04:05 pm - Sunday 20 June 2021

黃金黑金台灣人命◎謝鎮寬

週三 2013年08月28日, 1:39 下午【點此取得本文短網址】

  • 0 Comments
  • 2434 views
  • Print Print
文章來源

[轉載自:Taipei Times]
[謝鎮寬]於2013-08-25 01:24:19上傳[553]

黃金黑金台灣人命

1949年在中國發行的黃金債券因國共戰爭國民黨戰敗亡命台灣
國民黨違約拖欠黃金債券利息自1939年至今連本帶利為數可觀
如今卻要將台灣拖下水成為國共和談後來償還債券利息的凱子
然國民黨憑其早年在台一黨獨大國庫通黨庫早將黃金俱為己有
國民黨搖身一變成為全世界最富有政黨進而魚肉無辜台灣人民

黃金變黑金進而操控台灣人生命
請詳閱原著對黃金債券違約闡述
台灣人務必要覺醒不要世代為奴
黃金變黑金進而主宰台灣人生命

台灣鄉情關懷會會長:謝鎮寬August 24, 2013於加州海沃

原文刊載於2013年8月23日台北時報Taipei Times 第8頁

原作者:喬納森、李維是國際刑事律師和在諾威治大學外交計劃兼職教授。他是債券持有人和台灣民權訴訟組織,在台灣民權訴訟組織控訴國民黨的代表,也曾代表前總統陳水扁。然而,本文所表達的意見,純屬作者個人觀點,自己說話,不代表他先前客戶。

War bonds are a ticking debt bomb

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/08/23/2003570352

戰爭債券是滴答作響的債務炸彈

是否中國國民黨和中國共產黨之間和解的緋聞,將觸發一個少為人知的條款,那將迫使贖回業已被拖欠數十億美元的中國政府債券?

1949年,蔣介石國民黨終於在台灣島前哨,穩住了面對毛澤東勝利紅潮的最後一站。然而,在1949年之前,蔣介石的中華民國(ROC)是一個揮霍無度、主權債券的發行者,其中大部分是以黃金作後盾。這些銷往世界各地債券,是由大銀行如匯豐銀行,巴林銀行,中國銀行和摩根大通等擔保。他們被視為具有高利息的鍍金投資。

該債券被用來資助對抗日本和共產黨戰爭,中國基​​礎設施如鐵路,他們幫助中國現代化。債券也讓中國深陷債務。到1939年,中國與日本的戰爭,已迫使中國停止支付,大多數債券,雖然另有由美國融資,助其對日戰爭成功而發行的勝利和自由債券,在中國銷售 。

在1949年之前,中國已贖回一些其第二次世界大戰債務,假若蔣介石擊潰共產黨, 無疑他將會盡責地開始支付剩餘債務,有些可回遡到中國舊日皇朝義和團叛變賠償,以維護國家信貸評級。然而,在1949年被迫撤退到台灣後,中華民國流亡政府沒有辦法,只能讓債券進入冬眠狀態。

2003年10月29日中華民國總統(華總一義字第 09200199770 號)令,由行政院定之臺秘字第 0920069517 號令,於2004年3月1日實施,行政院版該法的第63條台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例規定:

本條例施行前,臺灣地區人民與大陸地區人民間、大陸地區人民相互間及其與外國人間,在大陸地區成立之民事法律關係及因此取得之權利、負擔之義務,以不違背臺灣地區公共秩序或善良風俗者為限,承認其效力。

前項規定, 於本條例施行前已另有法令限制其權利之行使或移轉者, 不適用之。

國家統一前, 下列債務不予處理:

一、1949年以前在大陸發行尚未清償之外幣債券及1949年黃金短期公債。

二、國家行局及收受存款之金融機構在大陸撤退前所有各項債務。

根據前司法院副院長城仲模:“該法案意旨,確認1950年前中國債券的存在,中華民國欠美國和其他地區的外債,決議要推遲到國家統一後 。第63條所提的這些債券都是由前國民黨的中華民國政府發行或由國民黨政府批准。“

