美國商會外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文3500字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　U.S. Chamber of Commerce</p><p>　　Th

2、e Chamber strongly supports the Administration's goal of enhancing consumer protection. Even before the financial crisis hit， the Chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness called for regulatory reform，

3、 including strengthening consumer protections. The crisis has clearly illuminated the shortcomings of our outdated regulatory system. Millions of consumers and investors were harmed， in part because of regulatory gaps bu

4、t just as much or even more because of regulators' failure to exer</p><p>　　The Chamber believes that consumers need: 1.Clearer disclosure and better information.2.More vigorous， effective enforcement ag

5、ainst predatory practices and other abuses.3.Elimination of regulatory gaps that allowed some financial services entities to escape. regulation applicable to their competitors.</p><p>　　We need smarter， more

6、 effective regulation. Adding new regulatory layers and enacting expansive， and duplicative， regulatory authority will not produce that result. Rather， it is likely to lead to confusion， uncertainty， and a regulatory sys

7、tem that imposes heavy burdens on business without providing the protections that consumers need.</p><p>　　On September 23， the Chamber released a study conducted by Thomas Durkin， an economist who spent mor

8、e than 20 years at the Federal Reserve. Durkin concluded that regulatory burdens associated with a lack of preemption and legal uncertainties created by new， vague， and undefined statutory terms would reduce the ability

9、of financial institutions to extend consumer credit， and would likely increase the cost of credit that is available.</p><p>　　Moreover， this reduction in credit would impact small businesses as well， because

10、 it would affect the very consumer financial products that small businesses use to supplement business credit， which often is not available to small and new enterprises. At the very time when we need these job-creators t

11、he most in order to restore growth to our economy， we will be hobbling their efforts by reducing their access to the credit that is essential to fuel that growth.</p><p>　　The Chamber opposes the CFPA legisl

12、ation in its current form because it believes the current bill is the wrong way to enhance consumer protection， and it will have significant and harmful unintended consequences for consumers， for the business community，

13、and for the overall economy.</p><p>　　Chairman Frank's September 22 memorandum identified a number of the specific concerns that we have expressed. However， illustrating the complexity of these issues an

14、d the need for careful assessment of the impact of proposed provisions， the changes made in the bill do not address the concerns discussed in the memorandum.</p><p><b>　　Scope</b></p><

15、p>　　The scope of H.R. 3126 as introduced is sweeping， giving the CFPA authority to regulate businesses and professionals far beyond traditional consumer finance. The bill does not focus on entities that are solely， or

16、 even principally， engaged in financial services activities. Rather， it casts an extremely broad net that would encompass a vast segment of the entire economy. We appreciate the recognition of this overbreadth in Chairma

17、n Frank's September 22 memorandum. Unfortunately， the revised bill </p><p>　　Merchants and Retailers. Although Section 124(a) provides that the CFPA does not have authority "regarding credit or othe

18、r financial activity issued directly by a merchant， retailer， or seller of nonfinancial services to a consumer，" the definitions of "extending credit" and "covered person" remain unchanged， leavi

19、ng open the possibility that a merchant could be found by the CFPA to "indirectly" engage in financial activity or to be a "material service" provider to a covered person. For example，</p><

20、p>　　In addition， although businesses that sell stored value cards are now exempt， businesses that issue stored value cards—or that merely allow their names or trademarks to be used on stored value cards—remain subject

21、 to regulation as a "covered person."</p><p>　　Accountants， Lawyers， and Tax Preparers. Section 124(e) exempts accountants， lawyers， and tax preparers， but provides that the exemption "shall n

22、ot apply ... to the extent such person is" engaged in a "financial activity" or is otherwise subject to the existing federal consumer laws. That means that any activity by an accountant or lawyer that fal

23、ls within the broad "financial activity" definition—provision of tax planning advice in connection with estate planning， for example—or any activity t</p><p>　　Moreover， although tax preparation se

