那些隱跡于紐約奢華公寓的全球富豪(2)
而建筑內(nèi)部一樣不甚透明。當(dāng)你走進(jìn)時(shí)代華納中心的共管公寓范圍內(nèi)，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)這里既沒有門鈴，也沒有帶有戶主姓名的信箱。熟悉戶主出入情況的人說，你不太可能在走廊里撞見閑逛的鄰居，因?yàn)闊o論何時(shí)都只有大約三分之一的業(yè)主住在公寓里。他們說，大樓每年的節(jié)日聚會都冷冷清清。
“It’s a really closely guarded secret who is in that building,” said Al D’Elia, an architect who hasworked there. “It’s just the way they treat you, what you have to do to get in the building.”
曾經(jīng)在那里工作的建筑師阿爾·德埃利亞(Al D’Elia)說，“那棟大樓里究竟住了什么人，簡直就是一個被嚴(yán)格保守的秘密，”曾經(jīng)在那里工作的建筑師阿爾·德埃利亞(Al D’Elia)說，“從他們接待你的方式，進(jìn)入大樓的手續(xù)就能看出來。”
The hallways are spare, but many apartments are loaded with the sort of amenities that havebecome standard in luxury real estate: panoramic views, stone bathtubs and customeverything — sound systems, millwork, lighting fixtures.
走廊里空空如也，但許多公寓里的設(shè)施則符合豪宅的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)配置：開闊的視野、石材浴缸，全部家當(dāng)都是訂做的——音響系統(tǒng)、木制門窗、照明裝置。
Even the numbering of the floors was a bit of upwardly mobile sleight of hand, calibrated toenhance the perception of what the developer, the Related Companies, marketed as “FiveStar Living.” So, the 80th-floor penthouses are actually on 53.
就連樓層的編號方式也別出心裁，強(qiáng)化了開發(fā)商Related Companies提出的“五星級居住環(huán)境”的營銷概念。因此，標(biāo)注為第80層的頂層公寓實(shí)際上是在53層。
The building’s layout and protocols facilitate anonymity. There are multiple entrances to its192 condos — not just through the two towers’ main doors, but also through an adjacentparking garage and through the Time Warner Center shops. And while the building has a booklisting the names of people associated with units, the owners do not have to be listed for themto get access to the building. They could walk in alongside someone whose name is in the book.Or, if they are cleared to visit, they could enter the complex through the shops or the hotel,and then take the secure elevators to the condos.
大樓的格局和規(guī)則也為業(yè)主隱藏身份信息提供了便利。這192套共管公寓有多個入口——不光是兩棟大樓的大門，還可以通過一個附近的車庫，以及時(shí)代華納中心內(nèi)的商鋪進(jìn)入。盡管物業(yè)有一本與各單元有關(guān)的人員名冊，業(yè)主們沒有把名字錄進(jìn)去同樣可以進(jìn)入樓內(nèi)。他們可以和名字在手冊上的人一起進(jìn)入大樓，也可以通過商鋪或酒店進(jìn)入大樓，然后乘坐安全電梯進(jìn)入公寓，只要一名業(yè)主說他們是訪客就可以。
“An owner could be obscured from our view,” said David Spector, who helped manage thecondos until 2011.
“業(yè)主完全可以避開我們的視線，”2011年之前參與管理這些公寓的戴維·斯佩克特(David Spector)說。
Over the decade since the Time Warner condos came on the market, high-end real estate salesin general have become increasingly opaque. In 2003, one-third of the units sold in TimeWarner were purchased by shell companies. By 2014, that figure was over 80 percent.
在時(shí)代華納中心的這些公寓掛牌銷售以來的10年里，高端房地產(chǎn)銷售整體上已經(jīng)變得越來越不透明。2003年，時(shí)代華納中心售出的所有單位中，超過三分之一被空殼公司所購買。到了2014年，這個比例超過了80%。
Across the United States in recent years, nearly half the residential purchases of over $5 millionwere made by shell companies rather than named people, according to data from First AmericanData Tree analyzed by The Times.
時(shí)報(bào)分析的First American Data Tree的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，最近幾年，在美國各地超過500萬美元的住宅交易中，將近一半的買主是空殼公司，而不是實(shí)名的個人 。
Public records, dating back to at least the 1800s in New York, set real estate apart as moretransparent than bank accounts or stock portfolios. “There’s a whole Jeffersonian rhetoricabout land ownership,” said Hendrik Hartog, a professor of the history of American law atPrinceton. “There was a goal to make land transparent, and it was justified by civic values anda whole range of moral judgments like not hiding ownership.”
