一场真正具有威胁的针对华尔街投行的法律诉讼浪潮正在世界各地展开。这些诉讼者并非无名之辈，他们中有急于洗脱“失职”骂名的政府司法部门，购买金融衍生品并蒙受重大损失的金融机构，以及地方议会乃至退休金的管理者。

A real threatening a wave of lawsuits against Wall Street investment Banks are spread all over the world.These lawsuits not nobody,Among them there are eager to des"Dereliction of duty"Blame the government department of justice,Buy a financial derivatives and financial institutions suffered heavy losses,Managers and local councils and pension.

　　“相比于那些‘占领华尔街’的年轻人，华尔街投行现在才遇到了真正的对手。这些机构和组织有充裕的资金来支持漫长的司法程序，甚至还可以动用公共资源。而且基于各种原因，他们往往不愿选择庭外和解或者简易程序，这正是投行们最不愿看到的。”一位曾司职法律事务的前JP摩根雇员分析称。

"Compared with those‘Occupy Wall Street’The young man,Wall Street investment Banks are only now met real rivals.These agencies and organizations have ample funds to support the long judicial procedure,You can even use of public resources.And based on a variety of reasons,They are often reluctant to choose an out-of-court settlement or simple procedure,This is what investment Banks do not want to see."A former department job analysis of legal affairs, a former jpmorgan employees said.

　　作为最新的兴讼者，中国台湾的中华工业开发银行（下称“工银开发”）的诉讼，将摩根士丹利（下称“大摩”）置于尴尬境地，并引发舆论广泛关注。这桩诉讼直接导致大摩大量内部文件被公诸于世，并证实了外界长久以来的种种猜测：华尔街投行在次贷危机爆发前，就已经清楚知悉相关金融衍生品的资产质量正在快速恶化，但他们不仅缄口不言，反而继续像往常一样对外兜售这些“有毒的资产”，而且主动做空这些产品，在买主蒙受损失时还能再赚一笔。

As the latest court battle,Taiwan's industrial development bank of the republic of China(Hereinafter referred to as"Icbc to develop")The lawsuit,The Morgan Stanley(Hereinafter referred to as"Morgan Stanley")In the dilemma,And cause public attention.The lawsuit directly lead to large the large internal documents were made public,And confirmed that the outside world for a long time:Wall Street investment Banks before the subprime crisis,Already aware related derivatives asset quality is deteriorating rapidly,But they are not only silent,Instead, continue to foreign selling these as usual"The toxic assets",Empty and take the initiative to do these products,When buyers suffer losses could also make a fortune.

　　不过，大摩随后在一份发给媒体的声明中否认了全部指控。

but,JPM later said in a statement issued to media has denied all charges.

　　在这桩“迟来的清算”中，除去当事双方在事实层面的各执一词，人们关注的另一焦点则在于：工银开发究竟通过何种渠道，成功获得了大摩内部相关文件或至少是关键性的内部信息，并以这些材料作为基础，向大摩发起诉讼。

In the pile"Late come of liquidation"In the,Removal of the parties in fact,Another focus of attention lies in:Icbc to develop through what channels,Success within the JPM related documents or at least the key internal information,And with such materials as the foundation,To the Morgan Stanley launched a lawsuit.

　　当然，正像多位法律界人士指出的那样，来自大摩的内部文件将是工银开发能否胜诉的关键所在，即便这些文件内容确凿，大摩依旧有机会避免出现彻底败诉的尴尬处境。“华尔街的大型投行一向自信，目前还很难找出能令他们足够约束自己的法律，减少在金融创新与金融欺诈的边缘地带游走套利。”一位受雇于中国台湾金融机构的律师表示。

Of course,,As a number of legal professionals pointed out,Internal documents from Morgan Stanley will is the key to icbc development can win,Even if the file content is conclusive,Morgan Stanley is still have a chance to avoid the embarrassment that completely lost."Wall Street's big investment Banks have always been confident,They can is hard to find enough constraints, their own law,Reduction in the brink of financial innovation and financial fraud wander arbitrage."Said a lawyer employed by China Taiwan financial institutions.

　　

　　大摩售毒 Morgan Stanley sold poison

　　次贷危机爆发后，业界一度有个流行的说法声称，即便是华尔街投行的销售人员，也不清楚他们向市场推销的那些金融衍生品，究竟蕴藏着怎样的风险。除了用大量方程式和多项运算设计这些衍生品的“火箭工程师”们，没有几个人能够真正搞得清这些衍生品的结构。

After the outbreak of the subprime crisis,A popular theory claims that the industry once,Even the Wall Street investment bank of sales staff members,Also don't know they sell on the market of the financial derivatives,What there is a risk.In addition to using a large number of equations and a number of operational design of these derivatives"Rocket engineer"the,Few people can really make clear structure of these derivatives.

