兆豐案紐約法院判決 Mega Case decided by NY Court

作者 謝鎮寬

2016-09-22

台灣有句俗話說，「天作孽、猶可違，自作孽、不可活。」兆豐國際商業銀行，於二０一六年八月十九日，被紐約州金融服務署，以違犯反洗錢法，罰款一億八千萬美元。但九月一日兆豐發言人林瑞雲說，紐約州法院的聲明，只是要求兆豐銀行把債務人伍鮮紳，在兆豐全球分行的帳戶資料，交給債權人B＆M金史東。它屬於提供資訊條款的問題，與洗錢無關。甘奄惗？ 在二００一年九月十一日恐怖攻擊事件後，所有金融機構都被要求，遵守銀行保密法及其他相關規定、反洗錢法。反洗錢法目的是，要協助偵查和呈報可疑活動，包括事先發覺洗錢罪犯，和恐怖行為，如證券詐欺和市場操縱。提供可疑資訊是，反洗錢的必要過程。為什麼兆豐身為台灣在海外銀行業務的佼佼者，卻不俱備銀行保秘法及反洗錢法的基本常識？這是一個典型的「知法玩法」惡行，夜路走多了總有一天碰到鬼，不該貪得無厭得寸進尺。 美金一億八千萬的罰款等於台幣五十七億，這意味著在台灣每個人，都要分攤二百四十八元的債務，因為兆豐是公股銀行。它是由歷史悠久的中國國際商業銀行，與交通銀行於二００二年十二月一日合併而成。其前身是廣為人知的中國銀行，繼承了成立於一九０五的大清銀行。早期中華民國政府在建國初年，發行了許多黃金債券，賣給旅居在美國的華人，由當時的中國銀行、現在的兆豐銀行，負責債券對沖。該債券應於一九七０年前贖回，有部份因中國的國共內戰，於一九四九年即告終止，其餘至今仍淪為違約債券。這些有問題的債券，全部都是經由國民​​黨官員，代表中華民國政府發行或批准。台灣民權訴訟組織於二０一０年，曾在美國聯邦舊金山地區法院，對國民黨商業管理委員會，提起黃金債券訴訟。 兆豐是國營銀行，擁有豐富的國際銀行對沖業務經驗，但它又是如何地被捲入訴訟，且被金融署罰款？蔡英文總統說：「這已經造成台灣名譽受損，也讓人民對金融監理不信任」。現在，就讓我們從金融署，於二０一六年八月十九日發布的新聞稿，及紐約州最高法院、上訴庭、第一廳，於二０一五年八月十一日判決書，來予一一檢視。 二００三年六月十六日，佛羅里達州法庭對卡魯索（債務人），因偽造、公民盜竊、侵占資源和信息盜竊案做出判決，必須賠償原告超視國際公司三千九百萬美元，同時債務人伍鮮紳，必須招供所有他能簽名的銀行帳戶資料。 二００九年三月廿四日，超視將債權轉讓給B＆M，法院判決於是也就近地，被轉移登錄到紐約州納紹縣。 二０一四年八月七日，B＆M向兆豐銀行提出，攜證出庭傳票，及問卷調查傳票，要求提供任何債務人，與兆豐銀行往來帳戶的記錄。 二０一四年八月十四日，兆豐書面回應說，紐約分行不擁有判決書所載，債務人的任何帳戶或其他財產，他們也沒有任何借貸。 二０一四年八月廿七日，兆豐回應攜證出庭傳票表示，其紐約分行是不擁有，任何屬於法判債務人的資產，並且反駁傳票，試圖索取在紐約分行以外的記錄。 二０一四年九月十日，B＆M提交一份，由超視創始人布雷特金史東簽署的訴狀指出，兆豐與法院判決債務人關係密切，尤其是伍掀紳隱瞞資產，包括透過巴拿馬銀行轉帳，兆豐在那裡自由貿易區分行經理、天使卡巴貝洛，是伍鮮紳公司的職員。 兆豐辯稱，「獨立實體」規則禁止傳票執法，也不准許知會紐約以外的兆豐分行。兆豐還認為，國際禮讓原則排除，傳票強制的國際合規。 然而，兆豐同意接受必要的監管，以換取可以在紐約營業，因此被要求必須遵守，提供相關資訊的傳票管轄權。 為了能夠在市場營運中獲益，外資銀行必須向金融署總監註冊，取得執照，並且提交書面文件「任命總監及他或她的繼任者，為實質法定代理人，來處理任何指控其紐約機構、代理機構或分公司，在交易上引起訴訟的所有過程或行動。」 二０一五年八月十一日，紐約州最高法院、上訴庭第一司法廳、羅蘭多阿科斯塔法官，宣達，依紐約郡最高法院萊特法官，於二０一四年九月十九日判決而提出的上訴，准予原告要求被告，提供傳票所指的完整資訊，特予確認，及付費。 二０一五年十月初，美國聯邦儲備委員會，拜訪台灣金融監督管理委員會，討論金融技術，但據銀行局詹庭禎局長說沒有涉及兆豐銀行。然而，前兆豐銀行董事長蔡友才證實，美國聯儲局曾於二０一五年十月五日，拜會兆豐銀行台北總行，他因要出席立法院委員會會議而缺席，所以蔡友才早在自去年十月就已知情。 二０一六年二月，金融署發表報告指出，兆豐紐約分行的法尊人員是由兆豐總行派任，都只略知法規要求，其法尊主任則根本就缺乏銀行保密法、反洗錢法及美國對外國資產控管的知識。 二０一六年三月廿四日，兆豐銀行提出反駁一些有關金融署的指控。它宣稱，某些交易毫無可疑之處，根本不構成反洗錢法所指的「可疑活動報告」，因此該交易不構成，反洗錢法所指的可疑活動。 兆豐紐約分行非常低標的金檢評鑑，令人完全無法接受。金融署總監瑪麗亞布蘿說，「金融署不會容忍公然漠視反洗錢法，將採取果斷和強硬行動，來對付任何不遵守規定機構，以防止其非法交易。」 二０一六年八月十九日，布蘿宣布：「兆豐國際商業銀行，將支付一億八千萬美元的罰款，並成立一個獨立監管單位，以防違犯紐約的反洗錢法」，並發布一份同意令，由吳漢卿、兆豐國際商業銀行董事長，黃士明、兆豐紐約分行協理，和瑪麗亞布蘿、金融署總監等，三人簽署。 兆豐弊案是國民黨團在台灣，玩法弄權的典型模式，他們早期把國庫通黨庫，然後再把黨庫黨產藏匿到世界各地。它發生於馬英九任內，但卻由蔡英文政府扛責。這是什麼樣的邏輯？簡直就是荒唐可惡，毫無道理。政黨政治要求執政黨，負起在全國發生任何大小事的責任。水能載舟、亦能覆舟。如果民進黨當局不知，如何去懲處由國民黨政府留下的爛攤子，那台灣人民絕對會有辦法，告訴民進黨政府該如何去處理。 現在，前兆豐銀行董事長蔡友才已被起訴，並進入司法調查，新董事長與新總經理已經派任，正如蔡總統所說，「我們一定要檢討金融監督管理，推動改革，不再讓這種荒腔走板、匪夷所思的事情發生。」希望台灣能從這個兆豐弊案，吸起教訓。領導者必須，果斷、決擇；縱容罪犯，就是對守法者殘酷。天佑台灣！ 謝鎮寬 加州、海沃 Court Order http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_06482.htm Press Release http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press/pr1608191.htm Mega Case decided by NY Court There is a saying in Taiwan, one can be survive from natural disaster but will not be alive by self-abused. Mega International Commercial Bank (MICB) (兆豐銀行) was fined $180 million for violating Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Law by the New YorkDepartment of Financial Services (DFS) on August 19, 2016. But, on September 1 MICB spokesperson Lin Ruiyun (林瑞雲) said, New York State Court’s statement only asked MICB to provide the debtor Samson Wu’s information with the global branch of Mega Bank to creditor B&M Kingstone, LLC. It is an issue of information provision has nothing to do with money laundering. Is it right? After the September 11 attacks in 2001, all financial firms are required to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act(BSA) and its implementing regulations, Anti-Money Laundering rules. The purpose of the AML rules is to help detect and report suspicious activity including the predicate offenses to money laundering and terrorist financing, such as securities fraud and market manipulation. To provide the suspicious information is the necessary