一些可以至少追溯到19世紀(jì)的公開記錄曾顯示房地產(chǎn)交易比銀行賬戶或股票投資更為透明。“對于土地所有制有著杰斐遜式的表述，”普林斯頓大學(xué)美國法律史教授亨德里克·哈托格(Hendrik Hartog)說，“目標(biāo)是讓土地透明，支撐這個目標(biāo)的是公民價(jià)值，以及不應(yīng)該隱瞞土地所有權(quán)這樣的一系列道德判斷。”
One type of corporate structure now commonly used in real estate transactions, limitedliability companies, or L.L.C.s, did not even exist in the United States before the late 1970s. Atfirst, they were primarily used by oil and gas traders in Wyoming to shield individual ownersfrom liability — if, say, a well worker was hurt — and to avoid taxation of both the companyand the investor.
有限責(zé)任公司是目前在房產(chǎn)交易中被普遍使用的一種公司結(jié)構(gòu)，這種結(jié)構(gòu)直到上世紀(jì)70年代之后才在美國出現(xiàn)。起初，使用這種公司結(jié)構(gòu)的主要是懷俄明州的油氣交易商，目的是讓公司的所有者免除責(zé)任——比如在礦井工人受傷時(shí)——以及避免政府對公司和投資者征稅。
Nothing in the genesis of limited liability companies suggested they would be used topurchase personal real estate, said Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama professor whoworked on L.L.C. policy while at the Internal Revenue Service in the 1990s. However, L.L.C.s arenow commonly used in real estate for privacy, wealth transfer or shared ownership.
阿拉巴馬大學(xué)(University of Alabama)教授蘇珊·佩斯·哈米爾(Susan Pace Hamill)說，有限責(zé)任公司誕生伊始，并沒有哪一點(diǎn)顯示它將被用來購買個人房產(chǎn)。她上世紀(jì)90年代曾在美國國稅局(Internal RevenueService)研究過有限責(zé)任公司的政策。然而目前，有限責(zé)任公司在房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域被普遍用來保護(hù)隱私、轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)富或是分享所有權(quán)。
What becomes clear combing real estate records is that many Time Warner buyers have takeneven greater steps, beyond using L.L.C.s, to keep their names out of sight. On many deeds,the line for the buyer’s signature is left blank, is illegible or is signed by a lawyer or otherrepresentative. Phone numbers are registered under lawyers’ names; the owner’s line onrenovation permits is signed by Time Warner staff members; tax statements are addressed tothe L.L.C.s.
在對房地產(chǎn)記錄的梳理中，我們可以清晰地發(fā)現(xiàn)，除了使用有限責(zé)任公司進(jìn)行交易，為了隱藏自己的身份，時(shí)代華納中心的許多業(yè)主還動用了更多辦法。在許多房契上，購買者的簽名一欄都是空白的、難以辨認(rèn)的，或者由律師及其他代表代簽的?？赡軙嘎稑I(yè)主真實(shí)信息的公開記錄中則充滿了虛假信息。電話號碼是用律師的名字申請的;提交給紐約樓宇局(New York’s Department of Buildings)的維修表格上的業(yè)主信息是時(shí)代華納的員工代簽的;稅務(wù)報(bào)表上的地址則寫著有限責(zé)任公司的名字。
And because most of the sales are in cash, there are few mortgage statements, another publicdocument that might identify an owner or trigger scrutiny.
由于多數(shù)交易是現(xiàn)金全款購買，幾乎沒有按揭貸款的單據(jù)。此類單據(jù)本來是另一種可能透露業(yè)主信息或引發(fā)嚴(yán)密審視的公開記錄。
A spokeswoman for the Related Companies, Joanna Rose, said the developer had followed allfederal and local laws in its sales at the Time Warner Center, adding, “With all of our sales, weknow the identity of the purchasers.”
Related Companies的發(fā)言人喬安娜·羅斯(Joanna Rose)說，在時(shí)代華納中心公寓的銷售中，開發(fā)商遵守了所有聯(lián)邦和地方法律。她補(bǔ)充說，“對于每一筆交易，我們都了解了購房者的身份信息。”
However, documents and interviews with a half-dozen people involved in the sales show that inmany cases, the company did not know the actual source of the money behind the sales.
