicial orders already exist in the related actions "to maintain the status quo."19

15 [Dkt. No. 756 at 9.] 16 [Dkt. No. 904 at 1.] 17 [Opp. at 9.] 18 To the extent Kwok is suggesting that he hasn't disobeyed the Turnover Order because "it is for Genever BVI to provide the written notice required by the Stop Notice and not Mr. Kwok personally," [\(Nader Aff. ¶ 4\(b\),] [Dkt. No. 1105\)], that argument doesn't pass the laugh test. By his own admission [\(Dkt. No. 756 at 9\)], Kwok is the only person authorized to instruct Genever BVI to issue the requisite notice. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 189 of 269

The irony likely is not lost on the Court. As PAX has explained,20 Kwok's disobedience "deprive[s]" PAX of its right to possess property (the shares of Genever BVI) that "can be turned over in satisfaction of a money judgment"—and to which it is entitled."21 [McCormick v.] Axelrod[, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 587 \(1983\).] Possession of the Genever BVI shares is especially critical to PAX in this case, given Kwok's demonstrated practice of secreting his assets beyond PAX's reach in blatant defiance of court orders. The Court need look no farther than to Kwok's fugitive, multimillion-dollar luxury yacht, the Lady May—which for over a year now has remained beyond this Court's jurisdictional reach in defiance of its October 15, 2021 Order—as proof positive that valid court orders provide no deterrence to Kwok, and no protection to PAX. 22 Guarding against this very risk by obtaining physical possession of the Genever BVI shares is what motivated PAX to move for turnover in the first place, and Kwok's refusal to take

the steps necessary to effect that share transfer prejudices PAX's rights.

Kwok treats compliance with lawful orders of this Court as optional. That must stop. PAX has established all of the civil contempt elements set forth in [New York Judiciary Law §]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) [753.]&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Accordingly, PAX respectfully requests that the Court find Kwok in civil contempt of its September 22, 2021 Turnover Order and impose whatever sanction it believes is warranted to induce Kwok's immediate compliance.

20 [Mot. at 7–8.] 21 [Dkt. No. 1086] (Sept. 22, 2021 Hr'g Tr. at [16:13–15\)].

22 The Marine Traffic Yacht Tracker locates the Lady May off the northern coast of Italy as of January 24, 2022. See Jan. 24, 2022 Aff. of Stuart Sarnoff in Further Supp. of PAX's Mot. for an Order of Civil Contempt, Ex. 1. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/2022 08:58 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 190 of 269

Dated: January 24, 2022 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York

By: /s/ Stuart Sarnoff Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

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.

DATED: January 24, 2022 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP

By: /s/ Stuart Sarnoff Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 192 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/18/2022 11:18 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1191 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/18/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 193 of 269

COUNTY OF NEW YORK JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. MOTION JUDGE OSTRAGER, BARRY R. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Index No.

Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

Filing on Behalf of - Rose Ann Magaldi, Principal Law Clerk to Justice Ostrager

In light of the bankruptcy filing by Mr. Kwok, the Court proposes that plaintiff either withdraw the pending contempt motion (026) without prejudice to an appropriate application in the Bankruptcy Court and/or without prejudice to renewal before this Court, if appropriate, upon the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court prefers not to keep fully submitted motions pending for an indefinite time. If counsel have an alternative suggestion, the Court will, of course, consider it.

We ask that plaintiff, and any other interested party, efile a letter by March 3, 2022 addressing the issues raised in this Court Notice. Thank you. DATED 02/18/2022 FILED By RoseAnn Magaldi

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 194 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 195 of 269 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.,

v.

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.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on February 15, 2022, Ho Wan Kwok (the "Debtor"), a defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit, filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the "Bankruptcy Code"), with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Bankruptcy Court"). A copy of the Debtor's voluntary petition is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Debtor's chapter 11 case is being administered in the Bankruptcy Court under case number 22-50073.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor's filing of his voluntary petition operates as a stay of, among other things: (a) the commencement or continuation of all judicial, administrative, or other actions or proceedings against the Debtor (i) that were or could have been commenced before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case or (ii) to recover any claims against the Debtor that arose before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case; (b) the enforcement, against before the commencement of the Debtor's chapter 11 case; or (c) any act to obtain possession of FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 196 of 269

property of or from the Debtor's bankruptcy estate, or to exercise control over property of the

Debtor's bankruptcy estate.

This Suggestion of Bankruptcy is provided for informational purposes only, and does

not constitute an appearance or intent to appear in this proceeding by the undersigned.

Dated: February 15, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ William R. Baldiga William R. Baldiga, Esq. Uriel Pinelo, Esq. Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com upinelo@brownrudnick.com Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 197 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM

Filed 04/06/22 Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Fill in this information to identify your case: 269 United States Bankruptcy Court for the:

Case number (If known): _________________________ Chapter you are filing under: ‰ Chapter 7

Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy /

The bankruptcy forms use you and Debtor 1 to refer to a debtor filing alone. A married couple may file a bankruptcy case together—called a joint case—and in joint cases, these forms use you to ask for information from both debtors. For example, if a form asks, "Do you own a car," the answer would be yes if either debtor owns a car. When information is needed about the spouses separately, the form uses Debtor 1 and Debtor 2 to distinguish between them. In joint cases, one of the spouses must report information as Debtor 1 and the other as Debtor 2. The same person must be Debtor 1 in all of the forms.

**Be as complete and accurate as possible. If two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write your name and case number (if known). Answer every question.**

About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):

1.

First name __________________________________________________

passport). Bring your picture __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III) Suffix (Sr., Jr., II, III)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ First name

__________________________________________________ Middle name

First name __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

3.

Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 1

Last Name Case number (if known)_____________________________________

About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):

I have not used any business names or EINs. ‰ I have not used any business names or EINs. the last 8 years _________________________________________________ Business name _________________________________________________

doing business as names _________________________________________________ Business name _________________________________________________

EIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

EIN ___ ___ – ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

5. If Debtor 2 lives at a different address: c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.

Street _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

ZIP Code _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

If your mailing address is different from the one above, fill it in here. Note that the court will send any notices to you at this mailing address. If Debtor 2's mailing address is different from yours, fill it in here. Note that the court will send any notices to this mailing address.

Street _________________________________________________

P.O. Box _________________________________________________

ZIP Code _________________________________________________

Why you are choosing Check one: Check one: 6.

Over the last 180 days before filing this petition, I have lived in this district longer than in any

Over the last 180 days before filing this petition, I have lived in this district longer than in any other district.

I have another reason. Explain.

I have another reason. Explain.

________________________________________ ________________________________________

Last Name _______________________________________________________ Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Part 2: Tell the Court About Your Bankruptcy Case

7. Bankruptcy Code you Check one. (For a brief description of each, see Notice Required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy (Form 2010)). Also, go to the top of page 1 and check the appropriate box.

I will pay the entire fee when I file my petition. Please check with the clerk's office in your local court for more details about how you may pay. Typically, if you are paying the fee yourself, you may pay with cash, cashier's check, or money order. If your attorney is submitting your payment on your behalf, your attorney may pay with a credit card or check with a pre-printed address.

I need to pay the fee in installments. If you choose this option, sign and attach the Application for Individuals to Pay The Filing Fee in Installments (Official Form 103A).

‰ Chapter 7 Filing Fee Waived (Official Form 103B) and file it with your petition. I request that my fee be waived (You may request this option only if you are filing for Chapter 7. By law, a judge may, but is not required to, waive your fee, and may do so only if your income is less than 150% of the official poverty line that applies to your family size and you are unable to pay the fee in installments). If you choose this option, you must fill out the Application to Have the

last 8 years? ‰ Yes. District __________________________ When _______________ Case number ___________________________

District __________________________ When MM / DD / YYYY District __________________________ When MM / DD / YYYY

‰ Yes. Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you _______________ Case number ___________________________ _______________ Case number ___________________________

not filing this case with District __________________________ When

partner, or by an MM / DD / YYYY _______________ Case number, if known____________________ affiliate? Debtor _________________________________________________ Relationship to you District __________________________ When _____________________ _______________ Case number, if known____________________

No. Go to line 12.

residence? ‰ ‰ Yes. Has your landlord obtained an eviction judgment against you? No. Go to line 12.

_______________________________________________________ Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Report About Any Businesses You Own as a Sole Proprietor

No. Go to Part 4.

a corporation, partnership, or Name of business, if any

Street _______________________________________________________________________________________

LLC.

to this petition. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________

Check the appropriate box to describe your business: ‰ Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)) ‰ Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B))

Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A)) ‰ Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6))

debtorRUDGHEWRUDV If you are filing under Chapter 11, the court must know whether you are a small business debtorRUDGHEWRU FKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9 so that it can set appropriate deadlines. If you indicate that you are a small business debtorRU\RXDUHFKRRVLQJWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9, you must attach your most recent balance sheet, statement of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return or if any of these documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B).