　　然而，籍由此次工银开发诉讼透出的信息来看，上述说法或许与事实有着不小的差距，至少华尔街投行的销售人员并非是“无知的小白兔”，相反他们对衍生品基础资产质量的恶化，保持着清晰的认知。

however,By the icbc to develop suit the information fully,These arguments may has big gap with the facts,Wall Street investment bank sales staff is not at least"Ignorance of the little white rabbit",Instead of their derivatives based asset quality deterioration,Maintained a clear cognition.

　　“他们或许不了解衍生品的设计原理，但他们知道作为担保物的房贷正在出现问题，不合格的贷款人正大量获得他们根本还不起的贷款，这就够了。”一位国内银行金融市场部人士表示，复杂的衍生品结构不可能在基础担保物严重贬值时，还能继续保证衍生品的价值。

"They may not understand the design principles of derivatives,But they are know as collateral mortgage problems,Unqualified borrowers are a lot of get the loans they don also can't afford to,That's enough."A domestic bank financial markets, he says,Complex derivatives structure can't be serious devaluation of underlying collateral,Still can continue to ensure that the value of derivatives.

　　2006年，大摩正式创设了名为“Stack 2006-1”的担保债务凭证（英文缩写为“CDO”），与同时期其他投行推出的担保债务凭证产品类似，这一产品同样是以美国国内的住房贷款作为抵押物，产品总金额为5亿美元。而凭借较高的预期回报率，这一产品引发了不少海外金融机构的投资兴趣，这其中就包括中国台湾的工银开发。

In 2006,,Morgan Stanley formally created is called"Stack 2006-1"Collateralized debt obligations (cdos)(Abbreviations for"CDO"),And at the same time other collateralized debt obligations (cdos) products similar to investment Banks,This product is based on the domestic housing loans as collateral,Products total amount is $500 million.But with the higher expected returns,This product caused a lot of investment in overseas financial institutions,Including Taiwan, China icbc of development.

　　“那个时期台湾整个市场基准利率比较低，一般的传统投资品收益率在3%到4%之间，最高也不过5%。但是像这种CDO预期回报率可能会达到9%、10%乃至更高，这对台湾地区的金融机构很有吸引力。”一位台湾地区金融业者称，加之岛内对全球经济形势尤其是美国经济成长相当乐观，工银开发对大摩的“Stack 2006-1”动心，并不难理解。

"The Taiwan during the period of the entire market benchmark interest rate is lower,General traditional investments yield between 3% and 4%,The highest 5%.But as the expected returns on cdos could reach 9%/10% or even higher,It is attractive to financial institutions in Taiwan."A financial industry in Taiwan said,Combined with the island's fairly optimistic about the global economic situation especially for U.S. economic growth,Icbc development of Morgan Stanley"Stack 2006-1"tempted,Is not hard to understand.

　　另一方面，和多数美国以外的金融机构一样，包括工银开发的台湾地区金融机构对于次级贷款衍生品的风险辨识能力并不高。“坦白讲，即便到现在，岛内能搞掂衍生品的金融投资人才也不多。当时各家机构买衍生品，基本只能看两方面，一是销售方的品牌，二是评价（评级）机构的评价结果。”一位台湾地区资深银行业者回忆称。

On the other hand,Like most financial institutions outside the United States,Including icbc development of Taiwan financial institutions for subprime derivatives risk identification ability is not high."To be honest,Even now,The island can elude derivatives financial investment professionals.Institutions to buy derivatives,Basically look at two aspects,A brand is a sale,2 it is to evaluate(The rating)The evaluation results of the organization."A senior banker recalls in Taiwan.

　　直到2007年年底之前，三大评级机构对于CDO类产品的评级几乎都处于较高位阶。根据一项评级业内部统计显示，包括CDO在内的结构性金融衍生品种，有60%均获得了最高的3A评级，相比之下，企业债券中能获得3A评级的仅有1%。

Until by the end of 2007,Three major rating agencies are in the CDO products almost always at a higher status.According to an industry internal statistics show,Structural varieties of financial derivatives, including the CDO,60% have won the highest aaa rating,By contrast,Corporate bonds can get triple a rating is only 1%.

