无障碍链接

中国时间: 14:26 2016年12月11日星期日

何清涟: 独裁者的财富为何最后化为泡影?(1)


编者按:这是何清涟为美国之音撰写的评论文章。这篇特约评论不代表美国之音的观点。转载者请注明来自美国之音或者VOA。

今年中东北非革命之后,有一个引人注目的现象,即本阿里、穆巴拉克与卡扎菲穷大半生之力聚敛的巨额财富,凡存放在西方民主国家的都被英美各国及瑞士先后宣布冻结。这些西方国家一致承诺,在突尼斯、埃及及利比亚等国的新政府办完相关法律手续后,上述几位独裁者的资产将被归还给其原来统治的国家。其中利比亚因为陷入长达数月的武装冲突,反对派成立的新政府虽然胜利在望,但却因手中缺钱而向西方呼吁请求经济帮助。联合国安理会刚刚通过决议,解冻卡扎菲约 15亿美元的资产,以满足紧急人道需求。第一批解冻的是卡扎菲存放在南非与意大利两国的资产。

瑞士的《独裁者资产法》

美国冻结独裁者资产不足为奇,但瑞士这一“世界上最安全的财富保险箱“被撬开,则是去年才发生的事情。如果一直关心专制国家的独裁者们的藏金方式,人们就会记得,就在2009年,瑞士银行还不得不将非法资产交还给独裁者蒙博托(Mobutu Sese Seko)的家属,而不是被侵吞资产的扎伊尔。蒙博托被赶下台之前,曾被认为是世界上最富有的人之一。他的个人资产当时大约在50亿美元至80亿美元之间,相当于扎伊尔每年接受国际援助资金的 40%。一项由瑞士银行家所进行的独立调查结果显示,蒙博托后来只给他的后人留下了340万美元的遗产,蒙博托在其32年统治期间搜括的数十亿美元资产的去向至今仍然是一个谜团。

但蒙博托可能是最后一位能够让其家属安享其搜刮来的财产的独裁者。2010年,在以美国为首的国际社会持续的压力下,瑞士议会不得不通过关于归还独裁者在瑞士银行所存非法资金的新法律——《独裁者资产法》(Dictator assets law)。这项法律赋予联邦委员会冻结有争议性资产的权力,一旦资产被冻结,联邦委员会将有最多10年时间来采取没收这些资产的行动。该法律原则上规定,这些资产一旦被归还,则必须被用于改善广大人口的生活质量、巩固司法系统和打击犯罪。

这部法律于2011年2月1日开始生效。突尼斯、埃及与利比亚的革命正好发生于这部法律生效之际。依据这部法律,瑞士银行先后宣布冻结了本·阿里、穆巴拉克、卡扎菲等独裁者及其家属的财产。其中,突尼斯前总统本·阿里成为这项法律试刀的第一人。在本·阿里逃离本国5天后,瑞士决定冻结与其相关的所有账户和资产,决定立即生效。由七人组成的联邦委员会还同意冻结属于科特迪瓦的洛朗·巴博(Laurent Gbagbo)的所有资产。

瑞士银行的“政治公众人物数据库”

有必要回溯瑞士这部《独裁者资产法》出台的过程。应该说,直到2009年,全球的独裁者及腐败者选择瑞士做为藏金之地是安全的,只是这种安全与 1987年以前的安全有所不同,1987年以后,资金安全完全与独裁者的政治安全联系在一起,原因是1987年瑞士在各种压力之下取消了匿名帐户。

二战以后,由于纳粹的关系,瑞士银行的保密制度受到了世界各地犹太人社团组织的强烈谴责,被称为“纳粹的银行”。瑞士银行被迫对传统保密制度做了修改,于1987年取消了匿名帐户,要求职员“了解你的客户”,即必须确认每个开户客人的身份及经济上的“合法性”。在这个“了解你的客户”制度下,如果申请开户者是在外国担任公职的“政治公众人物”,银行会对其可能带来的法律或声誉风险做出评估。这些领导人的亲属也在名单之上。如果申请人要通过中间人处理相关开户事宜,他们还得签署一份特殊的清单,声明谁是受益人。从此以后,瑞士有了一个政治公众人物数据库,各银行可向其订阅。在本·阿里的案例中,亲属名单包括40个名字,其财产均被冻结。

由于1987年“政治公众人物数据库”的建立,菲律宾的马科斯、 罗马尼亚的齐奥塞斯库、扎伊尔的蒙博托等独裁者的政权被推翻后,他们在瑞士银行保管的巨额财产也随之曝光。这类消息在世界范围内引发愤怒与指责,导致瑞士银行不得不继续改革其保密制度。2007年,在美国的敦促下,联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室和世界银行联合发起一项新倡议,即《追回被窃资产倡议:挑战、机会和行动计划》,旨在帮助发展中国家追回被腐败的领导人和官员所窃取的国家资产,并将这些资产用于发展项目投资。倡议面世第二天,瑞士马上发表声明表示愿意与联合国和世界银行合作。这项合作的“产品”就是瑞士于2010年制定的《独裁者资产法》。

瑞士银行被迫做了这些调整之后,世界独裁国家的首脑们穷毕生之力搜刮的不义之财就失去了最后一只财富保险箱。

其他西方国家本来就不象瑞士那样刻意袒护独裁者与各类人物的不义之财,尤其是美国,一直有为了公义冻结不义之财的传统。(详见“独裁者的财富为何最后化为泡影?(2))

Why would wealth of dictators end up evaporated? (one)

Written by He Qinglian on August 26, 2011
(translated by krizcpec)

http://hqlenglish.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-would-wealth-of-dictators-end-up.html

After revolutions broke out in MENA, a striking phenomenon appeared. Britain, U.S. and Switzerland, one after another, announced a freeze on the huge wealth that Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, and Muammar Gaddafi have accumulated and deposited in Western Democracies.