process of AML. How come MICB as Taiwan’s leader in oversea banking operation does not have the basic knowledge of compliance with BSA & AML regulations? This is a typical of “live by theghosts, die by the ghosts”, how will always encounter at night go ghost. Don’tpush your luck. A fine of $180 million equals NT$5.7 billion that means everyone in Taiwan has to bear NT$248 debt becauseMICB is a state run bank. It was formed on December 1, 2002 mergerof the historic International Commercial Bank of China (中國商業銀行) and Chiao Tung Bank (交通銀行). It was well known as Bank of China, successor of Daqing Bank (大清銀行) established in 1905. In the early days ROC government issued a lot of gold bonds marketed to Chinese expatriates in the United States and clearedby Bank of China now called Mega Bank, redemption for bear bond holders supposed ended in 1970. Partial redemption was halted in 1949 becauseof China Civil War and the remainder of the issue is still in default even today. All the bonds in question were issued or ratified by KMT officials on behalf of the ROC. Taiwan Civil Rights Litigation Organization filed a goldbond lawsuit against Kuomintang Business Management Committee in 2010 at US Federal District Court of San Francisco. MICB is a state run bank with rich experience in international banking clearance, but how was it involved lawsuit and penalized by DFS? As President Tsai Ing-wen said “it had damaged Taiwan's reputation and created public mistrust about supervision of the financial sector”. Well, let’s review it from the press released by DFS on August 19, 2016 and the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department entered August 11, 2015. June 16, 2003 a Florida court entered judgment in excess of $39 million in favor of Super Vision International Inc against Caruso (debtors) in counterfeiting, civil theft and misappropriation of its propriety information. Debtor Samson Wu must disclose all accounts he was authorized to draw. March 24, 2009 Super Vision assigned its rights against debtors to B&M and the judgment was entered and recorded in Nassau County in New York State in favor of B&M. August 7, 2014 B&M served Mega Bank with subpoena duces tecum and an information subpoenawith restraining notice and questionnaire asked, among other things, whether Mega had a record of any account in which each judgment debtor may have an interest and whether the judgment debtor was indebted to Mega in any manner. August 14, 2014 Mega responded by letter stated that its New York branch was not holding anyaccount or other property for the judgment debtors and they were not indebted to it. August 27, 2014 Mega responded to the subpoena duces tecum stated that its New York branch wasnot in possession of assets belonging to any judgment debtor, and objected to the subpoena to the extent it sought records located in Mega branches outside New York. September 10, 2014 B&M filed a petition signed by Super Vision founder Brett Kingstone pointedout Mega was intimately involved with the judgment debtors, especially Wu who concealed debtor’s assets, including through transactions in Panama, where the Mega Free Zone branch manager Angel Caballero was an officer of companies ownedby Wu. Mega argued that the “separate entity” rule precluded enforcement of subpoenas and retraining notices as to Mega branches outside New York. Mega also argued that principles of international comity precluded compelling international compliance with the subpoenas. However, Mega consented to the necessary regulatory oversight in return for permission to operate in New York, and therefore is subject to jurisdiction requiring it to comply with the appropriate information subpoenas. In order to benefit from the advantages of transacting business in this forum, a foreign bank