????承認，還是否認——這是個問題——無論是哪個，杰德?拉科夫法官審理美國證券交易委員會（SEC）與花旗集團（Citigroup）近日達成的和解方案時，這家監(jiān)管機構(gòu)都必須要說清楚這個問題。雖然花旗已同意支付2.85億美元罰款，并進行小幅改革，但對于SEC指責其在房地產(chǎn)市場一步步走向危機的過程中未向客戶盡職披露按揭相關(guān)投資產(chǎn)品的風險，該行卻采取了既不承認也不否認的態(tài)度。

????如果花旗沒有過錯，它為什么要同意支付這樣一筆巨額罰款并同意進行改革？這樣有悖常理的事情拉科夫法官可不是頭一遭碰上了，兩年前美國銀行（Bank of America）的SEC和解案也是這樣。那一次，起初美國銀行同樣不承認也不否認，但當案子交由拉科夫?qū)徖砗螅绹y行站了出來，否認存在過錯。

????因而，當時拉科夫問了一個合情合理的問題：為什么一家銀行要拿股東的錢為自己并不承認的過錯買單？而如果一家銀行確實存在SEC所指控的不端行為，為什么沒有一個人按照SEC的相關(guān)規(guī)定接受處罰？

????同理，在最近的花旗案中，拉科夫就要求SEC解釋，“雖然SEC指控有嚴重的證券欺詐，但原告既不承認、也不否認有過錯?！奔热蝗绱耍ㄍ槭裁匆皩徖磉@樣一起案件?！?/p>

????要么存在過錯，要么不存在。兩者必居其一。

????如果不承認有過錯，可能會引發(fā)其他問題。對被告銀行及其的董事的量刑將更加困難。

????去年SEC與高盛（Goldman Sachs）就類似指控達成的和解金額幾乎是此次花旗和解金額的兩倍。去年的案件中，高盛也是既不承認也不否認。后果如何？高盛的2011年股東委托書在討論高管表現(xiàn)時，毫無認罪之意。同樣也沒有說明這件事是否會導致高管獎金減少。相反，文件只是表示，在分析高盛盈利能力時，應將和解支出視為一次性支付剔除在外。

????事實上，2010年高盛提高了發(fā)放獎金的額度，所有高管拿到的紅包都比前兩年大。真是搞不懂這與投資銀行所謂的用薪酬“強化公司合規(guī)文化”的目標是怎么個吻合法。

????拉科夫?qū)⒁cSEC就兩個問題展開交鋒，一是不承認有過錯傳遞了什么樣的信號，二是不承認有過錯本身是否會讓高管們免受懲罰，甚至連收入都不受影響。

????在目前的花旗案中，拉科夫還要求SEC說明落實和解條款的方案，從而關(guān)注的焦點引向另外一個問題，也就是SEC在與銀行達成和解后，是否曾經(jīng)嘗試過追究過違規(guī)公司的責任。

????SEC的一位發(fā)言人稱，在實踐中，SEC并不跟進和解案，也無從確保相關(guān)公司不會違反和解條款。

????花旗案所涉及的指控——以及今年和去年摩根大通（JP Morgan）、高盛遭受的指控——與2003年這三家銀行與SEC達成和解時，承諾永不再犯的指控是完全一致。

????如果個人無需承擔后果，而且無論是公司自身、還是SEC都沒有后續(xù)跟進，怎么能指望將來不會再次出現(xiàn)這些違規(guī)現(xiàn)象？

????Eleanor Bloxham是董事會咨詢公司The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com)的首席執(zhí)行官。

????To admit or deny -- that is the question -- or one of them anyway, that the SEC will have to address when they respond to Judge Jed S. Rakoff's review of the regulator's recent settlement with Citigroup. Although Citi has agreed to pay $285 million and make minor reforms, the bank is neither admitting nor denying that they failed to properly disclose the risks of mortgage-related investments to clients in the run up to the housing crisis.

????But why would Citi (C) agree to such a payment and reforms if they didn't violate regulations? This conundrum is not a new one for Judge Rakoff and one he raised in an SEC settlement case two years ago involving Bank of America (BAC). In that case, although Bank of America had originally neither admitted nor denied the violations, when the case came under scrutiny by Rakoff, Bank of America went ahead and denied.

????So Rakoff asked a reasonable question: why would a bank pay out shareholder dollars for something it had denied committing? If the bank did the deeds as the SEC contended, why weren't individuals being punished in line with SEC guidelines, he had asked?

????Along similar lines, in this most recent Citi case, Rakoff has asked the SEC to explain why the court should "impose a judgment in a case in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud but the defendant neither admits nor denies wrongdoing."

????Either there was a violation or there wasn't. Which is it?

????Not admitting wrongdoing poses other concerns. It may make it more difficult for defendants and their boards to mete out punishments.

????The SEC settled with Goldman Sachs (GS) last year for almost two times the amount recommended in the current Citi case on similar charges. In that case, Goldman also neither admitted nor denied. The impact? Goldman's 2011 proxy includes no recognition of the violations in the discussion of its top executives' performance. The settlement is also not cited as a factor that led to any reductions in bonus pay. To the contrary, the discussion of the SEC settlement is only included as a factor that should be excluded as a one-time charge in reviewing Goldman's profitability.

????Bonuses, in fact, were up at Goldman in 2010, with all executive officers receiving higher paychecks than they had during the previous two years. It's unclear how that aligns with the investment bank's objective of using compensation to "enhance the firm's culture of compliance."

????Rakoff and the SEC will need to wrestle with what kind of signal no admission of wrongdoing sends -- and whether the lack of admission, by its own force, results in no penalty to managers, even in their paychecks.

????In the current Citi case, Rakoff has also asked the SEC to explain how it plans to enforce the provisions of the settlement, putting a spotlight on whether the SEC has ever tried to take a company to task for violating a settlement.

????As a matter of practice, the SEC does not follow up on settlements to ensure there are no violations, according to a spokesperson for the regulator.

????The charges in the Citi case – along with the JP Morgan (JPM) and Goldman cases from this year and last -- represent the same kind of alleged wrongdoing all three banks promised never to repeat when they settled with the SEC in 2003.

????If no individuals face repercussions and there is no follow up either internally or from the SEC, how can there be any hope that we won't repeat this all over again?

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.