No. I am not filing under Chapter 11.

the Bankruptcy Code. No. I am filing under Chapter 11, but I am NOT a small business debtor according to the definition in

11 U.S.C. § 101(51D). ‰ <hv,dpilolqjxqghu&kdswhu,dpdvpdooexvlqhvvghewrudffruglqjwrwkhghilqlwlrqlqwkh%dqnuxswf\< td=""></hv,dpilolqjxqghu&kdswhu,dpdvpdooexvlqhvvghewrudffruglqjwrwkhghilqlwlrqlqwkh%dqnuxswf\<> ‰ &RGHDQG,GRQRWFKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU <hv,dpilolqjxqghu&kdswhu,dpdghewrudffruglqjwrwkhghilqlwlrqlq† riwkh<="" td=""></hv,dpilolqjxqghu&kdswhu,dpdghewrudffruglqjwrwkhghilqlwlrqlq†> %DQNUXSWF\&RGHDQG,FKRRVHWRSURFHHGXQGHU6XEFKDSWHU9RI&KDSWHU

Last Name Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Part 4: Report if You Own or Have Any Hazardous Property or Any Property That Needs Immediate Attention

Yes. What is the hazard? ________________________________________________________________________

identifiable hazard to ________________________________________________________________________ public health or safety?

immediate attention? If immediate attention is needed, why is it needed? _______________________________________________

perishable goods, or livestock ________________________________________________________________________

that needs urgent repairs? Where is the property? ________________________________________________________________________

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/2022 09:12 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017

Filed 04/06/22 Entered 02/15/22 20:26:52 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 6 of 14

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1190 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45

Debtor 1 \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Case number (if known)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ First Name Middle Name Last Name

Part 5: Explain Your Efforts to Receive a Briefing About Credit Counseling 15. Tell the court whether you have received a briefing about credit counseling.

The law requires that you receive a briefing about credit counseling before you file for bankruptcy. You must truthfully check one of the following choices. If you cannot do so, you are not eligible to file.

If you file anyway, the court can dismiss your case, you will lose whatever filing fee you paid, and your creditors can begin collection activities again.

You must check one:

I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of completion. ✔

Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.

I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a certificate of completion.

Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if any.

**I certify that I asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days after I made my request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.**

To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.

Your case may be dismissed if the court is dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.

If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file. You must file a certificate from the approved agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case may be dismissed.

Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days. I am not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling because of:

- Incapacity. I have a mental illness or a mental deficiency that makes me incapable of realizing or making rational decisions about finances. - Disability. My physical disability causes me to be unable to participate in a briefing in person, by phone, or through the internet, even after I reasonably tried to do so. - Active duty. I am currently on active military duty in a military combat zone.

If you believe you are not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling, you must file a motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.

About Debtor 1: About Debtor 2 (Spouse Only in a Joint Case):

You must check one:

I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, and I received a certificate of completion.

Attach a copy of the certificate and the payment plan, if any, that you developed with the agency.

I received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency within the 180 days before I filed this bankruptcy petition, but I do not have a certificate of completion.

Within 14 days after you file this bankruptcy petition, you MUST file a copy of the certificate and payment plan, if any.

**I certify that I asked for credit counseling services from an approved agency, but was unable to obtain those services during the 7 days after I made my request, and exigent circumstances merit a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement.**

To ask for a 30-day temporary waiver of the requirement, attach a separate sheet explaining what efforts you made to obtain the briefing, why you were unable to obtain it before you filed for bankruptcy, and what exigent circumstances required you to file this case.

Your case may be dismissed if the court is dissatisfied with your reasons for not receiving a briefing before you filed for bankruptcy.

If the court is satisfied with your reasons, you must still receive a briefing within 30 days after you file. You must file a certificate from the approved agency, along with a copy of the payment plan you developed, if any. If you do not do so, your case may be dismissed.

Any extension of the 30-day deadline is granted only for cause and is limited to a maximum of 15 days. I am not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling because of:

Incapacity. I have a mental illness or a mental

rational decisions about finances.

Disability. My physical disability causes me

reasonably tried to do so.

Active duty. I am currently on active military duty in a military combat zone.

If you believe you are not required to receive a briefing about credit counseling, you must file a motion for waiver of credit counseling with the court.

Last Name Case number (if known)_____________________________________

Part 6: Answer These Questions for Reporting Purposes

you have? 16a. Are your debts primarily consumer debts? Consumer debts are defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(8) as "incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose."

No. Go to line 16b.

Yes. Go to line 17. 16b. Are your debts primarily business debts? Business debts are debts that you incurred to obtain money for a business or investment or through the operation of the business or investment.

No. Go to line 16c.

Yes. Go to line 17. 16c. State the type of debts you owe that are not consumer debts or business debts. Litigation expenses, claims, and judgments

No. I am not filing under Chapter 7. Go to line 18.

to unsecured creditors? Yes. I am filing under Chapter 7. Do you estimate that after any exempt property is excluded and administrative expenses are paid that funds will be available to distribute to unsecured creditors?

For you I have examined this petition, and I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and correct. If I have chosen to file under Chapter 7, I am aware that I may proceed, if eligible, under Chapter 7, 11,12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code. I understand the relief available under each chapter, and I choose to proceed under Chapter 7. If no attorney represents me and I did not pay or agree to pay someone who is not an attorney to help me fill out this document, I have obtained and read the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b). I request relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, specified in this petition. I understand making a false statement, concealing property, or obtaining money or property by fraud in connection with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to \$250,000, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.

______________________________________________ 8 _____________________________ Signature of Debtor 1 Signature of Debtor 2

Executed on _________________ Executed on __________________

Last Name Case number (if known)_____________________________________

by an attorney, you do not to proceed under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have explained the relief knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with the petition is incorrect. I, the attorney for the debtor(s) named in this petition, declare that I have informed the debtor(s) about eligibility available under each chapter for which the person is eligible. I also certify that I have delivered to the debtor(s) the notice required by 11 U.S.C. § 342(b) and, in a case in which § 707(b)(4)(D) applies, certify that I have no

R.

______________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________ NY 10036

Contact phone _____________________________________ Email address wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com

______________________________________________________ ____________ NY

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 206 of 269

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER PART IAS MOTION 61EFM

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., INDEX NO. 652077/2017

KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, et al., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants.

Before the Court is Motion 012 by Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

("PAX") to hold Defendant Kwok Ho Wan ("Kwok") in contempt. This Court previously issued

three orders restraining Kwok's interest in the yacht called the "Lady May." On September 30,

2020, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (the "TRO") preventing Kwok from,

among other things, "interference with any property in which he has an interest." NYSCEF Doc.

No. 591. In issuing the TRO, the Court noted that "[a]ny violation . . . shall be considered

criminal contempt." Id. On October 15, 2020, the Court issued the Order, which granted PAX's

motion under CPLR 5229 and expressly restrained the Lady May:

Mr. 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.

NYSCEF 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.

Plaintiff brings this motion because, despite these orders, the Lady May has been moved outside of the United States.

The 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."

The 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.

A status conference remains scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 10:00 am.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 210 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/04/2022 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/04/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 211 of 269 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER PART IAS MOTION 61EFM

KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN MOTION DATE GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a 026 WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a MOTION SEQ. NO. HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

Defendants.

In light of the bankruptcy filing by defendant Ho Wan Kwok (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1190), the Court hereby permits plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. to withdraw its motion for an Order of Civil Contempt based on Mr. Kwok's alleged noncompliance with this Court's September 22, 2021, Turnover Order (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 1192). A status conference is scheduled for December 6, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. via Microsoft Teams. The Court requests that Mr. Kwok's counsel efile a letter as to the status of the bankruptcy proceedings at least one week before the conference date, along with an updated appearance sheet for Teams.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART X OTHER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 212 of 269

Supreme Court of the State of New York FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 01/20/2022 09:38 AM 2021-01010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/20/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 213 of 269

Appellate Division, First Judicial Department

PRESENT: Hon.

Manuel J. Mendez, Justices. Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P., Motion No. 2021-04127 Plaintiff-Respondent, Index No. 652077/17

Kwok Ho Wan, also known as Kwok Ho, etc.,

Defendants.

Defendant-appellant having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court, entered on November 04, 2021 (Appeal No. 14555),

Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is ordered that the motion is denied.

