印度爛尾樓盤開發(fā)商坐享紐約天價公寓

Last Sept. 28, a group of retired military officersdemonstrated at Jantar Mantar, a historic site in NewDelhi. “Though we are old veterans, we still have thestrength to challenge your atrocity,” read theplacard of one protester, who was leaning on a cane.

去年9月28日，一群退役軍官在新德里的歷史遺址簡塔·曼塔天文臺舉行示威活動。“雖然是上了年紀的退伍軍人，但我們依然有力氣挑戰(zhàn)你的暴行，”一名拄著拐杖的抗議者手上的標語牌寫道。

Their animus was directed at one of the New Delhiarea’s biggest residential builders, Kabul Chawla. In2008, nearly 200 military officers had put down deposits on apartments at Park Serene, ahigh-rise apartment complex Mr. Chawla was developing. In addition to a swimming pool, acommunity center and special prices for members of India’s military, a big drawing card wasthe prospect that the officers could live together in retirement.

他們抗議的對象是新德里地區(qū)最大的住宅開發(fā)商之一卡布爾·舒拉(Kabul Chawla)。2008年，近200名軍官投入預付款，購買舒拉當時正在開發(fā)的高層公寓小區(qū)“靜園”(Park Serene)的房子。除游泳池、社區(qū)中心和針對印度軍人的特價外，另一個極具吸引力的地方是，軍官們退役后能生活在一起。

 

 

More than six years later, the protesters say that Mr. Chawla’s company has collected almost100 percent of the price of the Park Serene apartments from 400 buyers, payments theprotesters estimate at more than $35 million. But the company has not completed the units. “They put their life savings in it,” said Brajesh Kumar, a retired Army major general andspokesman for the protesting officers, who have taken their grievances to a national consumercommission. “They thought that after their retirement they would move in. It’s not a happysituation for a large number of consumers.”

六年多過去了，抗議者稱，舒拉的公司幾乎收取了靜園公寓400名買主的全款。他們估計金額超過3500萬美元(約合2.2億元人民幣)。但該公司到現(xiàn)在都還沒完成公寓的施工。“他們投入了畢生積蓄，”為抗議軍人擔任發(fā)言人的退役陸軍少將布拉杰什·庫馬爾(Brajesh Kumar)說?？棺h者們投訴到了一個全國性的消費者協(xié)會。“他們本以為退休后就能住進去。對這么多消費者來說，這種處境實在不好受。”

As complaints mount against Mr. Chawla, developer of two dozen other major residentialcomplexes near New Delhi, many of the veterans are struggling to find a place to live.

在新德里周邊，舒拉還是另外二十多處大型住宅區(qū)的開發(fā)商。隨著對他的投訴越來越多，許多退伍軍官卻找不到住的地方。

Mr. Chawla does not appear to have that problem. Even when he is more than 7,000 miles awayin New York, he enjoys the comforts of a 4,050-square-foot condominium in the Time WarnerCenter that has five bedrooms, a media/playroom, soaring ceilings and Central Park views.

不過，舒拉本人似乎并不存在這個問題。即便在7000多英里(約1.1萬公里)外的紐約，他也享受著一套4050平方英尺(約380平方米)的共管公寓帶來的舒適。時代華納中心(Time Warner Center)的這套公寓空間開闊，有五間臥室和一個多媒體娛樂室，中央公園的景色盡收眼底。

Although Mr. Chawla denies owning the apartment, saying that he stays there but that itbelongs to his cousin, The New York Times has unearthed correspondence among real estatebrokers involved in the apartment’s purchase, as well as other sources, tying the condo to Mr.Chawla.

盡管舒拉否認是這套公寓的主人，稱自己僅僅是住在那里，房子屬于他的表親，但《紐約時報》發(fā)現(xiàn)了參與買賣該公寓的幾名房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀人之間的通信。相關聯(lián)絡信息以及其他一些消息來源，將這套共管公寓同舒拉緊密地聯(lián)系在了一起。

The ownership of the unit on the 68th floor of the Time Warner Center’s south tower isobscured by a corporate veil: a Delaware company with a Singapore address and a name,NYC Real Estate Opportunities, evoking the ambitions of an international buyer.