　　加之大摩在2005年起就将CDO产品描述为其最具优势和发展前景的产品种类，并不断加大推介力度，工银开发最终在2007年做出了购买5000万美元“Stack 2006-1”产品的投资决策。

Combined with Morgan Stanley in 2005, described the CDO products as its the most advantages and development prospects of product categories,And stepping up efforts to promote continuously,Icbc to develop eventually made a purchase of $50 million in 2007"Stack 2006-1"Products of the investment decisions.

　　然而，根据此次诉讼中部分披露的大摩内部文件显示，早在2005年，有关住房贷款可能出现严重质量问题的看法就已经在大摩员工之间传播。到了2006年，这种对住房贷款乃至整个房地产市场的担忧情绪更进一步升级—有大摩员工在邮件中抱怨住房贷款的审核手续存在严重瑕疵，也有人就房地产价格走势发出警告。

however,According to the lawsuit in the part of the disclosure of the internal documents show,As early as 2005,Opinions on the housing loans may appear serious quality problem has spread between Morgan Stanley employees.By the year 2006,This for home loans, and even the entire real estate market fears of further upgrade - is there a Morgan Stanley employees complained that housing loan approval procedure in the mail there are serious defects,Others warned on real estate prices.

　　可在向客户推销CDO产品时，已经获得上述房地产市场走势基础信息的大摩员工，并未向他们的客户提及这些越来越显而易见的投资风险。当然，尽管这样的做法在法律上是不受追究的，但在道德操守上显然令人感到遗憾。

When you sell the CDO to clients products,Have the basic information of the real estate market movements Morgan Stanley employees,Did not mention these for their customers more and more obvious investment risk.Of course,,Although such practices in law is not to be investigated,But in ethics is regrettable.

　　不过，大摩部分员工并未在这一不算违法的灰色区域就此止步。工银开发及其代理律师指出，在获知这些信息的大摩员工中，有多人加入了由Howard Hubler领导的“内部对冲基金部门”。而这一部门的“工作内容”就是代表大摩从做空次贷市场中获利，并在一定程度上对冲风险。这一部门的部分员工随后参与设计了“Stack 2006-1”等CDO产品。

but,Morgan Stanley some employees did not in the grey areas is not illegal to stop there.Icbc development and the attorney said,By analysis the information of Morgan Stanley employees,There are many people join the Howard Hubler's leadership"Internal hedge fund sector".And the sector"Job content"Is on behalf of the big profit from shorting subprime mortgage market,And to a certain extent hedge risk.Part of the department employees to participate in later design"Stack 2006-1"CDO products such as.

　　“一面将CDO涉及的抵押物作为做空对象，另一面则在明知风险不断增大的情况下，参与设计CDO产品并将其卖给其他金融机构，这无论如何都难以摆脱舞弊的嫌疑。”前述台湾地区银行业者认为。

"A pawn of the CDO as short subject,On the other side, in the case of knowing that risk is increasing,CDO products involved in designing and selling them to other financial institutions,That no matter how hard to get rid of suspected of fraud."The Banks in Taiwan.

　　不过，在多位业内人士看来，关于“Stack 2006-1”另一种可能的逻辑是，在设计之初，Stack产品原本被大摩定位为相对安全及可靠的产品。然而到了2007年初，随着房贷及房地产市场的恶化趋势开始超出大摩的估计，Stack同样变得不再安全。于是已经清楚意识到风险的大摩加大了对这一系列产品的销售力度，从而将这些烫手的山芋转嫁给其他金融机构。

but,It seems to many in the industry,about"Stack 2006-1"Another kind of logic is possible,In the beginning of design,Stack products originally by Morgan Stanley as relatively safe and reliable products.But by early 2007,As the mortgage and real estate market deterioration trend began beyond Morgan Stanley estimates,Stack also become no longer safe.So have been clearly aware of the risks of Morgan Stanley increased the sales of this series of products,To the hot potato on to other financial institutions.

　　如果事实是这样的话，大摩同样难以逃脱“蓄意欺诈”的指控。然而，要支持这一事实，可能需要更具说服力的证据。

If the fact is such,Morgan Stanley also difficult to escape"Intentional fraud"The charges.however,To support this fact,May need more convincing evidence.

　　

　　证据之谜 Evidence of mystery

　　在不少台湾地区及大陆的金融业者看来，工银开发成功发起诉讼，在某种程度上可视为“奇迹”。

In the eyes of many in Taiwan and mainland financials,Icbc to develop successful lawsuits,To some extent can be considered"miracle".

