Chinese netizens did NOT just "started to question" Zhang’s suspected CHARIFY FRAUD after she paid off the remaining 160,000 yuan. From the very beginning, two issues were raised on the Tianya forum: 1. Zhang donated 160,000 yuan less than the 1 MM yuan promised. Note this is the money from her own pocket. 2. No evidence can show that Zhang donated the $1 MM USD earthquake relief fund which she claimed to have raised at the Cannes Film Festival in 2008. This is the money from other donors. Why hasn’t the collected charity fund been contributed to earthquake relief efforts while almost 2 years passed? Where is the money?
In response to Question 1, Zhang Ziyi's manager used "careless management" as the reason (OK, whatever…) and paid off the remaining 160,000 yuan (finally).
Question 2, still a mystery.
The answer to Q2 has many different versions according to what Zhang's manager Ji Lingling told the media: Version 1: the donors never paid as promised. Zhang has been trying hard to collect the money in the past 2 years. Ji said a financial report of Zhang’s charity foundation (established in May 2008) will be disclosed to public within a week (still NOT released as of today); V2. Zhang’s foundation has $500,000 USD which WILL be donated to Care for Children; V3. Zhang’s foundation has $400,000 USD which WILL be donated to CFC; and lately, after the netizens discovered that Zhang’s foundation only has an annual revenue of $45,471 USD in 2008 and the foundation’s charity registration already expired in 2009, Zhang’s manager claimed that: V4. there is only about $50,000 USD in the foundation and the remaining of the committed $400,000 is still to be collected from the donors.
Despite these number and word games, one thing is certain: Zhang has NOT given any of the earthquake relief funds to any charity organization in the past 2 years.
Meanwhile, the netizens discovered through extensive online research that in multiple media video footages in 2008, Zhang personally told the press (IN HER OWN WORDS) that she already raised $1 MM USD from the quake fundraising event at the Cannes Film Festival and she was tracking how the fund was being used for quake relief.
The reasons why the public are questioning Zhang cannot be any more clear: Charity Fraud.
It is not hard to prove her own innocence, but unfortunately after several weeks, Zhang still failed to disclose the financial report of her charity foundation to public.
A clear conscience and an honest answer, is this too much to ask from Ms. Zhang?
回在statefarm mm的楼里不晓得大家看得到不？我google来的一些案例： CA Attorney General Files Phone Fraud Lawsuits May 29, 2009 23:09 PM LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The California attorney general's office has filed eight lawsuits alleging that 12 charities operating in the state squandered millions of dollars of donations intended to help police, firefighters and veterans. One of the accused is California Police Youth Charities, based in Sacramento. Attorney General Jerry Brown alleges the charity, its executive director and its for-profit fundraisers -- National Consultants, Inc. and Public Appeals, Inc. -- falsely promised contributors that 100 percent of donations would go to support the charity's programs to help at-risk youth. In reality, less than 20 percent of the $9 million raised in 2006 and 2007 was spent on charitable programs. The lawsuit also alleges the charity filed false documents with the IRS and the Attorney General's Office. In 2006, the charity reported that it made almost $1 million in grants, when it actually made grants totaling only $110,000. In all, the lawsuits filed Friday in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Mateo counties name 53 individuals accused of deceiving hundreds of thousands of Californians with bogus phone solicitations. Brown said a majority of the money collected paid for aggressive telemarketing, bloated overhead and -- in one case -- a 30-foot sailboat. The suits seek to stop the charities' alleged deceptive practices and require the repayment of money raised under false pretenses. The lawsuits were filed in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission and other states as part of a nationwide charity fraud sweep. p. 1/1
MADIGAN: FRAUDULENT CHARITY ALLEGEDLY COLLECTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION; USED PROCEEDS TO MAKE PURCHASES FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND AT A LIPOSUCTION CLINIC
Chicago – Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced that her office has obtained a preliminary injunction to freeze the assets of an allegedly fraudulent charitable organization and prevent its officers and directors from continuing to allow the organization’s funds to be used for non-charitable purposes and personal use.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Anthony Young has issued preliminary injunctions against the trustees of a now dissolved Chicago-based not-for-profit corporation, Student Leadership Network (SLN). On December 29, 2005, Madigan’s office reached an agreement with defendant trustees Phillip Bleicher, Elizabeth Bruen, and Julie Evans that froze all of SLN’s bank accounts, enjoined them from soliciting on behalf of charity, and prohibited the use of SLN funds to pay their attorneys’ fees. Today, Judge Young entered a similar order against defendant trustees Kimberly Simmons Gray and Barbara Morel as well as a Temporary Restraining Order against defendant trustees Izell Robinson, Aaron Sumrall, and Brandon Bruner.
Madigan filed a lawsuit and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Appointment of a Receiver in Cook County Circuit Court on Wednesday, December 21. The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Solicitation for Charity Act and the Illinois Charitable Trust Act.
Madigan’s lawsuit alleges the defendants, posing as a legitimate youth leadership organization, solicited schools nationwide and collected more than $3 million dollars for goods and services that they never delivered. Schools that paid SLN’s invoices allegedly never received the promised goods and services, including a student advisor kit, leadership magazine, student council charter certificate, membership cards, nomination forms, directories, access to an online magazine, discounts on conferences and unlimited support and assistance.
Instead, Madigan’s lawsuits alleges, the defendants sent fraudulent invoices to the schools and created cloned checks to withdraw additional funds from the schools’ bank accounts. According to Madigan’s complaint, at least two of the trustees withdrew funds from the organization’s bank accounts to pay for international travel to Rio de Janeiro, and purchase items at department stores, boutiques, a liposuction clinic, a movie theater and a custom wig store.
“We allege that SLN engaged in outright fraud in selling educational products that never materialized,” Madigan said. “Money for our schools is scarce. These con artists took limited resources to pay for products that have no business being paid for by schools that think they are buying products that will help children learn.”