這套公寓在時代華納中心南樓的第68層，其所有權掩藏在一層企業(yè)的面紗之下：特拉華州一家注冊地址在新加坡的公司NYC Real Estate Opportunities。公司名稱本身彰顯了一名國際買家的野心。

The secrecy surrounding 68AF is not unusual. Of the 192 condos at the Time Warner Center,nearly two-thirds are owned through shell companies, a Times investigation has found. Oftenthe names of the people behind those shell companies are shrouded in secrecy. And 68AF isamong the most carefully cloaked.

圍繞著共管公寓68AF的這種遮遮掩掩實屬司空見慣。時報的調查發(fā)現(xiàn)，在時代華納中心的192套共管公寓中，有近三分之二通過空殼公司持有。這些公司的幕后老板的身份常常籠罩著迷霧，而68AF則是主人身份被隱藏得最為小心的公寓之一。

When the apartment was bought outright in February 2012 for $19.4 million, the backlashagainst Mr. Chawla had already begun in India.

當2012年2月該公寓以1940萬美元的價格被買下時，印度國內對舒拉的抵制已經(jīng)開始上演了。

A Boom in Development

開發(fā)的熱潮

Mr. Chawla, who is in his early 40s, got his start in the real estate business more than 20 yearsago when he put up a building on property owned by his father. While his family name was wellknown in India — his cousin was the astronaut Kalpana Chawla, who died aboard the spaceshuttle Columbia — Mr. Chawla’s company, BPTP, was little known until 2005, when he beganaggressively purchasing farmland near Faridabad, a suburb of New Delhi. At the time, a newcommuter rail line and highway were progressing toward the suburb, and BPTP began buyingland at prices as low as $12 per square yard, which it would later sell for more than 10 timesthat.

20多年前，現(xiàn)在40歲出頭的舒拉在房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)開始了自己的事業(yè)，在其父所有的一塊地上蓋起了一棟樓。盡管在印度，他的姓氏廣為認知——在“哥倫比亞號”航天飛機上遇難的宇航員卡爾帕納·舒拉(Kalpana Chawla)是他的堂親——但他的公司BPTP卻一直鮮為人知，直到2005年他開始在新德里郊區(qū)法里達巴德附近大舉收購農田。當時，一條新的通勤鐵路線和公路正在向該地區(qū)推進，而BPTP開始買地時的價格最低達每平方碼12美元(約合每平方米90元人民幣)。后來，該公司的賣價是這個水平的十多倍。

“No one showed interest in developing this area for 14 years, until we started land acquisitionin 2005,” Mr. Chawla’s company said in an email, pointing out that the land had been cut off bytwo irrigation canals.

“在我們2005年開始在這片地區(qū)買地之前，有整整14年沒有任何人對開發(fā)它表現(xiàn)出興趣，”舒拉的公司在一封電子郵件中說，并指出那片地塊被兩條灌溉渠分隔開了。

Mr. Chawla’s company constructed a six-lane highway bridge to make the project, calledParklands, accessible. His efforts dovetailed with a state plan to transform vast tracts of richfarmland near Faridabad to residential use, which itself was part of a construction boom inIndia to accommodate a rising middle class.

舒拉的公司修了一座六車道的公路橋，以便讓物資和人員進入名為“花園之地”(Parklands)的該開發(fā)項目。他的種種商業(yè)動作，與官方將法里達巴德附近的大片肥沃農田變成住宅用地的計劃相吻合。該計劃本身也是印度為給規(guī)模日漸擴大的中產(chǎn)階級提供住房而出現(xiàn)的建設熱潮的一部分。

By the fall of 2009, BPTP said it had presold 10,685 apartments and 5,657 residential plots atParklands, which Mr. Chawla envisioned as a community that would include apartmentbuildings, lots for single-family homes and commercial establishments.

