At last we have come to the point. The behaviour outlined in the US Securities and Exchange Commission's devastating complaint against Goldman Sachs neatly encapsulates the most important and damning of the charges that have circulated in the past two years against investment banks in general and Goldman in particular. Sales of structured products backed by subprime securities triggered the credit crisis. The question is whether this was down to deliberate deception, incompetence or bad luck. Now the SEC will attempt to make a charge of deliberate deception stick.

　　终于有人说到了点子上。美国证交会(SEC)针对高盛(Goldman Sachs)的具有摧毁力的诉状所概述的行为，精辟概括了过去两年来坊间流传的针对投行（尤其是高盛）的最重要、最切中要害的指控。销售由次贷证券支持的结构化产品，引发了信贷危机。问题在于，这应当归因于蓄意欺骗、无能还是霉运？现在，美国证交会将设法证明，有关蓄意欺骗的指控是站得住脚的。

　　From a moral point of view, the tale outlined in the complaint could scarcely be more damning. What pension fund or institution could possibly want to do business with a bank that behaves in the way Goldman is portrayed in the SEC's suit? If this version of events stands up in court, then the damage to Goldman's business will be severe – and so the market's instant reaction on Friday looks justified.

　　从道德角度看，诉状中的叙述完美切中了要害。如果某家银行的行为就像美国证交会笔下的高盛那样，还有哪一家养老基金或机构会愿意与这家银行开展业务往来？如果诉状中的叙述被法庭采信，那么高盛的业务将受到沉重打击。如此看来，市场在上周五的即时反应是有道理的。

　　Legally, the story may be different. The charges themselves rest on very specific points concerning Goldman's disclosure of information, both to ACA, the bond insurer that put its name to the already infamous Abacus 2007-AC1 securitisation, and to its end investors. The story is awful for Goldman, but it may have a better chance of defending itself in a court of law than in the court of public opinion, where it has flailed in its attempts to counter infantile insults about vampire squids.

　　从法律上看，对这件事可能有不同的解读。相关指控本身取决于非常特定的要点，涉及高盛的信息披露，包括对债券保险商ACA（其名称曾用于现已臭名昭著的Abacus 2007-AC1证券化）和对其最终投资者的披露。这件事对高盛来说很糟糕，但与“舆论审判庭”相比，它在法庭上可能有更好的为自己辩解的机会。去年，面对孩子气的“吸血乌贼”辱骂，高盛的回应毫无章法。

　　As for the broader ramifications, a successful action (and the suits that would doubtless follow) would make it easier politically to tighten regulation on the banking sector as a whole. It might also focus politicians' and regulators' minds on the central conflicts that bedevil a largely self-regulated financial system.

　　就更广泛的影响而言，如果美国证交会的诉讼得到法庭支持（无疑还会有不少诉讼接踵而来），那将降低对整个银行业收紧监管的政治难度。那还可能使政界人士和监管者去关注困扰着金融体系的核心冲突，目前这个金融体系基本上是自我监管的。

　　

　　Lex专栏是由FT评论员联合撰写的短评，对全球经济与商业进行精辟分析

　　

　　译者/和风