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 214 of 269

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 08:26 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1098 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 215 of 269 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER PART IAS MOTION 61EFM

KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN MOTION SEQ. NO. 019 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 THIRD INTERIM DECISION + HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and ORDER ON MOTION

Defendants.

By Interim Decision & Order dated July 21, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 873), the Court determined plaintiff's motion to hold defendant Kwok Ho Wan in civil contempt and the crossmotion by defendant for a stay pending appeal to the extent of holding the motion in abeyance pending a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, on an appeal calendared for the September Term. The Appellate Division determined the appeal by Decision and Order dated November 4, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 953). Further argument on the contempt motion was heard on January 14, 2022 and the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to be held on February 2, 2022 commencing at 9:30 a.m.

Direct testimony will be offered by affidavit. The Court will not consider the affidavit of any person who is not available for cross-examination. The parties will confer and prepare a Joint Exhibit Binder by January 24, 2022. Plaintiff will efile direct testimony affidavits by January 26, 2022. Defendants will efile direct testimony affidavits by January 28, 2022. Hard copies of all documents shall be delivered to Courtroom 232 by noon on January 31, 2022. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2022 08:26 AM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1098 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 216 of 269

The parties are directed to efile on or before January 24, 2022 a letter containing a Joint Appearance Sheet for the February 2, 2022 hearing.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 217 of 269

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUNDL.P.,

KWOKHO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/kla GUO WENGUI, a/kla GUO WEN GUI; a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/kla MILES KWOK, a/kla HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,

v.

Defendants.

[Fl4QjL08ED] FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT

WHEREAS this Co~rt's conditional order of civil contempt, dated March 16,2021, directed that if Defendant Kwok Ho Wan ("Kwok") failed to return the Lady May yacht (the "Lady May") to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 15, 2021, he would be subject to a \$500,000 fine-for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction;-

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 218 of 269

WHEREAS the Lady May was not returned to the jurisdiction by May 15, 2021;

WHEREAS on November 4,2021, the Appellate Division's First Department affIrme,d this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that "the daily fine of .\$500,000 was 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," and \_instructing this Court to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties;

WHEREAS Kwok to date has failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction;

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1182 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2022

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 219 of 269

WHEREAS both Kwok and the registered title holder of the Lady May, HK International (q)peCt.r~(i by co~V\\$e \ Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, were pregent at the hearini proffered evidence and were represented by counsel; and

WHEREAS, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court determines that

PAX has clearly and convincingly established that Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control

. h L d M AS se--'- r---l\_ I "" ~ Cr, \A.,/t \:> 'R-'v;,VIMt Uf '1, ;:).0 'd---1-. over tea y aYj "'- ., .~ " ~ ( \)~ C\-'> \'c)v\ ltA,Ad. CJv~ . . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

- 1. Kwok has violated New York Judiciary Law 9753 and is civil contempt of this Court's orders. - 2. Kwokis directed to tender immediate payment to PAX in the amount of \$134,000,000, representing \$500,000 for each day between May 15,2021 and February 7,2022. - "3. The amount due to PAX shall continue to accrue at t~~rate of \$500,000 per day until Kwok returns the Lady May to the jurisdiction, which additional accrual shall begin ten . ~ e'fv,'(;Il.. ~ N f.,' ..L.. 'C iv business days from t e Bltte of this Order, "'VJ1'~. i> u... crl v 11 Y I - 4. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be made to PAX within five se...rv *,'(JL , .*f f..rv business days of the ~ of this Order, w I~ No-t-t (...L. t!) . GVt,. I .

;:", ' 1'l;::t"l 5. The Court shall exercise its full authority under NeWYork Judiciary Law 9 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid to PAX.

It is SO ORDERED this ?-'" ~ day of Ii b VYt a '='Cd' ,2022. R. OSTRAGERJ...\$.C. A.OSTRAGER . ,,~SC;} Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 220 of 269

INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/14/2022 10:10 AM 2022-00609 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 221 of 269 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Defendant Kwok Ho Wan ("Mr. Kwok"), hereby

appeals to the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, from the Decision and Order of the

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Ostrager, J.), dated February 9,

2022, and entered in the office of the New York County Clerk on February 9, 2022 (NYSCEF

Doc. No. 1181), and from each and every part thereof.

Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, February 10, 2022

By: \_/s/ John Siegal\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ John Siegal Melissa Carvalho 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 212-589-1400 jsiegal@bakerlaw.com mcarvalho@bakerlaw.com

To: Clerk of the County of New York (via NYSCEF) All counsel of Record (via NYSCEF) ,@,uprtmt Qlnurt nf t4t ,@,tatt nf Ntw lnrk l\pptllatt mtutsinn: First ~uhtrtal 1lltpartmtnt

Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil

Case Title: Set fotih the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to

show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended.

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P

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 LLC, and GENEVER HOLDINGSCORPORATION

CPLR article 75 Arbitration D CPLR article 78 Proceeding

D Real Property Tax Law§ 1278 D Transferred Proceeding

Nature of Suit: Check up to three of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case. D Administrative Review Business Relationships Commercial Contracts D Declaratory Judgment D Domestic Relations D Election Law D Estate Matters D Family Court D Mortgage Foreclosure D Miscellaneous • Prisoner Discipline & Parole

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 223 of

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022

Paper Appealed From (Check one only): If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or

judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please indicate the below information for each such order or judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. • Amended Decree • Determination • Order • Resettled Order Amended Judgement Finding l!iii!l Order & Judgment • Ruling • Amended Order Interlocutory Decree Partial Decree • Other (specify): Decision • Interlocutory Judgment • Resettled Decree • Decree • Judgment • Resettled Judgment Court:

County:

Judge (name in full): Hon. Barry Ostrager Index No.: 652077/2017

Stage: Trial:

If Yes: Prior Unperfected Appeal and Related Case Information

Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? • No

If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal.

Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case:

Commenced by: D Order to Show Cause • Notice of Petition • Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed: Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g)

Judge (name in full): Order of Transfer Date: CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: Court: County:

Judge (name in full): Dated: Choose Countv Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues

Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature of the ex pa rte order to be reviewed. Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan is appealing the Decision and Orders in this action entered February 9, 2022 granting a final order of contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753.

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 224 of 269

Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.

Without limiting the arguments that may be presented on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Kwok Ho Wan states: that the Decision and Orders were in error, should be reversed in their entirety, and the contempt proceedings must be dismissed. The Supreme Court Decision and Orders, inter alia, granted a final order of contempt that was not legally or factually supported by the record. Even if the contempt finding was proper (it was not), the nature and the amount of the fine imposed was disproportionate, excessive, unauthorized by law, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of Defendant-Appellant's constitutional rights under the federal and state Constitutions.

Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party's name and his, her, or its status in this court.

No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status

1 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. Plaintiff Respondent

4 Genever Holdings Corporation Defendant None

INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 225 of 269

Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked "Pro Se" must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided.

Attorney/Firm Name: Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP

City: New York I State: New York I Zip: 10036 I Telephone No: 212-326-2000

lii!!i Retained • Government • Pro Hae Vice

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): Attorney/Firm Name: John Siegal, Baker & Hostetler LLP '

City: New York I State: New York IZip:10111 I Telephone No: 212-589-1400

lii!!i Retained • Government • Pro Hae Vice

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): 2 Attorney/Firm Name: Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC

City: White Plains I State: New York I Zip: 10601 I Telephone No: 973-285-3280

lii!!i Retained D Government • Pro Hae Vice

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above):

Address : City: E-mail Address: I State: I Zip: I Telephone No:

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): • Government • Pro Hae Vice

Address: Attorney/Firm Name: Attorney/Firm Name: City: I State: I Zip: I Telephone No: E-mail Address:

Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above): • Government • Pro Hae Vice

Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: E-mail Address: I State: • Assigned I Zip: • Government I Telephone No:

¡¢ £¤¥¦§¤¨©ª«¬®®¯¬°® ¤±²³¦´¥¨³©¤¨©°°µ° ¶¦³¦£·¦¥¤±²³¦´¸¬¯¹¯¬¬¬ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 226 of 269

!

M<3@B)L)BM<9J76M<3@B)L)BM<9J76GM<3@B)L)B +

,-.

>RFRDQBDES? !

