全球视野
每周从全球各大与公益慈善或社会创新领域相关的媒体或专业网站，去浏览发现当下正在发生的案例和正在思考的观点，然后翻译整理成篇，传达第一手的新鲜资讯。栏目希望可以通过文章的视角或者表述，为会员伙伴们提供启发、打开视野。
马修·克里斯托弗·皮特拉斯（左三）在纽约大都会歌剧院的晚会上。皮特拉斯的大额捐赠已引发审查。
照片来源：Patrick McMullan via Getty Images
在庆祝大额捐赠之前，慈善机构需要警惕虚假捐赠人近期发生的一些欺诈性捐赠案例提醒慈善机构，应对任何大额或异常捐赠进行核查。
来源：
慈善纪事报/The Chronicle of Philanthropy
展开剩余94%作者：
Sarah Webber
文章《Before Celebrating Big Gifts, Charities Must Watch Out for Fake Donors/在庆祝大额捐赠之前，慈善机构需要警惕虚假捐赠人》发布在《慈善纪事报》上。文章作者Sarah Webber是戴顿大学的会计学副教授。这篇文章聚焦近期一桩震动美国慈善界的案件：纽约慈善家皮特拉斯涉嫌盗用雇主的巨额资金，以自己的名义向机构进行大额捐赠，并在案情败露后不久被发现身亡。文章警示慈善机构：在面对“好得令人难以置信”的捐赠时，应当保持审慎和理性。A New York philanthropist and personal assistant to billionaires, Matthew Christopher Pietras, allegedly stole millions from his employers and donated large sums to prominent charities to maintain a facade of status, wealth and generosity.
纽约一名慈善家、亿万富翁的私人助理马修·克里斯托弗·皮特拉斯被指控从雇主处盗取数百万美元，并向知名慈善机构捐赠大笔资金，以维持自己地位显赫、财力雄厚且慷慨大方的假象。
Those schemes came to light when the Metropolitan Opera became aware that a $10 million donation Pietras made in his own name used funds he had allegedly pilfered from a member of the Soros family, which was among his employers.
当纽约的大都会歌剧院发现皮特拉斯以自己名义捐赠的1000万美元，涉嫌使用他从一位索罗斯家族成员（皮特拉斯的雇主之一）处盗取的资金时，这一系列骗局才被揭露出来。
The next day, May 30, 2025, Pietras was found dead. An investigation into the origin of his donations is underway.
第二天，也就是2025年5月30日，皮特拉斯被发现身亡。有关其捐款来源的调查正在进行中。
The 40-year-old belonged to many prominent nonprofit boards, attended galas, rubbed shoulders with elite donors, and lived a lavish lifestyle filled with luxury goods and private plane travel. He often made charitable gifts under his own name, and he frequently requested public recognition for them — a practice that helped build his persona.
40岁的皮特拉斯曾是多个知名非营利机构的董事会成员，频繁出席各类晚会，与精英捐赠人交往密切，过着奢华的生活，身边充满了名贵奢侈品和私人飞机旅行。他常以自己的名义进行慈善捐赠，并经常要求公开表彰。这一做法帮助他塑造了慷慨大方的个人形象。
I research nonprofit fraud. Previously, I’ve written about the importance of researching charities before donating to make sure charitable gifts are not wasted on swindlers. The Pietras case exposes the flip side of donor fraud.
作者致力研究非营利领域的欺诈问题。此前，作者曾撰文强调，在捐赠之前了解慈善机构的重要性，以确保善款不会被骗子浪费。而皮特拉斯案件则揭示了另一面：捐赠人欺诈。
Sometimes, people give stolen funds or find other fraudulent means to pretend to give their own money to a legitimate charity. This cautionary tale can remind nonprofits of the importance of checking out any donors who make large or unusual gifts.
有时，人们会捐赠被盗的资金，或者通过其他欺诈手段来伪装成自己的钱，来向合法的慈善机构进行捐赠。这个警示性故事可以提醒非营利组织，核查那些进行大额或异常捐赠的捐赠人是多么的重要。
欺诈暴露后会发生什么What Happens After the Fraud is ExposedIf Pietras’ crimes are proven, the Metropolitan Opera, Manhattan’s Frick Collection and the other charities that received money from Pietras will most likely have to issue refunds to the people he swindled. Even if the charity was acting in good faith, it should prepare to return those funds, according to laws that pertain to fraudulent transfers.
如果皮特拉斯的罪行得到证实，大都会歌剧院、曼哈顿的弗里克收藏馆，以及其他接受过他捐款的慈善机构，很可能需要将这笔钱退还给受害者。即便该慈善机构是出于善意行事，根据有关欺诈性转账的法律规定，它们也必须做好准备归还这些资金。
There is a narrow exception to this rule.
