那些隱跡于紐約奢華公寓的全球富豪(3)
法庭文件顯示，馬爾金極力否認(rèn)參與了有組織犯罪，稱加拿大當(dāng)局的說法沒有依據(jù)，并指出自己前往其他國(guó)家時(shí)皆暢通無阻。馬爾金起訴了加拿大當(dāng)局，2009年6月，一名法官裁定應(yīng)對(duì)該案進(jìn)行重審，因?yàn)轳R爾金早前沒有回應(yīng)相關(guān)指控的機(jī)會(huì)。
Mr. Malkin was allowed to visit Canada in 2012, his lawyer, Gregory Sidlofsky of Toronto, said inan email, adding, “Canadian authorities never had nor provided any evidence of anywrongdoing by Mr. Malkin.” In the Angola debt case, he said, Swiss investigators ultimatelyfound no wrongdoing. Mr. Sidlofsky said the $48.8 million was a dividend reflecting hisclient’s share of the intermediary company. As for the long-running renovation of the TimeWarner condo, he said, “Mr. Malkin does not own the apartment, nor has he had any recentinvolvement in the renovation.”
馬爾金在多倫多的律師格雷戈里·希德洛夫斯基(Gregory Sidlofsky)在電子郵件中說，馬爾金于2012年獲許進(jìn)入加拿大，并表示，“加拿大當(dāng)局從未掌握或提供任何證據(jù)，表明馬爾金有任何不端行為。”他說，在安哥拉債務(wù)一事中，瑞士調(diào)查結(jié)構(gòu)最終也并未發(fā)現(xiàn)馬爾金有不端行為。他說，那4880萬美元是其當(dāng)事人在該公司所持股份帶來的分紅。至于時(shí)代華納中心那套共管公寓長(zhǎng)時(shí)間翻修一事，他表示，“馬爾金不是那處公寓的所有人，近期也未參與任何翻修。”
The American Bar Association suggests that government officials like Mr. Malkin warrantenhanced scrutiny in real estate deals, but its guidelines are voluntary. Marc Isaacs, the NewYork lawyer who handled the condo purchase, said his firm’s client vetting goes beyond anonline search, but he would not elaborate. Asked about Mr. Malkin, Mr. Isaacs said he could notdiscuss specific clients.
美國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)(American Bar Association)表示，在房地產(chǎn)交易中，肯定應(yīng)該對(duì)馬爾金這樣的政府官員給予更密切的關(guān)注，但該機(jī)構(gòu)的指導(dǎo)方針是自愿執(zhí)行的。經(jīng)手那宗共管公寓交易的紐約律師馬克·伊薩克斯(MarcIsaacs)表示，他所在的律所對(duì)客戶的審核不只是在線搜索而已，但他不愿詳細(xì)解釋。在被問及馬爾金時(shí)，伊薩克斯表示自己不能討論某個(gè)具體客戶。
The real estate agents on the Time Warner deal included Brenda S. Powers and Elizabeth L.Sample, who represent many foreign clients and who live in the building. Ms. Sample said thather focus when vetting buyers was this: “They have to have the money. Other than that, that’sit. That’s all we need.”
負(fù)責(zé)時(shí)代華納中心那筆交易的房產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)是布倫達(dá)·S·鮑爾斯(Brenda S. Powers)和伊麗莎白·L·桑普爾(Elizabeth L. Sample)，她們就住在樓里，代理了許多外國(guó)客戶。桑普爾表示，在審核買家時(shí)她關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)是：“他們必須要有買房的錢。其他的就算了。我們只需要知道這一點(diǎn)。”
A Blind Eye
不聞不問
Federal banking guidelines are clear: “Banks should take all reasonable steps to ensure thatthey do not knowingly or unwittingly assist in hiding or moving the proceeds ofcorruption.” This means screening customers to determine whether they are “politicallyexposed people” — foreign officials and their relatives and associates — and filing a“suspicious activity report” if the customers transfer unusually large amounts of money.