According to financial documents filed by SLN with the Office of the Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Division, the allegedly bogus charity had gross public revenue totaling $3,126,075 for fiscal years 2000-2003. SLN was a registered not-for-profit corporation until it was dissolved this past summer.
Madigan’s lawsuit alleges the defendants solicited funds from schools in Illinois and across the nation by sending fraudulent invoices to the schools’ front offices. The invoices allegedly misled schools because they contained language such as “renewal,” “past due,” and “overdue” to create the appearance that the schools had previously established business relationship with the company. In addition, the invoices imitated the language and format of invoices used by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), a legitimate student leadership organization.
To increase their profits, the defendants allegedly forged unauthorized imitations of the checks sent as payments by the schools and then deposited both the original and cloned checks for payment. The cloned checks, which allegedly bore the same check numbers as the original checks, would often be made out for a greater dollar amount than the original check. Schools whose checks were cloned paid twice for goods and services that SLN never intended to provide, Madigan’s lawsuit alleges.
Madigan’s lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the defendants from soliciting on behalf of charity and from further violating Illinois’ consumer protection and charitable trust laws. The lawsuit seeks a civil penalty of $50,000 and additional penalties of $2,000 per violation of the Solicitation Act and $50,000 for each violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act or Charitable Trust Act found to have been committed with the intent to defraud. Finally, Madigan’s lawsuit asks the court to order the defendants to pay restitution to consumers.
Madigan’s office was assisted by investigators from the Chicago Board of Education’s Office of the Inspector General. Bureau Chief Chaka Patterson and Assistant Attorneys General Harpreet Khera, David Cole and Erin Alexander are handling the case for Madigan’s Special Litigation Bureau. -30-
The charitable trust doctrine requires that a gift accepted by a charitable corporation must only be used for the expressly declared charitable purposes of the donee corporation at the time of the acceptance, even if the corporation changes its purpose, transfers those assets or dissolves. Such restriction is imposed notwithstanding the fact that the donor did not expressly place any restrictions on the gift. Accordingly, if a charitable corporation amends its charitable purposes, gifts received pre-amendment may be used only to further the original charitable purposes. Pre-amendment gifts may not be used to further the new charitable purposes if such use is not in furtherance of the original charitable purposes. The charitable trust doctrine may apply not only to gifts received by the charitable corporation but also to revenues generated by the corporation (e.g., earned income). The rationale for this expansive view of the doctrine is that (i) it may be impossible to separate out donations and contributions from other revenues, and (ii) such revenues may have only been derived from the "base capital" created by the donated assets. The expressly declared charitable purposes of a charitable corporation are first evidenced by its articles of incorporation and other formal manifestations of its declared purposes. Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles, 41 Cal.2d 844 (1953). They may also be evidenced by oral and informal declarations of the corporation's charitable purposes. Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, 61 Cal.2d 750 (1964). Moreover, such purposes may be deduced from the corporation's dominant activities and its representations to tax authorities and the public. Queen of Angels Hospital v. Younger, 66 Cal.App.3d. 359 (1977). The exception to the general rule of the charitable trust doctrine applies where the charitable purpose has become illegal, impossible or impracticable. In such case, the cy pres doctrine requires that the gift accepted to further the original charitable purpose be used to further a charitable purpose that is as near as possible to the original charitable purpose. Click here for the Robert A. Katz article "Let Charitable Directors Direct: Why Trust Law Should Not Curb Board Discretion Over a Charitable Corporation's Mission and Unrestricted Assets." 80 Chicago-Kent Law Review (Spring 2005). See pages 701-703 for a description of the charitable trust doctrine.
大事不好!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
i am just back from the business trip, and checked my e-mail. there is a reply from ms hedda moye
she has been totally brain washed by z's team. she wrote to me:
we are now hoping ziyi will be left in peace and that the hate campaign will end.
in addition, she attached an article from xinhua news agency:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/entertainment/2010-02/09/c_13169938.htm
the government official media is backing zhang now , no wonder she will say it is a hate campaign.
any mm in california, pls contact her to clarify the truth.
many thanks.
http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?boardid=358&topicid=701090
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 16:34:34编辑过]
大事不好!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I am just back from the business trip, and checked my e-mail. There is a reply from Ms Hedda Moye
She has been totally brain washed by Z's team. She wrote to me:
We are now hoping Ziyi will be left in peace and that the hate campaign will end.
In addition, she attached an article from Xinhua News Agency:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/entertainment/2010-02/09/c_13169938.htm
The government official media is backing Zhang now , no wonder she will say it is a hate campaign.
Any MM in California, Pls contact her to clarify the truth.
Many thanks.
---------------------------
可恶，ZF这么保脏，就不怕激起民愤吗
---------------------------
可恶，ZF这么保脏，就不怕激起民愤吗
这就是中国的现实。。。
新闻最后一句还不忘胡说八道。。。章子怡就是利用中美之间的信息不对称搞小动作中国人以为美国人多热爱她而美国人因为她被中国人迫害而同情她。。。 国际在为政治庇护铺路？
想不通呀，这么明显的欺诈行为，居然没人能板得倒章？？到底who是她的suger daddy？？？？ 呵呵，ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWSYZ 所有的命根子都在国际手里
如果是这样的话能咋办捏？
如果国际真的把欠款补上的话，是不是就是洗白白了？ 不是欠款补上，是把贪污的吐出来。
不得不佩服国际章，千错万错都是别人的错。我看到最后，变成是网民的错。悲哀！
据说小章这次是准备挺过去的，而且一直坚信自己能挺过去。她一直视自己为职业女性，和赵姨娘之辈不是一个档次的，追求的是文迪姐姐的目标。小章和Vivi应该是过去式了。这些都只是听说的。
不能否定，妓女也算是一种职业
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 17:14:46编辑过]
zzy估计真是要自绝于人民了，彻底地把自己放在对立面，我们不能放弃，这是一场持久战，坚持到底。
zzy估计真是要自绝于人民了，彻底地把自己放在对立面，我们不能放弃，这是一场持久战，坚持到底。
re～～～～坚持到底
zzy估计真是要自绝于人民了，彻底地把自己放在对立面，我们不能放弃，这是一场持久战，坚持到底。
她又不靠人民吃饭.你们再坚持也不能把她怎么样!