到2009年秋，BPTP宣稱已完成了花園之地的10685套公寓和5657塊住宅用地的預售。舒拉的暢想是，該社區(qū)既有公寓樓，也有可用于修建獨棟住宅和商業(yè)設施的地塊。

By 2012, the company was overseeing more than two dozen projects on nearly 2,500 acres. Ithad 22,000 customers and sales of $1.6 billion, according to a company news release at thetime.

到2012年，公司在建的項目逾20個，占地面積近2500英畝(約合1000公頃)。根據(jù)公司當時發(fā)出的新聞稿，它擁有2.2萬名客戶，銷售額達16億美元。

Today, many of those customers appear to be unhappy. They have flooded Facebook pages,real estate forums and consumer websites in India with complaints about BPTP and have stagedprotests at some of the company’s properties.

事到如今，許多客戶似乎都心懷不滿。他們紛紛涌向印度的Facebook頁面、房地產(chǎn)論壇和消費者網(wǎng)站去控訴BPTP，還在公司的一些地產(chǎn)項目所在地發(fā)動了多次抗議活動。

In an interview at his corporate headquarters near New Delhi and in emailed responses, Mr.Chawla and his company said that BPTP was highly professional and that it was catering to theregion’s middle class. He acknowledged delays in some of his projects but blamed them on a“plethora” of external factors, including government setbacks in infrastructure development.Mr. Chawla’s company said it hoped to deliver the military officers’ apartments by this summer.

在新德里郊區(qū)的公司總部及通過電子郵件接受采訪時，舒拉和他的公司表示，BPTP有著很高的專業(yè)素養(yǎng)，滿足的是這一地區(qū)的中產(chǎn)階級的需求。他承認旗下的一些項目存在延期問題，不過將其歸咎于“過多的”外部因素，比如政府在基礎設施開發(fā)上的阻滯。舒拉的公司則宣稱，希望今年夏天能向軍官們交付公寓。

“All the developers are facing this kind of issue,” he said in the company’s conference room,which is dominated by a large portrait of Gandhi.

“所有的開發(fā)商都會面臨這種問題，”舒拉在公司會議室中表示。這里最突出的裝飾是一張甘地的大幅肖像。

In addition to the six-lane bridge the company donated to the government, BPTP said it hadtaken on other projects that were the government’s responsibility.

除了公司向政府捐建的那座六通道大橋之外，BPTP聲稱，自己還承擔了其他一些本應政府負責的項目。

But rather than the middle-class mecca Mr. Chawla had envisioned a decade ago, his signaturedevelopment, Parklands, is a 1,700-acre dystopia of vacant lots and apartment structures,some finished but others in various stages of completion.

然而，舒拉的標志性開發(fā)項目花園之地并未成為他十年前暢想的中產(chǎn)階級天堂，而是變成了充斥著空地和公寓框架結構的1700英畝的反烏托邦，有些地方已完工，但其他地方卻處在不同的建設階段。

Many owners who had moved into their apartments complained about leaky roofs, poor plasterand wiring, substandard sewage treatment, deficient recreational facilities and parking spaces,and hidden and escalating charges.

入住公寓的不少業(yè)主抱怨，屋頂漏水、灰泥涂層質量不佳、管線鋪排糟糕、污水處理不達標、娛樂設施缺乏、停車位不夠、存在隱形收費，而且收得越來越多。

Other buyers who are still without housing have accused BPTP of failing to deliver on propertiesthey purchased.

其他仍然未能入住的買家則一直在指責BPTP沒有如期交付自己購買的房產(chǎn)。

At one of the Parklands apartment complexes, called Park Elite Floors, a buyer, Neeraj Jagga,said that there had been little construction progress in three years and that much of theproject appeared to have been abandoned. A video Mr. Jagga made of his unit last winter showscrumbling bricks and plaster, unfinished walls and floors, no windows and rusting balconyrailings. A recent visit to the site revealed no progress, he said.

