[财经时事] 纽约州诉摩根大通银行 寻找替罪羔羊 [推广有奖]

JP Morgan Chase v New York
纽约州诉摩根大通银行

In search of a villain
寻找替罪羔羊

A special committee to prosecute mortgage fraud files its first case
打击抵押贷款诈骗特别委员会提起首例诉讼。

Oct 6th 2012 | NEW YORK | from the print edition
2012年10月6日 | 纽约 | 印刷版

THE procedure is well-honed by now. In an effort to hold a bank accountable for what happened in the run-up to the financial crisis, a prosecutor or a regulator files a suit with hard-hitting  allegations. A wave of laudatory headlines follows. The bank in question offers some sort of denial, a bit of contrition, then settles. End of story.
到目前为止，起诉和应诉流程已日趋完善。公诉人或是监管当局用难以置辩的指控提起公诉，极力想让银行为金融危机发生之前所发生的一切承担责任。其后，溢美之词如波浪般涌上媒体头条。受质询的银行摆出含糊其辞的否认、稍许忏悔的态度，接着达成和解。故事到此为止。

Or so it has gone in the past. The first case from a mortgage-fraud unit  created with great fanfare by Barack Obama in January suggests the plot-line may be shifting. This time the government is facing criticism for filing an incomplete complaint targeting a bank that no longer exists.
或者说，那都是发生在过去。在总统巴拉克•奥巴马大力鼓吹之下于今年二月建立的抵押贷款欺诈调查小组提出的首起诉讼表明，上述情节可能将有所改变。这次，政府因对一家已不存在的银行提起不完全民事诉讼而面临着批评。

On October 1st Eric Schneiderman, co-chair of the mortgage unit and the New York attorney-general , charged JPMorgan Chase (JPM) with multiple fraudulent and deceptive acts  tied to the sale of mortgage-backed securities. The case was filed under the Martin Act , a New York state law that is particularly favourable to prosecutors because it allows a financial institution to be convicted of fraud even without evidence of intent—normally a defining feature of the crime.
10月1日，该调查小组联合主席暨纽约州总检察长埃里克•施耐德曼（Eric Schneiderman）指控摩根大通银行（JPMorgan Chase）在销售抵押贷款支持证券（MBS,Mortgage-backed Security）过程中存在多项提供不实信息和欺诈的行为。该案依据纽约州《马丁法案》提起公诉；这一法案对检查官颇为有利，因为它允许能在表明被告具有犯罪意图（通常是罪行最显著的特征）的证据缺失的情况下判定金融机构欺诈罪名成立。

The 31-page complaint includes incendiary allegations about dodgy sales and underwriting  practices. Employees engaged  in vetting the underlying mortgages were said to be too overwhelmed with work to make informed decisions. Defective loans were routinely overlooked. Reimbursements made by originators of bad loans were retained by the bank rather than going to investors, who ended up with losses of $22.5 billion.
在31页的公诉书中，针对狡猾的销售伎俩和承销手段的指控颇具煽动性。据称，参与审查基础性抵押贷款的雇员因为工作量过大而无法做出明智的决策。有缺陷的贷款常常被忽略。而不良贷款发放人偿付的赔偿款被银行据为己有，而不是流向投资者，最终导致投资者蒙受225亿美元的损失。

So far, so consistent with other well-publicised cases. But the lawsuit had barely been launched before criticism of it began, starting with the selection of JPM as a target. All of the alleged crimes were committed by Bear Stearns, an investment bank that JPM acquired, at the government’s behest, over a chaotic weekend during 2008 when regulators feared the collapse of America’s financial system. Whatever Bear’s failings might be, they were not JPM’s (even if Bear’s legal liabilities came in tandem with the acquisition).
就此看来，这些指控与其他大肆宣扬的案例并无二致。但是，这起诉讼提出伊始便遭批评，源于检方将JPM定为了起诉目标。被指控的犯罪行为均为贝尔斯登（Bear Stearns）所犯；2008年监管当局担心美国金融系统会崩溃，在一个混乱的周末JPM在政府的要求之下收购了这家投资银行。不论贝尔斯登受到何种指控，都与JPM毫无关联（即便是贝尔斯登的法律责任伴着被收购而转嫁到JPM身上）

The filing is sloppy , too. In its first demand , the complaint  asks that JPM be restrained from activity similar to what is alleged, but there are no allegations that JPM ever engaged in similar behaviour. The lawsuit then asks for documents tied to Bear’s alleged activities, but there is no evidence that JPM has resisted any request for information from prosecutors under the normal discovery process . The third demand is for a blanket disgorgement of money due to investors , but the complaint makes no effort to distinguish losses due to wrongful activity from losses caused by a decline in the market value of mortgage-backed securities.
同样，起诉书提交的也相当草率。起诉书中提出的第一项要求是：限制JPM从事与所受指控相类似的商业活动，但是JPM并未参与此类活动。接着，检方还要求查阅相关文件，这些文件与贝尔斯登被指控的商业活动有关联，但是没有证据表明JPM在正常的披露程序中拒绝了检方的信息提供要求。第三项要求是：JPM交出所有本属于投资者的款项，可是公诉书并没有就不法行为所致的损失和MBS市值下跌所致的损失做出区分。

The press was unimpressed. “Is this the best that Eric Schneiderman has got?” was a fairly typical response from one Bloomberg columnist. JPM itself says the New York attorney-general did not offer the bank an opportunity to rebut the allegations in the complaint and vowed to contest the charges.
媒体反应冷淡。彭博社的专栏作家对此的反应——“这就是埃里克•施耐德曼最好的表现吗？”——颇为典型。JPM称纽约州检察总长没有给他们针对所控罪行提出抗辩的机会，而他们一定会为自己辩护。

There is little it can do right now. In demanding further information, the complaint suggests the attorney-general’s office has yet to build its case. Inevitably, that has raised suspicions about why the indictment  was filed now; just as inevitably, the motivation is widely believed to be political. A weak economic recovery has sharpened the hunger for villains; Mr Obama has an affinity for bashing bankers; the filing came just before the first debate between the president and Mitt Romney, his Republican opponent.
现在他们几乎无能为力。在要求检控方提供进一步信息的过程中，公诉书显示纽约州检察总长办公室尚未就本案立案。这一事实无可避免地加重了人们的怀疑：为什么现在提交公诉书？此举被广泛认为存在政治动机的驱使，照例这也是无可避免的。经济复苏疲软迫切需要替罪的羔羊；奥巴马总统有一种敲打银行家的喜好；该案恰在总统与共和党竞争对手米特•罗姆尼（Mitt Romney）展开第一轮总统竞选辩论之前提交法院。

Mr Schneiderman himself appeared to be taken aback  by the chilly reception . “There will be other cases against other firms,” he promised on October 2nd, in response to criticisms that JPM was the wrong bank to go after. “Multiple investigations” are in the works.
各方冷淡的反应让施耐德曼自己也措手不及。10月2日，他信誓旦旦地说：“我们还将针对其他公司提起公诉。”，并以此回应选择JPM这个错误的对象来起诉而引发的批评声。“多项调查”正在进行中。

No one questions that there were severe problems in America’s pre-crisis mortgage market. Banks face extraordinary legal, political and public-relations problems as a result. What the most recent complaint establishes is that prosecutors can face them as well.
毫无疑问金融危机爆发之前的美国抵押贷款市场存在严重的问题。后果就是银行面临巨大的法律、政治和公关难题。而最近这起民事诉讼案的出现表明，公诉人同样也会面临这些难题。