敷衍審查無法爲英國央行解圍

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.

誰該來監視警衛呢？馬克•卡尼(Mark Carney)已承諾，他領導的英國央行(BoE)在履行倫敦金融城(City of London)監管者職能時，將在問責和透明度方面滿足最高標準。去年，英國央行委託格拉比內勳爵(Lord Grabiner)調查該行自身與操縱外匯市場有關的行爲。然而，公衆對這項調查的徹底性仍抱有嚴重疑慮。

ing-bottom: 56.25%;">

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.

格拉比內勳爵在其報告中申明英國央行官員未從事任何不當行爲，但他批評該行首席外匯交易員馬丁•馬利特(Martin Mallett)未能向上司彙報自己對外匯市場顯現異象的擔憂。馬利特曾是一個非正式的交易員小組的成員，該小組意在從市場中收集並分享信息。美國司法部(DoJ)似乎正密切關注這個小組以及它是否捲入共謀。之前，該部已要求約談一名涉及該醜聞的蘇格蘭皇家銀行(RBS)資深交易員。

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，這件事遠比此次調查承認的嚴重。這是因爲，無論是出於無意還是出於有意，英國央行爲格拉比內調查所設初始條款的涵蓋範圍太過狹窄。

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.

正如我向王室法律顧問查爾斯•貝爾(Charles Béar QC)徵求的意見所闡明的，英國央行的行爲有兩種可能的考查方法。第一種是詢問該行工作人員本應覺察到什麼、以及本應就此做些什麼。第二種則只是詢問該行工作人員實際上覺察到了什麼、以及是否參與了實際或潛在的市場操縱。在調查嚴重失職行爲時，通常採用第一種、同時也是更爲嚴格的考查方法。但英國央行在涉及格拉比內調查時採用了第二種、標準遠不那麼嚴格的考查方法。

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].

在英國下院財政委員會(Commons Treasury committee)作證時，卡尼與英國央行董事會主席安東尼•哈布古德(Anthony Habgood)都未理會貝爾的法律意見，同時還莫名其妙地堅稱，該調查既滿足較高的標準也滿足較低的標準，是“徹底而全面的”。

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.

但這些觀點很快就被查爾斯•蘭德爾(Charles Randell)的證詞駁倒，後者是英國央行審慎監管局(Prudential Regulation Authority)成員，也曾是律師事務所司力達(Slaughter and May)長達24年的合夥人。蘭德爾承認了這兩種考查之間的區別，證實了較高標準的考查方法通常用於不當行爲調查，並表示審慎監管局自身會在審查其負責監管的機構的高管行爲時採用這種方法。換句話說，英國央行是在堅稱，倫敦金融城遵守的是一套英國央行拒絕用在自己工作人員身上的標準。

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.

爲了進一步考查這些問題，我向法律顧問徵求了第二條意見。該意見顯示了選用較低標準在多大程度上削弱了問責，並列舉出格拉比內調查本應合理提出的種種問題。更貼切地說，它討論了三個重要先例：英國廣播公司(BBC)對資深電視主持人吉米•薩維爾(Jimmy Savile)性侵醜聞的調查；圍繞媒體扮演的角色展開的萊韋森調查(Leveson Inquiry)；以及具有諷刺意味的、英國央行自身就國際商業信貸銀行（Bank of Credit and Commerce International，一家總部位於倫敦、於1991年倒閉的銀行）引發的危機展開的賓厄姆調查(Bingham Inquiry)。所有這些調查都採用較高標準。

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.

格拉比內報告顯然是不夠好的。它沒有化解人們對英國央行官員（包括高級工作人員）是否存在玩忽職守或不當行爲的疑問。它爲一家渴望擺脫嫌疑的機構蒙上了一層可疑的陰影。

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.

該做些什麼呢？首先，英國央行監督委員會必須開始展開獨立於行長的真正審查。其次，英國下院財政委員會（它在本月英國大選前發佈了一份包含主要關注問題的紀要，該委員會很快將被重組）應立即就此事完成一份報告。