| 近２年来EB-5投资移民在中国大陆和海外华人圈中火爆有加。美国EB-5投资移民从2004年
及之前的每年近500个左右移民签证上升到2010年前半年就发放近4500个，其趋势是极可能用完每年总共１万个法定名
额
。 在EB-5类投资移民中，大家经常会被一个最基本的问题所困扰：投资移民到底是50万美元还是100万美元？从法律规定而言，一 般EB-5投资都要100万美元，只有在法定的“目标雇佣区域”（Targeted Employment Area）才可减为50万。目标区域的定义是以失业率超过全国平均水平150％或其所在区域不属于任何统计意义上超过２万人口的城市。在实践中，几乎所有 美国EB-5类区域中心都成功获得批准为“目标雇佣区域”，这是因为移民法规定州政府有权确定失业率标准的目标雇佣区域，而大多 数区域投资中心都得到州政府的大力支持被确定为符合50万美元投资的目标雇佣区域。世界最繁华的都市纽约市的四个最热闹区域—— 曼哈顿区、皇后区、布鲁克林和布兰士都成功被定为纽约市区域中心投资项目的目标雇佣区域，适用50万投资标准。只要有州政府大力 支持，获得50万标准投资项目可能性很大。但是由于区域中心获得批准的特定性，其它非区域中心投资项目即使在同一区域投资，也并 不能享有50万的优惠标准。也就是说，现在一个投资者要在纽约曼哈顿独立投资EB-5个人项目,而不是投在批准的区域投资中心 (regional center),其投资额要求仍然是100万的正常标准。 因此，在实践中，由于外国投资者极少会个人到公布失业率达150％或少于２万人口的城市投资 ，50万美元和100 万美元投资选择的区别几乎是选择自己独立建立一个100万项目自己经营还是交50万美元给区域投资中心所属项目经营。这两者有着 以下重大差别，各有利弊。本文仅列以下主要几点，作为考虑投资方式的一些初步信息。 1. 控制权 一百万投资建立自己的独立企业，投资人对资金和企业运作有完全的独立控制，自己的钱自己经营，亏损和盈利全是自己经营和决策的结 果。相对而言, 50万区域投资中心项目投资，50万美元完全交给投资区域中心经营，个人作为有限合伙人，其权力还不如一 个小股东 ，对经营运作几乎无任何控制和干预能力 。 2. 临时绿卡转永久绿卡成功预见性 EB-5类最让投资者担心的不是初期批准，而是２年后从临时绿卡转为永久绿卡。因为在初期临时绿卡时，如果移民局不准，很多区域 投资中心承诺投资人可以全额退款，或者从自己独立投资项目中撤资。由于运作尚未开始，损失不大。 但是在临时绿卡批准后两年转正式绿卡申请时，如果移民局不批准认可该笔投资款已创造十个美国就业机会的满意证据，投资人将无法获 得永久绿卡，而且无法在美继续合法停留。而那时所有款项已经两年运作，个人家庭都已在美国生活，要想改变，实在是非常为难和不方 便的事。 从这一角度而言，如果是自己经营独立投资企业，投资人可以有清晰预见 ，因为是否已在２年的合理时间中创造 10个就业机会是一个自己在经营过程中清楚明了的问题, 从企业税表和工资单就可作出判断 。 相对而言，投资区域中心(RegionalCenter)，２年后的临时绿卡转正完全取决于区域中心项目提供的财务经济文件。由 于区域中心项目是一个几十人、上百或几百人投资的项目，法律上又允许计算间接就业机会（个人投资项目不允许考虑间接就业机 会 ）。因此，其计算和统计方式会相对复杂，个人对项目经营记录文件的可预见性相对较差, 几乎无任何控制能力，但是，区域投资中心往往会有较大资源精心准备来应对移民局的相关质疑。因为对于区域投资中心而言，如果移民局不同意每笔投资已创造 10个直接或间接就业机会，就意味着该项目几十人甚至几百人的群体都无法获得永久绿卡，影响面极其广大。区域项目中心为了长期信 誉，必定会不遗余力进行辩争以获得移民局同意。 3. 个人的运作能力 对于没有企业运作经验，或者对美国企业运作毫无知识的投资者，或是个人没有精力时间对投资项目进行运作的投资人而言，区域投资项 目无疑是一个好出路。找到信誉良好的区域投资中心，成功可能性会比没有在美商务经营经验的投资者自己运作大得多。同时，投资区域 中心项目50万项目对于资金有限无法拿出100万美元投资的人而言，也许是唯一选择。 对于个人有一定经营能力或者对在美发展企业有相对丰富的知识，又有100万资金的人而言，自己独立投资也许是一个在美创业 又获绿卡的好途径。 许多个人投资项目将其资金投入相关的连锁加盟店经营（如汽车旅馆或快餐店），使其在美经营能力的 门槛大大降低，因为连锁盟主将提供运作经营上的成套运作机制和专业管理人员培训，大大减少运作风险。但是在实践中，投资人或其家 人对连锁店的日常经营还是必须花费一些心思。 结语： 由于EB-5投资移民涉及复杂的业务、经营、资金来源分析，法定特别要求和多步程序问题，以上几点仅作抛砖引玉思考启发。 任何具体案件必须由专业律师精心分析，投资前的合理尽职分析调查费用有可能使你减少100万美元损失，或者，更重要的是减少 临时绿卡无法转正时的骑虎难下之大不便。 |
| 来源: 张哲瑞联合律师事务所 hooyou.com |
20101228
张哲瑞联合律师事务所:EB-5投资移民风险控制
20101227
路透社:美国政府财政不参与EB-5区域中心项目的投资
| 近两年来，美国EB-5投资移民在亚洲地区包括中国大陆、韩国等地非常受欢迎。EB-5投资移民
从2004年及之前的每年近500个左右移民签证上升到2010年前半年就发放近4500个，其趋势是极可能用完每年总共一万个
法定名额。 不过，在2010年12月16日，美国移民局公布了过去6年EB-5投资移民的批准和拒绝数据后，我们的律师通过数字分析本质， 认为总体而言，EB-5类投资移民途径是带有高风险但又是可行的方式，高风险体现在，近几年的最终I-829申请拒绝加I- 526拒绝率总数在25%-30%左右。 也就是说，在投资了50万或100万美元或更多的资金后，外籍投资人仍有25%-30%机会拿不到绿卡。因此，外籍投资人应该对 EB-5投资移民的风险有一个清醒的认识。 导致外籍投资人花了钱但最终拿不到绿卡的原因很多，其中之一就是无法在两年内创造10个美国工人就业机会 。按照移 民局统计数字显示，历年I-526申请案中有90%左右来自于移民局批准的区域中心的项目，投资于区域中心项目风险较大，I- 829的拒绝应该有相当一部分来自投资区域中心项目的案件，主要原因在于个别投资项目无法证明申请人拿到I-526批准后2年内 实现了法律要求的创造10 个美国劳工(公民或绿卡持有者)就业机会。 其次，在准备申请的过程中，一些移民中介的误导宣传刻意淡化投资的风险，也在一定程度上导致了投资人最后的失败。例如，路透社在 一篇报道中提到，在韩国首尔举行的一次EB-5投资推介会上，某移民中介就对纽约市区域中心的布鲁克林体育馆和基础设施项目有如 下介绍：纽约市政府介入了该项目，投资者无需担心获得绿卡的问题。推介该项目的有关人士在中国大陆也做过类似的介绍。但是，当路 透社的记者问及纽约市区域中心的管理人时，该人士承认类似的介绍是不准确的。 路透社的记者在进一步调查后发现，为吸引外资，类似的介绍在美国境外被先后重复了很多次。 实际上，类似介绍正是由 纽约市区域中心出台的。该中心在向外推介布鲁克林体育馆和基础设施项目时，经常邀请布鲁克林区的官员随行，给外籍投资人以有政府 支持的假象，这一招在中国大陆比较灵，因为人们比较相信政府的作用，认为政府支持的项目有保障、风险较低。实际上，与向中国投资 者推介的正相反，无论是纽约州政府还是纽约市政府都不是纽约市区域中心的正式合作伙伴，政府机构并没有向纽约市区域中心投 资 。 最后，除了区域中心的误导或欺骗性推介外，某些移民中介或律师为了自身的利益（例如收取区域中心许诺的佣金等等），也会做出一些 误导性的推荐，从而增加了EB-5投资移民的风险。 总之，对于外籍投资人来说，EB-5投资移民有风险，需谨慎分析相关的介绍，谨慎选择好负责的律师，钱出手前要做好功课，免得最 后竹篮打水一场空，赔了夫人又折兵。 如想浏览路透社的相关报道，请点击以下链接： http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-oder/reuters-nails-lies-by-pro_b_801070.html |
|
A couple of astonishing things happened last week in coverage of the EB-5 immigration visa program--green cards for investments--the dubious use of which I've investigated for months regarding Atlantic Yards, the controversial arena-plus-towers megaproject in Brooklyn. (See my previous Huffington Post coverage, Green Cards for Sale? Atlantic Yards