　　“大摩这样的投行在销售时，会有一套完整的风险揭示及免责程序，作为衍生品的购买者，可能需要在一大堆有关风险说明的文件上，签上几十个字，并不停地盖章。但在这些程序走完后，大摩就不会为这项投资的盈亏承担任何法律责任，尽管可能会有道德上的责任。”一位国有商业银行金融市场部人士表示，这也正是为什么在次贷危机发生后，大多数蒙受损失的金融机构难以对华尔街投行发起诉讼。

"Morgan Stanley investment Banks when it comes to sales,A complete set of risk disclosure and exemption procedures,As the derivatives of the purchaser,May need to be in a lot of relevant risk description file,Signed dozens of words,Don't stop to affix their seals to it.But in the program after the walk,Morgan Stanley would not bear any legal responsibility for the investment profit and loss,Although there may be a moral responsibility."A state-owned commercial bank financial markets, he says,That is why after the subprime crisis,Most of the losses of financial institutions to lawsuits for Wall Street firms.

　　在此次诉讼的辩护词中，大摩也正以此为理由，强调“买主都是精明老练的客户，应当已经知道次贷市场当时的状况了”，不存在隐瞒风险的问题。

In the justification of the lawsuit,Morgan Stanley is also for this reason,Emphasis on"Buyers are savvy customers,Should already know the subprime market situation at that time",Don't hide risk problems.

　　而据一位台湾地区金融业人士指称，此次工银开发提告的关键，在于成功获得了部分大摩内部员工在CDO销售期间，对这些资产充满悲观与嘲讽的确凿信?息。

And according to a Taiwanese region finance charges,The icbc development the key to a lawsuit,Is to obtain a successful part of Morgan Stanley employees during the CDO sales,Definitive letter of these assets is full of pessimism and ridicule?Interest rates.

　　根据媒体披露的信息，大摩员工在2007年3月时就在会议纪要中把这些Stack资产称为‘杀手’，或是其他恶俗的名字，但他们还是把这些资产对外推销。

According to the media disclosure of information,Morgan Stanley employees in March 2007, he called the Stack assets in the meeting minutes‘killer’,Or other bad name,But they still put these assets of selling.

　　“搜集证据是关键的议题。据我所知，工银开发在发起诉讼前，已经花了近一年的时间搜集大摩存在欺诈嫌疑的证据。”这位人士谨慎地表示，有些信息可能来自从大摩离职的员工，有些则源自美国律师团队依靠司法手段迫使大摩公布的文件，还有些“来自其他完全合法的但不便披露的渠道”。

"Collect evidence is the key issue.As far as I know,Icbc developing in front of the lawsuits,Has spent nearly a year of time to collect evidence of suspected fraud Morgan Stanley."This, he said cautiously,Some information may come from from Morgan Stanley employees leaving the company,Some came from the United States lawyer team rely on legal means forcing Morgan Stanley released documents,Still have some"From other perfectly legal but inconvenience disclosed in the channel".

　　“目前披露出来的主要证据，是大摩员工的内部邮件及备忘录。这也证明了工银开发获取相关证据的方向，应该还是大摩内部员工。”前述台湾的确金融业者认为，在次贷危机发生后，不少投行均有裁员举措，这也成为了外部机构了解华尔街投行对次贷产品真实态度的主要来源。

"The main evidence revealed at present,Internal email and memo is Morgan Stanley employees.This also proves that the icbc developing for the direction of the relevant evidence,Should be still within Morgan Stanley employees."The Taiwan financial industry says,After the subprime crisis,Many Banks have layoffs,It also became the external agencies know Wall Street investment bank of subprime products the main source of real attitude.

　　但更大的突破，还来源于工银开发律师团队在法庭上采取的努力。按照工银开发代理律师Robbins Geller事务所律师Jason·C· Davis的说法，纽约州最高法院在原告方的建议下，要求大摩交出大量对其非常不利的内部文件。而这些内部文件将进一步佐证大摩员工内部邮件中的说法，并非是大摩员工的私人举动，而与大摩整体有着密切的联系。

But the bigger breakthrough,But also from icbc to develop legal team in a court of law to take effort.According to the icbc to develop the attorney Robbins Geller firm, Jason c. Davis,New York state Supreme Court in plaintiff's suggestion,Asked jpmorgan to hand over a large number of very adverse to its internal documents.The internal document will further substance to the claims in the Morgan Stanley employees internal mail,Is not big the employee's personal behavior,With big is closely related to the whole.

