Why was Henderson so lenient?

THE Lands Department's letters to HendersonLand about 39 Conduit Road and the developer's replies to them show the authorities have persisted in ensuring transactions of new flats are fair and transparent. They deserve praisefor their efforts. The buyers of twenty flats at 39 Conduit Road failed to complete the deals. It is clear from those letters that Henderson only kept the 5% deposits they had paid. Henderson's explanations are hardly convincing.

Henderson's 39 Conduit Road project drew much attention because its flats went for sky-high prices.

They cost over $70,000 a square foot, more than thosein any other multi--storey residential building in the world. Those transactions were unrivalled, and stories about them made the world press. However, therewere abnormalities about them. For example, those buyers were offshore shell companies shrouded in mystery, and all of them used the same law firm. The affair has aroused public concern. Upholding the principle that "property transactions must be genuine and transparent", the authorities stepped in. They demanded that Henderson give full information onthose transactions. Subsequently, Henderson announced the deposits in respect of twenty of the units had been forfeited.

Henderson only kept those buyers' 5% deposits. Itis not clear whether that is its usual practice. If that isnot, why was it so lenient with them? Is it true that Henderson has changed its policy so that buyers of itsnew flats who fail to complete the transactions will loseat most their 5% deposits? If it has, it ought to make its new policy known to the public.

Henderson has said it has decided against recovering the price differences because "each of the buyers is a shell company with an issued capital of $1".

None of them having any real assets, there is no pointin taking legal action against them.

Each of the transactions involved several billion dollars - a huge sum of money. Though the developer contracted with shell companies, it ought to haveknown much about their owners and their financialresources. How could it do business if it entertained just any Tom, Dick or Harry that is not a serious buyer?

An advertisement Henderson ran in some newspaperslast Friday says, "Until the 24 units were sold, thiscompany had not done any business, had any financial dealings or partnered with any of the purchasers. Thedealings in those transactions between this companyand them are purely those between a vendor and itspurchasers." However, Henderson's declaration is notsuch that one can rule out the possibility of the vendorbeing acquainted with the purchasers. It is worthfinding out how their acquaintance with Hendersonmight have borne on the 39 Conduit Road transactionsin question and the way it has handled the forfeiture oftheir deposits.

Yesterday Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng against stressed that the government ought to ensure the fairness and transparency oftransactions of new flats. She made it clear that the police and other law--enforcement agencies were investigating the case, adding that it was not permissible for developers to have false transactionsor disseminate incomplete information. The government deserves praise for its efforts to ensuremarket fairness and reasonableness. However, at a meeting of the Legislative Council (Legco) Panel onFinancial Affairs that took place yesterday, some functional constituency (FC) legislators were againstfollowing up the 39 Conduit Road affair. They doubted that Legco was empowered to look into a private company's contracts and dealings. The affair hasmuch to do with market fairness, the public's confidence in the market and Hong Kong's reputationas a business city. It has everything to do with the public interest and Hong Kong's overall interests. It is certainly not just a matter of a private company'scontracts or dealings.

What those FC legislators said yesterday again shows they only have sectoral interests at heart. Theyare careless of the public's or Hong Kong's interests. For such FC legislators people have nothing but scorn.

明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm

明報社評

2010.07.06

天匯事件 關鍵在於恒基厚待撻訂買家

從地政總署和恒基地產就名廈「天匯」單位交易的往來信件，顯示當局鍥而不捨，為新樓買賣公平和透明度的努力，值得肯定。從信件所披露看來， 恒基對20 個單位撻訂買家，只沒收5% 樓價的訂金，而恒基解釋的理據未能使人信服。

天匯使人矚目，源於天價成交，呎價超過77 萬元，創下多層大廈住宅單位的世界紀錄，成為世界新聞，風頭之勁，一時無倆。但是，天匯交易一些異乎尋常之處，例如買家身分神秘、以離岸空殼公司購買、同用一家律師樓等，由於事態引起公衆關注，政府本諸「交易要真實，資訊要透明」原則介入，要求恒基交代買賣詳情，發展至恒基宣布20 個單位撻訂。

恒基對於買家撻訂，只沒收5% 訂金和樓價，未知是否其一貫做法，若以往並非如此，天匯撻訂買家為何得到厚待？抑或恒基改變公司政策，日後購買恒基的新樓，買家就算撻訂，最多只會被殺訂 5% 5%？若有這樣的？政策轉變，恒基應該公告周知。

關於放棄追索差價，恒基認為撻訂單位買家為11 元股本的空殼公司，沒有資產，採取法律行動並無意義。涉及以10 億元計的巨額交易，發展商雖然最終與空殼公司簽約，對於空殼公司幕後老闆和其財力，應該知之甚詳，否則閒雜人等都來博懵混吉，發展商還做什麼生意。恒基上周五在報章刊登廣告，特別交代「在24 個單位買賣之前，本公司與買家從無生意合作，從無融資交易，從無伙伴關係。該24 個單位的買賣，亦純粹為賣方與買方的關係」。恒基這項澄清，並未排除賣方與買方原本就認識的可能，然則「認識關係」在天匯買賣以至撻訂處理中，是否起到什麼作用？值得探究。

輸及房屋局長鄭汝樺昨日重申政府要確保新樓買賣公平和有透明度，不容許虛假交易和發放不完整資料。鄭汝樺明確表示警方與執法部門正在調查此事， 政府建立一個公平合理市場的努力，值得肯定，反觀多名立法會功能組別議員，昨日在財經事務委員會會議上，否決現階段跟進天匯撻訂事件，他們更質疑立法會是否有權調查私人企業的合約和交易。天匯事件關乎是否市場公平，涉及整體市場予人的信心和香港整體營商環境的聲譽和形象，徹頭徹尾關乎公衆利益和香港整體利益，並非私人企業合約和交易那麼簡單。

功能組別議員昨日的說法，再一次顯示他們心目中只有界別利益，並無公衆和香港整體利益，這樣的功能組別議員，只會使人更為唾棄。

Glossary

recoverget back.

empoweredyou are empowered to do something, youhave the power to do it.

careless

you are careless of something, you are not atall worried about it.