在花園之地的公寓群中，有一個小區(qū)叫做“菁園”(Park Elite Floors)。買家尼拉杰·賈加爾(Neeraj Jagga)稱，建設工作在三年時間里沒有什么進展，而且項目的很多部分似乎已遭廢棄。賈加爾去年冬天拍攝的一則視頻顯示，他買的那套公寓磚頭和灰泥開裂、墻壁與地板施工未能完成、窗戶沒有安裝，而且陽臺欄桿生了銹。他說，自己近期又去了一次，發(fā)現(xiàn)沒有任何進展。

He bought one of the 4,194 apartments in the sprawling Park Elite Floors, most of which weresold in the spring and summer of 2009. Mr. Jagga, who works in commercial printing, saidBPTP had given various reasons for delays, including claims of a contractor dispute. “It’s beenfive years,” he said. “Everybody is stuck.”

在占地廣闊的菁園中，有4194套公寓，多數(shù)于2009年春季與夏季售出。在商業(yè)印刷領域工作的賈加爾買下了其中一套。他表示，BPTP為拖延扯了很多理由，包括與承包商的糾紛。“已經(jīng)五年了，”他說。“每個人都被套住了。”

The company has denied wrongdoing. In the case of Park Elite Floors, the company said thatwhile work had slowed, the project had not been abandoned and that it had offeredpossession to 1,274 of the buyers.

BPTP則否認其中存在不當行為。具體到菁園的例子，公司宣稱雖然進展拖慢了，但項目本身并未荒廢，而且已經(jīng)通知1274名買家，可以交付公寓。

In India, customers frequently put down money for apartments and lots in advance, thencontinue paying as construction proceeds.

在印度，客戶往往會預付公寓與地塊的部分款項，然后在施工過程中補足剩余款項。

But as BPTP buyers have waited long beyond the promised delivery dates of their lots andapartments, the company has begun new projects. “Most of the money they have used fordeveloping other projects, buying other lands,” said Ashok Rajan Agarwal, a retired executivefor a state-owned power company who invested in BPTP property.

盡管BPTP開發(fā)項目的那些業(yè)主等待的時間早已超出了地塊和公寓的承諾交付期，但公司卻開始興建新的項目。“大部分的錢被他們用來開發(fā)其他項目，”投資了BPTP地產(chǎn)的阿肖克·拉詹·阿加瓦爾(Ashok RajanAgarwal)說。他已退休，之前在一家國有電力企業(yè)擔任高管。

BPTP denies such allegations, but a recent ruling by a government consumer commissionseems to buttress Mr. Agarwal’s statement. Two buyers at another complex filed complaintsin 2012 seeking the return of substantial deposits they had made on apartments beginning in2005. The commission ruled that BPTP had to refund the money with interest, noting that thecompany failed for several years to use it for the apartments but “continued to utilize theamounts deposited by the complainants” in other projects. The complex has since beencompleted, and BPTP says it has appealed the decision.

BPTP對這些指責一律加以否認。不過政府的一家消費者協(xié)會近期做出的裁決似乎支持了阿加瓦爾的說法。在另一座小區(qū)買了房的兩名客戶，從2005年開始投入了大筆預付款，到了2012年的時候提起申訴，要求返還這些款項。消費者協(xié)會裁定，BPTP必須連本帶利返還，并且指出它數(shù)年來未能用這些錢來興建該小區(qū)的公寓，而是“將申訴人累積繳納的預付款持續(xù)用到”其他項目中。后來，該小區(qū)得以建成，BPTP表示正在就這一裁決提起上訴。

In addition to the complaints from angry and, in some cases, desperate customers, manycritics have alleged that Mr. Chawla is a major beneficiary of government officials who havebent rules for favored builders, to the detriment of consumers.

除了來自那些憤怒客戶的抱怨，以及某些絕望客戶的控訴，許多批評人士還指責舒拉從政府官員那里受益。這些官員不惜打破規(guī)則來讓開發(fā)商獲利，而倒霉的卻是消費者。

In August, an opposition party, Indian National Lok Dal, demanded an investigation of therelationship between several builders, including Mr. Chawla, and officials in Haryana State, whereFaridabad is located. Mr. Chawla denies receiving any government favors.