这一规则也有一个非常狭窄的例外情况。
When a charitable nonprofit unwittingly accepts a donation made with stolen money and spends it before the theft is discovered, a court may recognize the charity as an innocent recipient.
当一家慈善机构在不知情的情况下接受了用被盗资金进行的捐赠，并在发现资金被盗之前，已经使用了这笔款项，法院可能会将该机构认定为善意接受者。
In legal terms, this is known as the “good faith purchaser” defense.
在法律术语中，这被称为“善意购买人（译者注：指在购买财产时，不知道也没有合理理由怀疑卖方无权出售，并且支付了合理价款的买方。法律通常保护善意购买人，即便卖方无权处分，买方仍可保留所购财产，从而保障交易安全）”抗辩。
This recognition may limit or eliminate the charity’s legal obligation to issue a refund, particularly if the money has already been spent on the charity’s mission, the organization reasonably believed the donation was legitimate, and giving it back to the victim of theft could significantly harm the charity.
在这种情况下，法院的认定可能会限制或免除慈善机构退还捐款的法律义务，尤其是在以下条件下：这笔资金已经用于慈善机构的使命活动，机构有合理理由相信该捐赠是合法的，并且将资金退还给受害者可能会对慈善机构造成重大损害。
But if that happens, fraudsters can’t claim a tax deduction for making that gift, and they may retroactively owe extra tax penalties.
但如果出现这种情况，欺诈者将无法为该捐赠申请税收减免，而且可能需要追缴额外的税收罚款。
If a charity hasn’t yet spent the fraudulently given funds, a court could require a refund — especially if victims or insurers file lawsuits to recover that money.
如果慈善机构尚未动用那些通过欺诈手段获得的资金，法院可能会要求其退款，尤其是在受害者或保险公司提起诉讼以追回资金的情况下。
In most cases, if donations are proven to come from stolen funds, the charity may be legally required to return them. The fact that a donation was received in good faith doesn’t automatically allow the charity to keep the money once it is identified as stolen.
在大多数情况下，如果捐款被证实来自被盗资金，慈善机构可能会被依法要求返还这些捐款。即使慈善机构是善意接受捐赠，一旦这笔款项被确认为被盗资金，也并不意味着机构可以自动保留这笔钱。
受骗慈善机构应如何应对How Snookered Charities Should RespondIt is often in a charity’s best interest to be proactive about returning the stolen funds rather than awaiting a court order forcing them to do so.
对于慈善机构而言，主动归还被盗资金往往更符合自身利益，而非等待法院下令强制其归还。
The Metropolitan Opera took this route. It returned the $10 million to Gregory Soros, the youngest son of billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros, that it received the day before Pietras’ scheme was discovered.
大都会歌剧院就是采取了这种做法。它向亿万富翁投资者兼慈善家乔治·索罗斯的小儿子格雷戈里·索罗斯退还了1000万美元，这笔钱是在皮特拉斯的骗局被发现的前一天收到的。
Taking that step is a good look. But charities don’t really have a choice because they cannot quickly spend any funds that are identified as potentially stolen. Once they’re stuck in this legal limbo, nonprofits must hang onto the funds and await a legal resolution.
采取这一举措固然不错。但慈善机构实际上别无选择，因为一旦资金被认定可能为被盗款项，就无法迅速使用。一旦陷入这种法律僵局，非营利组织就必须暂存这笔资金，等待法律裁决。
与麦道夫丑闻的相似之处Some Similarities With Madoff ScandalI believe that the Pietras case mirrors the Bernard Madoff scandal in that both men donated to charities to burnish their social status.
作者认为皮特拉斯案与伯纳德·麦道夫丑闻有相似之处：两人都通过向慈善机构捐款来提升自己的社会地位。
Madoff, the disgraced financier who died in prison in 2021, operated a massive Ponzi scheme that deceived his clients with too-high-to-be-true returns and then depleted their savings once it collapsed.
麦道夫是一位声名狼藉的金融家，于2021年在狱中去世。他操控了一个规模庞大的庞氏骗局，用高得离谱的回报欺骗客户，在骗局崩盘后耗尽了他们的积蓄。
Madoff also used stolen funds to make large charitable donations through his family foundation. His philanthropy made his fake image as an ace investor appear legitimate and it expanded his access to the wealthy people he preyed upon.