24、rvices are no longer expressly included in the definition of "acting as a financial advisor" (Section 101(18)(H))， such services are not expressly excluded from that definition. Accordingly， there is a risk the

25、 agency could simply interpret the broad language of the definition ("providing financial and other related advisory services") to include tax preparation.</p><p>　　Real Estate Brokers and Auto Dea

26、lers. The exemptions for real estate brokers and auto dealers suffer from the same flaw as the one for accountants， lawyers， and tax preparers: They do not apply if the person is engaged in a financial activity or otherw

27、ise subject to the existing Federal consumer laws.</p><p>　　In addition， even the limited protection provided by the exemptions fails to encompass activities in which these individuals routinely engage. Thus

28、， the "real estate broker" exemption does not include negotiations relating to financing， and the auto dealer exemption does not apply to lease transactions and excludes activities relating to the arranging of

29、financing. That means that auto dealers likely will be covered by the statute for all activities other than all-cash vehicle sales.</p><p>　　New "Related Person" Provision. The bill includes a new

30、provision， defining the term "related person" (Section 101(30))， which is applicable to all entities other than bank holding companies， credit unions， and depository institutions. It includes: "any directo

31、r， officer， employee charged with managerial responsibility， or controlling stockholder of， or agent for， such covered person" and "any shareholder， consultant， joint venture partner， and any other person as de

32、termined by the Director who </p><p>　　Also included I s "any independent contractor (including any attorney， appraiser， or accountant)， with respect to such covered person， who knowingly or recklessly

33、participates in any" violation of "any" law or regulation or breach of fiduciary duty. Any person who is a related person "shall be deemed to be a covered person for all purposes of" the new law

34、and the existing Federal laws.</p><p>　　This provision has extremely broad implications. It allows the agency to impose fees on， and require reports from， employees， shareholders， directors and others. And I

35、t broadly subjects shareholders and directors to the Agency's authority， even with respect to activities unrelated to the covered person with which they are associated.</p><p>　　The portion of the defini

36、tion relating to independent contractors casts the net even farther: Independent contractors are transformed into "covered persons" — and become subject to regulations that didn't previously apply — if they

37、 "recklessly" have "participated" in a violation of any law.</p><p>　　How can these entities protect themselves? Any association with a covered person that engages in wrongful conduct cou

38、ld trigger regulatory obligations that the contractor previously ignored， based on a very vague and uncertain standard. More importantly， that standard can be invoked in an action seeking damages by the agency， a State a

39、ttorney general， or a plaintiffs' lawyer to whom a State attorney general has outsourced the case. This is a huge expansion of potential liability.</p><p>　　We recognize that there is a similar concept，

40、institution-related party， in the banking law. But the proposed use of the concept here is much broader — including imposing all of the agency's regulations on a previously unregulated party and subjecting that party

41、 to liability for class-action-type damages.</p><p>　　Agency Authority to Expand its Own Jurisdiction </p><p>　　Another troubling aspect of H.R. 3126 is that it gives the agency the authority to

42、 expand its own jurisdiction. Including within the scope of "financial activity" "any other activity that the agency defines， by regulation as financial activity for the purposes of this title." That

43、opens the door to ever-expanding jurisdiction through regulatory fiat and without congressional review. The revised draft includes standards that the agency must meet to expand its authority， but those standards impose&l

44、t;/p><p>　　These new standards for expanding the agency's authority are vague and vulnerable to varying interpretations — the "substantial likelihood" test gives the agency the ability to hypothes

45、ize adverse consequences and then extend its regulatory reach based on its own suspicions. And given the broad-based authority of the agency， there could be a relatively low threshold for defining activities as "inc

46、idental" or "complementary" (a term that appears to be drawn from banking law， where it did receive </p><p>　　Vague Statutory Standards</p><p>　　Another aspect of H.R. 3126 that p

47、rovoked considerable concern is the provision that， without any action by the agency， would have imposed vague regulatory standards upon covered persons — standards that would have required businesses to determine the ex