她又不靠人民吃饭.你们再坚持也不能把她怎么样!
我们要坚持到她只能在场子里吃饭。
我们要坚持到她只能在场子里吃饭。
只能爬床吃饭吧
作者：apieceofcloud 回复日期：2010-02-11 07:38:01
她又不靠人民吃饭.你们再坚持也不能把她怎么样!
那你就等着看好了。她不靠人民吃饭，她代言的产品总要靠人民吃饭吧。还有他背后的官员要是被揭发了，看看他们的政治生命还有多长远。我觉得与其针对zzy，不如调查背后支持她的人。
隔壁的
ost By：2/10/2010 4:31:00 PM
刚才跟律师通电话了,大概说明了情况. 这个律师说,因为我们不是直接捐款人, 直接起诉有一定困难. 不过我们可以向 office of the attorney general 报案. 这个机构有一个专门监管慈善机构的部门, 保证慈善机构合法运营, 保证捐款合法利用. 而且有内部律师协助调查, 就是说不用我们花钱. 这个律师还很好心的说, 如果我们遇到困难再找他.
步骤
1. 向加州office of the attorney general 报案
表格: http://ag.ca.gov/charities/forms/charitable/ct9.pdf
可以选择匿名投诉
2. 把上诉表格和一切证据邮寄到:
Registry of Charitable Trusts, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 903447, Sacramento, CA 94203-4470.
3. 国内的同学可以传真到
attn: 1300 I STREET, SUITE 125P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-4470
Public:
传真:
ding
作者：apieceofcloud 回复日期：2010-02-11 07:38:01
the latest video! Many thanks to the makers!
这个高楼看了很久，觉得有很多想法，
年轻人的热情，追求理想，希望世界完美，非常可贵，可是经常有人滥用这个，来达到自己的不可搞人的目的。
最可恨的就是这种人。
小章不是完美的，但是我认为她募捐的目的是真的。也许没有在国外募捐的经验，无意出拉差错，之后有没有followup
导致被人抓住小辫子。。
国殇 召集上流社会成功募捐 N多美金欧元人民币 慈善大奖 电视访谈 这么多事都忘了？都出差错了？
据路透社马路消息:芳官的靠山梧桐是鸟王的门人。 这如何去查？
反正从此不再花钱看芳官的电影及抵制芳官代言的东东。
鸟王是谁？
顺便说一句，这版上关于zzy的帖子太多了，能不能请大家不要随便发新帖子啊！
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 12:10:12编辑过]
同意！
不过楼实在太高了 lz能不能做个电梯 把关键内容放上 方便新来的同学查阅。
以下是163新闻报道：
友诟病的戛纳善款，昨日章子怡经纪人纪灵灵表示，春节过后，已经到账的四万五和还未追到的35万美元一定可以到“关爱儿童组织”的账户里。“已联系的两个捐款人都说可把钱打过来。
9号生日CCAV送生日大礼，9日章更新基金。
9日AV追求戛纳捐款下落，隔日J00胸有成竹的说捐款春节就到位。
真不要脸啊
作者：意大利卡队 回复日期：2010-02-11 02:33:08
真不要脸啊
关键是她要给出账本，要不都是扯谎，拿钱堵谁的嘴呢
争取让美国公诉部门发出传单，一下就知道这些善款下落了。章们不提供，算阻碍司法罪。
真的很痛心 也很失望。现在似乎只能依靠海外司法机构的介入才能还大众一个真相，为国殇中失去生命和家人的同胞讨一个说法。
中国人的尊严，都被这个国际丢尽了
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 19:56:54编辑过]
据路透社马路消息:芳官的靠山梧桐是鸟王的门人。 这如何去查？
反正从此不再花钱看芳官的电影及抵制芳官代言的东东。
我早就不看了，还抵制什么呢？本来看盗版更体现抵制，但是我又不想污染自己眼球。。。
我觉得是李月月鸟。
mm厉害！我琢磨半天也没想出来
大事不好!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
i am just back from the business trip, and checked my e-mail. there is a reply from ms hedda moye
she has been totally brain washed by z's team. she wrote to me:
we are now hoping ziyi will be left in peace and that the hate campaign will end.
in addition, she attached an article from xinhua news agency:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/entertainment/2010-02/09/c_13169938.htm
the government official media is backing zhang now , no wonder she will say it is a hate campaign.
any mm in california, pls contact her to clarify the truth.
many thanks.
http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?boardid=358&topicid=701090
“有关部门”都在做什么？真让人失望
有关部门狡猾的很
等网友把罪名落实了，人家抄个现成的
落不实，干脆就忽略
省心省事啊。。。
我觉得是李月月鸟。
BINGO!
西游记告诉我们：凡是有后台的妖怪都被接走了，凡是没后台的都被一棒子打死了
BUT, 这年头，中国男足都能赢韩国了，还有什么做不到的事儿啊！
作者：apieceofcloud 回复日期：2010-02-11 07:38:01
隔壁的
ost By：2/10/2010 4:31:00 PM
刚才跟律师通电话了,大概说明了情况. 这个律师说,因为我们不是直接捐款人, 直接起诉有一定困难. 不过我们可以向 office of the attorney general 报案. 这个机构有一个专门监管慈善机构的部门, 保证慈善机构合法运营, 保证捐款合法利用. 而且有内部律师协助调查, 就是说不用我们花钱. 这个律师还很好心的说, 如果我们遇到困难再找他.