麦道夫还通过其家族基金会，将盗来的资金用于大额慈善捐赠。他的慈善行为使他作为顶尖投资者的虚假形象显得合情合理，同时也扩大了他接触富裕人士来进行欺诈的机会。
As with Madoff, Pietras’ illusion of generosity allegedly became a tool for his deception, allowing him to move comfortably among the wealthy and well connected while avoiding getting caught.
与麦道夫一样，皮特拉斯所谓的慷慨形象据称也成了他的行骗工具，这让他得以在富有和人脉广泛的人群中周旋自如，同时避免被发现。
Madoff defrauded investors of an estimated $50 billion to $64 billion. The 2008 revelations about his scheme’s shocking scale shook confidence in financial and charitable institutions.
麦道夫诈骗投资者的金额估计在500亿至640亿美元之间。2008年，这一骗局令人震惊的规模被曝光，这动摇了人们对金融机构和慈善机构的信心。
In the aftermath, numerous nonprofits that had invested their own assets with Madoff either lost significant sums or were forced to return past donations as part of legal clawback efforts to compensate victims.
事后，许多将自身资产投资于麦道夫的非营利机构，要么损失了大笔资金，要么被迫退还过去收到的捐赠，这是法律追索行动中补偿受害者的举措的一部分。
何时应当保持警惕When Being Wary Is WarrantedCharities must exercise due diligence before accepting a gift. This means they have a duty to investigate any unusually large donations — such as one that’s the biggest they’ve ever received.
慈善机构在接受捐赠前必须进行尽职调查。这意味着他们有责任调查任何异常大额的捐赠，例如机构有史以来收到的最大一笔捐赠。
Regardless of a gift’s size, this duty also applies when a gift seems to be larger than the donor could be reasonably expected to afford.
无论捐赠大小，当捐赠看起来超出捐赠人合理承受能力时，这一尽职调查义务同样适用。
Charities don’t need to act like banks or lenders, which are required to verify the financial assets of clients. But they should ask questions when the circumstances require. Acting in good faith requires charitable institutions to be reasonably certain that donated funds are not stolen.
慈善机构无需像银行或贷款机构那样对客户的财务资产进行核查。但在必要情况下，慈善机构应提出疑问。善意行事要求慈善机构有合理理由确信所接受的捐赠资金不是被盗来的。
In Pietras’ case, he reportedly began by donating sums that were small enough to not raise suspicion.
据报道，在皮特拉斯的案例中，他最初捐赠的金额较小，不足以引起怀疑。
好得令人难以置信的捐赠Too-Good-to-Be-True GivingThe consequences of not exercising due diligence can be costly and embarrassing.
不进行尽职调查的后果，可能是代价高昂且令人尴尬的。
For example, consider what happened to Florida A&M University in May 2024, when it announced a record-breaking $237 million gift from Texas entrepreneur Gregory Gerami. The donation consisted of 14 million shares in Gerami’s privately held Batterson Farms Corp.
例如，想想2024年5月佛罗里达农工大学发生的事情，当时该校宣布收到得克萨斯州企业家格雷戈里·杰拉米一笔创纪录的2.37亿美元捐赠。该捐赠由杰拉米私人持有的巴特森农场公司的1400万股股份组成。
An investigation later determined that Gerami couldn’t afford to make that gift and that Florida A&M had failed to check into his finances. The university’s president and other top leaders were forced to resign in the embarrassing fallout.
随后调查发现，格拉米实际上无力承担这笔捐赠，而佛罗里达农工大学也未对其财务状况进行核查。结果就是，该校校长及其他高层领导在这场令人尴尬的风波中被迫辞职。
Asking donors hard and even uncomfortable questions before celebrating any huge gift can help charities avoid the headaches that come with being deceived by fraudulent donations.
在庆祝任何巨额捐赠之前，向捐赠人提出严肃甚至令人不适的问题，可以帮助慈善机构避免因接受欺诈性捐赠而带来的麻烦。
Thorough vetting at the outset ensures that a celebrated gift enhances the charity’s work without entangling it in future disputes or negative publicity from a fraudulent gift.
在一开始就进行全面审查，可以确保所慈善机构所庆祝的捐赠，能够真正促进慈善机构的工作，而不会因将来涉及欺诈性捐赠的争议或负面宣传而陷入困境。
关键句翻译尽职调查是指在重大交易或合作前，由一方或多方对交易标的、合作对象、项目情况等进行系统、全面、深入的调查和分析，以便做出理性决策、控制风险，并确保交易符合法律、商业和财务要求。那么尽职调查的英文全称是什么？
Due Diligence
diligence n. 勤勉；克尽职守
翻译、撰稿：丁适于（杭州市基金会发展促进会）
发布于：浙江省盛多网提示：文章来自网络，不代表本站观点。