48、tent to which consumers comprehended particular information.</p><p>　　Although this provision {Section 132(b)} has been removed from the revised bill， new language has been added to Section 138(1) making it

49、"unlawful for any person" to engage in any unfair， deceptive， or abusive act or practice. This provision imposes broad liability on anyone — not just a covered person — any time the agency later determines that

50、 persons conduct is "unfair，" "deceptive，" or "abusive，" even if there was no regulation requiring a particular disclosure or prohibiting the particular </p><p>　　Requirement of

51、 "Plain Vanilla" Products</p><p>　　The revised bill does not include the provision of H.R. 3126 that imposed the "plain vanilla" product requirement (Section 136). But nothing in the revi

52、sed bill prevents the agency from imposing that very same requirement， or otherwise pushing consumer products toward standardization， by using its broad authority to prevent "abusive" acts and practices (Sectio

53、n 131)， which includes the imposition of "requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices" or by invoking its "fair deal</p><p>　　Regulatory Coordination</p><p>

54、　　Separating the regulation of financial products from regulatory expertise regarding the safety and soundness of financial institutions threatens consumers as well as the stability of the entire financial system. The va

55、st majority of consumer protection issues also implicate safety and soundness concerns. Frequently， the issues are two sides of the same coin: Pricing a product to reflect its cost and risk may promote safety and soundne

56、ss but also may implicate consumer protection concerns. The re</p><p>　　More importantly， Section 123(c)'s resolution procedure applies only to conflicting "material supervisory determinations"

57、 between the CFPA and a Federal banking agency. It does not apply to "any regulation or guidance， or order of general applicability"—and therefore would not apply to the significant risk that the CFPA would ado

58、pt regulations that conflict with safety and soundness principles.</p><p>　　Lack of Preemption</p><p>　　At a time when harmonization has been identified by all stakeholders as a goal of regulato

59、ry reform， the proposed CFPA will do exactly the opposite. Rather than adopting a new national standard and eliminating multiple and conflicting State laws， the new agency would set the floor， creating inconsistencies， d

60、uplications，and conflicting mandates，between the Federal and State agencies Thus， the bill rolls back 150 years of banking law by subjecting national banks for the first time to a labyrinth </p><p>　　Source:

61、Andrew J.Pincus，partner，Mayer Brown LLP“US chamber of commerce”Congressional Digest，January 2010，pp.23-31</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p><b>　　美國商會</b></p><p>　　商

62、會有力地促進了政府關(guān)于保護消費者權(quán)益這一目標。在金融危機的沖擊下，商會向資本市場呼吁規(guī)章制度的改革，改革內(nèi)容中包括加強對消費者的保護。危機清楚的闡述了過去陳舊的規(guī)章制度系統(tǒng)的不足。成千上萬的消費者與投資者深受其害，其中一部分歸因于制度缺漏，但更多是因為制度對權(quán)力的錯誤執(zhí)行，尤其是那些已經(jīng)支配的強制權(quán)力。</p><p>　　商會認為消費者有以下三點需求：1.更有效透明的信息公開。2.更多有力高效的強制措施應(yīng)對濫用

63、職權(quán)以及其他剝奪行徑。3.允許部分金融服務(wù)實體退出從而消除制度缺漏。</p><p>　　適用于競爭者的監(jiān)管制度</p><p>　　我們需要更有效靈活的監(jiān)管制度。增加新的監(jiān)管層和執(zhí)行上的重復(fù)膨脹，監(jiān)督管理機構(gòu)不會產(chǎn)生這樣的結(jié)果。這種結(jié)果導(dǎo)致了職能的不確定性與職能混淆并且監(jiān)管體系不針對消費者需求提供任何保護措施，這對商業(yè)造成沉重負擔(dān)。</p><p>　　9月23日

