高盛身陷贿赂泥潭
|
我们可能很快就会知道了。美国证券交易委员会(Securities and Exchange Commission)正在调查高盛(Goldman Sachs)和其他大银行在与利比亚主权财富基金交易时是否违反了贿赂法。 此案的问题在于高盛起初同意支付的一笔费用（该笔费用一旦支付就会被转交给一个有政治关联的投资管理公司）是否违反了《海外反腐败法案》(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act，简称FCPA)。近年来，美国政府已打赢了诸多FCPA大案，无一不在警告业界这是一个不容轻视的问题。 高盛是在和利比亚主权财富基金协商如何弥补利比亚方面13亿美元投资损失时谈到的这笔费用的，但事实上高盛从未支付这笔费用。高盛精明的交易员们令这位老于世故的客户损失了高达98%的投资资金，这样的表现可能比任何投资基准都要差。 在2008年的某个时候，双方曾讨论以利比亚获持高盛优先股的形式弥补投资损失；如果成交，卡扎菲极有可能会成为恐怖分子中的沃伦•巴菲特。有意思的是，高盛曾将此举描述为一个多赢格局。但是我们没有机会看到这一幕，因为后来双方谈判破裂，交易未能达成。 目前，我们只能看到高盛每天对近期这一调查的回应。高盛针对上周四《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)的报道声明称： 我们确信我们的所作所为以及提议的内容既没有、也不可能违反任何法律法规。我们一直聘请外部法律顾问，这是我们任何一宗交易的常规做法，目的是确保我们贯彻了一切适用的法律法规。我们对美国证券交易委员的调查尚不知情，如果确有此事，我们定当全力配合。 事情理应如此。正如之前的《虚假申报法》(False Claims Act)，FCPA已成为检察机构打击企业不法行为的大棒。当然，目前谈论检察机构的介入仍为时过早，美国证券交易委员会仅有权提起民事诉讼，而且近期来看即便是对调查对象提起民事诉讼的倾向性也不明显，因为这些调查对象有足够的钱聘请律师或动用其他资源。 目前还远不清楚高盛FCPA案是否会导致9位数罚款，重蹈近年来西门子(Siemens)和哈里伯顿(Halliburton)子公司Kellogg Brown & Root的覆辙。 通常情况下，只有当调查机构认定涉案公司内部控制松懈并竭力掩盖真相时，才会开出高额的FCPA罚单。高盛的声明至少说明它清楚这些风险，并相信自己有妥善的风险管理。 话说回来，几周前，我们压根不知道高盛在让独裁者亏钱方面做得如此出色。天知道高盛富丽堂皇的重重红门背后还会爆出什么秘密来？ |
We may soon find out. The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at whether Goldman Sachs (GS) and other big banks broke bribery laws in dealing with Libya's sovereign wealth fund. The question in this case is whether Goldman violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by initially agreeing to pay a fee that would have been passed along to a politically connected investment manager. The government has won a number of big FCPA cases in recent years (see chart, right), putting big companies on notice that it's not a question to take lightly. Goldman never actually paid the fee, which Goldman and the wealth fund discussed as they considered how the investment bank might make Libya whole for $1.3 billion in investment losses. Goldman's savvy traders lost their sophisticated client an impressive 98% of its money in that instance, a performance that is likely to have lagged behind any number of investing benchmarks. At one point in 2008 the sides discussed Libya clawing back its investments through a preferred stock investment in Goldman, which would have made Moammar Gadhafi a sort of Warren Buffett of the terrorist set. It would have been amusing to see Goldman spin that one as a win-win for everyone, though we never got the chance because talks broke down before a deal could be reached. For now we will have to be content to see Goldman's spin on the latest investigation of it, which by now is practically a daily occurrence. Goldman says in response to Thursday's report in the Wall Street Journal that We are confident that nothing we did or proposed was or could have been a breach of any rule or regulation. We retained outside counsel, as is our normal practice for any transaction, to ensure that we were compliant with all applicable rules. We are not aware of an SEC investigation into the matter but if there is one we will, of course, cooperate fully. Oh, of course. But like the False Claims Act before it, the FCPA has emerged as a big stick for prosecutors seeking to crack down on corporate creeps. It is, admittedly, early to talk about prosecutors now, the SEC having the authority to bring only civil cases and all and having shown little inclination lately to bring even those against potential adversaries who have enough money to hire actual lawyers and stuff. And it is far from clear that FCPA case against Goldman would result in nine-digit fines like the ones slapped recently on Siemens (SI) and the Kellogg Brown & Root unit of Halliburton (HAL). Big FCPA fines tend to result from cases in which investigators find lax internal controls and active efforts to cover things up. Goldman's statement, at least, indicates it is aware of those risks and believes it has managed them appropriately. But then, a couple weeks ago we had no idea Goldman was best in class in the losing dictators' money category. Who knows what sort of things will come out of the rich mahogany woodwork next. |