去年8月，反對黨印度全國人民黨(Indian National Lok Dal)要求，對包括舒拉在內的幾名開發(fā)商與法里達巴德所在的哈里亞納邦的多名官員之間的關系進行調查。舒拉本人否認從政府那里獲得了任何特殊關照。

Putting it into perspective, Amit Jain, who heads a consumer association representingapartment owners in a Delhi suburb, said BPTP is one of many companies that are takingadvantage of a housing shortage and a loosely regulated system with few consumerprotections. “I would say he is not a bad guy,” Mr. Jain said. “He is doing what most of thebuilders are doing. They’re good people but they are enjoying the largess of this failed state.”

阿米特·杰恩(Amit Jain)是代表德里郊區(qū)公寓業(yè)主的一個消費者協(xié)會的負責人，對此他提出了一個見解。他說，BPTP和其他很多公司正在利用住房短缺、監(jiān)管系統(tǒng)寬松、消費者的權利幾乎得不到保護的漏洞。“我不會說他是一個壞人，”杰恩說。“他做的事情，大部分開發(fā)商也在這么做。他們是好人，但他們正在從這種混亂狀態(tài)中獲益。”

"They Promised Heaven"

“他們曾許諾過一個天堂般的家”

On Dec. 26, 2011, The Times of India quoted a local police official as saying, “We are on thelookout for the accused Kabul Chawla.”

2011年12月26日，《印度時報》(The Times of India)引述當?shù)鼐瘑T的話說，“我們在尋找被告卡布爾·舒拉”。

The highly publicized case involved an accountant’s allegation that BPTP had cheated him outof 40 lakh rupees, then the equivalent of more than $85,000. The accountant, Suresh Goel,had bought a commercial lot in 2006 in Parklands, where he had planned to open an office. Mr.Goel said in an interview that he later learned that BPTP sold him the lot before gettingrequired licenses and that when he complained to the company, it canceled his contract withoutreturning his money.

這個案件有很高的曝光度，原告是一位名叫蘇雷什·戈埃爾(Suresh Goel)的會計師，指控BPTP騙走了自己的400萬盧比(約合人民幣40萬元)。2006年，戈埃爾在花園之地購買了一個商業(yè)地塊，計劃在那里開設一家辦事處。他在一次采訪中表示，自己后來才知道BPTP是在缺乏很多必需的許可證的情況下把地賣給他的，當他投訴到這家公司時，公司取消了與他的合同，但卻沒有退款。

After Mr. Goel filed a complaint with the police and another with a consumer commission, hesaid BPTP returned his money. The company said in an email that the allegations were false butthat it returned Mr. Goel’s money to avoid harassment by the police.

戈埃爾向警局和一個消費者委員會報告此事之后，他說BPTP退回了錢。該公司在一封電郵中表示，這些指控并不屬實，但是為了避免警方的騷擾，公司還是把錢退給了戈埃爾。

Even after the money was returned, the police continued their investigation. In 2012, BPTP wentto court to get the case closed. The case was kept open, though, after an investigating officertestified that other people were approaching him with similar complaints against the company.

甚至在錢被退回之后，警方的調查仍在繼續(xù)。2012年，BPTP去法院結案，但未成功，因為一名調查員作證說，還有其他人向他報告該公司的類似問題。

The case was closed in 2013 without charges being brought.

2013年，這個案件在沒有提起任何指控的情況下結案了。

In interviews, some buyers who bought lots years ago in Parklands complained that thecompany arbitrarily switched the location of their lots to less developed parts of the project.

在采訪中，一些在花園之地購買了地塊的人抱怨說，自己購買的地塊的位置，被該公司任意調整到了該項目中開發(fā)滯后的地方。

In a statement, the company strongly denied the allegations but said that some buyers wereassigned different lots when the government ordered changes to the overall plan, including thewidening of roads, that required a new layout.

在一份聲明中，該公司堅決否認了這一指責，但表示，政府下令修改該項目總體規(guī)劃，包括對道路進行拓寬，因此他們改動了布局，一些購房者被分配到了不同的地段。

Manoj Pandey, a real estate agent who said he sold more than 100 BPTP plots, ascribed a morenefarious motivation. He said that the company’s pattern was to sell property, then reassigncustomers to less desirable locations and resell the original property for more money.