64、，商會發(fā)表了一篇學(xué)術(shù)文章，作者托馬斯杜肯是一位在聯(lián)保服務(wù)機構(gòu)有20年工作經(jīng)驗的經(jīng)濟學(xué)家。杜肯認為監(jiān)管負擔(dān)與由于新的模糊定義的法定條件所產(chǎn)生的缺乏先發(fā)制度和法律的不確定性有關(guān)。監(jiān)管負擔(dān)會減少金融機構(gòu)的消費者信貸，并且有可能增加可用信貸成本。</p><p>　　此外，這種信貸的減少對公司的影響相對較小，因為它會影響個人理財產(chǎn)品，以補充小型商務(wù)公司通常使用的商業(yè)貸款，通常這對小、新型企業(yè)是不可行的。在金融危機時期，我

65、們?yōu)榱诵枰@些能提供就業(yè)崗位的公司而恢復(fù)經(jīng)濟增長，我們通過減少公司信貸渠道的阻礙為小、新型企業(yè)提供發(fā)展壯大的必要條件。</p><p>　　商會反對消費者金融保障機構(gòu)目前的立法形式，商會認為現(xiàn)行法案在保護消費者權(quán)益的方式上是錯誤的，并且對消費者、商業(yè)界、宏觀經(jīng)濟帶來嚴重后果。</p><p><b>　　范圍</b></p><p>　　假設(shè)用

66、消費者金融保障機構(gòu)的權(quán)力立法規(guī)制企業(yè)和專業(yè)人士，其監(jiān)管范圍遠遠超出傳統(tǒng)消費金融領(lǐng)域。這項法案不會集中對中小企業(yè)負全責(zé)，尤其是主要從事金融服務(wù)活動的企業(yè)。相反，它投放出一個極其廣泛的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，包括相當(dāng)大程度上的整個經(jīng)濟。我們感謝主席弗蘭克在22號備忘錄上對這一點的認可。不幸的是，修改后的議案不能解決由潛在議案產(chǎn)生的問題。這里只是其中幾個很多的例子可以舉:</p><p>　　1.商人與零售商。雖然部分124（一)規(guī)定，

67、消費者金融保障機構(gòu)沒有權(quán)利“商人、零售商或非營利服務(wù)的賣方無權(quán)直接簽發(fā)信用貸款或其它金融活動”“信貸數(shù)額和面向?qū)ο蟮姆秶北３植蛔儯绻试S開放的可能性消費者金融保障協(xié)會發(fā)現(xiàn)商家可以“間接”從事金融活動或成為為服務(wù)對象提供“資料服務(wù)”的一方。</p><p>　　例如，一個商業(yè)只要接受信用卡就能滿足任何一個間接參加一筆金融活動的資格(通過信用卡網(wǎng)絡(luò)提供信貸)或為信用卡網(wǎng)絡(luò)提供一項資料服務(wù)。</p>

68、<p>　　另外，盡管商家免除出售儲值卡，并且可簽發(fā)儲值卡同時登記相應(yīng)的名字及交易號，這同樣便于監(jiān)管方對金融對象的監(jiān)管。</p><p>　　2.會計師，律師和稅務(wù)編制。第十五章和面豁免會計師，律師，稅務(wù)編制，但規(guī)定的豁免不適用于當(dāng)前從事“金融活動”或以其他方式受現(xiàn)行聯(lián)邦消費者保護法。這意味著，任何一個律師，會計師或活動在“金融活動”的定義范圍- 提供稅務(wù)規(guī)劃咨詢在線連接房地產(chǎn)規(guī)劃，例如任何活動，該機構(gòu)

69、按照其分類為觸發(fā)金融活動的法規(guī)適用性制定機構(gòu)。</p><p>　　此外，雖然稅務(wù)此外，稅務(wù)籌劃服務(wù)不再明確納入“財務(wù)顧問”。這種服務(wù)的定義不從該定義明確排除。因此，有這種風(fēng)險的機構(gòu)可以簡單地解釋為"提供財政及其他有關(guān)的咨詢服務(wù)"，包括稅務(wù)編制。</p><p>　　3.房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀人和汽車經(jīng)銷商。房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀與自動豁免經(jīng)銷商和會計師，律師，稅務(wù)編制有著相同的缺陷：如果該人

