法律面前必须人人平等

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.

这个世上适用于富人的法律是一套，适用于穷人的则是另一套。当伦敦金融城警方决定不对JC Flowers前英国首席执行官拉维•尚卡尔•辛哈(Ravi Shankar Sinha)进行相关欺诈调查时，你还能得出什么别的结论呢？上周，英国金融服务管理局(Financial Services Authority)对辛哈处以280万英镑的罚款，这是其有史以来就不涉及市场舞弊的违规行为对个人开出的最大罚单。该局在调查结果中表示，辛哈以欺诈手段从一家公司（该公司是私人股本集团JC Flowers投资组合中的公司之一）获得了130万英镑的费用，滥用了雇主对他的信任，其行为“缺乏诚信”。用法律语言来说，这就等于是为展开相关欺诈调查提供了理由。

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.

在英国，失信于雇主是一件特别严重的事。性质严重的失信案件很少会交由地方法院审理，而是直接移交刑事法庭，一旦定罪，则难逃牢狱之灾。曾在高盛(Goldman Sachs)担任秘书的乔伊蒂•德-劳雷(Joyti De-Laurey)就是这样被判入狱7年的——2004年时，她从高盛偷走了440万英镑。即便涉案金额比这小很多，量刑力度通常还是会很大。这就是为什么当警方决定不对辛哈的行为展开全面刑事调查时，人们仿佛嗅到了双重标准的味道。

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.

伦敦金融城警方显然处在一个尴尬的境地，因为据说JC Flowers对提出指控的兴趣不大。从历史上看，英国在涉及白领犯罪的案件时，对罪犯判以长期徒刑的意愿不如香港或美国那么强烈，这一点令人遗憾。没有公认受害者的坚定支持，证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.

但我们有充分理由认为，推进相关调查——无论调查过程会多么艰难——仍是符合公众利益的。除了犯罪似乎已经发生这一点之外，涉及信任关系的相关方——例如为投资者管理着海量资金的JC Flowers——应与有关部门合作，让这类事情无处隐藏，这一点很重要。辛哈辩解说，如果他事先请示，总部应该也会同意他收取这笔实际上可谓是无缘由的费用。这话或许是他为自身开脱的无稽之谈，但它另一方面也引发了人们对于私人股本公司这种随意式收费结构的疑问。面对此疑问，该行业的许多从业者或许都难以坦然地给出答案。英国金融业的各种做法要经得起外界的审视。若选择放弃调查，沦为牺牲品的便是公正与透明。