馬諾·潘迪(Manoj Pandey)是一個房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀人，自稱賣出了100多個BPTP地塊，他覺得該公司這么做是出于更加惡劣的動機。他說，該公司的模式是出售物業(yè)，然后重新把業(yè)主的地段調整到不太理想的位置，然后重新出售原來的物業(yè)，以賺取更多的錢。

BPTP, in a statement, called the allegation “false, frivolous and a figment of someone’simagination.”

BPTP在一份聲明中稱這種指責“不屬實、很無聊，是憑空想象”。

But Mr. Pandey said in an interview: “They promised heaven to all the buyers.”

不過，潘迪在一次采訪中說：“他們對每個買家的許諾都像天堂般的美好。”

Naveen Verma, an Indian who works in a technology job in Scotland, said he bought a Parklandslot in 2006. Mr. Verma, who said he had invested more than $90,000 in his property, providedThe Times with dozens of emails to BPTP asking for possession. Mr. Verma said he had beenpromised a swimming pool and Wi-Fi connectivity in a gated community, but none of that hadmaterialized. Instead, local villagers were using the site to dry cow manure for fuel when helast visited in December 2013.

在蘇格蘭科技業(yè)中工作的印度人納溫·維爾馬(Naveen Verma)說，自己2006年在花園之地購買了一個地塊，投資超過9萬美元。他向時報提供了幾十封要求BPTP交付物業(yè)的電郵。維爾馬說，BPTP承諾的物業(yè)是在一個封閉式社區(qū)中，有游泳池，能上WiFi，但這些承諾都沒有兌現(xiàn)。他上次去那里是在2013年12月，當?shù)卮迕駛冋谀抢飼衽＜S當燃料。

In 2014, Mr. Verma went to court and BPTP agreed to turn over the lot to him, although he saidthere was little he could do with the property at this point. In a statement, the company saidthat no road had been built to Mr. Verma’s property because the government had been unableto acquire the necessary land, blaming “encroachment by some local villagers.”

2014年，維爾馬述至法院，此后BPTP同意把地塊交付交給他。不過他說，對自己而言，這個物業(yè)當時幾乎沒法利用。在一份聲明中，該公司表示，他們沒有修建通向維爾馬物業(yè)的道路，是由于“一些當?shù)卮迕竦那终夹袨?rdquo;，導致政府無法獲得必要的土地。

One villager, a retired electrical worker named Ram Kishan, whose home is near Mr. Verma’s lot,says he will not leave the settlement. “I told them this is the land of my forefathers and we havebeen living here for over 150 years,” Mr. Kishan said, speaking in Hindi about visitors to the sitewho told him he had to leave. “How can I run away from the village of my ancestors? The wholeworld is building their homes around our village.”

一位名叫拉姆·基尚(Ram Kishan)的村民是退休電工，他的家靠近維爾馬的地塊?；姓f自己不會遷走。“我告訴他們，這是我祖上傳下來的土地，我們在這里生活了150多年，”基尚用印地語說。他說有人到這里來，叫他必須遷走。“我怎能離開世代居住的村子呢?全世界都跑到我們村周圍蓋房子住。”

A Purchase in Manhattan

曼哈頓的交易

By the summer of 2011, as Mr. Chawla fended off criticism back home, a buyer expressed aninterest in Apartment 68AF in the Time Warner Center.

2011年夏，正在舒拉躲閃著來自本國的指責之時，一個買家表示對時代華納中心共管公寓68AF感興趣。

The resulting cash offer of $19.4 million was more than $7 million below the asking price for theapartment, which encompasses five and a half marble baths, a 23-by-24-foot great room, his-and-her master closets and river-to-river views of the city.

買家的現(xiàn)款出價是1940萬美元，比該公寓的要價低700多萬。公寓擁有五個半大理石浴缸，一個23×24英尺的大房間，男女主人衣柜，窗外是一覽無余的紐約城景。

When the contract was finally drawn up, it contained special language permitting thepurchaser to transfer ownership to a limited liability company, which “may be owned by aCayman Island limited liability company or a British Virgin Island limited liability company tobe formed, and/or to a trust.”

