經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人精讀?The Economist [48]
選自| January 06 2018 Business |?商業(yè)板塊
更多英語(yǔ)閱讀聽(tīng)力口語(yǔ)內(nèi)容，請(qǐng)關(guān)注
微信公眾號(hào)MyEnglishTrip
我是Eva
一個(gè)認(rèn)真學(xué)習(xí)英語(yǔ)的美少女
#Eva導(dǎo)讀#
加拿大對(duì)私企的寬松政策助長(zhǎng)了洗錢活動(dòng)。其中一個(gè)明顯的問(wèn)題是，缺乏要求確定財(cái)產(chǎn)的實(shí)際所有者(或受益所有人)的規(guī)定，包括房地產(chǎn)。這可能會(huì)使得通過(guò)房地產(chǎn)進(jìn)行洗錢的活動(dòng)有機(jī)可乘。雖然加拿大政府已在2000年通過(guò)了反洗錢法，指導(dǎo)銀行，證券經(jīng)紀(jì)人，人壽保險(xiǎn)公司和其他經(jīng)融機(jī)構(gòu)，用“合理的方式”去鑒別和他們有生意往來(lái)的公司的所有人，?并且盡全力搜集所有交易對(duì)方的信息，但是，這樣也遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。此外，另一個(gè)弊端在于，?加拿大司法權(quán)在國(guó)家和地方政府的分裂，使得只有十分之一的加拿大公司在國(guó)家級(jí)注冊(cè)。這使得任何改變規(guī)范的協(xié)議，都必須在各省是怎樣定義收益所有人和怎樣搜集這樣信息的不同做法之間進(jìn)行調(diào)解。所以，當(dāng)加拿大聯(lián)邦政府，十個(gè)省份和三個(gè)地區(qū)的財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)在上個(gè)月會(huì)面討論這個(gè)問(wèn)題的時(shí)候，他們除了同意鼓勵(lì)公司記錄他們最終所有人，并且準(zhǔn)備好在需要時(shí)提供給官方之外，在如何解決這一問(wèn)題上沒(méi)有任何其他進(jìn)展。
#以上，個(gè)人總結(jié)和理解，歡迎批評(píng)指正，歡迎留言討論
#有輸出才有進(jìn)步
Money-laundering in Canada[加拿大洗錢活動(dòng)]
Snow-washing[Eva沒(méi)有想出標(biāo)題的合理翻譯和解釋，歡迎留言說(shuō)出你的想法??]
Loose rules on private-company formation are aiding money-launderers[私企成立的寬松政策助長(zhǎng)了洗錢活動(dòng)]
When reports?surfaced[公開(kāi)]in 2016 of foreign students with no known income buying homes worth millions of dollars in Vancouver, locals said it was yet more evidence that foreigners were inflating prices in Canada’sdearestproperty market[當(dāng)2016年有報(bào)告公開(kāi)，沒(méi)有已知收入的外國(guó)學(xué)生在溫哥華購(gòu)買價(jià)值上百萬(wàn)的住宅時(shí)，當(dāng)局聲稱仍有更多的證據(jù)顯示，外國(guó)人正在使加拿大最貴的房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)價(jià)格膨脹](méi).?It was also evidence of a?homegrown[本國(guó)的]?problem[這同樣是一個(gè)本國(guó)問(wèn)題的證據(jù)].?The students?turned out to be?figureheads[傀儡]for anonymous firms whose ultimate owners cannot be identified because the information is not legally required by the land registry[那些學(xué)生證實(shí)是一些匿名公司的傀儡，而這些公司最終的擁有者無(wú)法確認(rèn)，因?yàn)檫@些信息不是土地局合法獲得的].?Canadian authorities?are concerned about?the abuses caused by such?opacity[不透明][加拿大當(dāng)局很擔(dān)心由這樣的不透明引起的權(quán)力濫用].?The property market may well be attracting foreign criminals and corrupt officials?seeking to?launder?dirty money[非法錢財(cái)],?notes David Eby, the attorney-general of British Columbia[房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)可能會(huì)吸引外國(guó)罪犯分子和尋求洗錢的腐敗官員，DE，英屬哥倫比亞省總檢察長(zhǎng)說(shuō)到].?