Backers Seek Chinese Investors and Anatomy of a Green Card Pitch: In
China, Atlantic Yards Backers Rely on the Distraction
of Basketball.) Many would-be immigrants don't get their green cards. Many don't get their money back. And many are misled by immigration brokers pimping the investment projects. And some of the regional centers--the federally-authorized investment pools that market the projects--are quite shady. Brooklyn project under scrutiny One poster child: the New York City Regional Center's (NYCRC) promotion of what they dub the Brooklyn Arena and Infrastructure project, an effort to raise $249 million for developer Forest City Ratner's $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project, saving the developer perhaps $191 million. Reuters, having attended a session for potential investors in Seoul, South Korea run by a local immigration broker, seemingly nailed the NYCRC on several misrepresentations:
None are true, as I've documented. The next astonishing thing is this: In a subsequent interview with Reuters, George Olsen, managing principal of the New York City Regional Center acknowledged the claims were "not accurate" - the investors will finance the rebuilding of a rail yard and some related infrastructure near the new basketball court -- and promised he would jump on Kookmin "with two feet." That's bogus, and it's too bad Reuters let him get away with professing to be shocked, shocked. And it's too bad Reuters didn't investigate other issues regarding EB-5 and this project:
NYCRC on tape The deceptive statements highlighted by Reuters and explained away by Olsen have been made by the NYCRC's own principals in a project video, the audio of which I reproduce on my blog today. And the same statements have been made by the NCYRC's point man in China, Gregg D. Hayden, during investment seminars and webcasts there, as I've described. (Here's an FAQ summarizing the series.) It's on video, too. "The project itself involves three components," Hayden said (at 1:33) in a webcast produced by a Chinese immigration consultantcy, excerpted below. "The Brooklyn arena; the related infrastructure to the lands; and the redevelopment and expansion and upgrading of the [city's] third largest transportation hub, in Brooklyn, called the Atlantic Terminal." "The first major advantage is that the approval process, from USCIS, having already been accomplished, takes all of the immigration risk out of the process for the EB-5 investor," Hayden claimed in a webcast (below) at 1:00. "[O]ur job creation, which is the focus of getting the condition removed in two years, is so extremely certain with this approval process from USCIS," he continued, at 4:25.
Reuters caught the NYCRC's agent in another deception, but let Olsen get away with excusing it: The agent from Kookmin, for instance, said during the Seoul sales presentation that the government of New York state was involved in the rail yard project. Olsen said that claim was inaccurate as well.Actually, they've been made by the New York City Regional Center itself, which has promoted the role of city, state, and borough governments in the arena project.