當這些債券於1949年被確實凍結時,自己已是四面楚歌的國民黨,在其統治下的台灣經濟是微不足道,無法合理地預期他何時能償還,這些積累了60年的中國瘋狂借貸債務。然而今天,中國及台灣合併後的經濟是可觀的。如果第63條由國民黨促成和解而被啟動,貧窮不會是一個合理的藉口。

很久以前銀行和機構,曾在公開場合,核銷這些拖欠的中國債券。美國證券交易委員會認為這些歷史文件,只看收藏家願意出多少給債券收藏交易商,或在eBay上,來擁有過去的些許歷史。騙子也用債券來詐騙受害者。

另一方面,這些債券最近仍然在巴黎泛歐交易所進行交易,雖然只售得債券面值的一小部分。個人債券持有者可頑強多了,並拒絕接受債券已是無法贖回的。美國債券持有人基金會曾經出擊,聲稱中國將主動贖回債券。這是不可能的,因為發行人是國民黨,而不是中國共產黨,儘管基金會有足夠本事,拉到一些美國國會議員支持他們的計劃。

另一個大型個別債券持有人團體,聯合起訴國民黨,由台灣民權訴訟組織領銜,於加州聯邦法院控訴國民黨事業管理委員會。雖然債券持有人以第63條法令為依憑,要求缺席判決;但美國法院拒絕行使管轄權,理由是從1950年到現在已經太久遠了。

然而,債券持有人決議繼續探索第63條法令,並取得城仲謀的專家意見 。參閱台灣民權訴訟組織訴國民黨事業管理委員會。2011年美國聯邦地區法院法律電子檔124812號(美國聯邦地區法院北加州地區,2011年10月13日);2012年美國聯邦上訴法院法律電子檔21621號(加州第九巡迴法庭,2012年10月17日)。

究竟還有多少債務?大多數債券持有人同意債務總額可能高達數十億。一些債券持有人希望債券,利息及罰款全部計算,期能爭取到一筆天文數字的價值。其他像台灣民權訴訟組織控訴國黨的債券持有人,則比較溫和,只尋求國民黨自1950年,把債券冷凍後的利息算出來。

沒有人會樂意接受僅只面額小數的贖款,正如1997年香港主權移轉中國時給債券持有人的開價,做為對英國政府的回報。然而,國共大陸之爭和解,於法將觸動第63條款。前總統陳水扁,非中共迷,目前還是國民黨的政治犯,正是他經由第63條例確認了債券。確實,陳毫無疑問地知道把債務問題穩住憋在腦後,和解不太可能給予潛在的全額賠償。

台灣本身,從自1945年以來即遭中華民國佔領,自無立場來償還債務。台灣自1895年到1945年是日本的屬地,幾乎涵蓋了所有債券舉債期間。台灣人無法忍受這樁國民黨在中國舉債,這些奠定中國今日工業基礎融資,卻被迫要由他們來高額支付的侮辱。而,和解讓國民黨佔盡便宜他們深信,台灣將溫順地支付任何費用。

經由訴訟所提出的債務定時炸彈,債券持有人和台灣民權訴訟組織揭露國民黨政治的陰暗面。和解價碼毫無疑問將不成比例地落在台灣人身上,而中國可能會支付一些老債,但他們是不會照單全付,或支付其中大部分。

再來就是首要問題,那些支撐債券的黃金跑到那裡去了?國民黨垮台前,撤退、經由空中和海上搬走了很多中國硬資產。 台灣民權訴訟組織及債券持有人深信,這些黃金奠基了國民黨的數十億黨產,所謂的「黑金」多年來資助了許多國民黨黨營業務和政治運作。

國民黨是不會願意放棄其數十億美元的黨產,現在分散在其業務附屬的公司與銀行,它絕不允許審計。再次,台灣人民將被迫出來收拾殘局,並給予慷慨資助,他們並不需要或想要與中共的和解。

最終,債券持有人應由中國支付公平的賠償,他們受益於從債券所支付的基礎設施,而國民黨,顯然由這些黃金,奠基其財富。首要之務回復陳水扁史積,期望能帶領台灣獨立,重擊國民黨背後的不當得利。