步骤
1. 向加州office of the attorney general 报案
表格: http://ag.ca.gov/charities/forms/charitable/ct9.pdf
可以选择匿名投诉
2. 把上诉表格和一切证据邮寄到:
Registry of Charitable Trusts, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 903447, Sacramento, CA 94203-4470.
3. 国内的同学可以传真到
attn: 1300 I STREET, SUITE 125P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-4470
Public: 001 (916) 445-2021
传真: 001 (916) 444-3651
mark mark
mark!!!! download下来了
ding
为了顶这个，特意去注册了一个TUDOU.
她又不靠人民吃饭.你们再坚持也不能把她怎么样!
哇，你真油菜
没有群众基础，没人看她的电影没人买她代言的东西，她成了代言毒药票房毒药，还不怎么样么？比如雪花与秘扇不就换主了么。
zz斗争，被牺牲的才会被拿出来当靶子，被揭露，胜者/在位者的阴暗面... 恐怕总是秘而不宣吧
mm们辛苦了这么久，我乌鸦一下，觉得最后可能还是不了了之，无疾而终
但公道自在人心， totally sick of her
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 20:19:05编辑过]
说错了，黄圣依还比她强多了
也不是什么好鸟。
赶快去office of the attorney general ，
国际章的床单不是白滚的。
如果现在不能通过法律，
她可以跟其他人说是有人整她。
今天做不到，
以后更不可能了。
她靠什么吃饭我们不管,她有没有饭吃是她的枪们该操心的事.
后来天涯老上不去，结果又在这儿发现了这个帖子。
光是看帖子也太花时间精力了，更别说那些做图做视频的同学了。
希望这事儿别拖过春节，这么耗下去怕是社会影响力会冷却了。
英文一般般的也留言啦。呵呵
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/02/10/unhappy-birthday-cctv-questions-zhang-ziyis-quake-donations/
WXJ这篇文章太阴险了，我也去贴留言了，希望事情没有总结错。大家都去留言吧。
还有环球时报 http://life.globaltimes.cn/entertainment/2010-02/502770.html
Chinese netizens did NOT just "started to question" Zhang’s suspected CHARIFY FRAUD after she paid off the remaining 160,000 yuan. From the very beginning, two issues were raised on the Tianya forum: 1. Zhang donated 160,000 yuan less than the 1 MM yuan promised. Note this is the money from her own pocket. 2. No evidence can show that Zhang donated the $1 MM USD earthquake relief fund which she claimed to have raised at the Cannes Film Festival in 2008. This is the money from other donors. Why hasn’t the collected charity fund been contributed to earthquake relief efforts while almost 2 years passed? Where is the money?
In response to Question 1, Zhang Ziyi's manager used "careless management" as the reason (OK, whatever…) and paid off the remaining 160,000 yuan (finally).
Question 2, still a mystery.
The answer to Q2 has many different versions according to what Zhang's manager Ji Lingling told the media: Version 1: the donors never paid as promised. Zhang has been trying hard to collect the money in the past 2 years. Ji said a financial report of Zhang’s charity foundation (established in May 2008) will be disclosed to public within a week (still NOT released as of today); V2. Zhang’s foundation has $500,000 USD which WILL be donated to Care for Children; V3. Zhang’s foundation has $400,000 USD which WILL be donated to CFC; and lately, after the netizens discovered that Zhang’s foundation only has an annual revenue of $45,471 USD in 2008 and the foundation’s charity registration already expired in 2009, Zhang’s manager claimed that: V4. there is only about $50,000 USD in the foundation and the remaining of the committed $400,000 is still to be collected from the donors.
Despite these number and word games, one thing is certain: Zhang has NOT given any of the earthquake relief funds to any charity organization in the past 2 years.
Meanwhile, the netizens discovered through extensive online research that in multiple media video footages in 2008, Zhang personally told the press (IN HER OWN WORDS) that she already raised $1 MM USD from the quake fundraising event at the Cannes Film Festival and she was tracking how the fund was being used for quake relief.
The reasons why the public are questioning Zhang cannot be any more clear: Charity Fraud.
It is not hard to prove her own innocence, but unfortunately after several weeks, Zhang still failed to disclose the financial report of her charity foundation to public.
A clear conscience and an honest answer, is this too much to ask from Ms. Zhang?