　　

　　大摩的理由 Morgan Stanley's reason

　　尽管工银开发拿出了大量强有力的证据，《纽约时报》等媒体亦对此事进行大篇幅报道，但大摩并未就此乱了阵脚。除去以风险揭示程序完整撇清责任外，大摩亦发布声明及辩词，试图证明自己只是缺乏逻辑的阴谋论以及敌视华尔街舆论大环境的受害者。

Although icbc to develop out of a large amount of hard evidence,[The New York times]And other media also for large space report to this matter,But Morgan Stanley did not messed up condition.Remove to risk disclosure procedures complete clearing responsibility outside,Morgan Stanley also issued a statement and argument,Trying to prove himself is lack of logic of conspiracy theories and hostile to Wall Street, a victim of environment of public opinion.

　　在大摩的自辩中，最具说服力的例证似乎是，大摩自身同样投资了CDO，并在这一项目上同样遭遇了数十亿美元的巨额亏损。在2008年次贷危机爆发时，大摩手中仍持有大量的CDO头寸，尤其是部分在大摩自身评估都相对安全的CDO产品。然而这些CDO产品同样没能逃脱大幅贬值的厄运。更耐人寻味的是，即便是意图做空次贷获利的Howard Hubler领导的“内部对冲基金部门”，在最后的大崩盘中，同样赔进去了大量资金。

In Morgan Stanley's apology,The most compelling example seems to be,Morgan Stanley also invest in the CDO,On this project and also suffered huge losses of billions of dollars.The subprime crisis erupted in 2008,Morgan Stanley hand still has a lot of CDO positions,Especially in Morgan Stanley's own evaluation is relatively safe cdos.Yet these cdos also failed to escape the sharp devaluation of bad luck.What is more intriguing,Even intent shorting subprime mortgage profit Howard Hubler's leadership"Internal hedge fund sector",At the end of the great crash,Also lose a lot of money.

　　因此，大摩在辩词中就表示，自己从未预计到Stack系列产品会有最后那么糟糕的表现，至于工银开发所遭遇到的损失，也是一场无法预测的悲剧的产?物。

so,Morgan Stanley said in the argument,He never expected to Stack series products will be the last so poor performance,As for the loss suffered by icbc to develop,Is also a tragedy of unpredictable?things.

　　对于员工们在内部邮件中对CDO产品持负面态度的做法，大摩则指“尽管所指的电子邮件中包含不适当的语言，反映出了拙劣的幽默感，但这些电子邮件是摩根士丹利负责记录交易的员工撰写的。其职责并非评估市场状况或讨论交易的信用状况，他们也没有相应的技能”。

For employees in the internal mail a negative attitude of cdos,Morgan Stanley is refers to the"While referring to email contain inappropriate language,Reflects the poor sense of humor,But these E-mail is responsible for recording transactions in the Morgan Stanley employees.The responsibility is not assess market conditions or discuss trade credit conditions,They didn't have the relevant skills".

　　不过，以亏损证明自己的无辜，大摩并非是第一家这么做的华尔街投行。面对次贷危机爆发后华尔街银行家所引发的民愤，美银美林、花旗均曾以“自己也是次贷危机受害者”来应对舆论的批评。

but,Losses to prove his innocence,Morgan Stanley is not Wall Street investment bank, was the first to do so.Faced after the outbreak of the subprime crisis triggered by Wall Street bankers of the public's anger,Bank of America merrill lynch/Citigroup have to"Themselves are also victims of the subprime crisis"In response to the criticism of public opinion.

　　但正如一位台湾地区知名银行金融投资负责人所言，大摩的亏损与其可能存在的欺诈行为“应该是两回事”，“核心问题在于，大摩确实意识到了Stack系列产品也不是很安全，有崩盘的风险，但大摩还是继续对外兜售这一产品，那么就有可能构成欺诈的事实”。

But, as a Taiwan well-known financial investment bank manager says,Jpmorgan's losses and its possible fraud"Should be two different things","The core problem is,Morgan Stanley did realize Stack series of products is not very safe,There is the risk of collapse,But Morgan Stanley continued foreign selling this product,So the fact that it may constitute fraud".