must register with and obtain a license from the Superintendent of DFS, and file a written instrument “appointing the superintendent and his or her successors its true and lawful attorney, upon whom all process in any action orproceeding against it on a cause of action arising out of a transaction with its New York agency or agencies or branch or branches.” August 11, 2015 Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department, Justice Rolando T.Acosta, J.P. made the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered September 19,2014, which, to the extent appealed from, granted petitioner's motion to direct respondent to fully respond to an information subpoena, should be affirmed, with costs. October 2015 US Federal Reserve visited Taiwan’sFinancial Supervisory Commission to discuss financial technology dut nothing related to Mega Bank according toBanking Bureau Director General Austin Chan. But, former Mega Bank chairman Mckinney Tsai (蔡友才)confirmed US Federal Reserve visited Mega Bank Taipei head quarter on October 5, 2015 and he was absent on Legislative Yuan Committee meeting. So, Tsai was well informed since last October. February 2016 DFS issued a Report of Examination found that, the position of BSA/AMLofficer in Mega-New York was held by a person from Mega International Head office possessed little familiarity with US regulatory requirements. Similarly, its Chief Compliance Officer lacked adequate knowledge of BSA/AML and OFAC requirements. March24, 2016 Mega Bank submitted response refuted a number of DFS’ examination findings. It declared that certain types of activity were not suspicious and insisted no AML regulatory guidance related to filing “Suspicious Activity Reports” on these types of transaction and that therefore such transactions do not constitute suspicious activity. Mega-NewYork’s extremely troubling to the examination is totally unacceptable. Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo said “DFS will not tolerate the flagrant disregard of anti-money laundering laws and will take decisive and tough action against any institution that fails to have compliance programs inplace to prevent illicit transactions.” August 19, 2016 Vullo announced “MICB will pay a $180 million penalty and install an independent monitor for violating New York’s anti-money laundering laws” and released a Consent Order signed by Hann-ChingWu, then president of Mega International Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., Vincent S.M. Huang, senior vice president & general manager of MICB-NY Branch and Maria T. Vullo, Superintendent of Financial Services. The Mega scandal is a typical criminal act violated by KMT group in Taiwan, they connected national treasuryto their party account in the old days and then hide the stolen money in everywhere around the world. It occurred in Ma Ying-jeou’s administration, butTsai Ing-wen’s government got the blame. What kind of logics is this? It simply does not make sense at all. Party politics asks the ruling party to be responsible for whatever happenings in the nation. The water that bears theboat is the same that swallows it. If DPP administration does not know how to fix the headache issues left by KMT government, then Taiwan people absolutely will show DPP government how to fix it. Now the former Mega Bank chairman Mckinney Tsai has been indicted and under investigation, new chairman and new general manager were appointed, as what President Tsai said,"We must review our financial supervision, promote reform, and not allow this ridiculous and unbelievable matter to happen again." Hope Taiwan will learn a good lesson from this Mega scandal. A leader must act decisively. Mercyto a criminal is brutal to a legalist. God bless Taiwan! John Hsieh Hayward, California Source: 臺灣海外網