渣打悲剧中谁是真正的恶人?

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.
我们都知道银行家在追求利润时可能变得冷酷无情。但银行律师的想法不应与银行家一致。几十年前，一家银行的法律总顾问对道德的重视程度甚于效率。但如今，内部法律顾问部门常常变成了利润中心，为如何规避会计准则、少交税以及隐瞒可疑操作出谋划策。近年来大型银行纷纷爆出违规丑闻的一大原因在于，它们的内部律师团队关注效率和利润甚于关注对错本身。

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.
我们现在可以清楚看出，交易速度是渣打律师团队的关注重点之一：如果电汇指令中包含提到伊朗的语句，则很可能受到调查进而导致交易延迟。该行批发银行业务部门的首席法律与合规官直白地表示，对于该行拓展新业务的努力而言，此类交易延迟风险简直就是"交易杀手"。

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.
渣打律师团队还涉嫌"将纽约分行的整个OFAC合规流程外包到印度钦奈(Chennai)，并且没有证据显示其曾履行过监督职责，或钦奈方面与纽约分行之间进行过任何沟通"。报告称，渣打让未受过充分培训的尽职调查人员同时负责"修正流程"和"合规"。纽约州监管当局表示，这种双重角色"说得最轻也构成了职责冲突"。报告还指出，当渣打驻印度员工发现有问题的信息后，他们与客户取得了联系，客户随后发出了剔除任何与伊朗有关语句的"修正版"电文。即使这一流程被证明为合法，该行的尽职调查也不过空有其名而已。

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.
近期巴克莱银行(Barclays)、汇丰银行(HSBC)以及渣打爆出的一系列丑闻表明，大型跨国银行的员工越来越缺乏道德方向感。确实有一些银行的法律总顾问和合规主管在提供道德指引。但还有许多人是违规行为的协助者或者钻漏洞方面的指导员，其存在的意义不过是教给员工逃避法律约束的最佳方式。黑帮律师都不至于如此缺乏底线；与很多银行家不同，黑帮成员明白一位公正的法律顾问的价值，因为他能够告诉他们何时应该停手。

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?
近期银行管理层备受指责，部分甚至遭到撤换，未来还将有更多的人受到惩罚。渣打的故事并未就此结束：该行还被指控在苏丹、缅甸以及利比亚策划了类似阴谋。但随着戏剧情节的推进，很多观众会问：谁是真正的恶人？是银行家吗？还是那些给银行家出谋划策和壮胆的"好好先生"律师们？

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.
律师们本应是派对上的成年人，是为自己的同事提供指引、告诉他们哪些能做哪些不能做的专业人士。他们应是监察员，而不是助纣为虐者。我们从近期丑闻中得到的一大教训是，银行需要足够独立、具备坚定道德观的内部法律顾问。