　　前述国内银行金融市场部人士也称，如果大摩是因为没有意识到崩盘的程度会如此剧烈，速度会如此之快，手中的CDO没来得及全部出手，因此蒙受了巨额损失，“这丝毫不能否定大摩蓄意出售有毒资产的事?实”。

Also known as the domestic financial markets,If Morgan Stanley because no consciousness to the point of collapse could be so sharp,To be so fast,All before the hands of the CDO,Therefore suffered huge losses,"This does not negate JPM deliberately sell toxic assets?real".

　　然而，也有法律界人士表示，即便被认定存在蓄意出售高风险资产以规避损失的事实，大摩同样有办法避免巨额索赔。“主要还是在当初的销售程序上，大摩出售这类金融衍生品的文件动辄数十页。在这些文件中，大摩往往会充分列举各种市场可能性。如果衍生品的购买者未能注意到这些预先设置的法律陷阱，那么大摩最后完全可以此要求减轻自己应承担的主观责任。”

however,Legal professionals said,Even if there are considered deliberately sell risky assets to avoid losses,Morgan Stanley also is there a way to avoid huge claim."Mainly on the original sales program,Morgan Stanley sold file of this kind of financial derivatives at dozens of pages.In these files,Morgan Stanley will often fully cited a variety of market possibilities.If the derivatives of the purchaser has failed to notice the preset trap,As big as the last can reduce his subjective responsibility this requirement completely."

　　在“Stack 2006-1”冗长的产品文档中，大摩确实提到了做空次贷的可能性，这一点或将成为大摩为此前“内部对冲基金部门”做空行为进行辩护的关键点。

In the"Stack 2006-1"Long in the product documentation,Morgan Stanley did mention the possibility of shorting subprime,This is or will become bigger as previously"Internal hedge fund sector"Shorting to defend the key point.

　　除此以外，衍生品令人眼花缭乱的产品结构以及大摩销售人员精心准备的证词，都有可能成为工银开发顺利维权的重大阻碍。由于陪审团成员多数并非专业人士，大摩也可以将衍生品的复杂结构解释为其在为降低产品风险已经做出最大努力，进而争取陪审团成员的同情。

In addition to this,Derivatives dazzling product structure, and Morgan Stanley sales staff carefully prepared testimony,Are likely to be icbc to develop smoothly the rights of major obstacles.Due to the jury members are not professional,Morgan Stanley derivatives of complex structure can be interpreted as the product in to reduce the risk effort has been made,To strive for the sympathy of the jury.

　　工银开发并非“Stack 2006-1”产品唯一的买家，因此目前的诉讼同样具有经济学上的“外部效应”。一旦工银开发成功赢得诉讼或至少迫使大摩以较大让步换取和解，那么其他“Stack 2006-1”的购买者也完全可以采取“搭便车”的做法，要求纽约州最高法院援引相关判例。不止于此，无论工银开发此次诉讼的成败，它都将为其他金融机构或公立组织寻求司法手段惩罚华尔街投行，提供极具实用性和可复制性的范?例。

Icbc is not development"Stack 2006-1"Products are the only buyer,So it also has an economic lawsuit"External effect".Once icbc developing successfully win the lawsuit or at least force JPM to large concessions in exchange for reconciliation,Then the other"Stack 2006-1"Buyer also can be taken completely"A ride"The practice of,Asked New York state Supreme Court cited relevant precedents.More than that,Regardless of the icbc to develop the success or failure of the lawsuit,It will be for other financial institutions or public organizations seek legal means to punish Wall Street investment Banks,Provides practical and replication of fan?case.

　　“通过这个案例，人们会明白，应该以何种方式，以怎样的证据，证明华尔街投行存在欺诈。”前述法律界人士表示，而且这也为人们追究华尔街投行高管们在次贷危机中所应承担的个人责任，提供了可行的路?径。

"Through the case,People will understand,In what way should be,With the evidence of how,Prove that Wall Street investment bank fraud."The lawyers said,And this also for the people shall be investigated for executives at Wall Street investment Banks in the subprime mortgage crisis should take personal responsibility,Provides a feasible way?diameter.

　　到目前为止，几乎全部成功进入司法程序的对华尔街投行的控诉中，没有一项指控是针对华尔街投行高管的。可是，一旦投行作为机构的欺诈行为被法院认定，那么直接策划和执行欺诈的投行高管们同样可能面临民事乃至刑事诉讼。

So far,Almost all successful into the judicial process to bring charges against Wall Street investment bank,No charges against Wall Street investment bank executives.but,Once the investment bank as the agency's fraud was decided by the court,So directly to the planning and execution of fraud investment banking executives may also face civil or criminal proceedings.