Other countries have?taken steps to?make sure?that anonymous ownership of firms does not help criminals[其他國(guó)家已經(jīng)采取措施，確保匿名的公司所有人無(wú)法幫助犯罪分子]. In 2014 G20 leaders agreed to make the ultimate ownership of legal entities more transparent[2014年，G20領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人同意讓合法企業(yè)的最終所有人更加透明].?Britain, for example,?set up?a searchable, public database of beneficial or ultimate owners of all firms, limited-liability partnerships and Societas Europaea (firms based and regulated in the European Union as a whole)[例如，英國(guó)建立了一種可以查找的公開(kāi)的包含全部公司，有限責(zé)任合伙人和歐洲股份公司（歐盟作為一個(gè)整體管理和規(guī)范的公司）的受益人或最終所有人的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)].?All EU states will eventually have to do the same under a 2015 anti-money-laundering directive[所有歐盟國(guó)家將最終會(huì)在2015年反洗錢規(guī)范下采取同樣的措施].?
With not a palm tree in sight and a reputation for being boringly well-run,?Canada is an unlikely haven for?crooks[詐騙犯]and tax avoiders[視野范圍內(nèi)看不到一個(gè)棕櫚樹(shù)，同時(shí)有一個(gè)悶不作聲地經(jīng)營(yíng)良好的名聲，加拿大不可能是詐騙犯和避稅者的天堂].?But it has long had a reputation as a place to snow-wash money[但是加拿大卻長(zhǎng)期有著洗錢之地的名聲].?In 2009 the national police force estimated that up to C$15bn ($12bn) was being laundered in the country each year (an estimated annual $2trn is laundered globally)[2009年，國(guó)家警察署估計(jì)每年在加拿大的洗錢數(shù)量多達(dá)150億加幣（120億美元）（全球每年的洗錢數(shù)量約有2萬(wàn)億美元）].?One attraction is that establishing a company is so easy—?tougher[嚴(yán)厲的]identity checks are required to get a library card than to form a private firm, as Jon Allen of Transparency International Canada noted before aparliamentary?committeein December[吸引力之一在于成立一家公司太容易了——辦一張圖書館卡的身份檢查都要比成立一家私人企業(yè)要嚴(yán)厲的多，加拿大國(guó)際透明組織的JA于11月在議會(huì)委員會(huì)中提到].?
Not all corporate ownership is opaque[不是所有企業(yè)的所有人都是不透明的].?Publicly traded firms?are subject to[遭受承受]securities laws?which require major shareholders to be disclosed[上市公司受到證券法的約束，需要公開(kāi)其主要股東].?The problem?lies with?firms that are not listed on a stock exchange[問(wèn)題出在不在股票交易市場(chǎng)的公司].?Ananti-money-laundering law passed in 2000?directs?banks, securities dealers,?life-insurance firms?and other financial entities to make“reasonable efforts” to identify the owners of firms they do business with;left to carry the load, they do their best to collect information on?all?counterparties, but it is not enough[2000年通過(guò)的反洗錢法指導(dǎo)銀行，證券經(jīng)紀(jì)人，人壽保險(xiǎn)公司和其他經(jīng)融機(jī)構(gòu)，用“合理的方式”去鑒別和他們做生意的公司的所有人；他們不僅承擔(dān)了這項(xiàng)任務(wù)，并且盡全力搜集所有交易對(duì)方的信息，但是，這樣也遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠].?