70、是從事金融活動或其他受現(xiàn)行的，他們不適用聯(lián)邦消費者保護法。</p><p>　　此外，即使在有限的豁免保護下也不包括受現(xiàn)行金融活動。因此，房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀豁免不包括涉及金融談判，汽車經(jīng)銷商和豁免不適用于租賃交易，不包括有關(guān)的活動的融資安排。這意味著，汽車經(jīng)銷商可能會受到法規(guī)所涵蓋的所有現(xiàn)金汽車銷售的所有其他活動保護。</p><p>　　4.新的“相關(guān)人員”的條款。該法案包含了新的規(guī)定，確定了“

71、有關(guān)人士”術(shù)語，這是適用于所有銀行控股實體公司，信用合作社，以及儲蓄機構(gòu)。其中包括：任何董事，高級職員，雇員與管理責(zé)，或控股股東，或代理人，如被保險人和任何股東，顧問，合資合伙人，以及任何由署長決定參與重大在這類涉及人的事務(wù)行為的其他人。</p><p>　　還包括獨立承辦商（包括任何律師，評估師，或會計師），任何保險人，在任何參與明知或罔顧后果的違反法律或法規(guī)或違反信托義務(wù)。任何相關(guān)人“應(yīng)被視為該人對新的法律和

72、現(xiàn)有的聯(lián)邦法律所有目的。</p><p>　　這一規(guī)定具有極為廣泛的影響。它允許該機構(gòu)要求報告征收費用，雇員，股東，董事及其他人士。及直接報告廣泛科目股東和權(quán)威機構(gòu)，甚至關(guān)聯(lián)無關(guān)活動方面所涵蓋的人。</p><p>　　這中間涉及到的部分獨立承包商甚至獨立承辦商轉(zhuǎn)變成“所涵蓋的人士”如果他們有參與任何違法行為，不適用條例。</p><p>　　這些實體如何才能保護自

73、己？任何一個人的組織覆蓋在從事不法行為監(jiān)管義務(wù)，忽略模糊和不確定的標準為基礎(chǔ)。更重要的是，標準可以在訴訟，尋求援引機構(gòu)，國家損害賠償，或原告的律師向一國總檢察長外包案件。這是一個巨大的潛在責(zé)任的擴張。</p><p>　　我們認識到，銀行法有一個類似的機構(gòu)關(guān)聯(lián)概念。但是，這里使用的概念提出，是更廣泛，包括對以前不受管制的黨的機構(gòu)的規(guī)定，并服從所有的黨的集體訴訟類型的損害賠償責(zé)任。</p><p

74、>　　代理權(quán)利的自身司法權(quán)擴張 另一個令人不安的方面是人力資源3126，它使該機構(gòu)的權(quán)力，擴大了管轄范圍。包括在金融活動“范圍”的任何其他該機構(gòu)的活動定義，以金融活動為目的的調(diào)控這個稱號。這開啟了不斷擴大的通過監(jiān)管菲亞特?zé)o國會審查管轄權(quán)門。</p><p>　　修訂草案包括標準，該機構(gòu)必須滿足擴大其權(quán)力，但這些標準的實施沒有真正的限制。該機構(gòu)只需要發(fā)現(xiàn)：活動的，或者是有可能性的活動將有一個重大不利。

75、對信譽或財務(wù)影響福祉消費者，或者活動是附帶或補充任何其他活動的監(jiān)管工程，活動的訂立或作為托詞或有目的的進行回避該法案的或現(xiàn)有的消費者保護法的規(guī)定。為擴大該機構(gòu)的權(quán)威，這些新的標準是模糊的，容易受到各種不同的解釋在“重大可能性”測試給該機構(gòu)假設(shè)的能力產(chǎn)生不利后果，然后擴展到其監(jiān)管。根據(jù)懷疑，并考慮到該機構(gòu)具有廣泛基礎(chǔ)的權(quán)威，有可能是一個相對較低的門檻，定義為“偶然”或活動“互補性”（這個詞，似乎是來自銀行法，在那里能獲得廣泛的解釋）。&l