The NYCRC was willing to pay travel expenses for Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz to visit China. (Markowitz backed out but lied on tape for the NYCRC that "Brooklyn is 1,000 percent behind Atlantic Yards.") In its own newsletter, the NYCRC stated: The NYCRC is pleased to announce another project in conjunction with the governments of both the City of New York and State of New York.The same claims were made in the video shown to potential investors, as well. Regional centers frequently try to get local officials to accompany them, as potential investors, especially in countries like China, can be impressed by the suggestion of an official government role. Eagerly cooperating, the Empire State Development Corporation, New York State's chief economic development agency, even paid to send Executive Director Peter Davidson to China, where he made astonishing claims about job creation for the arena project. More misleading promotion The page below left from the project brochure is headed
"Government Support" (according to a translation I
commissioned), with the first line stating, "Different
levels of government agencies have already approved the
key components of the project." The second page of the brochure states that the NYCRC, along with the city and state governments, "join hands together" to announce the project. Neither the city nor state government is a formal partner with the NYCRC in the project as presented to the Chinese investors. Each has made previously-funded subsidy commitments. In the opening of an EB-5 event in Beijing, as shown on this video , Hayden saluted Chinese partners by saying, "For the State of New York, for the City of New York, and on behalf of all of us in New York, we appreciate your strong efforts." That also could leave the impression of partnership. Later in that event, he said, "As you saw in the [official project] video, we have very generous support from the governmental agencies of New York City and New York State; specifically, in the video, you heard [Mayor] Michael Bloomberg talk about job creation and how important it is to New York City." However, government agencies have not invested in the regional center, and Bloomberg was talking about job creation for the Atlantic Yards project as a whole. Conflict of interest for lawyers? The Reuters report also suggests that attorneys may face a conflict of interest: Another big problem with the program: The attorneys the immigrants rely on as they navigate the EB-5 maze in the United States are often deeply conflicted, accepting commissions from the businesses they steer the immigrants to. It's a practice the lawyers do not always disclose and one that may violate U.S. securities laws.I've tried to explore that issue regarding the role of the Ithaca, NY law firm Miller, Mayer, which represents the NYCRC as well as immigrant investors, and may be the leading firm in this narrow specialty. None of the lawyers there would respond to my queries, including Stephen Yale-Loehr, described by Reuters as "the unofficial dean of the EB-5 bar." Think about it: if such a top law firm has behaved questionably--check out photos of Miller, Mayer attorneys at basketball-centric investor sessions, or a video of an attorney talking about "this very exciting NBA arena project"--then how much regarding EB-5 doesn't deserve scrutiny? Yale-Loehr told Reuters, "No. 1, it's a win for the U.S. businesses that might not be able to finish a project but for foreign financing." At least for the Brooklyn arena, that's not the case, as a state official confirmed the arena's fully funded. Reuters, which identified Yale-Loehr as an adjunct law professor at Cornell University Law School, did not cite his affiliation with Miller Mayer. While Yale-Loehr, unlike some of his colleagues, did not go on the NYCRC China trip, he appeared in a promotion (graphic below) by NYCRC affiliates touting the high-level personages associated with the project.