然而，對參與公寓銷售的六名工作人員的采訪以及一些文件顯示，在許多時(shí)候，公司并不知道交易背后的真實(shí)的資金來源。
David J. Wine, the former vice chairman of the Related Companies, spoke bluntly of the lack ofconcern with buyers’ identities. “You pretty much go by financial capacity,” Mr. Wine said. “Canthey afford it? They sign the contract, they put their money down with no contingency andthey close. They have to show the money, and that is it. I don’t think you will find a single newdeveloper where it’s different.”
Related Companies的前副董事長戴維·J·瓦恩(David J. Wine)直言不諱地表示，他們并不在乎購房者的身份 。“你主要是看他們的財(cái)務(wù)實(shí)力，”瓦恩說，“他們買得起嗎?他們簽了合同，交了錢，交易就完成了。他們必須證明自己有錢，這是最重要的。我不認(rèn)為哪個開發(fā)商會有不同的做法。
Real estate agents say commitment to anonymity is essential. “One thing of being a high-end broker is we have to protect the privacy of our clients,” said Hall F. Willkie, president ofBrown Harris Stevens. “If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have them as clients. We’re very much likeprivate bankers in that sense.”
房地產(chǎn)中介稱，隱私方面的承諾十分重要。“作為一名高端經(jīng)紀(jì)商就意味著，我們必須保護(hù)客戶的隱私，”Brown Harris Stevens公司的總裁哈爾·F·威爾基(Hall F. Willkie)說。“如果我們不這樣做，我們就不能得到這些客戶。從這個意義上講，我們很像私人銀行家。”
The shift to secrecy also reflects a fundamental change in the ownership structure ofluxury real estate in New York. Many of Manhattan’s finest addresses were traditionallyorganized as co-ops in which residents were joint owners of the building. Co-op boardsgenerally prefer full-time residents and often subject would-be buyers to excruciating scrutiny.
向保密做法的轉(zhuǎn)變反映出紐約房地產(chǎn)所有權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)的根本性變化。曼哈頓許多最好的地段傳統(tǒng)上一直以合作公寓的方式進(jìn)行管理，在合作公寓，居民是建筑的共同所有者。合作公寓委員會一般傾向于長期的住戶，有意購買合作公寓的買家需要接受嚴(yán)格的審查。
“Those co-ops wouldn’t accept billionaires, especially foreigners,” said Raphael De Niro, abroker at Douglas Elliman.
“這些合作公寓不接受億萬富豪，尤其是海外買家，”道格拉斯·埃利曼公司(Douglas Elliman)的經(jīng)紀(jì)商拉斐爾·德尼羅(Raphael De Niro)說。
By contrast, Time Warner and most new luxury buildings are condos; residents own individualunits and boards have less power to screen prospective buyers. In addition, at the TimeWarner Center and many other buildings, if a condo board rejects a buyer, building rules say allthe residents have to chip in to buy the unit, creating a disincentive for the board to be toopicky.
相比之下，時(shí)代華納和多數(shù)最新的豪華建筑是共管公寓;住戶擁有獨(dú)立的單位，委員會沒有那么大的權(quán)力對潛在買家進(jìn)行篩查。除此之外， 時(shí)代華納中心和其他許多樓盤的規(guī)定是，如果公寓委員會拒絕一位買家， 所有住戶需要湊錢買下這個單位， 因此委員會不會太挑剔。
“That’s the joy of the condos,” said Julie Maxey-Allison, an agent for Brown Harris Stevens. “That’s why the L.L.C.s buy them. It’s a way foreigners can do whatever they want here.”
“這就是共管公寓讓人高興的地方，”Brown Harris Stevens的房產(chǎn)中介朱莉·馬克西-艾利森(Julie Maxey-Allison)說。“正是這個原因，一些有限責(zé)任公司會購買它們。這樣的話，海外買家想怎么樣都可以。”
In fact, interviews show, condo boards are not always aware of the individuals behind the shellcompanies.
事實(shí)上，一些采訪顯示，共管公寓委員會并不總是清楚空殼公司背后的具體個人是誰。
Seamus McMahon, a former Time Warner owner, said he had no idea units were sold tomembers of the Saudi royal family while he was on the board in 2006, including one connectedto Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of a former Saudi king, and her husband, PrinceBandar bin Sultan, the former ambassador to the United States. A few years earlier, PrincessHaifa had been in the news because of reports that some of her money had gone to a figurewho aided the Sept. 11 hijackers. (The United States commission that investigated the attacksfound no evidence that the money assisted the hijackers, either directly or indirectly.)