合同最終敲定時包含了特別條款，允許購買者把所有權轉讓給一家有限責任公司，而該公司“可能屬于開曼群島或英屬維爾京群島一家有待創(chuàng)辦的有限責任公司，和/或轉至信托。”

The contract went on to suggest that another family would occupy the unit and might becomethe owner. The family’s name did not appear in the paperwork but was to be disclosed to thecondo board. If the board did not agree to the arrangement, the deal was to be voided andthe $1.9 million deposit returned. Such a transfer would not require any public filing.

該合同還表明，將要居住在這里的是另一個家庭，而他們有可能成為業(yè)主。該家庭的名字并沒有出現(xiàn)在文件中，但是提交給了公寓委員會。如果委員會不同意的這項安排，這筆交易將會作廢，190萬美元的保證金也將退還。這樣的移交不需要任何公開備案。

Douglas A. Kellner, a New York lawyer who reviewed the contract at the request of The Timesbut knew nothing about the buyer, said the type of layering described in the document couldplace ownership in the jurisdiction with the most favorable tax treatment — which couldreduce tax liabilities if a residence was rented or if a mortgage was taken out.

時報請紐約律師道格拉斯·A·克爾納(Douglas A. Kellner)審核了這份合同，他對買家一無所知?？藸柤{表示，合同中的這些條款，可以把所有權放到稅收待遇最優(yōu)惠的管轄區(qū)——在公寓出租，或者申請抵押貸款時，可以減少稅負。

“There is also the possibility that the layering is used to hide the real ownership,” Mr. Kellnersaid.

“這些條款也有可能被用來掩護真正的業(yè)主，”克爾納說。

Months went by before the deal finally closed. If not for a lawsuit over real estate fees, neitherthe terms of the contract nor a clue linking it to Mr. Chawla would have been revealed.

幾個月之后，這宗交易最終完成了。如果不是因為一場房地產(chǎn)費用官司，合同的內容和有關舒拉的線索都不會曝光。

Shortly after the sale, the brokerage firm Douglas Elliman sued the former owners of the condo,claiming the company was due brokerage fees. Documents filed in that case contained emailexchanges among brokers, including Julie Rose of Citi Habitats, who had represented the buyer.One of the emails refers to the first name of a figure making requests from behind the scenes:Kabul.

該公寓售出后不久，經(jīng)紀公司道格拉斯·艾麗曼房地產(chǎn)公司(Douglas Elliman)狀告這套公寓的前業(yè)主，稱其到期未付中介費。該案的文件包含經(jīng)紀人之間的一些電郵往來，其中一名經(jīng)紀人是代表買方的花旗居屋(CitiHabitats)的朱莉·羅斯(Julie Rose)。一份電郵提到了幕后主使者的名字：卡布爾。

“Dear All,” Brenda S. Powers, then a broker for Brown Harris Stevens, which represented theseller, wrote in an email to others involved in the transaction. “Julie Rose who is in directcommunication with Kabul has requested the following.”

“親愛的諸位，”賣方代理人、當時為布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯(Brown Harris Stevens)公司經(jīng)紀人的布倫達·S·鮑爾斯(Brenda S. Powers)在電郵中對參與這樁交易的其他人說。“朱莉·羅斯負責與卡布爾直接溝通，她提出了以下要求。”

The email went on to explain that the buyer’s lawyer would not release the contract anddeposit until complete measurements had been made of the unit. “We will get the different ways— methods of calculation,” Ms. Powers wrote. “Architect’s approach, graphic designer’sapproach, developer’s approach.”

該電郵接著解釋，直到該公寓進行過全面測量之后，買方律師才會發(fā)出合同和定金。“我們會使用不同的方法——計算方法，”鮑爾斯寫道。“建筑師的方法，平面設計師的方法，開發(fā)商的方法。”

A person inside the Time Warner Center had suggested to The Times that Kabul Chawla and hiswife, Anjali, owned 68AF, and Ms. Powers’s email supplied additional information.