76、t;/p><p><b>　　韋哥法定標準</b></p><p>　　人力資源3126的另一個方面是引起了相當(dāng)令人關(guān)注的規(guī)定，該機構(gòu)沒有任何行動，就必須在規(guī)定的監(jiān)管標準模糊所涵蓋的人士-這將需要企業(yè)確定標準，消費者理解特定的信息。</p><p>　　盡管這一規(guī)定，第132（b）段，已從修訂的條例草案刪除，新的語言已被添加到第138（1），因此“

77、非法的任何人”從事任何不公平，欺詐或濫用行為或做法。這一條款規(guī)定廣闊對任何人的責(zé)任，不僅有涵蓋人任何時間該機構(gòu)后決定該人的行為是“不公平”，“欺騙”或“濫用”，即使沒有的規(guī)章制度，也會要求披露或禁止某一特定的做法。因此，它不是從條例草案中刪去的語言更廣泛和更模糊的標準。</p><p><b>　　普通債券產(chǎn)品的要求</b></p><p>　　修訂后的條例草案并沒有

78、包括人力資源3126條文規(guī)定的“普通債權(quán)“產(chǎn)品的要求（第136頁）。但在修訂條例草案沒有阻止該機構(gòu)征收同樣的要求，或以其他方式利用其廣泛的權(quán)力推向標準化消費產(chǎn)品，以防止“濫用”行為和做法（第131條），其中包括要求為防止這種行為或做法的目的，實施，或通過利用它的公平交易權(quán)力（第137條）。此外，國家法律的消除意味著美國將可以自由地強加一個“普通債權(quán)”的要求，即使該機構(gòu)并沒有這樣做，并在50個不同的這種要求。</p><

79、;p><b>　　監(jiān)管協(xié)調(diào)</b></p><p>　　從金融產(chǎn)品方面的監(jiān)管金融機構(gòu)的安全和穩(wěn)健威脅消費者以及整個金融體系的穩(wěn)定分離管理經(jīng)驗。大多數(shù)人牽連的安全和穩(wěn)健的關(guān)注消費者保護問題。通常情況下，這些問題是雙方對同一事物的定價產(chǎn)品，以反映其成本和風(fēng)險可能會促進安全和穩(wěn)健，但也可能涉及消費者保護問題。</p><p>　　修訂后的條例草案試圖解決進程創(chuàng)造爭端這

80、個問題。目前尚不清楚這一進程是否能有效即使該法案承認，它可以在60天內(nèi)解決問題，并與法定期限表明，他們是很少見了。更重要的是，第123（三）的解決程序僅適用于物質(zhì)，物質(zhì)監(jiān)督?jīng)Q定之間的沖突演藝發(fā)展局和聯(lián)邦銀行機構(gòu)。它并不適用于任何規(guī)則或指導(dǎo)，或普遍適用的秩序，并不適用于重大風(fēng)險。扶貧基金會將通過法規(guī)，以安全和穩(wěn)健原則相沖突。</p><p><b>　　缺乏先發(fā)機制</b></p>

81、<p>　　當(dāng)時協(xié)調(diào)已被所有利益相關(guān)者確認為是監(jiān)管改革的目標，而消費者金融保障機構(gòu)提出的觀點恰恰相反。相對于采用一種全新的國家標準并且淘汰多重矛盾的現(xiàn)行法律，新興的服務(wù)機構(gòu)設(shè)定基準會更加適合。這種基準導(dǎo)致了美國聯(lián)邦局和洲級服務(wù)機構(gòu)之間職能授權(quán)的重復(fù)與不一致。</p><p>　　因此，此項由國家銀行策劃的終止了150年的銀行法議案被消費者金融保障機構(gòu)第一次提出。如果沒有問題的話，議案賦予國家獨立權(quán)利