A review in2016 of Canada by the?Financial Action Task Force, anintergovernmental body set up in 1989 to?combat[打擊，制止]moneylaundering, concluded that?only a fraction of the country’s 2.5m legalentities “had accuracy checks performed?with respect to[關(guān)于]beneficial ownership”[財(cái)務(wù)行動(dòng)特別組織，一家在1989年成立的政府間的打擊洗錢的機(jī)構(gòu)，在2016年審查了加拿大，得出的結(jié)論是，在這個(gè)國(guó)家的250萬(wàn)個(gè)合法實(shí)體中，僅有一小部分“對(duì)利益所有人做了準(zhǔn)確的檢查”].?It also catalogueda wide range of ways in which Canadian?front companies [傀儡組織，掩護(hù)機(jī)構(gòu)]were being used topurchase assets, including property, or to move money in and out of the country“ to layer and legitimise unexplained sources of income”[這個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)將加拿大傀儡組織廣泛使用的方式進(jìn)行了歸類，包括購(gòu)買資產(chǎn)，包含房地產(chǎn)的方式，將錢從國(guó)家移進(jìn)移出到分層并合法化為無(wú)法解釋的收入來(lái)源的方式].?
Political and legal authorities increasingly recognise a need for change, but progress has been glacial[政治和法律部分已經(jīng)嚴(yán)重認(rèn)識(shí)到了改變的需求，但是進(jìn)展緩慢].?When finance ministers from the federal government, the ten provinces and three territories met to discuss the issue last month, they?went no further than?agreeing to encourage firms to keep a record of their ultimate owners, ready to give to authorities if they request it[當(dāng)來(lái)自于聯(lián)邦政府，十個(gè)省份和三個(gè)地區(qū)的財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)在上個(gè)月會(huì)面討論這個(gè)問(wèn)題的時(shí)候，他們同意鼓勵(lì)公司記錄他們最終所有人，并且準(zhǔn)備好在需要時(shí)提供給官方，除此之外，沒(méi)有任何進(jìn)展].?Part of the problem is that?jurisdiction[司法權(quán)]is split between national and sub-national governments, withonly a tenth of?Canada’scompanies?incorporated?at the?national?level[部分的問(wèn)題是在于司法權(quán)在國(guó)家和地方政府的分裂，使得只有十分之一的加拿大公司在國(guó)家級(jí)注冊(cè)].?Any agreement to change the rules has to?reconcile[調(diào)解]differences in how provinces define beneficial ownership and collect such information[任何改變規(guī)范的協(xié)議，都必須在各省是怎樣定義收益所有人和怎樣搜集這樣信息的不同做法之間進(jìn)行調(diào)解].?
Canada’sexisting money-laundering and terrorist-financing legislation also contains?a gaping hole:lawyers are not covered, because they successfully argued in court that turning over such information violated solicitor-client privilege[加拿大現(xiàn)存的洗錢和恐怖主義融資立法也同樣存在漏洞：律師是沒(méi)有被約束的，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诜ㄍブ谐晒Φ霓q論，提交這些信息侵犯了律師和客戶的特權(quán)].?One Ontario lawyerbragged[吹噓]to a?policeundercoveragent[警察秘密機(jī)構(gòu)]in 2002 that this victory meant it was 20 times safer for a lawyer to launder money in Canada than in the United States—not the sort of contrast that the?Great White Northrelishes[期盼][在2002年，一名安大略的律師向一個(gè)警察秘密機(jī)構(gòu)吹噓說(shuō)，這個(gè)辯護(hù)的勝利意味著一個(gè)律師在加拿大洗錢要比在美國(guó)洗錢安全20倍——并不是那種偉大的白色北方（指加拿大）所期望看到的反差對(duì)比].?
Jan 13 | 658 words
更多英語(yǔ)閱讀聽(tīng)力口語(yǔ)內(nèi)容，請(qǐng)關(guān)注
微信公眾號(hào)MyEnglishTrip
我是Eva
一個(gè)認(rèn)真學(xué)習(xí)英語(yǔ)的美少女