一位時代華納中心內部人士曾告訴時報，卡布爾·舒拉和他的妻子安賈莉(Anjali)是68AF公寓的所有者，而鮑爾斯的電郵還提供了其他信息。

In an interview, Mr. Chawla acknowledged that his family had used the Time Warner Centercondo. The Chawlas’ teenage son had posted photographs on his Facebook page that, withtheir telling architectural detail and views of Central Park in the background, seem to have beentaken from inside the unit. Mr. Chawla said the unit was owned by Aneil Anand, who he said wasa cousin. “I don’t own an apartment in New York,” Mr. Chawla said.

在一次采訪中，舒拉承認，其家人曾住在時代華納中心的公寓。他家十幾歲的兒子在Facebook上貼了一些照片，從其中特別的建筑細節(jié)、以及背景中的中央公園風景來看，似乎是在這套公寓里拍攝的。舒拉說這套公寓屬于表親阿奈爾·阿南德(Aneil Anand)。“我自己在紐約沒有公寓，”舒拉說。

Mr. Anand, who is listed as the purchaser in documents disclosed in the lawsuit, joined thehedge fund Duet Group in 2009 from JPMorgan Chase & Company. Mr. Anand did notrespond to requests for an interview.

阿南德在該訴訟披露的文件中被列為購買人，于2009年從摩根大通公司跳槽到對沖基金DuetGroup。他沒有回應記者的采訪要求。

To further investigate the ownership, The Times contacted one of the people on the “Kabul”email, Hall F. Willkie, the president of Brown Harris Stevens. Citing the deed on 68AF, TheTimes asked Mr. Willkie why it was signed by Aneil Anand and not Kabul Chawla. “I think theyusually just put it in another name for public records,” he replied.

為了進一步調查這套公寓的所有權，時報聯(lián)系了那份“卡布爾”電郵中的聯(lián)系人霍爾·F·威爾基(Hall F. Willkie)。他是布朗·哈里斯·史蒂文斯公司的總裁。關于68AF公寓，時報詢問威爾基，為什么簽名的是阿奈爾·阿南德而不是卡布爾·舒拉。“我認為他們就是經(jīng)常在公共記錄中使用另一個名字而已，”他回答說。

When The Times asked whether Kabul Chawla or Aneil Anand toured the apartment beforepurchase, he said he did not know but could not disclose that even if he did.

當時報詢問卡布爾·舒拉或阿奈爾·阿南德是否在購買之前參觀了公寓時，威爾基說他不知道，但即使知道，也不能透露這種信息。

“The last thing we do is talk about them as individuals,” he said.

“我們是絕不會談及他們個人的，”他說。

“So for you to talk about this deal you would have to ask Kabul for permission?” The Timescontinued.

“那如果你要談這筆交易，就必須先征得卡布爾的許可嗎?”時報問。

“Yes,” Mr. Willkie responded.

“是的，”威爾基回答。

The deal for 68AF was one of New York’s 25 most expensive residential sales of 2012. After itclosed, Citi Habitats posted an interview with Ms. Rose on the company website in which shedescribed it as “a very complicated deal — but in the end my client was very happy. He loveshis new home and that’s all that matters.”

68AF公寓交易位于2012年紐約最貴的住宅交易前25位。該交易完成后，花旗居屋的網(wǎng)站上貼出了一則對羅斯采訪，她形容這是“一樁非常復雜的交易——但我的客戶最后非常滿意。他喜愛這處新家，這才是最重要的。”

In an effort to reach Mr. Anand, a reporter tried to deliver him a bottle of wine at the TimeWarner Center. But staff members there did not know who he was. A concierge at the frontdesk searched through a list of residents, looking for Aneil Anand. “We don’t have anyone bythat name,” she said.

為了和阿南德取得聯(lián)系，記者試圖到時代華納中心送一瓶葡萄酒給他。但工作人員也不知道他是誰。前臺服務員在住戶列表中搜索阿奈爾·阿南德。“這里沒有叫這個名字的人，”她說。