應(yīng)對(duì)匯豐逃稅客戶追究刑責(zé)

Revelations of large scale tax evasion facilitated bybanking group HSBC should embarrass more thanjust the bank and individuals concerned. The Swissauthorities ought to blush at their decision toprosecute whistleblower Hervé Falciani rather thanask questions of their banking culture. Many mayalso query the UK government’s appointment of ex-HSBC boss Stephen Green as trade minister in 2011.

匯豐銀行(HSBC)協(xié)助客戶大規(guī)模逃稅的消息披露后，感到難堪的不應(yīng)該只有涉事的銀行和個(gè)人。瑞士當(dāng)局同樣應(yīng)該感到臉紅：他們決定起訴泄密者赫爾夫•法西亞尼(HerveFalciani)，卻沒有反省本國的銀行業(yè)文化。此外，2011年英國政府任命匯豐銀行前老板史蒂芬•格林(Stephen Green)為貿(mào)易大臣，這可能也會(huì)受到許多人的質(zhì)疑。

 

 

But the toughest grilling should be saved for Britain’s HM Revenue & Customs. Like otherEU tax authorities, they have long known the identity of thousands of Swiss bank accountholders. Their first reaction was to maximise the funds to be recouped from any newlyrevealed tax evaders — understandably, since raising tax is the department’s raison d’être. Butin the light of what is now known the question is whether HMRC were too lenient, and shouldhave relied more heavily on criminal prosecutions of what appears to be blatant criminalactivity.

不過，應(yīng)該受到最嚴(yán)厲的質(zhì)問的，是英國稅務(wù)及海關(guān)總署(HM Revenue & Customs，簡稱HMRC)。與其他歐盟國家的稅務(wù)主管部門一樣，長期以來他們一直都知道成千上萬個(gè)瑞士銀行賬戶持有人的身份。對(duì)于此次爆料，他們的第一反應(yīng)，是盡可能多地向每個(gè)新披露的避稅者追繳稅款。這么做是可以理解的，因?yàn)檎鞫愓窃摬块T存在的原因。但是，按照目前所知的情況來看，問題在于HMRC是不是太寬容了，他們是否應(yīng)更多地采取刑事起訴手段，對(duì)付那些明目張膽的犯罪活動(dòng)。

It is not new for HMRC to be accused of leniency. Margaret Hodge, the feisty chair of thePublic Accounts Committee, has charged it with losing its nerve in battles against corporate taxavoidance. She also accuses the government of being too willing to bargain with secretaccount holders, contrasting this with the harsh treatment meted out to those claiming toomuch benefit.

HMRC被指責(zé)過于寬容不是頭一回了。公共賬目委員會(huì)(Public Accounts Committee)那位潑辣的主席瑪格麗特•霍奇(Margaret Hodge)就曾指責(zé)HMRC在對(duì)抗企業(yè)避稅行為的斗爭(zhēng)中缺乏魄力。她還曾指責(zé)英國政府太想和秘密賬戶的持有者做交易，而在對(duì)待領(lǐng)取過多福利的人時(shí)，英國政府卻采取了十分嚴(yán)厲的處理方式，兩種做法形成了鮮明對(duì)照。

The initial reaction of HMRC to the Falciani revelations was indeed pragmatic. Faced with apotential 6,000 tax evaders they offered a 30-day window to confess in return for reducedpenalties. They had good reasons for an unwillingness to prosecute immediately. While thisweek’s revelations make tax evasion appear almost comically blatant — brick-sized wads offoreign currency, clients disguised by code-names — criminal prosecutions are difficult, rareand expensive. Establishing a fair line between honest mistakes and deliberate fraud is hard.HMRC’s record is not good. As a result, just one prosecution of suspects on the Falciani listhas taken place, with 13 investigations ongoing.