K96?T1::=:?98;:1M7: 3DEUCS&'\(VBSRWCEU\@\*X'QYVLRERDEZCRS[BA\YSEBAAYFWUCVUCDHYAHRQRFRDQBDEIWYL KYJBD]^\_`abcdefRFFYZESEYBHYCQBDQQRVRCHRUCSVZRQCEYZSghiBZLCDjUCSSkgSEBDECBAiRZSYDBA BSSRESWCEUBSRZCRSYFVYZiYZBECYDS@EZkSERQVYDFCQBDES@BDQFB\CAh\R\gRZSGGEUCS2YkZECSVBAARQ kiYDEYQRERZ\CDRWUREURZEURiABCDECFF@lmnoponqrromsntq^omuvvcwxysoxz{ys|}~l~\_`lqe UBS\REEURgkZQRDYFRSEBgACSUCDjEUBEEUR2YkZESUYkAQRDERZBFCDBA9ZQRZYF2CHCA2YDER\iE BjBCDSEIWYL?4YZEURZRBSYDSEUBEFYAAYW@EUCS2YkZECSSC\kAEBDRYkSAhCSSkCDjBFCDBA9ZQRZYF

2CHCA2YDER\iE? 01SRVkZRQBkQj\RDEBjBCDSEIWYLCDEURSk\YF\\\$@'&@'\*?%(YD4RgZkBZh@ &'&\*6=8274>YV?6Y?(\*\$f?;URZRBFERZ@01ys|twxccdmztmw]^rcstppcwxxctspcwntox^ kQj\RDEghFCZSECQRDECFhCDjBDQEURDBEER\iECDjEYARHhyvcsabcd]^m^^tx^CDEUR<DCERQ 8EBERS?01RDVYkDERZRQQCFFCVkAEhCQRDECFhCDjBSSRESYHRZWUCVUIWYLRRZVCSRQVYDEZYA gRVBkSRIWYL@WUYCSBSRAFGQRVABZRQ\kAECGgCAACYDBCZR@UBQSRVZRERQUCSBSSRESCDB\BRYF VYZiYZBERRDECECRSBDQWCEUFB\CAh\R\gRZS?;UCSSVUR\RUBSRDBgARQIWYLEYBSSRZEEUBEURUBS DYBSSRESQRSiCERUCSABHCSUACFRSEhAR@WUCVUiABCDECFFUBSVBEBAYjkRQWCEU\BERZCBAFZY\SYVCBA cdefghifjklmnolpiqkoefmnrstrutsrssrvhwwxy z{|}~{ {}|{ }}z}|{} INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 227 of 269

!"#\$%&\$'()\%+\',-"\#.-"\\$-/0/-1',-"/23\*4/%\*\$0\*5'-"\*6-"#\$ 7

7LM 7 3N6CO('&#\$%P'6-"\*6\*+/2-\*6\*%'(\$\*62',-"\*1#0"-Q-"\RS#%1N#1A5,6'?)\#4/\$+-"\* T

T 8 #,,/6?\*%-"/2@'.6-A2'6%\*6"')%/\$+O('&/\$ 0'\$%/-/'\$#)0/4/)0'\$-\?\_-Q,/\$%/\$+-"#-3-"\%#/)1,/\$\',`abbQbbbCbb(#2/\$-\\$%\*%-'2-6'\$+)1

¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©©ª§¨«© ¬®¡¯ £®¤£¤««°« ±¡®¡²¡ ¬®¡¯³¨§ª¨´ª§¨§§ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 228 of 269

.

+ /0123456/73891:;/08/<<=>2/?@8>ABCCDEFGCHIJKLDEFGCHIJK&M"# & N&(#!OP Q -R ST!")U\*

Y.

-&&(&& + +-+.

Y.

Y.

abcdCKebfJghgJifECBjkchL lcKemCKe#!T(&!n&(&( `&(#T/0o@/7@po9q79r1:;/0>;s958t>3u32;:/

w;6xy;xzzzA{9r1:;/08|`((#)At8@3}30?{9r1:;/08~\* {9r1:;/0863>72/s3>po9q;>;0t958>19q3072/8/79<8@3{{\o@9@;>?90389?23;8t

t\^23<32>89\:;/08/<<=>2/;: tuvwxyzw{|}~}z|vw~y ¡ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 229 of 269

0/%&'+' +(123\* +% )/ \*4 + 5+ &\*6+1,%%%)/7 & 8 9#:;+4 /5//+// 1 <\* 0%(&&) &\* \* +%.)!==# / +/( %&%4%%./(& 0%+ &\*

//(%%&%+/\* >&(6(%&\* ) +% 05 +\?)+%&\ -)&/5+ 1

8 9 =@8AB=C@8 A2DEF"==!=\$=GHIJ8 9= KLLM% + %NO% +%%/% P)Q)R +%%& +%161P) +) &')% \* 0/(1<\* + + / &?\%%&%S '+)+(TU TLKVNO% +%%/5)+\ &\* >&(6( +WTX0//%Q,Y1Z 0%(&&) & \* \* +%. '/\* &\* )+ )%&5)+\* \* >&(6(')\* )%%+& & 0%(8 9#=![\! '/\* &\*61P)&&%5+4& \* )%& 5)+\* \* (\*1<+1]]1T?% ^) %/(+ %'/ % + % \* 5+4& &\* )%&NO% +%%/\\ + ) &5)+\* \* (\*1O)%&5) &\*61P) = :B="["8 9#=!\_[\!\_%++)%&R)% K` TLK` +aK+%%& +%1<+1]`1b+&%.[E\!#=CcdefghEcE KKiTj61Q))/0 /(+% ++ &% +\*5 \* >&(6(\* )++ %/ \/& +N O% +%%/S)%&O%4 0 %klmbjB=\_BBC@8neo2DE61Q) )+\ +4 +\* \* \* / % + Nlmb/\).\// \* 0)/p0//%&//+%%)/ q5 % +\*

defghijgklmnopmqjrlpfgnostusvutsttswixxyz {|}~| |~}| ~~{~}|~ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 230 of 269

4 56 47 11 1 1 8 9:.#;\$<:1 88 =>'?\$+\*\$+@='=+@(:@?=,\$(:%'@&,(-=\$9:.#;\$<:@?A;,:,=,\$(\$B=>'=,=%'=\$=>'C@?>=. 3 1 1D

1 D 4 4 GGHGIJK 4 L@&C9@C<:?@\*=@,(=':=,B,'&=>@=MN\$O11 1P

4 4 GEHJ5IGGHE ;Q:'A;'(==\$=>,:R\$;+=<:)'\*='SQ'+TUVWUWU 1 F FJKJK11 X Y1 1 11

1 11=>,:R\$;+=<:\K JKJK1 ]+&'+@(&=>,:R\$;+=<::;Q:'A;'(=[6JKJ[F =>'R\$;+=<:^; 1

4 \_\_`\_EI6K`6J 9:.#;\$=':=,B,'&=>@=\$(=>'\$('>@(&V:>'&,+'?='&=>'L@&C9@C<:,=,('+@+C 1 1

opqrsturvwxyz{x|u}w{qryz~~~~t INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 231 of 269

!

./012 .34 , ! !

, ! 56789:6;<=>87?@8AB8C6:;D6;:8E6@A8:7?@FG?@H:6HI

X3 Y86<G?E6G<?M?IA@6:HMA8:D<Z[L?O<A8<AHQ?I;AB6AD<Z[L?\6]8N6EA6HIY86<G?E # O""

@8aLH@HI\AB8C6:;D6;A?>8@8AL@I8:A?AB8N?L@AO<bL@H<:HMAH?I>;D6;4&%&4K./01 2 .c&XW

!