曾是時(shí)代華納中心業(yè)主的謝默斯·麥克馬洪(Seamus McMahon)表示，自己2006年擔(dān)任委員期間，并不知道有公寓被賣給了沙特的王室成員，包括與沙特前國王之女海法·賓特·費(fèi)薩爾公主(Haifa bint Faisal)及其夫、前沙特駐美國大使班達(dá)爾·本·蘇丹王子(Bandar bin Sultan)有關(guān)聯(lián)的一套。早前幾年，因?yàn)橛袌?bào)道稱，海法公主的部分資金流向了一個為9·11事件中的劫機(jī)者提供援助的人，她受到了新聞媒體的關(guān)注。(美國負(fù)責(zé)調(diào)查9·11襲擊的委員會并未發(fā)現(xiàn)相關(guān)資金為劫機(jī)者提供了幫助的證據(jù)，不管是以直接還是間接的方式。)
Mr. McMahon said the Related Companies did not usually share details about buyers with boardmembers and did not inform them of the Saudi sale. “They probably asked to keep it quiet,” hesaid, referring to the Saudis. “Related would have kept it quiet.”
麥克馬洪說，Related Companies公司通常不會將買主的詳細(xì)情況向委員們通報(bào)，也沒有通知他們與沙特王室成員達(dá)成的那筆交易。“他們可能要求保密，”他指的是那對沙特王室夫婦。“Related Companies也會樂于保密的。”
Behind Door 74B
74B房間的內(nèi)情
When the company with the complicated name of 25CC ST74B plunked down $15.65 million in2010 for a condo in the Time Warner Center, there was no telling whose money was in play.
當(dāng)名字復(fù)雜的25CC ST74B公司在2010年豪擲1565萬美元，買下時(shí)代華納中心的那套共管公寓時(shí)，沒有出現(xiàn)和出資方有關(guān)的信息。
But in January 2013, the company accused a contractor of overbilling in a classic New YorkCity renovation dispute. The lawsuit identified the apartment’s owner as “Vitaly Malkin, aRussian senator who is domiciled in Russia and generally is not present in New York.” Less thantwo weeks later, a new complaint was filed with a change: It now said the apartment was ownedby a trust whose beneficiaries included Mr. Malkin’s son, Leonid, and that Mr. Malkin was neithera trustee nor a beneficiary of the trust.
但2013年1月，該公司控告一家承包商要價(jià)過高，這是紐約市一樁經(jīng)典的翻修糾紛。在該案中，公寓的所有人被指是“定居在俄羅斯，通常都不在紐約的俄羅斯參議員維塔利·馬爾金”。過了不到兩周，當(dāng)事人重新提起訴訟，此時(shí)一個細(xì)節(jié)發(fā)生了變化：起訴書稱公寓的所有人是某信托基金，其受益人包括馬爾金之子列昂尼德(Leonid)，馬爾金既不是基金的受托人，也不是受益人。
In a deposition, a former employee of the contractor said that while he understood that theclient was “the senator, the Russian oligarch,” he was not allowed to refer to the client byname. If he did use the family name, he said he was reprimanded and told “to make sure I justused 25CC.”
該承包商的一名前雇員在證詞中表示，他明白客戶是“那名俄羅斯寡頭參議員”，但他不能提這名客戶的姓名。他說，如果真的用了對方的姓氏，他會被訓(xùn)斥，并被告知“一定只能提25CC”。
In fact, Vitaly Malkin had been in public view for more than a decade, sometimes tied tocontroversy.
實(shí)際上，在十多年的時(shí)間里，維塔利·馬爾金一直處于公眾視野中，而且有時(shí)會牽扯爭議。
Mr. Malkin, 62, made a fortune in metals and banking and was one of the wealthiest membersof the Federation Council, Russia’s upper legislative house. He resigned from the Council inMarch 2013 after Aleksei Navalny, the Russian anticorruption activist, revealed that he had failedto disclose property he owned in Canada and that he had dual Israeli citizenship.
今年62歲的馬爾金在金屬產(chǎn)業(yè)和銀行業(yè)發(fā)家，是俄羅斯議會上院聯(lián)邦委員會(Federation Council)最富有的議員之一。2013年3月，俄羅斯博客作者、活動人士阿列克謝·納瓦爾尼(Aleksei Navalny)指出，馬爾金沒有公開其在加拿大擁有房產(chǎn)，并持有俄羅斯和以色列雙重國籍。之后，馬爾金退出了聯(lián)邦委員會。
But the case that has dogged Mr. Malkin involves a 1996 deal to restructure Angola’s $5 billiondebt to Russia, an arrangement that has become a symbol of official plundering in Africaamong anticorruption advocates.