喬納森、李維是國際刑事律師和在諾威治大學外交計劃的兼職教授。筆者是債券持有人和台灣民權訴訟組織在台灣民權訴訟組織控訴國民黨的代表,也曾代表前總統陳水扁。然而,本文所表達的意見,純屬作者個人觀點,自己說話,不代表他先前客戶。

War bonds are a ticking debt bomb

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/08/23/2003570352

By Jonathan Levy

Will the rumored reconciliation between the ChineseNationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) trigger alittle-known clause that will force the redemption of billions of dollars indefaulted Chinese government debt?

In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) Nationalists made a successful last stand on theisland outpost of Taiwan against the almost victorious red tide of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). However, prior to 1949, Chiang’s Republic ofChina (ROC) was a profligate issuer of sovereign bonds, most of it backed bygold. These bonds sold around the world and were underwritten by the largestbanking houses like HSBC, Barings, Bank of China and JPMorgan. They were viewedas gilt edge investments with a high rate of interest.

The bonds were used to finance the wars againstJapan and the Communists, Chinese infrastructure like railroads, and theyhelped to modernize China. The bonds also put China deep into debt. By 1939,the war with Japan had forced China to suspend payments on most bonds, thoughadditional victory and liberty bonds sold in China and the US helped financethe successful war effort against Japan.

By 1949, China had redeemed some of its World WarII debt, and had Chiang defeated the Communists, he would undoubtedly havedutifully begun to pay off the remainder, some of it dating back to theImperial days of China’s Boxer Rebellion reparations, in order to keep thenation’s credit rating above water. However, after being forced to retreat toTaiwan in 1949, the Republic of China in exile had no alternative but to putthe bonds into hibernation.

The ROC Presidential Order on Oct. 29, 2003,implemented from March 1, 2004, by the Order of the Executive Yuan Article 63of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and theMainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) states:

“To the extent not contrary to the public order orgood morals of the Taiwan Area, it shall be upheld the legal effects of anycivil matter together with any right or obligation thereof created in theMainland Area, prior to the coming into force of this Act, between any of thepeople of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, or between any two or more ofthe people of the Mainland Area, or between any of the people of the MainlandArea and any foreign national.

“The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall notapply provided that there had been laws or regulations in effect, prior to thecoming into force of this Act, restricting the exercise or transfer of therights referred to therein.

“The following debts shall not be repaid prior tonational unification:

“1. Outstanding foreign currency bonds issued inthe Mainland prior to 1949 and the short-term Gold Bonds of 1949.

“2. Various debts owed by any government bank, aswell as any other financial institution accepting deposits before their retreatfrom the Mainland.”

According to former minister of justice ChengChung-mo (城仲模): “The intent ofthis Act in regards to pre-1950 Chinese bonds was to reaffirm their existenceas defaulted foreign debt obligations of the Republic of China owed in theUnited States and elsewhere and to defer their resolution until nationalunification. These bonds referred to in Article 63 were all issued by theformer Kuomintang government of the Republic of China or were ratified by theKuomintang government.”

When the bonds were effectively put in cold storagein 1949, the economy of the embattled KMT-controlled Taiwan was minuscule andcould not reasonably be expected to pay back the combined debts of a 60-yearChinese borrowing spree. Today however, the combined economies of the PRC andTaiwan are formidable. Poverty would not be a reasonable excuse if Article 63were triggered by a KMT brokered reconciliation.

Institutions and banks have, at least publicly,written off the defaulted Chinese bonds long ago. The US Securities andExchange Commission considers these bonds to be historical documents worth onlywhat a collector would pay to a collectible bonds dealer, or on EBay, to own abit of the past. Con artists have also used the bonds to defraud their victims.

On the other hand, the bonds were recently stilltrading on the Paris Euronext Exchange, albeit at a fraction of face value. Theindividual bondholders are a tenacious lot and have refused to accept that thebonds are unredeemable. The American Bondholder Foundation takes one tackclaiming that the PRC will redeem the bonds on its own initiative. This isunlikely since the KMT, not the PRC, was the issuer, although the foundationhas had enough pull to get several US congressmen to support their scheme.