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 21:05:51编辑过]
新说法是：晃姨出面，嫁祸姨娘。
现在看这一圈人都不是善茬，
人人都有一屁股的事情。
确实是。
蟑子蚁居然根据我们找到的破绽开始补漏！
真是高估了这个人形兽的德行，她不配用“人品”这两个字。
她的作品很少，收入跟支付根本就不对等。
如果只是傍富款，做小三，社会恶劣性质起码没有那么广，现在居然把脏手伸到善款上。
如果在有网友质疑，就能大方的公布数据，然后知错能改，把漏洞补齐，那也算得上是知耻而后勇，现在在全国网友的通力合作下，才勉强吐出十六万人民币，还希望以乌贼战术避重就轻，现在居然就在众目睽睽下，开始就着网友们通力合作找出的破绽，开始补漏了。
人形兽居然可以无耻到这种地步。
红基会，你为何失声！
这事红基会最有责任出来給公众一个处理的交代，因为章在视频中清楚地说她是代表红十字会在募捐，而且会将钱交给红十字会。如今铁的事实已证明章在说谎，
红十字会应起诉她，让司法介入调查，而不是坐等广大网民为你们挖掘真相到底。作为一个公民，我对红十字会的表现非常失望，再也不愿给你们捐款
蟑子蚁居然根据我们找到的破绽开始补漏！
真是高估了这个人形兽的德行，她不配用“人品”这两个字。
她的作品很少，收入跟支付根本就不对等。
如果只是傍富款，做小三，社会恶劣性质起码没有那么广，现在居然把脏手伸到善款上。
如果在有网友质疑，就能大方的公布数据，然后知错能改，把漏洞补齐，那也算得上是知耻而后勇，现在在全国网友的通力合作下，才勉强吐出十六万人民币，还希望以乌贼战术避重就轻，现在居然就在众目睽睽下，开始就着网友们通力合作找出的破绽，开始补漏了。
人形兽居然可以无耻到这种地步。
心凉透了，但是不能放弃，我没看到最后结果就还要努力一把。老章想堵住p民的嘴，做梦！
作者：热恤青年 回复日期：2010-02-11 09:43:31
章子怡也不是等闲的人，她自己主动联系了蔡明亮愿意出演蔡明亮的新片，蔡明亮虽然五六月份会有新电影要拍摄，但是用不用章子怡还没有定论，一切都还是未知，但是章子怡肯定会出演一些文艺影片来巩固自己的地位，她更巩俐，相比差的就是一个国际的奖
中国红十字会！！！！红会！！！！你太让你的人民失望，失望啊，真的以后捐钱，直接把钱交到需要的人手里，而不是什么基金会，什么红十字会，泱泱大国的红十字会，居然一直沉默，我都替你害羞！！！纪检部门阿，我无语了！！
大家现在应该把矛头对准红十字！迫使他们出来说清楚！
此事情不弄个清清楚楚明明白白，简直就是颠覆了中国人的道德观！以后她代言的任何东西都抵制！
此事不清，中国慈善事业还有未来吗？
我们不要寄希望于有关部门了，现在虽然局势艰难，但还没有明朗，也就还很有希望，如果哪天关于章的洗白的报道全线开花，那个时候我们才真的是希望渺茫
了，很多主流媒体都没有动静这就说明了这个事情的结局还指不定会是怎样的呢，就算是有个别媒体在洗白也很正常，任何人犯了罪在就法之前肯定会动用所有力量
试图逃脱，但是纵观古今中外，那些最大恶极的事情，只要被揭发出来的话，有谁又逃得过法律的制裁了？就像某个筒子说的，有时候正义会迟到，但迟早会到！
作者：每天看了就气愤 回复日期：2010-02-11 10:05:27
这个是假的。
我看到的是完全为国际说好话的。
是说这个新闻报道是假的，不存在的吗？
这是怎么回事？？
tianya有个开始八我感兴趣的钻戒了，提出了一个新的疑问，国际的钻戒托竟然是平底的，懂钻戒的看看
这是怎么回事？？
先找捐款的证据吧。
zzy的钻戒真难看，而且没光泽，不如带个玛瑙什么的
热。看着很像假的。
作者：请爱护马甲谢谢 回复日期：2010-02-11 12:19:06
隔壁的
ost By：2/10/2010 4:31:00 PM
刚才跟律师通电话了,大概说明了情况. 这个律师说,因为我们不是直接捐款人, 直接起诉有一定困难. 不过我们可以向 office of the attorney general 报案. 这个机构有一个专门监管慈善机构的部门, 保证慈善机构合法运营, 保证捐款合法利用. 而且有内部律师协助调查, 就是说不用我们花钱. 这个律师还很好心的说, 如果我们遇到困难再找他.
步骤
1. 向加州office of the attorney general 报案
表格: http://ag.ca.gov/charities/forms/charitable/ct9.pdf
可以选择匿名投诉
2. 把上诉表格和一切证据邮寄到:
Registry of Charitable Trusts, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 903447, Sacramento, CA 94203-4470.
3. 国内的同学可以传真到
attn: 1300 I STREET, SUITE 125P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO, CA 94203-4470
Public: 001 (916) 445-2021
传真: 001 (916) 444-3651
真好
辛苦了
美宝莲否认换代言人
有传闻指正在与章子怡合作的大品牌包括奔驰、美宝莲等已在考虑终止与章子怡的合作。不过，美宝莲公关部负责人昨日接受本报记者采访时否认了这一传闻。
她说：“我们跟章子怡合作已有近10年，她非常专业和敬业。我们还在合同期内，我们没有看到有什么让我们终止与她合作的理由。而且我也关注过其他的品牌，好像其他正在跟章子怡合作的各大品牌也没有宣布要跟章子怡终止合作。”
