【新唐人2012年12月29日讯】2008年注册成立的“北京成龙慈善基金会”，日前被爆从“中华少年儿童慈善救助基金会”接收了1800万元的违规资金，“儿慈会”虽举行说明会公开报表，但网友再度爆料说，“成龙基金会”很有可能是为了提取10%的管理费。
网路举报人周筱赟24号再次在微博爆料说，“成龙基金会”接收“中华少年儿童慈善救助基金会”1800万元违规资金，很有可能是为了提取10%的管理费。
“儿慈会”在2011年度工作报告上宣称，“回家的希望救助专案”直接用于救助被拐卖儿童的1903万，但其实是把1800万打给了成龙基金会。但最终直接用于受助人的捐款只有99万，成龙基金会收到这1800万根本没有去救助被拐卖儿童，而是用于“贫困大病儿童专案救助”。剩余的钱则是分50万、200万不等流向了各地方慈善机构。
对此，成龙基金会工作人员回应表示：那个表格做得确实很粗糙，这笔钱进账的时候，指定的是两个用途，可是这笔钱进账之后它却只写了一个用途。
美国南卡罗莱纳大学艾肯商学院教授谢田：“我想这个基金会，如果善款遭到挪用的话，说表格作的粗糙，这些实际上都是说不过去的，也不能接受，因为在任何国际社会，正常社会国家，一般正常来说，它有很严格的财务监管制度，如果表格错误的话，那这位CPA或会计师就会发现，何况是这么大的一笔钜款。”
美国“南卡罗莱纳大学艾肯商学院”教授谢田还表示，基金会接受捐款，如果发生挪用或盗用的情况，将失去公信力，不仅基金会受到损失，连带的关系事业都会受到损失，
谢田：“实际上我们发现，正常社会还是有可能会有一些慈善机构的负责人去滥用和盗用，但这毕竟是小规模的，像中国这种规模的话，这样的事情，正好说明，不受监督制衡的国家，没有舆论监督的国家，中国人民的捐款是善意的捐款，注定要被挪用的。”
对于未来如何避免类似的问题发生，成龙慈善基金会工作人员的回答是：我只能说，捐款人自己盯好自己的捐款。
宪政学者陈永苗：“因为现在的慈善都是官方的，其实你怎么立法都没有用，它注定就是做洗钱机构，要不就做为贪污的工具，只要他现有的垄断机制不改变的话，他怎么搞出来的，怎么生出来的，都是那样子的。”
周筱赟12月10号通过微博举报，“中华少年儿童慈善救助基金会（儿慈会）”2011年的账目上，一项“支付其他与业务活动有关的现金”金额为48.4亿元，远远高于当年接受捐赠收到的现金8000多万元。
当晚，儿慈会发文澄清，财务人员的重大失误将账目中一项本应为4.75亿元的金额，写成了47.5亿元。
“中国基金会透明指数2012排行榜”显示，中国2213家基金会平均透明度得分仅为45.79分，约占总分129.4分的35%，行业整体透明度得分“不及格”。
采访/陈汉 编辑/黄亿美 后制/郭敬
Questionable Chinese Charitable Foundation Account
It was exposed recently that the Jackie Chan Charitable
Foundation (JCCF), incorporated in 2008,
received 18 million yuan of illegal funds from the
“China Children Charity Relief Foundation (CCCRF)."
Even after the CCCRF held a meeting to offer an explanation,
netizens continue to disclose that the JCCF is likely extracting 10% as a management fee.
On Dec. 24, Internet whistleblower Zhou Xiaoyun again
posted on his microblog that
the JCCF received 18 million yuan from the CCCRF,
which is likely his management fee.
The CCCRF claimed, in the 2011 annual report, that
19.03 million yuan went directly to a special project called
“Hope to Return Home,” which allegedly rescues abducted children.
In actuality, only 999,000 yuan was directly used
for abducted children.
They claimed that the 18 million went to the JCCF,
where it was used for sick and poor children instead of abducted children.
Other small amounts of money, ranging from 50,000
to 200,000 yuan, went to different charitable organizations.
In this regard, the JCCF staff responded that the reported
figures were a rough estimate.
The money received was meant for two purposes,
but the money specified on record shows only one purpose.
Xie Tian, Professor of University of South Carolina Aiken
Business School: “If the money was misappropriated, using a rough chart as an excuse is unacceptable.
In any international community, any normal society and country,
there will be a very strict financial regulatory system.
If there are mistakes in the chart, let alone such a huge sum
of money an accountant or CPA will discover it."
Professor Xie Tian of University of South Carolina Aiken
Business School said that
if the Foundation loses money due to misappropriation or theft,
it will lose its credibility.
It damages not only the foundation but also other associated
businesses.
Xie Tian: “In fact, we found that in a normal society, some
directors of the charitable organizations may misuse the donation, but it is typically on a small-scale.
However, events of this magnitude happen in China,
explaining the unsupervised checks and balances of our country.
In a country that doesn’t allow public opinion as supervision,
donations from the Chinese people out of good intention are destined to be misappropriated.”
As to how to avoid similar problems in the future, JCCF staff
answered, “I can only say that the donors need to watch their own contributions.”
Constitution scholar Chen Yongmiao: “Charity in China
belongs to the officials.
Actually, no matter what legislation we have, its aim
is for money laundering, or as a tool of corruption.
As long as the existing monopoly mechanism does not
change, everything will remain the same.”
On Dec. 10, 2012, Zhou Xiaoyun reported on his microblog,
“In 2011, the CCCRF paid out 4.84 billion yuan for one item, business related activities.”
That amount of money was far more than the 80 million
they received from donations.
That night, the CCCRF issued a document to clarify
the financial officer’s major mistake that 4.75 billion yuan should have been reported as 475 million yuan.
In 2012, “Transparency ranking of China Foundations”
showed that the average transparency of 2,213 foundations
is only 45.79 points, accounting for about 35% of the total
score of 129.4 points. The entire industry fails to make a passing grade.