X&nI<B?@ATD<Z[L?O<A8<AHQ?I;AB6A<B8?9I<6I:

¡¢ £¤¥£¦¥¤£¤¤£§¨¨©ª «¬®¯¬°±²³´µ¶¶·´µ¸¶ ¬¹º»®¼°»±¬°±¸¸½¸ ¾®»®«¿®¬¹º»®¼Àµ´·µÁ·´µ´´ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 232 of 269

'( ./012"345#67839%:9;<=>?!93"349;7 9%63;3#@2

,5A7 %%B? !934:%<#"#:CD6E\$%<"F#963%D F"BF8B

7 G849F# 9H#%6 ;49%6!"7" #?#6"F9I9B7 6F493HJ@KLLMNOMPQMRSTKUVWRXOYMUZ

[NVT=\\\]J^J\_4\_`=\_`a\%#^7\$#\b`cdaF9#93HeJfJg849F9" ?h"DijckdJl/01

oqpr o1p E36DB4H6!#F68 #\$%6 4 ="B#68H9#9%36#3F%%" ?#"##6 4 "F#8"BB? ospt

vwMMxyYYzvPNTS{WwxMR|T}YyzZ[NVTq+)~))0s~)/ ql,l)sq+)~ VYRQPVSMwRYz0q0/s0\*1WQMNzMz~+q~0q)\*1&

XMMWVPPVwwPWNVMUPWKLLYRxNPxvNzT)1sq1 ) ^7\$q+q)da5:]"%<%#">B9%4>?FB" "34F63I93F93HI943F#"#:CD6E<I96B"#4 ¡¢£¤¥¦§¤¨©ª«¬ª®§¯©£¤«¬°±²°³²±°±±°´¦µµ¶· ¸¹º»¼¹½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÃÄÁÂÅà ¹ÆÇȻɺ½È¾¹½¾ÅÅÊŠ˻Ȼ¸Ì»º¹ÆÇÈ»ÉÍÂÁÄÂÎÄÁÂÁÁ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 233 of 269

!"# \$\$%&'( &)))\+) ,(- !\$./0%&!'!'1\ &!2( (./0(#&3!& # (# 4 4 54644

8 9):;.<=>?@@?A13!B!! (&!#"! B\&"C#D"2( E (!"& (F& 1 & G\,!&# &\$B (&F3 A1HI &! &&#B (# ('3 D !(#C"'#" " ! (! BJ#D\$#" & &&\$\$ G\*K 9 L 6 M NOP QOP5RST@@?GUVG1/D\$#" & &WH#I'( ! - #B&!3 ('GGG#&!!& !"'#" " ! (# ('G%\*XYZY[\]^\_`a\bcdefgYh`]i a[c^A@Ujkl<jj???mnA# okUpqGrGsGtGu#GjkA@Ujkvp 'w"#x%&<#2r !#BA y z{ )|}}{++)9 E 5464)M 4 9 4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

,(xB\$# !&2( (1 (~ 4E E (#C (! B "BG\*a)z h`adh`c^]i``\_`\ecXbhXchY[ ]`Z`}{)|}z|O)|}}+\YYcb\]bebc\_`Y[^]e|{))}z r% @Uj?vp(!"' !!\$ ('3 D !%&! ! (# (!"!'("# ~~ 4E +]bie^bb\^e^ \_`dhZ]^a^\_\`a^f)|M)N))zE +|zM)N)~)O)|}+z '3 !%& !C3! !! 2 (& #''3 D !%&#&& ! (# ( #&\$! B !#!!# !AD#&C\$ A (C&(!2 (# (1 # ! !"# !# & \* (! BvG ¡¢£¤¡¥¦ ¤¢£§¨©§ª©¨§¨¨§«¬¬® ¯°±²³°´µ¶·¸¹ºº»¸¹¼º °½¾¿²À±´¿µ°´µ¼¼Á¼ ²¿²¯Ã²±°½¾¿²ÀŸ»¹Å»¸¹¸¸ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 234 of 269

!

" #\$%&\$'&%()\*\$+,-./01234\$//25&6 /789-:;&405;:,-904<<"

=;&>\$7%:/289-:;0:#-?@7\$,-:&-:21\$84\*0-8\$:\$83428:&%80334285\$8-2-:&8:089

:2-&-:0D32-;&9E&\F\$%+30\:;0:0G0%:4,-28'\$50:2\$8\$/:;&H2/:; I1&891&8:28052'23G%\$5&&928J.104/\$%1:;&D0-2-\$/0809'&%-&/05:70328/&%&85&?6KLMNOPQ RSTNUVPQPLUNWXXYZ[[\\]^^\_`-:a&G,:`bcbd?I809'&%-&28/&%&85&104D&0GG32&9

! " eSfSTSRSKgUhOiLj^W\^XklZYmnlYopn[^W]qkr^^[[ksW^ lBZjtZ W\[^W]nuvvwx(yz`H?IGG,{|}\_~9>2%?~`ydPMgiiPRSOPiLeihiLQW^ ]WW^W[^[Xl[

21230%34(789&%:;&12--28J\*2:8&--%73&(.0:%2&%\$//05:1049%0\*:;&-:%\$8J&-: 28/&%&85&:;0::;&\$GG\$-28J&'29&85&G&%12:-0J028-:0\*2:8&--\*;\$/023-:\$:&-:2/4?6TUNLURS LQLQfgPSOS(``I?a?}9}y(}y`\_`-:a&G,:~zd\_0GG3428

\;&%&9&/&8908:\;\$/023&9:\$0GG&0%.\*\$739D&+8\$\*3&9J&0D3&0D\$7:010:&%2032--7&%02-&9D4 :;&&'29&85&6d? pY

¡ ¢££¤¥ ¦§¨©ª§«¬®¯°±±²¯°³± §´µ¶©·¨«¶¬§«¬³³¸³ ¹©¶©¦º©¨§´µ¶©·»°¯²°¼²¯°¯¯ INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1187 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/10/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 235 of 269

%&'!"( ("(#)'"# '"\(\ +,-./'0"## 0 1'23'()14''3) \$1 (! 5\*"6' 0 72' 3 ( #!)( 0 '((1!"(0")"# 819:9,;<<=<>?@<AB=CDE>FGHI,J,K1LMNFOML PQRQS

&YQ .'"#] 30209OFK^KKF 819:9'0 4( 1"2'1 \_20'1!"("# `"20 #"0KHa19',b' 1"( 1)9#( "#cM^^F^^^4"' 139'`"20(1##04 139 . )) d\$'"(F 0 '2)(#( \"2)14"2("cNLeF^^^F^^^,^^F\!'4"0 ( fghi

k "#( 0)9cNK^4))"((142)) "# lb-mKa4))"( 20!' 0! "# 819:9,I \$ 0 ) ''F#3))"(0 )+('!('42)( "2')9' 6" 2' `"200"! ''(I \J"06(1 )' \ 0 ( n( 1o '\) 6("\(+)9(1 ( ("())9\$")(+`"20"01 0'F 0 '("02) "#)\,5\"642'0 4cNLeF^^^F^^^,^^ "-./\*(#\$ 32'( ''19'"# ' 0\$! "#'p i q \*I"! "#r(09,s `"20'0 0 1" \ 0!' '#2))2"092(1 0t21!098\*uOML( \$ ( #( ' ("4 )91, d 1v] 30209GFK^KK

wxywz…~''‰{'‰~‡y}  w†Š€y‡‰~ …y‰‰y~ˆ …€Šw~‰Ž~''{ ‡Œy ‡ ‰y…y‰y wy

- Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 236 of 269

NYSCEF FILED: APPELLATE DIVISION - 1ST DEPT 02/15/2022 03:13 PM

DOC.

:

Date:

Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.

al.

v.

R.

administrative determination, state agency ___________________

a contempt order pending appeal. Defendant-Appellant seeks a stay prior to February 16, 2022,

Plaintiff.

applying for a stay, state reason why requested The \$134,000,000

disproportionate, and unconstitutional, and the motion court has invoked the prospect

if it is not paid within five business days, i.e. by February 16, 2022.

_o_.

No.

Name Ira Brad Matetsky and Jason T. Cohen O'Melvany & Myers LLP

Address 360 Lexington Avenue 7 Times Square New York, New York 10017 New York, New York 10036

Tel. No. 212-365-3391 (cell); 2120922-9149 (office) New York

Appearing by _lr_a_B_. _M_a_te_ts_k-'-y--------- Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com); 212-326-2293 Jason T. Cohen Qcohen@ganfershore.com); 646-250-4141 Anton Metlitsky (ametlitsky@omm.com); 212-316-2291 Mark C. Zauderer (mzauderer@ganfershore.com); 917-331-7762

Appellant's application for a stay is denied.

Fili' Dnte *1,/* 2:A Reply \_\_ J'-1/,\_\_J\_f\_""-'/())~, a\_&.....\_.tl) \_\_ \_ II Motion Date \_\_\_ &-\_· +-/\_J\_t\_,/\_J\_J-- \_\_\_ 0 pposition I EXPEDITE ---"'-V\_;\_' \_\_ PHONE ATTORNEYS \_\_\_\_\_\_ \_ DECISION BY \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_ ALL PAPERS TO BE SERVED PERSONALLY. Court Attorney

Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 239 of 269

This website uses cookies and local storage. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies and local storage. MfHM-M Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 240 of

Document title: LADY MAY Current position (Yacht, IMO 1012359) - VesselFinder [Capture URL: http] Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:38:05 GMT Page 1 of 2 Case 22-50073 Doc 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 241 of 269

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 242 of 269

1 tav 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 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 243 of

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

4 BY: AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 244 of 269

1 THE COURT: Good morning. 2 There are a few housekeeping matters that I want 3 to address before we discuss the application for a temporary 4 restraining order. 5 If you are not speaking, please mute your 6 microphone so we don't get static. Thank you. 7 So, as I started to say, there are a few 8 housekeeping matters I want to resolve before we address the 9 application for a temporary restraining order.