聯(lián)邦銀行業(yè)指導(dǎo)原則說得很明白：“銀行應(yīng)采取一切合理措施，確保不會(huì)在有意或無意中，協(xié)助隱藏或轉(zhuǎn)移外國(guó)高級(jí)政治人物及其親友通過腐敗獲得的收入”。也就是說，銀行應(yīng)對(duì)客戶進(jìn)行審查，查明他們是否是“政治敏感人物”——外國(guó)官員及其親友——并在客戶轉(zhuǎn)移巨額資金時(shí)，提交“可疑活動(dòng)報(bào)告”。
But such checks are not required on money flowing into the country through shell companiesto purchase high-end real estate.
但通過空殼公司流入美國(guó)并購買高端房地產(chǎn)的資金，并未被要求接受這類審查。
L.L.C.s and other entities can be established in various states without revealing their trueowners. Even when such companies move money through a bank account, banks are notrequired to know who is behind the transaction because of a loophole in the law.
在很多州，有限公司和其他企業(yè)實(shí)體成立時(shí)都可以不透露其實(shí)際所有人。因?yàn)榉陕┒?，即便在這類公司通過銀行賬戶轉(zhuǎn)移資金時(shí)，銀行也未被要求知曉相關(guān)交易的背后都有什么人。
In many ways, the government has allowed the real estate industry to turn a blind eye to thesource of money used to buy luxury properties.
在很多方面，政府允許房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)對(duì)購買豪華房地產(chǎn)的資金的來源不聞不問。
It might not have turned out this way. In the late 1990s, after congressional hearingshighlighted corrupt foreign officials with money in the United States, the Justice Departmentsought to expand the list of industries required to screen the financial activities of politicallyexposed people. That included jewelry sales, hedge funds and real estate.
這種局面本來可以避免。上世紀(jì)90年代末，在多次國(guó)會(huì)聽證會(huì)讓外國(guó)腐敗官員將錢轉(zhuǎn)移至美國(guó)的問題突顯出來后，司法部(Justice Department)尋求擴(kuò)充行業(yè)名單，要求被列入名單的行業(yè)審查政治敏感人物的財(cái)務(wù)活動(dòng)。該名單本應(yīng)包括珠寶商、對(duì)沖基金和房地產(chǎn)商。
The proposal gained momentum after Sept. 11, when the Justice Department pushed to makeit part of the Patriot Act. The rules were included in the law and handed to the TreasuryDepartment to put into effect.
9·11事件后，這項(xiàng)提案贏得了更多的支持。司法部推動(dòng)其成為《愛國(guó)者法案》(Patriot Act)的一部分。相關(guān)規(guī)定被寫進(jìn)了法律，并被轉(zhuǎn)交給財(cái)政部執(zhí)行。
The real estate and legal professions sprang into action, arguing that background checks wereimpractical and would hurt the economy. “The money-laundering risks presented by realestate closings are relatively small, compared to other types of financial assets,” the AmericanLand Title Association said in comments on the proposed rules.
房地產(chǎn)和法律行業(yè)迅速行動(dòng)起來，聲稱背景審查不切實(shí)際，且會(huì)損害經(jīng)濟(jì)。“和其他類型的金融資產(chǎn)相比，房地產(chǎn)交易帶來的洗錢風(fēng)險(xiǎn)相對(duì)較小，”美國(guó)土地產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)會(huì)(American Land Title Association)在對(duì)監(jiān)管規(guī)則提案的意見書中說。
Businesses insisted that tainted money was not likely to flow into real estate. “Anonymity andliquidity, two characteristics important to money launderers, typically do not exist in realestate transactions,” the Dechert law firm wrote.
相關(guān)企業(yè)則堅(jiān)稱，不法資金不太可能流入房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)。“對(duì)洗錢者十分重要的匿名和流動(dòng)性這兩個(gè)特征，在房地產(chǎn)交易中往往不存在，”德杰律師事務(wù)所(Dechert)寫道。
The industry’s assertions ignored the increasing use of shell companies and how often wealthyforeigners sought out high-end real estate as a safe deposit box.
該行業(yè)的論斷忽略了空殼公司的使用越來越普遍，以及富有的外國(guó)人常尋找高端房地產(chǎn)，將其作為安全的存款箱。
At the Time Warner Center, for instance, at least a dozen purchases would have receivedgreater scrutiny under the expanded rules.