Much left to investigate, including security of investment Reuters left readers with the sobering recognition that the two federal agencies that are supposed to oversee the EB-5 program--the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)--are falling down on the job. They told Reuters they are unaware of any marketing abuses in the program. Maybe they're aware now, as Reuters documented several abuses. But even Reuters didn't look at another aspect of the Atlantic Yards: the safety of the investment. "The Brooklyn Arena and Infrastructure Project, your EB-5 investment program, is a $1.4 billion project," Hayden said at 2:58 of the first video excerpted above. "It involves a lot of government, over $740 million of government-related funding. The EB-5 funding, the $249 million we are seeking to raise in the China market, is only 17%, the safest, most secure portion of the capital structure, 17%... portion of the capital structure is the EB-5 portion." That could leave the impression the capital structure is a series of loans, with the EB-5 portion the safest. Not so. The direct government subsidies have already been allocated. Investors buying $511 million in government-authorized bonds would certainly be repaid first, as those bonds were presented to rating agencies, with the rating based on expected cash flows from the arena. No rating for the EB-5 debt has been announced, nor is it apparently secured by any specific cash flows. Rather, the collateral offered involves a mortgage on development rights to seven future towers on the development site. The fundamental issue: job creation Moreover, the Reuters series did not address one core issue raised in my series: whether immigrant investors deserve credit for job creation based on the entirety of the capital in the project, rather than just the funds they commit. Reuters brushed over the issue, referring to the EB-5 program's "strict job creation requirements" and noting, "The only thing [the USCIS] checks is that the U.S. businesses receiving the money create the jobs they promise." Not really. EB-5 investors must each create ten jobs for their $500,000 investments. If they invest through the growing number of regional centers, the job creation may be calculated via an economist's report, which applies a multiplier to the total amount invested. (It doesn't look terribly stringent. See the Lake Buena Vista Resort Village & Spa in Orlando, FL, for an example of a project in which each investor gets 1.5 condos and preserves ten jobs, since the job requirements have already been fulfilled. Next up is a timeshare project.) The problem in Brooklyn In the case of the Brooklyn arena project, the NYCRC tells would-be investors that their $249 million would be combined with well more than $1 billion already committed by government and private investors. An economic report commissioned by the NYCRC thus calculated that 7,696 jobs, far more than the required 4,980 jobs, would be created by the overall $1.448 billion investment. The USCIS has apparently vetted the NYCRC's overall job-creation methodology, but, as I've written, it does not look like the federal agency has looked carefully at how it would be applied regarding this project. After all, it's plausible that EB-5 investors deserve credit for job creation based on the whole pot of money--as long as their investment serves as seed money or "last mile" funding, thus crucial to a project actually moving forward. In this case, the Atlantic Yards project would go forward with or without EB-5 funding. The developer, Forest City Ratner, has signed completion guarantees for the arena and infrastructure. If this finagling--essentially endorsed by the city and state, as well as the borough of Brooklyn-- passes muster, what's to stop any developer from refinancing with immigrant investor capital and claiming job creation based on both the new capital and previously committed capital? |
| 来源: 张哲瑞联合律师事务所 hooyou.com |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