10 technically scheduled to discuss plaintiff's application for 11 attorney's fees, and there's in the motion part a motion by 12 the defendant to add an affirmative defense of failure to 13 mitigate damages.

14 Mr. Moss, I would like you to stipulate that at trial we 15 will conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at the 16 trial, and because I addressed the mitigation of damage 17 issue in my September 15th decision and order, and because 18 that issue has always been at least peripherally in the 19 case, I would like you to stipulate that that will be one of 20 the issues that will be addressed at the plenary trial, and 21 avoid the necessity of motion practice, and so I would like 22 to mark that motion as withdrawn without prejudice on 23 consent. Is that acceptable to you? 24 MR. MOSS:

to understand, my understanding was that the Court was going 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 245 of 269

to make a determination on damages. You had ordered us to put our calculation in. I thought the mitigation issue had already been decided by the Court on summary judgment, and that there was not going to be a trial on damages, that this was going to be done so that you could get the calculation so that the Clerk of Court could issue the judgment. That's what was in the order, and so I did not understand that there was going to be a trial, and we do not believe that there are any issues of fact for a trial.

THE COURT: My understanding is that I granted you summary judgment on liability which is why you're privileged to make the 5229 application that you're making today, and we deferred the calculation of damages because there are issues of fact relating to the quantum of damages. I found that your proof was insufficient for me to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages. So that's something that's going to be addressed at the hearing which I believe we scheduled for January. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

MR. MOSS: So my understanding, your Honor, was that the January trial was on the veil piercing issues -- 19 20

THE COURT: It is, it is.

MR. MOSS: -- and that the only defense on damages that Mr. Kwok has proffered, your Honor, is mitigation. Mitigation was something that the Court has already rejected as a matter of Hong Kong law on summary judgment. 22 23 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 246 of 269

THE COURT: I specifically referenced it in the September 15th decision. Now I referenced it in a manner suggesting that I thought it was a dubious claim, and I still think it's a dubious claim because I don't think it was incumbent upon your client post facto to purchase an apartment from the Communist Chinese Party at what would appear to be an above-market price, and that's what I said in my September 15, 2020, decision.

So there's a motion by the defendant to amend his answer to assert a defense of failure to mitigate damages. Whenever we get around to assessing damages, I'm going to hear the defendant on the mitigation issue. Now if you want him to make a motion, and you want me to decide the motion, there is nothing I can do other than allow him to make the motion, have you respond to the motion, and then decide the motion. And since any hearing that we have is one at which I'm going to conform the pleadings to the proof that's adduced at trial, I thought as a housekeeping matter we'd have the defendant withdraw that motion without prejudice and for you to be content with that state of play. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MR. MOSS: Okay, that's fine. If your Honor is going to grant the motion anyway on the motion for leave to amend, we can stipulate to that.

We have a pending motion for damages, and they -- THE COURT: Yes. 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 247 of 269

6 Proceedings MR. MOSS: So how would your Honor like to resolve the damages issue? THE COURT: We are going to have a hearing on the damages issue and that hearing is not today. MR. MOSS: Yes. THE COURT: So at that hearing whatever the defendant wants to proffer in connection with this mitigation of damage theory which I strongly indicated in my September 15, 2020, decision and order is quite dubious, they will be permitted to adduce whatever evidence they have, if any, on that theory in connection with the damages hearing. Let me ask counsel for the defendant if we can mark the motion to amend the answer as withdrawn without prejudice in light of what is now on the transcript of proceedings of today? MR. SIEGAL: Yes, John Siegal, Baker Hostetler, for defendant Kwok. We certainly consent to that result, and will serve our Second Amended Answer following today and file it so it's of record and that's the basis on which we will proceed to the hearing. THE COURT: Fair enough. It's really not necessary for you to file a Second Amended Complaint, but I think it's very clear on the transcript of the proceedings 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

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 248 of 269

of today that we are going to have a damages hearing, and at the damages hearing you will be able to adduce whatever testimony you wish or whatever documents you wish to introduce on the mitigation portion claim, and it's really just burdensome to the Court and burdensome to the plaintiff for you to file a Second Amended Complaint and for the plaintiff to have to respond to it.

So the record speaks for itself. I would just like a little cooperation from you and Mr. Moss here.

MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. We appreciate the Court allowing us the opportunity to adduce evidence on that issue, and we will be ready at the hearing, and we have had good cooperation with Mr. Moss since we have appeared in the case, and I'm sure we will continue to, and we look forward to that opportunity to try to convince your Honor, who we understand it's dubious, that on full examination there's a mitigation defense here that has a very substantial impact on the damages, so thank you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

THE COURT: All right.

We will not have any Second Amended Complaint, and we are not going to have any motions, correct?

MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor, understood.

THE COURT: All right.

Now the second housekeeping matter that we have is attorney's fees. Since there are going to be further 24 25 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 249 of 269

8 Proceedings proceedings, it doesn't make any sense to address attorney's fees today because there will be more attorney's fees in connection with the two hearings that we are going to have, one on damages and the other that's been previously scheduled for January 15th. So with your consent, Mr. Moss, I would like to adjourn your application for attorney's fees to a more appropriate time. MR. MOSS: That's fine. That's fine, your Honor. I guess, you know, the attorney's fees are contract damages just like the principal and interest, and I would propose that we submit our evidence at the hearing or concurrently with the hearing. I guess we really wouldn't have any witnesses on the attorney's fees other than Mr. Lewis. I think we should do it at the hearing, your Honor, that would make the most sense to me, at the damages hearing, because they are really part of the damages. THE COURT: When all proceedings in this case are concluded you will be awarded whatever contractually entitled attorney's fees are due you. It's just not a today issue, it's an issue that awaits future resolution. All right. MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

And do we have -- do you have a sense of when you would like to conduct the hearing on damages? 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 250 of 269

1 THE COURT: As soon as I can. 2 Not for anything, you're all aware of the fact 3 that Justice Scarpulla has been elevated to the Appellate 4 Division, Justices Friedman and Sherwood are retiring in the 5 near term, so there are only five Commercial Division judges 6 who are currently in the wheel, and Justice Scarpulla's 7 cases have been reallocated to the five justices who remain 8 in the wheel. So we are all a little busy now. 9 MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor. 10 THE COURT:

11 other issue. We will try and find a convenient time to 12 resolve damages and attorney's fees. 13 So now let's get to the only thing that I want to 14 deal with this morning which is your application under CPLR 15 5229 for a restraining order that extends to Mr. Kwok's 16 assets, and which you believe should be extended to entities 17 that he controls whether they be single purpose LLCs or 18 family members like his son. 19 So I will hear you, Mr. Moss. 20 MR. MOSS: Thank you. 21 Your Honor, as far as the relief goes under 5229, 22 I don't think Mr. Kwok disputes that we are entitled to some 23 relief. He does not contest that Pacific Alliance meets the 24 standard. He does not dispute our contention that he 25 intends to dissipate his assets, a process that has already

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 251 of 269

1 begun with this sham bankruptcy proceeding. 2 The Court has suggested that there's a showing 3 necessary beyond the fact of just prevailing on the 4 judgment. We have submitted that all you need to do is 5 prevail on summary judgment.

6 might be a an additional showing necessary so we did set 7 that forth in our papers. 8 There's a clear and significant risk here that if 9 left unchecked Mr. Kwok will continue to do everything in 10 his power to shield assets and render this judgment 11 uncollectible whether it's committing perjury, whether it's 12 disobeying Court orders or whether it's making this sham 13 bankruptcy petition.

14 years. It's why we requested the attachment.

15 what was going to happen.

16 no legitimate defense, and then Mr. Kwok would evade the 17 judgment, and that he would do whatever he can do to ensure 18 that my client is left holding the bag.

