渣打悲劇中誰是真正的惡人?大綱

Yet another Shakespearean banking tragedy opened this week, with Standard Chartered starring this time as the villainous rogue. The day of reckoning will be Wednesday, when the New York Department of Financial Services will hear the bank's defence against charges of hiding the involvement of Iranian government clients in 60,000 wire transactions, worth at least $250bn. Call it the Ides of August.

上週銀行業又有一出莎士比亞悲劇上演，此次扮演卑鄙惡棍的是渣打銀行(Standard Chartered)。"審判日"就是週三（8月15日），屆時紐約州金融服務局(New York state Department of Financial Services)將聽取渣打的辯護證詞，該行此前被控隱瞞參與伊朗政府客戶約6萬筆、至少價值2500億美元的電匯交易。此次事件完全稱得上是"八月風雲"。

That hearing will focus on "wire stripping". Standard Chartered employees allegedly hid the fact that wire transfers to New York were coming from Iranian government-owned institutions by stripping out references to Iran from wire instructions. Standard Chartered called this a "repair procedure," and insists it was permitted.

法庭聆訊將以"電匯代碼消除"(wire stripping)爲焦點。渣打員工涉嫌通過刪除電匯指令中提到伊朗的部分，隱瞞匯往紐約的款項來自伊朗政府下屬機構的事實。渣打將此類操作稱作"修正流程"，並堅稱其符合法規要求。

Media commentators and bank analysts have suggested that the evil actors in this drama were the employees who did the "repairs" and the managers who supervised them. Others have absolved Standard Chartered, accepting the bank's argument that the scope of wrongdoing was minimal and had nothing to do with terrorism. But the New York regulators' order centres on the bank's general counsel and compliance offices. This focus on lawyers is important.

媒體評論員和銀行分析師指出，在這齣戲中扮演惡人的演員是那些執行"修正"程序的員工以及管理他們的上級經理。其他人則認爲渣打無罪，接受該行有關違規操作的範圍極小以及絕不牽涉恐怖主義的說辭。但紐約州監管當局的報告將矛頭對準了該行法律總顧問辦公室以及合規辦公室。這種對銀行內部律師的關注引人回味。

Among the most incriminating documents cited in the order are memoranda and emails from the bank's attorneys, who allegedly advised that wire instructions should not identify the names of Iranian clients because that would trigger scrutiny in New York. Legal and compliance officers were allegedly involved in a plan called Project Gazelle, which sought to build the bank's business with Iranian clients without exposing the New York branch "to the risk of a breach of sanctions". Given these allegations, the opening line at next week's hearing might be: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

報告引用的最能將渣打治罪的文件之一，是渣打律師團隊的備忘錄和電子郵件，他們涉嫌建議在電匯指令中不列明伊朗客戶的名稱，因爲這可能觸發來自紐約監管當局的檢查。該行法律及合規主管則被指控參與"瞪羚計劃"(Project Gazelle)，該計劃的目的是在不給紐約分行帶來"違反制裁禁令風險"的情況下，建立與伊朗客戶的業務往來。鑑於以上指控內容，本週聽證會的開場白有可能是："我們要做的第一件事，是把律師通通幹掉。"

Indeed, the order puts the bank's senior attorneys and compliance officers at the heart of the wire stripping scheme, even when outside counsel advised otherwise. As early as 1995, soon after President Bill Clinton announced economic sanctions against Iran, the bank's general counsel allegedly "embraced a framework for regulatory evasion". He allegedly strategised about how to avoid scrutiny by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, known as OFAC, and instructed employees that a memorandum describing the plan to avoid regulatory compliance was "highly confidential and MUST NOT be sent to the US".

報告實際上將渣打的高級律師以及合規主管們置於電匯代碼消除陰謀的核心，而當時該行的外部法律顧問曾給出與內部律師相反的意見。報告指出，早在1995年，當時的美國總統比爾•克林頓(Bill Clinton)宣佈對伊朗實施經濟制裁後不久，渣打的法律總顧問就"採納了一整套逃避監管的方案"。據稱，他設計了躲避外國資產控制辦公室（Office of Foreign Assets Control，簡稱OFAC）檢查的策略，並向手下員工指示，一份描述該行逃避監管合規要求計劃的備忘錄是"高度機密並且絕不能被傳至美國"。

We know bankers can be ruthless when pursuing profits. But bank lawyers are not supposed to think like bankers. Decades ago, the general counsel of a bank thought more about ethics than efficiency. But today's in-house counsel are often profit centres, fonts of wisdom on how to avoid accounting rules, cut taxes and maintain the secrecy of dubious practices. One reason for the recent wave of abuses at big banks is that their in-house lawyers have been more focused on speed and profit than on right and wrong.