對(duì)于法西亞尼的爆料，HMRC最初的回應(yīng)其實(shí)十分務(wù)實(shí)。面對(duì)可能有6000人的避稅者，該機(jī)構(gòu)提供了30天的窗口期，讓他們可以通過認(rèn)罪換取減輕處罰。該機(jī)構(gòu)不愿馬上提出公訴是有理由的。雖然，在本周的爆料中，捆成磚頭大小的外幣、用代號(hào)隱瞞身份的客戶，都使得那些避稅行為表現(xiàn)出一種近乎滑稽的明目張膽。但是，提出刑事起訴既不容易也不多見，還要付出高昂成本。準(zhǔn)確地區(qū)分無心之過和故意欺詐并不容易。HMRC在這方面的記錄并不是很好。結(jié)果就是，針對(duì)法西亞尼所提供名單上的嫌疑人，目前只提起了一項(xiàng)訴訟，另有13項(xiàng)調(diào)查還在進(jìn)行中。

If prosecutions cost more than they raise it is understandable that HMRC prefers one bird inthe hand over two in the bush. And despite the regular virulence of Ms Hodge’s criticisms, it isunfair to accuse HMRC of failing to do its job. The National Audit Office praised HMRC’smanagement for maximising revenue and cutting costs. Nor are they persistently shy of goingto court: the number of prosecutions for tax evasion rose by a third in the 2013/14 tax year.

如果提出刑事起訴需要付出的成本高于能夠收回的稅金，可以理解，HMRC寧愿選擇一鳥在手，而不是雙鳥在林。此外，盡管霍奇的批評(píng)和往常一樣尖銳，但指責(zé)HMRC未能盡職是不公平的。英國國家審計(jì)署(NationalAudit Office)就曾表揚(yáng)HMRC高層，說該機(jī)構(gòu)最大限度地提高了稅收收入并減少了成本。此外，該機(jī)構(gòu)也并不總是不愿走上法庭：2013至2014納稅年度，與避稅相關(guān)的公訴案件數(shù)目增加了三分之一。

But Britain has raised just £130m from individuals on the Falciani list — less than France despiteUK citizens holding almost twice as much money. Two years ago the government anticipatedraising £3bn from a deal with Switzerland to let secret account holders regularise their affairs.This now looks like being a large overestimate. In the time since, governments everywherehave agreed to greater exchange of information on international bank accounts, to makeidentifying tell-tale gaps and inconsistencies much easier.

但是，盡管法西亞尼名單上的英國公民持有的資金總額接近法國人的兩倍，英國從名單中的個(gè)人征收的稅金卻比法國少——只有1.3億英鎊。兩年前英國政府曾與瑞士達(dá)成一份協(xié)議，以便讓秘密賬戶持有者能夠?qū)⑺麄兊男袨楹戏ɑ?。根?jù)這份協(xié)議，英國政府曾預(yù)計(jì)會(huì)從中收得30億英鎊稅款。如今，這一估計(jì)看來太過樂觀了。自那以來，各國政府都已同意更多地交換國際銀行帳戶的信息，以便更容易發(fā)現(xiàn)有問題的差額和賬目出入。

All of these factors — alongside the scale of the evasion revealed this week — swing thebalance towards HMRC taking a more aggressive approach. Moreover, the value of asuccessful prosecution lies as much in the chill it casts over other would-be offenders, andmay be much greater than the money directly raised. No one who commits a crime should beable to bargain for a pardon. For a long time British tax evaders felt they could relax once theyreached the Alps. To puncture this illusion, more should face time in a criminal court forbilking other taxpayers.

所有這些因素，再加上本周披露的避稅規(guī)模，都支持HMRC采取更強(qiáng)硬的處理方式。此外，比起直接收繳的資金，一次成功的檢控在震懾潛在違法者方面具有同樣大的作用，甚至有可能大得多。任何犯了罪的人都應(yīng)該不能以交易換免罪。長期以來，英國避稅者總感覺只要到了阿爾卑斯山地區(qū)，他們就可以松一口氣。要想戳破這種幻覺，應(yīng)該讓更多人為騙取其他納稅人的利益而面對(duì)刑事法庭的審判。