但困擾馬爾金的事件涉及1996年的一項(xiàng)協(xié)議，內(nèi)容是對安哥拉欠俄羅斯的50億美元債務(wù)進(jìn)行重組。在反腐倡導(dǎo)人士當(dāng)中，這一安排成了官方在非洲掠奪財(cái)富的象征。
The debt, incurred during Angola’s long civil war, was cut to $1.5 billion in a deal partlynegotiated by Arcadi Gaydamak, a Russian-born businessman. But the debt payment wasconveyed through an intermediary company in which Mr. Malkin had a share, according todocuments from the Canadian government and Swiss investigators.
在該協(xié)議中，安哥拉在長期的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)期間欠下的這筆債務(wù)，被減免至15億美元。協(xié)議在一定程度上是由生于俄羅斯的商人阿爾卡季·蓋伊達(dá)馬克(Arcadi Gaydamak)促成的。但加拿大政府和瑞士調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)的文件顯示，債務(wù)償付是通過一家中介公司進(jìn)行的，而馬爾金持有該公司的股份。
When Angola paid the debt, Mr. Gaydamak received $130 million of the payment and Mr. Malkinreceived $48.8 million, the documents show. A portion also went to various Angolan officials,including President José Eduardo dos Santos, who received $36 million, according to a report bythe advocacy group Corruption Watch.
文件顯示，安哥拉償還了這筆債務(wù)后，蓋伊達(dá)馬克從中得到了1.3億美元，馬爾金獲得了4880萬美元。倡導(dǎo)團(tuán)體腐敗觀察(Corruption Watch)發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告顯示，還有一部分流向了眾多安哥拉官員，包括獲得了3600萬美元的安哥拉總統(tǒng)若澤·愛德華多·多斯桑托斯(José Eduardo dos Santos)。
Mr. dos Santos and Mr. Gaydamak did not respond to inquiries from The Times.
多斯桑托斯和蓋伊達(dá)馬克沒有回應(yīng)時(shí)報(bào)的詢問。
“Everyone knew exactly what happened,” Rafael Marques, an Angolan journalist and activist,said of the payment to the president. “That money was for personal enrichment. They werekickbacks.”
“所有人都知道到底發(fā)生了什么，”安哥拉記者兼活動人士拉斐爾·馬克斯(Rafael Marques)在談?wù)摽偨y(tǒng)得到的那筆錢時(shí)說。“那筆錢被用于個人牟利。就是回扣。”
The episode became an issue for Mr. Malkin in 2007, when he tried to gain entry to Canada,where he had business interests. Two years earlier, a Canadian immigration official had deemedMr. Malkin “inadmissible,” writing that he had “massively misrepresented” his net worth andhow he obtained his assets, according to court documents obtained by The Times.
2007年，當(dāng)馬爾金申請加拿大的入境許可時(shí)，此事成了一個問題。馬爾金在加拿大有商業(yè)利益。時(shí)報(bào)得到的法庭文件顯示，早前兩年，加拿大的一名移民官員認(rèn)為馬爾金屬于“不得入境”的人員，并寫道他“嚴(yán)重謊報(bào)”自己的凈資產(chǎn)，以及是如何取得這些資產(chǎn)的。
When Mr. Malkin reapplied in 2007, among the issues was his role as Mr. Gaydamak’s banker inthe Angola debt deal, the documents show. In addition to facing questions in the debt deal,Mr. Gaydamak was under investigation in France in connection with arms sales to the Angolangovernment. He was later sentenced to three years in a French prison for money laundering andtax fraud.
相關(guān)文件顯示，馬爾金2007年再次申請時(shí)，出問題的是他長期為蓋伊達(dá)馬克打理銀行事務(wù)這件事。除了因?yàn)榍笆鰝鶆?wù)協(xié)議而受到質(zhì)疑外，蓋伊達(dá)馬克還因?yàn)樯嫦訁⑴c面向安哥拉政府的武器銷售，而受到法國的調(diào)查。后來，他因洗錢和稅務(wù)欺詐而被判在法國一所監(jiān)獄服刑三年。
Canadian immigration officials again declared Mr. Malkin inadmissible, this time because of whatthey called an “extended association with persons suspected to be involved in organizedcrime and money laundering.”
加拿大移民官員再次宣布馬爾金不得入境，并表示這一次是因?yàn)轳R爾金“與涉嫌參與有組織犯罪和洗錢的人員有廣泛聯(lián)系”。