我感觉美宝莲在此时并非真的力挺章，看她的意思，其他各个章代言的品牌还没有换的意思，它也不好马上更换。要是这件事就这么过去了，那它就当什么都没发生过一样，继续和章mm合作。但只要大家继续努力地清查此事，并不断向其代言的品牌表示不满，施加压力，相信他们还不会傻到为了挺章和消费者过不去的。虽然代言合同不好马上中止，为了面子，它也只好说些敷衍的话，但我觉得合同到期之后，章想继续续约基本不可能了，只要大家继续坚持。
我觉得在中国大陆，我们p民抵制奔驰也许有点困难，但是美宝莲实在不是问题吧。
热。看着很像假的。
re
一点不精致
像暴发户
不管怎样，irs, fbi,加州attorney general那能complain就complain. 就算法律管不了它，起码各大公司，捐款人那里要能捅则捅，让那些欧美名流都知道捐给了什么样的骗子。起码他在上流社会只能做许纯美
re
尽心尽力宣传ziyi的事迹，并且抵制她还有sohu的一切活动
我觉得在中国大陆，我们p民抵制奔驰也许有点困难，但是美宝莲实在不是问题吧。
国际的团队现在转攻外媒为她洗白了？数十万百姓的呐喊和声讨 真的敌不过她滚床单和金钱的效果么？
http://www1.hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/art_main.php?iss_id=20100211&sec_id=7018882&art_id=13720863
yi？
苹果日报也出来了？
yi？
苹果日报也出来了？
对啊，苹果日报，报得还相当详细呢
对啊，苹果日报，报得还相当详细呢
yiyi？我咋看不到内容，就看到个大标题。。。
播三節目尋善款下落
央視追殺章子怡
2010年02月11日 (07:59 am)
瀏覽人次：840
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/10 23:57:42编辑过]
yiyi？我咋看不到内容，就看到个大标题。。。
我是在天涯上看的内容，想转过来，可是现在天涯打不开了。。。
对啊，苹果日报，报得还相当详细呢
为毛我啥也看不见啊，好像说是要月费订户才能看啊
我是在天涯上看的内容，想转过来，可是现在天涯打不开了。。。
原来是 “只供月费用户浏览”。。。。。
央視追殺章子怡
2010年02月11日 (07:59 am)
(未有評分)瀏覽人次：740 回應：0 轉寄朋友 文章回應
內地話題女星章子怡踏入 2010年後是非未停過，「潑墨門」黑手未明， 08年四川賑災善款又數目不清，事件越鬧越大，甚至引起國家關注。前晚央視新聞頻道分別在三個節目中連環追殺章子怡善款失蹤事件，當中包括半小時的專題報道，又提出希望她能盡快給觀眾一個交代。輿論逼埋身，想必令前日剛滿 31歲的章子怡加倍難忘。
兩年前四川地震，當時身在康城出席影展的章子怡發起賑災籌款，熱淚盈眶地捧着捐款箱向嘉賓募捐，結果報稱籌得逾百萬美元，章子怡個人也捐出 100萬人民幣，其出錢又出力的熱血表現感動全國。未料兩年後事件逆轉，上月有內地網民翻舊賬，發現章子怡的善款至今去向不明，她本人又沒有親自交代，網民反應日趨激烈，就連中央電視台前日也要插手，在一日之內於三個新聞節目中報道相關事件。
連日來章子怡被揭僅於前年以個人名義，向紅十字基金會捐出兩筆合共 84萬人民幣的善款，而非聲稱的 100萬人民幣；至於她在康城籌得的善款，則有報道指章子怡男友 ViVi的好友踢爆達逾 200萬美元，但都存進了她的私人戶口。之後越傳越亂，章子怡經理人紀靈靈天天擋駕，其最新說法是指章子怡沒有私吞 200萬美元，當日她在康城只籌約 40萬美元。至於章子怡個人未捐的 16萬人民幣，紀靈靈則揚言是自己疏忽引起，章子怡已馬上填款。
今次若非被網民質疑章子怡的康城善款去向，外界一直不知善款大縮水，毋怪乎此事引來國家關注。前日，即章子怡的 31歲生日，央視罕見地就章子怡善款失蹤事件，分別於晚上的三個新聞節目《東方時空》、《新聞 1+1》及《 24小時》中作出報道，《東方時空》更以 3分鐘回顧事件始末，稱章子怡補交 16萬人民幣的行為是避重就輕、棄卒保車，並提出希望她盡快給觀眾一個交代。
至於另一新聞節目《新聞 1+1》更製作了半小時的專題，這是中央級媒體首次以專題節目形式關注章子怡的「捐款門」事件。節目中請來評論員王錫鋅教授與主持探討真相，節目提及當年章子怡在康城籌款，先後傳出的數目有 500萬美金、 200萬美金及 100萬美金，但後來不了了之。王教授指章子怡身為公眾人物，她為四川災民籌款的行為令人感動和佩服，並因此在 08年被網友選為中國十大慈善明星，又獲得 08年年度慈善貢獻獎，說明她已從中獲益，所以大眾確可對她進行監督。
章子怡的「捐款門」事件在內地迴響極大，沒想到海外的 CNN新聞也作相關報道。日前 CNN網上版以題為「中國女演員涉嫌侵吞地震善款」報道章子怡被公眾質疑善款去向，公眾感覺被欺騙了，章子怡目前處於嚴重信任危機中，不過該段新聞稍後已遭刪除，但仍可透過網頁搜尋引擎找到新聞標題。
为毛我啥也看不见啊，好像说是要月费订户才能看啊
re
不过看标题比较放心，不像是给国际洗白白的
对啊，苹果日报，报得还相当详细呢
这次特别晚。不像它一贯的风格。
这次特别晚。不像它一贯的风格。
我也觉得奇怪，不过港媒对不是他们自己爆出来的新闻好像没那么追
播三節目尋善款下落
央視追殺章子怡
2010年02月11日 (07:59 am)
(未有評分)瀏覽人次：740 回應：0 轉寄朋友 文章回應