我們都知道銀行家在追求利潤時可能變得冷酷無情。但銀行律師的想法不應與銀行家一致。幾十年前，一家銀行的法律總顧問對道德的重視程度甚於效率。但如今，內部法律顧問部門常常變成了利潤中心，爲如何規避會計準則、少交稅以及隱瞞可疑操作出謀劃策。近年來大型銀行紛紛爆出違規醜聞的一大原因在於，它們的內部律師團隊關注效率和利潤甚於關注對錯本身。

It is now apparent that speed was a concern of Standard Chartered's lawyers: if the wire instructions had contained references to Iran, they probably would have been investigated and so delayed. The bank's chief legal and compliance officer for its wholesale banking business apparently called the risk of such delays a "deal-breaker" in efforts to develop new business.

我們現在可以清楚看出，交易速度是渣打律師團隊的關注重點之一：如果電匯指令中包含提到伊朗的語句，則很可能受到調查進而導致交易延遲。該行批發銀行業務部門的首席法律與合規官直白地表示，對於該行拓展新業務的努力而言，此類交易延遲風險簡直就是"交易殺手"。

Standard Chartered's lawyers also allegedly "outsource[ed] the entire OFAC compliance process for the New York branch to Chennai, India, with no evidence of any oversight or communication between the Chennai and the New York offices". Inadequately trained due diligence staff allegedly had simultaneous responsibility for both "repair procedures" and "compliance". The regulators called this dual role "a paradoxical task to say the least". Allegedly, when staff in India found questionable disclosures, they contacted clients, who then sent "repaired" wires stripped of any references to Iran. Even if that process proves to have been legal, it was due diligence in name only.

渣打律師團隊還涉嫌"將紐約分行的整個OFAC合規流程外包到印度欽奈(Chennai)，並且沒有證據顯示其曾履行過監督職責，或欽奈方面與紐約分行之間進行過任何溝通"。報告稱，渣打讓未受過充分培訓的盡職調查人員同時負責"修正流程"和"合規"。紐約州監管當局表示，這種雙重角色"說得最輕也構成了職責衝突"。報告還指出，當渣打駐印度員工發現有問題的信息後，他們與客戶取得了聯繫，客戶隨後發出了剔除任何與伊朗有關語句的"修正版"電文。即使這一流程被證明爲合法，該行的盡職調查也不過空有其名而已。

As recent debacles at Barclays, HSBC and now Standard Chartered demonstrate, employees of big global banks increasingly lack a moral compass. Some general counsels and compliance officers do provide ethical guidance. But many are facilitators or loophole instructors, there to show employees the best way to avoid the law. Not even mafia lawyers go that far; unlike many bankers, mobsters understand the value of an impartial consigliere who will tell them when to stop.

近期巴克萊銀行(Barclays)、匯豐銀行(HSBC)以及渣打爆出的一系列醜聞表明，大型跨國銀行的員工越來越缺乏道德方向感。確實有一些銀行的法律總顧問和合規主管在提供道德指引。但還有許多人是違規行爲的協助者或者鑽漏洞方面的指導員，其存在的意義不過是教給員工逃避法律約束的最佳方式。黑幫律師都不至於如此缺乏底線；與很多銀行家不同，黑幫成員明白一位公正的法律顧問的價值，因爲他能夠告訴他們何時應該停手。

Bank executives have recently been criticised and even replaced, and more heads will roll. The Standard Chartered saga is not over: the bank allegedly orchestrated similar schemes in Sudan, Myanmar and Libya. But as the drama unfolds, many in the audience will ask: who were the true villains? The bankers? Or "yes men" lawyers who may have enabled and emboldened them?

近期銀行管理層備受指責，部分甚至遭到撤換，未來還將有更多的人受到懲罰。渣打的故事並未就此結束：該行還被指控在蘇丹、緬甸以及利比亞策劃了類似陰謀。但隨着戲劇情節的推進，很多觀衆會問：誰是真正的惡人？是銀行家嗎？還是那些給銀行家出謀劃策和壯膽的"好好先生"律師們？

Lawyers are supposed to be the grown-ups at the party, professionals who guide their colleagues and tell them what they can and cannot do. They should be ombudsmen, not enablers. One lesson from recent scandals is that banks need reliably independent in-house counsel, with a strong moral backbone.

律師們本應是派對上的成年人，是爲自己的同事提供指引、告訴他們哪些能做哪些不能做的專業人士。他們應是監察員，而不是助紂爲虐者。我們從近期醜聞中得到的一大教訓是，銀行需要足夠獨立、具備堅定道德觀的內部法律顧問。