So the two issues specifically before the judge on the 5229, there are two arguments that Mr. Kwok makes to sort of limit the relief that we are requesting. So I will deal with it, what I think is the easier one first. First, Mr. Kwok does not dispute that we are entitled to depose him and to discovery into him, but he argues that the discovery should only be into assets that we 23 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 252 of 11 Proceedings have not sought discovery for, that we have not gotten discovery for. The only asset related to discovery in this case was during the attachment phase, and Mr. Kwok and his prior counsel vehemently and consistently refused to provide any discovery into any assets other than the Sherry-Netherland residence. I think we are all in agreement, actually, that all of the other assets are fair game. As for the apartment, the residence, there's no reason to limit the discovery on that. This is the only asset we have identified that Mr. Kwok has in New York. It seems to be the largest asset that he has in this country, and it's perhaps the largest asset he has anywhere that has not been frozen by the Chinese government. Now, Mr. Kwok's prior counsel denigrated us, they said we were hysterical, we were afraid of the merits because we kept seeking to attach the apartment. We knew who we were dealing with and we knew we would end up here, that this asset was our best chance to collect. We are entitled to discovery into that asset. There's no appreciable burden associated with this discovery, and we have not taken any discovery on the apartment for two years. There are new arguments, there are new things to discover. For example, Mr. Kwok is now claiming in his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 269

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 253 of 269 Proceedings bankruptcy petition that there's another company, not just the New York company owned by the BVI company, the two Genever entities, there's a new company, a new shell company called Bravo Luck, and that's really the beneficial owner of the apartment, and that has been paying the expenses, and that is owned wholly by his son. So his argument in the bankruptcy is not that he has any legitimate creditors, it's that the apartment is held in trust for his son, and his son should take priority over Pacific Alliance. It's all a shell game. We are entitled to explore that and whatever else had is happening in the last few years. They put the apartment on the market, and then they took it off the day of the attachment proceeding so that they could argue to you in court, hey, it's not on the market any more, you shouldn't attach it. We are entitled to that discovery, and that's what CPLR 5229 is intended to give us, giving the judgment creditor precisely the information of who owns the assets, where they are located. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The second issue that they raise, your Honor, and that's the one that you started this conversation with, is what should be the scope here, should the restraining order relate only to Mr. Kwok's assets, to Mr. Kwok's assets that he indirectly and directly owns? What they are trying to say here is that it should only pertain to assets he "owns directly." That is an exception that would swallow the rule 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 254 of 269

because Mr. Kwok does not hold any assets directly. That is his MO. He holds assets through multiple layers of family members, multiple layers of shell companies precisely for this reason so creditors like us can't reach them.

Mr. Kwok admitted it in his deposition in another case. He said, he testified under oath, we quote this, "In reality I don't have any assets under the law. I'm penniless." He makes those claims because of the way he structures his holdings like the apartment. I told you, for example, shell company, shell company that he now says his son owns, and this is a company, Bravo Luck, that he says his son owns even though he used to hold it, 50 percent of it, and apparently says now he sold it to his son for a dollar based on documents he didn't produce in this case, backdated, forged documents. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

This entire thing is a sham, that his 20-something year old son at the time was really the one to pay \$70 million for the apartment, he's the rightful owner of the apartment? It's all a game to make sure we are unable to collect.

There's also a 30 million-dollar yacht. That one is held by a Hong Kong company. 21 22

THE COURT: I thought it was \$27 million.

MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, I was rounding up. I was rounding up. 24 25 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 255 of 269

There's a 27 million-dollar yacht held by a Hong Kong company, and once we are allowed to take discovery we will find more assets held by more shell companies of which Mr. Kwok or one of his children is the sole owner.

Here's the issues: If they ask you to only enjoin him from dissipating his assets that he holds directly, that would exclude everything, and it would exclude everything even though Mr. Kwok has said that these are his assets.

He submitted an affidavit to this Court saying he owned the apartment. He submitted, he filed a complaint last month in New York saying that the yacht was "his yacht." These are his assets, and it's permitted by the statute, CPLR 5229, to have a restraining order that applies to assets held directly and indirectly. 9 10 11 12 13 14

CPLR 5229 provides that a plaintiff can have prejudgment restraint in the same way it can have post-judgment restraint. Post-judgment restraint is governed by CPLR 5222, and that says that the restraints apply to property in which he or she, meaning the judgment debtor, "has an interest." It doesn't say direct interest, it says an interest. Mr. Kwok has already testified, he's already submitted evidence in this case that he owns the apartment, and he has judicial admissions that he owns the yacht. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

So their cases that they cite for the proposition 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 256 of

1 that CPLR 5229 and 5222 only apply to direct assets are 2 completely inapposite because none of them involve a 3 situation whereas here the defendant has actually claimed 4 that he owns these assets. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Moss, I understand your argument. 6 Let me hear from Mr. Siegal. 7 MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor. 8 MS. CARVALHO: Good morning.

9 from Baker & Hostetler for Mr. Kwok. 10 I just want to begin by saying we have repeatedly 11 heard this morning Mr. Moss saying "Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy." 12 The bankruptcy petition that was filed was not Mr. Kwok's. 13 We have been made aware of it as the Court has been made 14 aware of it. On its face it says that it's filed by an 15 entity, one of the entities who has counsel here present 16 today. So if any questions or issues are arising relating 17 to the bankruptcy, I cannot speak to it, but Mr. Mitchell 18 certainly can. 19 So on CPLR 5229 the relief being sought by 20 plaintiff in the TRO and order to show cause is far broader 21 than that provided under CPLR 5229.

22 enjoin and restrain defendant Kwok with respect to "any 23 property in which he has an interest," but CPLR 5229's 24 application is limited to Mr. Kwok, the adverse party.

CPLR 5229 specifically states that "the trial

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 257 of 269

judge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment." Courts have strictly construed the language of CPLR 5229. The adverse party is Mr. Kwok, and the Court's decision and order on summary judgment is limited to him individually.

Plaintiffs have spent a lot of time in their reply seeking to continue to poison the well against Mr. Kwok, but that is simply because plaintiff cannot present authority to support its unilateral expansion of CPLR 5229.

Plaintiff presented the Court with various categories of cases where CPLR 5229 relief has been granted, but that goes to the Court's discretion to grant this relief. The statute says the Court "may order relief under 5229," and we are not disputing that. Yes, a Court can award CPLR 5229 relief in many different fact patterns, but the relief is still limited to what is provided in CPLR 5229, and plaintiff has not shown any basis supporting its unilateral expansion of the statute besides it's just what they want. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The cases cited by plaintiff, in fact, do not expand the scope of CPLR 5229. The APF case, Gallegos case, Safeco case, Unex case and Leser case all limit the relief to the specific adverse party and not to any "interest" that party may have. In the Eastern District of New York in the 21 22 23 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 258 of 269

Proceedings Leser v. U.S. Bank case the Court specifically stated, "Plaintiff is correct, however, that the scope of the order should be limited to the restraint on the assets of plaintiff Leser." USB had originally sought restraints against "plaintiff Leser and any person, company or other entity controlled by him," but then USB conceded during argument that it was only seeking restraint as to plaintiff Leser, and the Court found that appropriate and proper. Nothing plaintiff says can change that. The statute only provides the relief that it provides. So let's look at the statute. The statute provides for examination and restraints. Examination: Here Mr. Kwok's assets have already been addressed in discovery. Mr. Kwok has been deposed three times in this matter, on October 3rd, 2018, November 25, 2019, and December 11, 2019. Mr. Kwok has produced over 14 pages of documents. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to sufficiently examine Mr. Kwok, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

and, in fact, if you look at plaintiff's second set of document requests attached to my affirmation you see that they were, in fact, targeting assets. Now plaintiff argues that passed discovery is insufficient, but the record shows that there was, in fact, disclosure. Objections were certainly made based on the scope. There were questions asked of Mr. Kwok such as, 22 23 24 25

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 259 of 269 Proceedings "Were any of your assets received by the Chinese government," but by not allowing fishing expeditions that does not mean that discovery was not sufficient. I also note there were disputes in the past, and those discovery disputes have been resolved, but creating confusion by making these broad-sweeping statements, and attaching e-mails without original letters that they are responding to does not change that. Now turning to the second part that the statute allows restraint, but restraint is limited to CPLR 5229 and is distinguishable from the restraint provided under CPLR 5222. The relief sought here pursuant to 5229 is applicable before a judgment has been entered so unlike post-judgment devices which are available against third-parties, the restraining powers under CPLR 5229 can only be used against "the adverse party." However, at any posture restraint is always limited to property in which Mr. Kwok has a direct and actual interest. Restraint will not apply to indirect interests including interest held in a corporation, proceeds of property, or even assets of an alter ego until alter ego status has been adjudicated and liability has been determined. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Plaintiff also cannot use CPLR 5229 as an end run under the requirements for prejudgment attachment statutes. Here plaintiff's application relies ad nauseam and we have