比如，在時(shí)代華納中心，若按照擴(kuò)充后的規(guī)定，至少有12筆交易本應(yīng)受到更嚴(yán)格的審查。
But the Treasury Department never imposed the requirement on real estate or some otherindustries. Similarly, a proposal to extend the concept of the “know your customer” bankingrule to the identities of people behind L.L.C.s and other shell companies that open bankaccounts has been stalled for nearly three years in the Treasury Department.
但財(cái)政部從未對(duì)房地產(chǎn)或其他行業(yè)實(shí)行這一要求。同樣地，另一項(xiàng)提議也已在財(cái)政部擱置了近三年。該提議要求將有限公司及其他開設(shè)銀行賬戶的空殼公司背后的人的身份，納入銀行業(yè)“了解客戶”規(guī)定的范圍。
Banking associations say it would impose undue costs on them because there are no reliablefederal or state databases with shell company owners.
銀行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)表示，這么做會(huì)給它們帶來高昂的成本，因?yàn)闆]有可靠的聯(lián)邦或州一級(jí)空殼公司所有人數(shù)據(jù)庫。
In fact, registering shell companies has become profitable for states like Delaware and Nevada,which also have lobbied against transparency.
實(shí)際上，對(duì)游說反對(duì)透明的特拉華和內(nèi)華達(dá)等州來說，注冊(cè)空殼公司已變得有利可圖。
“I don’t see some kind of global effort to stop all this because the money’s too good,” saidDavid M. Crane, a Syracuse University law professor who oversaw the United Nations’ effort torecover money from Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president who was convicted of warcrimes and thought to have plundered his country.
“我沒看到有某種全球范圍的努力來阻止這一切的跡象，因?yàn)槭找鎸?shí)在太大了，”雪城大學(xué)(SyracuseUniversity)法學(xué)教授戴維·M·克蘭(David M. Crane)說。他曾經(jīng)負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督聯(lián)合國(guó)從利比里亞前總統(tǒng)查爾斯·泰勒(Charles Taylor)那里追回資金的工作。泰勒被裁定犯有戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪，還被外界認(rèn)為對(duì)利比里亞進(jìn)行了大肆掠奪。
A number of states do not require people forming companies to reveal the names of theowners or show any identification.
美國(guó)很多州并不要求開辦公司的人透露所有者的姓名，或出示任何身份證件。
This opacity presents challenges for law enforcement officials, who say billions of dollars insuspicious money move through shell companies each year. “It can be very, very difficult topenetrate who is the beneficial owner of these shell companies,” said Leslie R. Caldwell, chiefof the Justice Department’s criminal division.
這種不透明性對(duì)執(zhí)法人員提出了挑戰(zhàn)。美國(guó)司法部透露，每年通過本土空殼公司轉(zhuǎn)移的可疑資金數(shù)以億計(jì)。“非常、非常難以摸查到究竟誰是這些空殼公司的權(quán)益擁有人，”司法部刑事領(lǐng)域負(fù)責(zé)人萊斯莉·R·考德威爾(LeslieR. Caldwell)說。
She said that the department’s Kleptocracy Initiative has found that foreign officials often useshell companies or immediate family members to move large amounts of money to UnitedStates real estate.
她還表示，該部門的“反高層盜用國(guó)有資源項(xiàng)目”(Kleptocracy Initiative)經(jīng)常發(fā)現(xiàn)，外國(guó)官員往往通過空殼公司或直系親屬，將大量資金投入美國(guó)的房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)。
In 2010, a Senate committee investigating corrupt money moving into the country drewattention to a shell company used by the sister of the president of Gabon to buy a $2 millionresidence in Manhattan, and to an L.L.C. used by the son of the president of Equatorial Guineato purchase a $30 million home in Malibu, Calif.
2010年，參議院一個(gè)負(fù)責(zé)調(diào)查流入美國(guó)的貪腐款項(xiàng)的委員會(huì)披露，加蓬總統(tǒng)的姊妹利用一家空殼公司在曼哈頓購買了一處價(jià)值200萬美元的居所，而赤道幾內(nèi)亞總統(tǒng)的兒子利用一家有限責(zé)任公司在加利福尼亞州馬里布購買了一處價(jià)值3000萬美元的房產(chǎn)。
The proliferation of shell companies incorporated in the United States has hurt Washington’sattempt to get other countries to crack down on Americans who move money offshore toavoid taxes.
美國(guó)政府試圖讓其他國(guó)家打擊那些為了避稅而把錢轉(zhuǎn)移到海外的美國(guó)人。然而，在美國(guó)注冊(cè)的空殼公司泛濫，削弱了華盛頓的這種努力。
“We are in a totally inconsistent position,” said Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who pushed fortransparency in shell companies when he served in the Senate. “We’re way behind in terms ofkeeping up with what the international standard is, and it weakens our argument when we go totry to crack down the use of these offshore tax havens.”
“我們秉持的立場(chǎng)完全不統(tǒng)一，”曾在參議院推動(dòng)空殼公司透明化的密歇根州民主黨人卡爾·萊文(Carl Levin)說。“在緊跟國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上，我們遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落在后面。當(dāng)我們?cè)噲D打擊美國(guó)人利用這些離岸避稅天堂的活動(dòng)時(shí)，這令我們的立場(chǎng)遭到削弱。”
About a year ago, after the Group of 8 industrialized nations issued goals requiringidentification of shell company owners, a British representative met with Justice Departmentofficials to complain about the United States’ failure to comply.
大約一年前，工業(yè)化國(guó)家組成的八國(guó)集團(tuán)發(fā)布了要求明確空殼公司所有者的目標(biāo)。之后，一名英國(guó)代表特意與美國(guó)司法部官員會(huì)面，抱怨美國(guó)沒有遵循這些要求。
According to two people at the meeting, the British representative, Dominic Martin, delivered astern message: The lax American laws were being used by other countries as an excuse forinaction.
兩名與會(huì)者表示，英國(guó)代表多米尼克·馬丁(Dominic Martin)傳達(dá)了一條嚴(yán)厲的訊息：美國(guó)寬松的法律正在被其他國(guó)家用作不采取行動(dòng)的借口。
Such a message resonates with Justice Department officials who have advocated tightening therules.
主張收緊規(guī)則的司法部官員也有同樣的看法。
“For a long time we’ve taken the view that you have to focus on the people that manage thegateway to the financial system, and those guys are not only the banks,” said Stefan Cassella, aJustice Department lawyer. “Bad guys who are trying to invest money in the financial system —they use lawyers, they use accountants, they use real estate, they use jewelers and privatejets.”
“很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間以來，我們都以為，必須把側(cè)重點(diǎn)放在管理金融系統(tǒng)門戶的那些人身上，但這不僅僅包括銀行，”曾在司法部政策辦公室任律師的斯特凡·卡斯拉(Stefan Cassella)說。該部門當(dāng)時(shí)在謀求讓《愛國(guó)者法案》采納涵蓋面更廣的金融規(guī)則。“壞人試圖將資金投入到美國(guó)金融體系中——他們會(huì)聘請(qǐng)律師和會(huì)計(jì)師，會(huì)利用房地產(chǎn)、珠寶和私人飛機(jī)。”
Transactions amid Investigations
調(diào)查正進(jìn)行，交易仍如常
Just two months after the collapse of the Ponzi scheme run by Bernard L. Madoff in 2008,another Ponzi schemer was arrested: James Nicholson, whose Time Warner condominium wasfrozen. Mr. Nicholson’s $8.5 million unit would become the only one in the complex to be seizedand sold off by law enforcement officials, even though other owners have been accused ofwrongdoing. The difference is that Mr. Nicholson is an American citizen.
2008年，伯納德·L·麥道夫(Bernard L. Madoff)的龐氏騙局崩塌短短兩個(gè)月后，另一個(gè)龐氏騙局的主腦詹姆斯·尼科爾森(James Nicholson)遭到了逮捕，其位于時(shí)代華納中心第52層的公寓也被查封。尼科爾森的這套公寓價(jià)值850萬美元。它成為了樓中唯一一所遭執(zhí)法官員收繳和拋售的公寓，雖然也有其他業(yè)主被指控從事了不法行為。所不同的是，尼科爾森為美國(guó)公民。
Foreigners who buy real estate in the United States often have an easier time keeping it out ofthe reach of investigators, victims and plaintiffs back home.
在美國(guó)購置房產(chǎn)的外國(guó)人，往往更容易避開本國(guó)的調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)、受害者和原告對(duì)這些房產(chǎn)的追討。
Take the case of Pablo Ardila, a former provincial governor in Colombia known for huntingtrophies and lavish spending. Mr. Ardila acknowledged to The Times in 2004 that he and hisparents had set up a shell company to buy a $4 million condo in the building. In 2007, while hewas in office, Mr. Ardila was arrested and immediately jailed by local officials on charges ofenriching himself illicitly.
巴勃羅·阿迪拉(Pablo Ardila)就是一個(gè)這樣的例子。他曾是哥倫比亞的一名省長(zhǎng)，出了名地喜歡戰(zhàn)利品狩獵和奢侈消費(fèi)。阿迪拉本人在2004年向時(shí)報(bào)承認(rèn)，為了購買這棟大樓中一所售價(jià)400萬美元的公寓，他和父母成立了一家空殼公司。2007年，當(dāng)他還在任上時(shí)，哥倫比亞官員指控他中飽私囊，將其逮捕并隨即監(jiān)禁起來。
While Mr. Ardila was behind bars, the shell company sold the condo, making a $2 million profit.By then, the forwarding address on property records was no longer in Colombia, but went toa Jhon Ballesteros, in Weston, Fla. John Burger, a real estate agent who represented the seller,said recently that he did not know Mr. Ardila was involved.
當(dāng)阿迪拉身陷囹圄時(shí)，這家空殼公司出售了這所公寓，賺取了200萬美元的利潤(rùn)。到了此時(shí)，房產(chǎn)記錄里登記的轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)地址已經(jīng)不再位于哥倫比亞，而是指向了佛羅里達(dá)州韋斯頓的霍內(nèi)·巴列斯特羅斯(Jhon Ballesteros)。代表賣家的房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人約翰·伯格(John Burger)在接受采訪時(shí)說，他甚至都不知道阿迪拉牽涉其中。
An extensive Colombian government analysis of Mr. Ardila’s holdings filed in court failed tounearth the Time Warner condo.
哥倫比亞政府向法庭提交了一份報(bào)告，對(duì)阿迪拉持有的資產(chǎn)進(jìn)行了詳盡的分析，但未能挖掘出這套位于時(shí)代華納中心的公寓。
Despite international agreements, the authorities in smaller countries have difficulty recoveringassets from abroad. “Judges in Colombia have been struggling a lot to get this money back toColombia,” said Elisabeth Ungar Bleier, executive director of the Colombia branch ofTransparency International, an anticorruption nonprofit.
盡管存在國(guó)際合作協(xié)議，但小國(guó)政府卻難以從境外追回資產(chǎn)。“哥倫比亞的法官非常努力地想把這筆錢追回，”伊麗莎白·溫加爾·布萊爾(Elisabeth Ungar Bleier)說。她是倡導(dǎo)反腐的非營(yíng)利組織透明國(guó)際(Transparency International)哥倫比亞分部的執(zhí)行總監(jiān)。
Mr. Ardila was released from jail after two years and nine months without having beenconvicted. However, Arnulfo Mendez Castro, a spokesman for Colombian prosecutors, said Mr.Ardila was still under investigation.
在看守所待了兩年零九個(gè)月后，阿迪拉獲得釋放，并未定罪。然而，哥倫比亞檢察部門發(fā)言人阿努爾福·門德斯·卡斯特羅(Arnulfo Mendez Castro)表示，阿迪拉仍在接受調(diào)查。
Mr. Ardila’s lawyer, Mauricio Cristancho, said his client was the victim of “an absurdprosecution.” Despite what Mr. Ardila had told The Times about the condo, the lawyer said, theunit belonged to Mr. Ardila’s father, a wealthy businessman. He said Mr. Ballesteros, who didnot reply to inquiries, was an assistant to the family.
關(guān)于這所公寓，不管阿迪拉對(duì)時(shí)報(bào)的說法如何，他的律師毛里齊奧·克里斯坦喬(Mauricio Cristancho)表示，公寓屬于阿迪拉的富商父親。他說，阿迪拉是“一起荒謬訴訟”的受害人，而巴列斯特羅斯是阿迪拉家族的一名助理。巴列斯特羅斯未回應(yīng)詢問。