內地話題女星章子怡踏入 2010年後是非未停過，「潑墨門」黑手未明， 08年四川賑災善款又數目不清，事件越鬧越大，甚至引起國家關注。前晚央視新聞頻道分別在三個節目中連環追殺章子怡善款失蹤事件，當中包括半小時的專題報道，又提出希望她能盡快給觀眾一個交代。輿論逼埋身，想必令前日剛滿 31歲的章子怡加倍難忘。
兩年前四川地震，當時身在康城出席影展的章子怡發起賑災籌款，熱淚盈眶地捧着捐款箱向嘉賓募捐，結果報稱籌得逾百萬美元，章子怡個人也捐出 100萬人民幣，其出錢又出力的熱血表現感動全國。未料兩年後事件逆轉，上月有內地網民翻舊賬，發現章子怡的善款至今去向不明，她本人又沒有親自交代，網民反應日趨激烈，就連中央電視台前日也要插手，在一日之內於三個新聞節目中報道相關事件。
連日來章子怡被揭僅於前年以個人名義，向紅十字基金會捐出兩筆合共 84萬人民幣的善款，而非聲稱的 100萬人民幣；至於她在康城籌得的善款，則有報道指章子怡男友 ViVi的好友踢爆達逾 200萬美元，但都存進了她的私人戶口。之後越傳越亂，章子怡經理人紀靈靈天天擋駕，其最新說法是指章子怡沒有私吞 200萬美元，當日她在康城只籌約 40萬美元。至於章子怡個人未捐的 16萬人民幣，紀靈靈則揚言是自己疏忽引起，章子怡已馬上填款。
今次若非被網民質疑章子怡的康城善款去向，外界一直不知善款大縮水，毋怪乎此事引來國家關注。前日，即章子怡的 31歲生日，央視罕見地就章子怡善款失蹤事件，分別於晚上的三個新聞節目《東方時空》、《新聞 1+1》及《 24小時》中作出報道，《東方時空》更以 3分鐘回顧事件始末，稱章子怡補交 16萬人民幣的行為是避重就輕、棄卒保車，並提出希望她盡快給觀眾一個交代。
至於另一新聞節目《新聞 1+1》更製作了半小時的專題，這是中央級媒體首次以專題節目形式關注章子怡的「捐款門」事件。節目中請來評論員王錫鋅教授與主持探討真相，節目提及當年章子怡在康城籌款，先後傳出的數目有 500萬美金、 200萬美金及 100萬美金，但後來不了了之。王教授指章子怡身為公眾人物，她為四川災民籌款的行為令人感動和佩服，並因此在 08年被網友選為中國十大慈善明星，又獲得 08年年度慈善貢獻獎，說明她已從中獲益，所以大眾確可對她進行監督。
章子怡的「捐款門」事件在內地迴響極大，沒想到海外的 CNN新聞也作相關報道。日前 CNN網上版以題為「中國女演員涉嫌侵吞地震善款」報道章子怡被公眾質疑善款去向，公眾感覺被欺騙了，章子怡目前處於嚴重信任危機中，不過該段新聞稍後已遭刪除，但仍可透過網頁搜尋引擎找到新聞標題。
赞mm
报道看上去还比较客观
作者：肾结石宝宝 回复日期：2010-02-11 13:05:00
怎么是央视追杀？
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 0:05:11编辑过]
可能是国际生日那天央视轮番报导此事，在他们看来就像追杀吧。。嘿嘿
多希望是封杀
转载：
国际有个蛋的后台啊。
所谓的后台，不过是章团队放出来吓唬人的消息，或者说，章及其一众确实因无知而显得幼齿了。如果赵二姨出示的那个章哥的短信是真，那国际还是真的，无知了。
口十家再偏安，其根基之深广，远非一般台上之人能及，各何况那些跑腿和幕僚，才蹦达了几天，赵二姨入得厅堂的时候，那些人可能还在北京的四九城骑着自行车代步呢。所以，这家人的眼臭Ｐ也不是常人能想得到的，如果私下里和国际结了梁子，有的是办法解决。
国际错就错在真把自己当棵葱了，别说她一个伶人，就算是一个良人，公开跟一老外进进出出的，在中国这样一个男权又具有愤青爱国精神的神奇地界，去问问，有几个大老爷们那么不开眼，非得小虾米游西湖自取其辱。
所以最早那２个亿传出来的时候，哥就当是一乐，这是哪个ＳＢ那么不开眼啊？哄抬物价不是？
现在８着８着真相快出来了吧，还ＮＭＢ两个亿，连那鸽子蛋都有可能是自己买给自己解宽心的，用的还是善款。
按理说哥一大老爷们不应该这么口上无德，但是这种出硬伤的事，放哪个知道深浅的要脸的姑娘身上，早就应该正正式式出来交待清楚了。由此，哥觉得这些话，也伤不着她，防弹型。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 0:10:48编辑过]
司法解决吧。感觉这个章真是挺过的。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
还是有点难度的，以哥的浅薄，现在难点有两个，一个是司法管辖权，一个是谁来主诉。
实际上诉章现在不如诉红十字，至少有不作为和监管不利的嫌疑。如果红十字为了洗清自己，拿出无入帐的证据，那章的诈捐就成立了。
转载：
国际有个蛋的后台啊。
所谓的后台，不过是章团队放出来吓唬人的消息，或者说，章及其一众确实因无知而显得幼齿了。如果赵二姨出示的那个章哥的短信是真，那国际还是真的，无知了。
口十家再偏安，其根基之深广，远非一般台上之人能及，各何况那些跑腿和幕僚，才蹦达了几天，赵二姨入得厅堂的时候，那些人可能还在北京的四九城骑着自行车代步呢。所以，这家人的眼臭Ｐ也不是常人能想得到的，如果私下里和国际结了梁子，有的是办法解决。
国际错就错在真把自己当棵葱了，别说她一个伶人，就算是一个良人，公开跟一老外进进出出的，在中国这样一个男权又具有愤青爱国精神的神奇地界，去问问，有几个大老爷们那么不开眼，非得小虾米游西湖自取其辱。
所以最早那２个亿传出来的时候，哥就当是一乐，这是哪个ＳＢ那么不开眼啊？哄抬物价不是？
现在８着８着真相快出来了吧，还ＮＭＢ两个亿，连那鸽子蛋都有可能是自己买给自己解宽心的，用的还是善款。