These democracies unanimously pledged that once the new governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have completed relevant legal procedures, the assets of the above mentioned dictators will be returned to the countries concerned.

Of those countries, Libya has been caught in armed conflict for months. With victory in sight, its opposition force appeal to the West for financial assistance because it has run out of money. And the UN has just passed a resolution to defrost about 1.5 billion of Gaddafi’s assets to meet urgent humanitarian needs. The first batch of Gaddafi’s assets to be thawed is deposited in South Africa and Italy.
The Dictator Assets Law of Switzerland

It would not be surprising that the U.S. freezes dictators’ assets. However, Switzerland, the world’s most secure safe was cracked only last year. If you have been paying attention to the way dictators of totalitarian regimes hide their gold, you should be able to recall that in 2009, the UBS had had to return illicit assets to family of dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, and not to Zaire, from which those assets had been embezzled.

Before Mobutu Sese Seko was toppled, he was considered one of the world’s richest persons. His personal assets were about five to eight billion U.S. dollars, which amounted to 40% of annual international aid to Zaire.

An independent survey conducted by a Swiss banker showed that Mobutu Sese Seko left only $ 3.4 million of his estate to his descendants; the whereabouts of the multibillion U.S. dollars assets amassed during his thirty-two years reign remains a mystery to this day.

But Mobutu Sese Seko may be the last dictator who could let his family enjoyed the wealth he plundered. In 2010, under the pressure from the international community led by the U.S., the Swiss Parliament had had to pass a new legislation, the Dictator Assets Law, regarding the issue of returning illicit funds dictators have deposited in UBS.

This law gave the [Swiss] Federal Council the power to freeze the disputed assets. Once such assets have been frozen, the Federal Council would have up to ten years to take action to confiscate these assets. That law provides in principle that once these assets are returned, they must be used to improve the quality of life for the population at large, strengthen the judicial system, and fight against crimes.

The law came into effect on February 1, 2011, about the time revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya broke out. According to this law, the UBS has announced in succession a freeze on the assets of dictators like Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and their families.
The first person this law has it effect on was Ben Ali. Five days after he fled his country, Switzerland decided, with immediate effect, to freeze all accounts and assets associated to Ben Ali. The Federal Council that comprised seven members also agreed to freeze all property that belonged to Laurent Gbagbo of Côte d’Ivoire.
The Politically Exposed Persons Database of UBS
It is necessary to go back to the introduction process of this Dictator Assets Law of Switzerland. It should be said that until 2009, it was safe for the world’s dictators and corrupt to choose Switzerland as the land to hide their gold. Only that this kind of safety was not the same as that before 1987. From that year onward, Switzerland, under various pressures, canceled anonymous accounts. As a result, whether or not the assets deposited thereafter were safe depended entirely on the political security of dictators.

After World War II, because of its business relationship with Nazi, UBS was referred to as the bank of the Nazi; its banking secrecy system came under fire from Jewish communities and organizations around the world. UBS was forced to modify its traditional secrecy system, canceled anonymous accounts in 1987 and [since 1977] requested its staff to “know your customer” – which meant the identity of every new customer and his or her economic “legitimacy” has to be confirmed. The “Know your customer” procedures specify that if the new clients are “PEPs” who hold public offices in foreign countries, the bank would have to assess the legal or reputation risk they might bring. Names of the relatives of these leaders are also on the list. If the applicants want to handle issues relevant to account opening through an intermediary, they have to sign a special list, stating who are the beneficiaries.

From then on, Switzerland has a “Politically Exposed Persons Database”, which other banks can subscribe. In the case of Ben Ali, forty names of his relatives were listed and their assets were all frozen.

Because of the PEP database set up in 1987, the huge assets that autocrats like Marcos of the Philippines, Ceausescu of Romania, Mobutu of Zaire kept at UBS came to light after their regimes had been overthrown.

Such news aroused anger in the world and blame, and UBS had to continue its secrecy system reform.

In 2007, as urged by the U.S., the UNODC and the World Bank launched a new joint initiative, the Stolen Assets Recovery (StAR) Initiative: Challenges, Opportunities, and Action Plan. The initiative aimed to help developing countries to recover state assets stolen by corrupt leaders and officials, and put these to investment in development projects. On the day following the launch of this initiative, Switzerland promptly issued a statement that showed its willingness to cooperate with UNODC and the World Bank. The “product” of that cooperation was the Swiss legislation of Dictator Assets Law in 2010.

After UBS has made these adjustments, leaders of the world’s authoritarian states have lost their last safe for the ill-gotten gains they put in so much effort to obtain.

Other Western countries, unlike Switzerland, did not intentionally shield ill-gotten gains of dictators and all kinds of people; they, the United States in particular, have a tradition of freezing ill-gotten gains in the name of justice.
XS
SM
MD
LG