评论
打印
Who shall guard the guards? Mark Carney has pledged that the Bank of England he leads will meet the highest standards of accountability and transparency in its role as regulator of the City of London. Yet there continues to be serious public disquiet about the thoroughness of an inquiry by Lord Grabiner, commissioned by the BoE last year to investigate its own conduct in connection with the manipulation of the foreign exchange market.
谁该来监视警卫呢？马克•卡尼(Mark Carney)已承诺，他领导的英国央行(BoE)在履行伦敦金融城(City of London)监管者职能时，将在问责和透明度方面满足最高标准。去年，英国央行委托格拉比内勋爵(Lord Grabiner)调查该行自身与操纵外汇市场有关的行为。然而，公众对这项调查的彻底性仍抱有严重疑虑。
In his report Lord Grabiner cleared BoE officials of any misconduct but criticised its chief forex dealer, Martin Mallett, for failing to tell superiors of his concerns something was amiss in the foreign exchange markets. He had been part of an informal panel of dealers intended to gather and share information from the markets. The US Department of Justice, which has asked to interview a senior trader at Royal Bank of Scotland concerning the scandal, appears to be focusing on this panel and whether it was involved in collusion.
格拉比内勋爵在其报告中申明英国央行官员未从事任何不当行为，但他批评该行首席外汇交易员马丁•马利特(Martin Mallett)未能向上司汇报自己对外汇市场显现异象的担忧。马利特曾是一个非正式的交易员小组的成员，该小组意在从市场中收集并分享信息。美国司法部(DoJ)似乎正密切关注这个小组以及它是否卷入共谋。之前，该部已要求约谈一名涉及该丑闻的苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)资深交易员。
Yet the issue goes much deeper than the inquiry acknowledged. That is because, whether inadvertently or by design, the BoE set the original terms of the Grabiner inquiry far too narrowly.
然而，这件事远比此次调查承认的严重。这是因为，无论是出于无意还是出于有意，英国央行为格拉比内调查所设初始条款的涵盖范围太过狭窄。
As an opinion I commissioned from Charles Béar QC[CAN WE LINK TO IT?] makes clear, there are two possible tests of the bank’s conduct. The first asks what its staff ought to have been aware of, and what they should have done about it. The second merely asks what its staff actually were aware of, and whether they were involved in actual or potential market manipulation. In inquiries into serious professional misconduct it is normally the first, more stringent test that is applied. Yet the BoE has adopted the second, much less demanding standard in relation to the Grabiner inquiry.
正如我向王室法律顾问查尔斯•贝尔(Charles Béar QC)征求的意见所阐明的，英国央行的行为有两种可能的考查方法。第一种是询问该行工作人员本应觉察到什么、以及本应就此做些什么。第二种则只是询问该行工作人员实际上觉察到了什么、以及是否参与了实际或潜在的市场操纵。在调查严重失职行为时，通常采用第一种、同时也是更为严格的考查方法。但英国央行在涉及格拉比内调查时采用了第二种、标准远不那么严格的考查方法。
In testimony to the Commons Treasury committee both Mr Carney and Anthony Habgood, chair of the BoE’s court of directors, dismissed Mr Béar’s legal opinion, while somehow insisting that the inquiry met both the higher and the lower standards and was “thorough and comprehensive”[LINK].
在英国下院财政委员会(Commons Treasury committee)作证时，卡尼与英国央行董事会主席安东尼•哈布古德(Anthony Habgood)都未理会贝尔的法律意见，同时还莫名其妙地坚称，该调查既满足较高的标准也满足较低的标准，是“彻底而全面的”。
Yet these views were swiftly contradicted by testimony from Charles Randell, a member of the BoE’s Prudential Regulation Authority, a lawyer who was for 24 years a partner at Slaughter and May. He acknowledged the distinction between the tests, confirmed the higher test was normally used in misconduct inquiries and said the PRA itself applied it when scrutinising the behaviour of senior executives at the institutions it oversees. The BoE is insisting, in other words, that the City meet a standard it refuses to apply to its own staff.
但这些观点很快就被查尔斯•兰德尔(Charles Randell)的证词驳倒，后者是英国央行审慎监管局(Prudential Regulation Authority)成员，也曾是律师事务所司力达(Slaughter and May)长达24年的合伙人。兰德尔承认了这两种考查之间的区别，证实了较高标准的考查方法通常用于不当行为调查，并表示审慎监管局自身会在审查其负责监管的机构的高管行为时采用这种方法。换句话说，英国央行是在坚称，伦敦金融城遵守的是一套英国央行拒绝用在自己工作人员身上的标准。
To test these issues still further I requested a second opinion from counsel, published on Monday[LINK? ALSO NEWS STORY]. This shows how much accountability has been lost by opting for the lower standard, and outlines the kinds of question the Grabiner inquiry ought properly to have addressed. Still more pertinently, it discusses three key precedents: the BBC investigation into sexual abuse committed by Jimmy Savile, a longtime TV presenter; the Leveson inquiry into the role of the press; and, ironically, the BoE’s own Bingham inquiry into the debacle surrounding Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a London-based bank that collapsed in 1991. All adopt the higher standard.
为了进一步考查这些问题，我向法律顾问征求了第二条意见。该意见显示了选用较低标准在多大程度上削弱了问责，并列举出格拉比内调查本应合理提出的种种问题。更贴切地说，它讨论了三个重要先例：英国广播公司(BBC)对资深电视主持人吉米•萨维尔(Jimmy Savile)性侵丑闻的调查；围绕媒体扮演的角色展开的莱韦森调查(Leveson Inquiry)；以及具有讽刺意味的、英国央行自身就国际商业信贷银行（Bank of Credit and Commerce International，一家总部位于伦敦、于1991年倒闭的银行）引发的危机展开的宾厄姆调查(Bingham Inquiry)。所有这些调查都采用较高标准。
The Grabiner report is manifestly inadequate. It does not resolve the question of whether BoE officials, including senior staff, were negligent or otherwise at fault. It leaves a shadow of doubt over an institution that aspires to be above suspicion.
格拉比内报告显然是不够好的。它没有化解人们对英国央行官员（包括高级工作人员）是否存在玩忽职守或不当行为的疑问。它为一家渴望摆脱嫌疑的机构蒙上了一层可疑的阴影。
What should be done? First, the BoE oversight committee must start to exercise genuine scrutiny independently of the governor. Second, the Treasury committee — which before this month’s UK election issued a note of key issues of concern, and will soon be reconstituted — should proceed immediately to a report on this issue.
该做些什么呢？首先，英国央行监督委员会必须开始展开独立于行长的真正审查。其次，英国下院财政委员会（它在本月英国大选前发布了一份包含主要关注问题的纪要，该委员会很快将被重组）应立即就此事完成一份报告。