Another large group of individual bondholderscombined to sue the KMT in the Taiwan Civil Rights Litigation Organization(TCRLO) versus Kuomintang Business management Committee federal court case inCalifornia. Although the bondholders sought a default judgement backed by Article63; the US court declined jurisdiction, citing too much time had elapsed from1950.

However, the bondholders did manage to bringforward Article 63 and obtain Cheng’s expert opinion.

The court, while dismissing the case as too dated,did not dispute the logic or lawfulness of the Article 63 reaffirmation. SeeTaiwan Civ. Rights Litig. Org. v. Kuomintang Bus. Mgmt. Comm., 2011 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 124812 (USDC ND Cal., Oct. 13, 2011); Affirmed by Taiwan Civ. RightsLitig. Org. v. Kuomintang Bus. Mgmt. Comm., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21621 (9thCir. Cal., Oct. 17, 2012).

How much debt is out there? Most bondholders agreethe aggregate debt could be in the billions. Some of the bondholders are hopingfor the full value of bonds, interest and penalties, all keyed to the value ofthe gold backing the bonds, an astronomical sum. Others are like thebondholders in TCRLO v. KMT who were seeking a more modest amount of interestdating from 1950 when the KMT put the bonds on ice.

No one would be happy with the small fraction offace value which was offered to British bondholders in 1997 as an accommodationto the UK government upon the transfer of Hong Kong to Chinese suzerainty.

A KMT-CCP accord on the mainland, however, would bylaw trigger Article 63. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), no fan of the CCP and currently a politicalprisoner of the KMT, was the man who reaffirmed the bonds via Article 63.Indeed, Chen no doubt knew that by keeping the debt issue simmering on the backburner, reconciliation would be less likely given the potential amounts atstake.

Taiwan itself, under Republic of China occupationsince 1945, had no part to play in racking up the debt. Taiwan was a possessionof Japan from 1895 until 1945, the very dates when almost all of the debt arose.Taiwanese would not stand for insult being added to injury by being forced topay off a hefty portion of the KMT’s debt in China, which financed theindustrial infrastructure that the PRC today exploits. Yet, the KMT that standsto profit from a reconciliation seems to believe that Taiwanese will meekly payany cost.

By filing a lawsuit about the debt time bomb, thebondholders and TCRLO have exposed the seamy underside of KMT politics. Theprice tag of reconciliation would no doubt fall disproportionately on Taiwaneseand, while the PRC might pay some of the old debt, they would not pay all oreven most of it.

Then there is the question of what happened to thegold that backed the bonds in the first place. Before the KMT fell, itevacuated, by air and sea, many of its hard assets from China. TCRLO and thebondholders contended that this gold formed the basis of the KMT’s billions,the so-called black gold that has financed so many KMT business and politicaloperations over the years.

The KMT would be loath to give up its billions, nowdispersed among its business subsidiaries and banks, and it would never permitan audit. Again the people of Taiwan would be forced to take up the slack andgive generously to finance a reconciliation with the CCP that they do not needor want.

Ultimately, the bondholders should be paid a fairreturn by the PRC, which still benefits from the infrastructure the bonds paidfor, and from the KMT, which apparently absconded with the gold to fund its ownenrichment. The rehabilitation of Chen’s legacy is the first step in a processthat hopefully will lead to both the independence of Taiwan and breaking theback of the KMT’s unjust enrichment.

Jonathan Levy is a member of the InternationalCriminal Bar and an adjunct faculty member at Norwich University’s DiplomacyProgram. The author represented the bondholders and TCRLO in TCRLO v.Kuomintang and has also represented former president Chen Shui-bian. Theopinions expressed herein, however, may be attributed to the author, who speaksonly for himself and not his former clients.


圖片與本文無關

  • 0 Comments
  • 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
    Loading...
  • 2434 views

Leave a Reply