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 260 of 269

heard his counsel repeat this morning and admit that the sole focus here is on the ownership of the residence at the Sherry. Plaintiff himself says Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. The Court has acknowledged and stated Mr. Kwok is not the owner of the Sherry. And even though Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry, he agreed on consent to a court order where he would provide plaintiff with immediate written notice of any contract to sell, assign, pledge or transfer any assets of the respective defendant entity to any third-party. So plaintiff has received broader relief on subsequent than it would have been entitled on this instant publication under CPLR 5229 so, therefore, there's no concern with respect to dissipation of the Sherry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Now plaintiff argues that Mr. Kwok is trying to weaken the relief that they are seeking, but in actuality we are adhering to the statute and the powers that the Court has given under the statute. Plaintiff is relying on statements allegedly made by Mr. Kwok regarding his ownership of assets. Mr. Kwok can say anything he wants to, ownership is a factual legal issue. If he does not own it, he does not own it, period. That is not enough to give you broader relief under CPLR 5229. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Discovery has been conducted. The plaintiff's focus here is solely on the Sherry, as we have repeatedly 24 25 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 261 of 269 Proceedings heard this morning. Any further examination is a waste of time and money. The subject is already -- the Sherry is already subject to an order and it's restrained. None of plaintiff's arguments change the application of CPLR 5229 here. That's it. Now importantly relief under 5229 rests within the sound discretion of the Court, absolutely, but Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and any further examination should be limited to assets and topics not previously addressed in discovery. Redundant and duplicative discovery are not authorized under CPLR 5229. And the transfer of the Sherry, as we have already mentioned several times, it's already been restricted, and any further restraints should be denied. We have a consent order in place that Mr. Kwok has agreed to, and Mr. Kwok does not have a direct interest in the residence at the Sherry. So Mr. Kwok requests that this Court vacate the TRO, deny plaintiff's motion for CPLR 5229 relief as it far exceeds the scope of CPLR 5229. Mr. Kwok has already been examined, and his assets have already been discovered and restrained by this Court, but should this Court be inclined to grant plaintiff's relief under CPLR 5229, Mr. Kwok would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

request that this Court use its discretion to modify such relief to Mr. Kwok's assets in his individual capacity as

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 647 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2020 269

1 the "adverse party," and Mr. Kwok's assets not previously 2 the subject of prior discovery and court orders relating to 3 a transfer. 4 Thank you, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 to say anything? 7 MR. MITCHELL: No, your Honor.

8 well said. I join Ms. Carvalho in her argument. 9 THE COURT: All right. 10 Look, this is a 2017 case.

11 motions relating to Mr. Kwok's assets.

12 as reflected in the September 15, 2020, order that Mr. Kwok 13 has attempted to mislead the Court.

14 Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game 15 with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court 16 orders, the spirit of court orders.

17 to an end on or shortly after January 15, 2021, when we have 18 the trial on the alter ego issue, but between now and the 19 commencement of the January 15, 2021, trial Mr. Kwok and any 20 entities that he directly or indirectly controls are 21 restrained from alienating or transferring any property that 22 Mr. Kwok has a direct or indirect interest including most 23 specifically the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel 24 which was the subject of 2018 discovery and a consent order 25 to which counsel for Mr. Kwok referenced, and also the yacht

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 263 of

which 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.

So 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.

In 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

That's the order of the Court.

MS. CARVALHO: Your Honor, could I ask for some clarification? 23 24

We understand the order of the Court today,

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 264 of 269

1 however, I am confused where it comes to indirect ownership

2 because, I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, 3 there could be entities that will be restrained from 4 conducting regular and ordinary business, and to what extent 5 can someone decide that something would be an indirect 6 interest and prevent ordinary transfers?

7 know how far this goes with other independent autonomous 8 companies.

THE COURT: It goes this far: There is no ordinary course transfer of a 70 million-dollar apartment at the Sherry-Netherland. There is no ordinary course transfer of a 27 million-dollar yacht. If Mr. Kwok wants to get a haircut or if Mr. Kwok wants to buy a newspaper or if Mr. Kwok wants to take a vacation in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, that would be ordinary course, but I think everybody on this Microsoft Teams platform understands that there's been a lot of moving around of these two assets that have an aggregate value of at least \$75 million, and the plaintiff is entitled to ascertain the entity that presently has title to these assets, how those entities came to have title to those assets, and any intermediate transfers that were made between the time Mr. Kwok was the record owner of these assets and the time that the present record owner came into possession of these assets. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MS. CARVALHO: Understood.

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 265 of 269

So the assets specifically are the Sherry and the yacht, but the position, just to make sure I understand it, is that with respect to other autonomous corporations, they can continue in the ordinary course, there's no ceasing or stopping of business for other legally autonomous entities.

THE COURT: It's not clear to me what other business and what other entities Mr. Kwok has formed. The intent here which is very clear and specific is that in this 2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a great deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders, I want to know if any transaction is going to take place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something other than an ordinary course of business transaction. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

> MS. CARVALHO: Okay. I think we understand. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. MOSS: Your Honor, if I may, just two points. Number one, in terms of the assets, we know that

there are also shell companies in Connecticut that own Greenwich real estate that he just bought for like \$7 million. I think the most efficient -- and we don't know what we don't know. I think the most efficient way to proceed would be for us to be able to serve some sort of interrogatory at the outset, what are the assets and what are the entities that hold them, and then we can proceed to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 266 of 269

depose Mr. Kwok and those entities if they are entities or Mr. Kwok as the 30(b)(6) for those entities. I want to do this efficiently and with minimal burden, and rather than just asking him questions that he is going to say he does not know the answer to, I think the most efficient way would be to try to use written discovery to get a list of what the actual assets are.

THE COURT: Look, I'm not going to tell you how to practice law. You have the transcript of today's proceedings. I think I've made it very clear what you can do.

You can conduct discovery of any assets -- you can conduct discovery of any entity that you have a good faith basis for believing Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly controls. It can be written discovery, it can be oral discovery. I'm not going to play schoolyard monitor while you jockey back and forth with discovery disputes about the scope of what you can do. I think Mr. Kwok's counsel and I think Genever's counsel full understand what is reflected in the transcript of proceedings. We are dealing with a telescoped period of time here. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

There's a restraining order that's been entered with respect to two specific assets, and only two specific assets, and there's an alter ego trial that's scheduled for January 15, 2021, and there's a damages hearing that's going 22 23 24 25 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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 267 of 269

1 to take place sometime before or in conjunction with the 2 alter ego trial. 3 Again, this is a 2017 case, and it's occupied a 4 considerable amount of the Court's time.

5 several written decisions.

6 either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and 7 while intentional or unintentional misstatements that have 8 misled the Court have been made to the Court, we are going 9 to have closure in this case in January of 2021. 10 So the court reporter will give you her e-mail 11 address. You will order a copy of the transcript.

12 be any clearer than I've been on this transcript. 13 If any party or any counsel disregards the orders 14 of the Court, there will be serious sanctions. 15 Are we all clear? 16 MR. MOSS: Yes. 17 Your Honor, may I just -- one question on the 18 damages motion. 19 We filed our motion, they opposed.

20 the Court is going to have a hearing as soon as possible on 21 this issue. May we reply because there are some things we 22 would like to put before the Court given that they have 23 opposed and we have not yet replied? 24 THE COURT: If you wish.

25 that I am backed up with trials and motions.

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 268 of 269

out a January 15th date. That's chiseled in stone. We will have the alter ego trial on January 15, 2021, if we can get to the damages hearing before, then we will, but there's not a lot of time between now and January 15th, and you, Mr. Moss, are probably going to be quite busy.

MR. MOSS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, one last question regarding the order here today just because, as you're aware, Genever New York has filed bankruptcy. I doubt that any assets within the bankruptcy estate would be sold or anything between now and January 15th, but I want to make sure that myself particularly or any party to the action wouldn't draw the ire of a potential sanction for whatever happens in the bankruptcy court.

THE COURT: No, I cannot -- I have no jurisdiction over any entity that's in bankruptcy. That doesn't mean applications can't be made by Mr. Moss to the bankruptcy court. It doesn't mean that Mr. Moss can't refer in any proceedings before the bankruptcy court to the transcript of the proceedings here today, but I well understand the automatic stay of the bankruptcy court with respect to entities that have filed for bankruptcy. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 23 24

Terry, can you give the parties your e-mail

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 183-4 Filed 04/06/22 Entered 04/06/22 17:07:45 Page 269 of 269

1 address from which they can order a copy of the transcript 2 which will be so ordered and e-filed? 3 Thank you very much.

4 Have a nice day everyone. 5 MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor.

8 I, Terry-Ann Volberg, C.S.R., an official court reporter of 9 the State of New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing 10 is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes.