FT社評:法律面前必須人人平等

There is one law for the rich and another for the poor. What else can one conclude from the decision by the City of London police not to investigate the former UK chief executive of JC Flowers for fraud? This week Britain's Financial Services Authority hit Ravi Shankar Sinha with a £2.8m financial penalty, the biggest ever imposed on an individual for an infringement not related to market abuse. In its findings, the FSA said Mr Sinha had acted "without honesty or integrity" in fraudulently obtaining £1.3m in fees from one of the private equity group's portfolio companies and abusing his position of trust with his employer. In the legal lexicon, this translates as grounds for fraud investigation.

這個世上適用於富人的法律是一套，適用於窮人的則是另一套。當倫敦金融城警方決定不對JC Flowers前英國首席執行官拉維•尚卡爾•辛哈(Ravi Shankar Sinha)進行相關欺詐調查時，你還能得出什麼別的結論呢？上週，英國金融服務管理局(Financial Services Authority)對辛哈處以280萬英鎊的罰款，這是其有史以來就不涉及市場舞弊的違規行爲對個人開出的最大罰單。該局在調查結果中表示，辛哈以欺詐手段從一家公司（該公司是私人股本集團JC Flowers投資組合中的公司之一）獲得了130萬英鎊的費用，濫用了僱主對他的信任，其行爲“缺乏誠信”。用法律語言來說，這就等於是爲展開相關欺詐調查提供了理由。

Dishonesty against an employer is taken particularly seriously in the UK. A gross breach of trust is rarely dealt with in the magistrates' courts, but goes immediately to the crown court, where a prison sentence is a near certainty on conviction. That is how Joyti De-Laurey, a secretary who stole £4.4m from Goldman Sachs in 2004, was sent down for seven years. But heavy jail terms are normal even for far smaller breaches. Which is why the decision not to push ahead with a full criminal inquiry into Mr Sinha's conduct smacks of double standards.

在英國，失信於僱主是一件特別嚴重的事。性質嚴重的失信案件很少會交由地方法院審理，而是直接移交刑事法庭，一旦定罪，則難逃牢獄之災。曾在高盛(Goldman Sachs)擔任祕書的喬伊蒂•德-勞雷(Joyti De-Laurey)就是這樣被判入獄7年的——2004年時，她從高盛偷走了440萬英鎊。即便涉案金額比這小很多，量刑力度通常還是會很大。這就是爲什麼當警方決定不對辛哈的行爲展開全面刑事調查時，人們彷彿嗅到了雙重標準的味道。

The City of London Police were clearly in a difficult position, given JC Flowers' reported lack of enthusiasm to pursue charges. It is regrettable that the UK has historically been more reluctant to convict and impose long sentences in cases of white-collar crime than in Hong Kong or the US. Without the determined support of the putative victim, the chances of securing a conviction quickly dwindle.

倫敦金融城警方顯然處在一個尷尬的境地，因爲據說JC Flowers對提出指控的興趣不大。從歷史上看，英國在涉及白領犯罪的案件時，對罪犯判以長期徒刑的意願不如香港或美國那麼強烈，這一點令人遺憾。沒有公認受害者的堅定支持，證明不法之徒有罪的可能性便迅速降低。

But there is good reason why an investigation — no matter how difficult — would still be in the public interest. Apart from the fact that a crime appears to have been committed, it is important that those engaged in relationships of trust — such as JC Flowers, which manages millions for investors — co-operate with authorities and that such episodes are not swept under the carpet. Mr Sinha's defence that he would have been given permission by head office to charge what were, in effect, fees for nothing had he asked beforehand may be self-serving nonsense. But equally, it raises questions about private equity's arbitrary fee structure that many in the industry might be uncomfortable answering. Britain's financial sector should employ practices that stand up to scrutiny. By opting to abandon an inquiry, neither justice nor transparency has been served.

但我們有充分理由認爲，推進相關調查——無論調查過程會多麼艱難——仍是符合公衆利益的。除了犯罪似乎已經發生這一點之外，涉及信任關係的相關方——例如爲投資者管理着海量資金的JC Flowers——應與有關部門合作，讓這類事情無處隱藏，這一點很重要。辛哈辯解說，如果他事先請示，總部應該也會同意他收取這筆實際上可謂是無緣由的費用。這話或許是他爲自身開脫的無稽之談，但它另一方面也引發了人們對於私人股本公司這種隨意式收費結構的疑問。面對此疑問，該行業的許多從業者或許都難以坦然地給出答案。英國金融業的各種做法要經得起外界的審視。若選擇放棄調查，淪爲犧牲品的便是公正與透明。

譯者:薛磊