按理说哥一大老爷们不应该这么口上无德，但是这种出硬伤的事，放哪个知道深浅的要脸的姑娘身上，早就应该正正式式出来交待清楚了。由此，哥觉得这些话，也伤不着她，防弹型。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/2/11 0:10:48编辑过]
这个好笑。。。
作者：苹果马甲1 回复日期：2010-02-11 14:03:32
以下贴一篇著名的网论评论员鲁国平的文章：
http://huaren.us/s/blog_441b6f800100h4k7.html
章子怡诈捐门至今为何司法不介入？(2010-02-11 13:05:55)
标签：法律 司法 善款 一只眼 章子怡 娱乐
作者鲁国平
新年伊始，一场由泼墨门引起的章子怡争议出人意料地不断升级，不久前到了诈捐门，诱惑门，如今又到了“封汤门”：导演陆川微博发文引网友热议，章子怡被指疑似封杀汤唯幕后黑手。
笔者作为一位外人虽然不知道这一系列事件背后是否有别有用心的阴谋诡计在导演，但事情闹得这么大，为何关于章子怡的涉嫌违法犯罪的诈捐门却一直没有国家有关司法机构介入？着实不可思议！
近年来，明星慈善是一个热门话题，特别是在汶川大地震期间娱乐明星们这方面比较活跃，不过不可否认也是国家相关政策法规以及监管制度不太到位的所在，漏洞难免，尤其是明星们打着爱国旗号搞诈捐的行为必然存在，毕竟娱乐明星就是善于演戏的主儿，完全放任自流势必要出大问题的。
果不其然，不久前有报道指出，除了章子怡国内一笔名义上百万捐款少了16万人民币，更多网友发现，章子怡的地震善款不止一笔不清，其在戛纳募捐的善款金额从500万美金、200万美金到100万美金不等，并称章子怡的“正式账目仍没有公布”。而最近央视一期《新闻一加一》主持人董倩更是特别指出，在这个捐款行为背后，章子怡和红基会双方是最知情的人，但最早发现问题的却是网友。
于是面对如此匪夷所思的声势浩大的网络舆论公审以及网民的“越位”现象，难道我们的司法部门真的就一无所知？恐怕未必！
实际上，去年以来就有一些官方声音指责说网络舆论已经严重妨碍了法院审判的公正，可我等大多数人看到的情况却是由于首先有司法的缺位或者不作为才导致了网民不得不挺身而出，做起来司法部门干的调查取证等份外事情，试问，这些年来随着网络舆论以及网民政治参与性加大，有多少大案要案都是网民们据理力争的功劳，诸如此类，山西黑煤窑事件，周久耕九五至尊香烟案，洗脚女邓玉娇刺官案等等。
无疑要是没有网络又会怎么样？真的不敢想象，为此凡是有点良心的人都会把这些功劳记在那些不辞劳苦、极力伸张社会正义的网友们身上。--现在有关部门怎么就像猪八戒一样倒打一耙！不仅不感谢网民们为自己部门干的额外劳动，反而责怪他们多管闲事？难道他们真的要为自己的继续失职和缺位而寻找逃避社会责任以及指责的借口？我想，不至于吧？但此举确实值得费解！
比如当下章子怡诈捐门至今闹得沸反盈天，甚至其熊熊大火已经烧及其他不少大牌明星大腕，整体娱乐圈艺人的慈善诚信受到进一步重创，此外，也惊动了国际媒体，包括日本、美国、法国等国家的媒体都对这一事件进行了关注，然而我们不愿意看到的却是涉嫌诈骗罪的当事人章子怡等艺人还是没有得到司法部门的介入、调查。
当然到目前为止，章子怡的诈捐还处于质疑阶段，但法律面前人人平等，当一件公共人物涉嫌违法犯罪的公共事件经久不息地依然被人们和媒体当着一件娱乐新闻津津乐道，吵吵闹闹，无休无止时，这个社会公道正义何在？人们对社会公平的起码信心又何存？这些就不是一句“费解”就可以马马虎虎解释得了的！
对此，正睡大觉或睁一只眼闭一只眼的司法部门该醒醒或过问“窗外”的章子怡诈捐门了,否则就不要再怪网民们打扰了你们的好梦或工作了！
新闻链接：http://ent.sina.com.cn/s/m/2010-02-11/08062874275.shtml
作者：苹果马甲1 回复日期：2010-02-11 14:03:32
有这个社会舆论很重要啊，大家要坚持，事情闹得越大，司法机关越有可能介入。比较可悲，不过这就是现实啊。
有关部门就是只又老又懒的狐狸
拖着不走，打着倒退，心里还打着小算盘
你说他可恶，可还得指着他办事。。。。。
我们这么纠结，
不就是希望有个正确的社会舆论导向么。
是啊，所以才对扰乱视听的nc章枪们疾恶如仇。。。唉，p民容易么。。。
大家先别紧张，
如果章子怡真的说过政 迫害之类的话，就事论事的说不是坏事！
甚至我们还要代她广泛“宣传”。（宣传时要强调据“章子怡说。。。”。注意：并不是真有谁对她进行迫害了）
试问，哪个恩客还敢和遭受政 迫害，向国外政府寻求政 避难的人**
给红十字写信，问问是不是以后也可以像老章一样，打着红十字的旗号募捐，然后把钱用在别的地方。如果可以，我马上出去给海地募捐去~~~
之前不是有童鞋声明，要给海地捐1000亿，不过要等到100年后找到合适的项目再考虑把钱吐出来。。。。
是啊，所以才对扰乱视听的nc章枪们疾恶如仇。。。唉，p民容易么。。。
我最不理解的就是，好像真有人到现在还相信章子怡，这么多事实就摆在眼前啊。。。
之前不是有童鞋声明，要给海地捐1000亿，不过要等到100年后找到合适的项目再考虑把钱吐出来。。。。
照yali的逻辑，你也筹不到那么多啊。。。
照yali的逻辑，你也筹不到那么多啊。。。
反正我就不公布账本p民也没法查我，我想说多少说多少，想贪多少贪多少。。嘿嘿
我最不理解的就是，好像真有人到现在还相信章子怡，这么多事实就摆在眼前啊。。。
别说是现在，估计就是章子怡真的蹲了大狱，也得有不少nc的给她申冤探监的呢
nc么，不需要事实啊。。。。
我最不理解的就是，好像真有人到现在还相信章子怡，这么多事实就摆在眼前啊。。。
那要是去过百度就知道了，
我因为说过国际章，
第二次再去就被block了。
至於另一新聞節目《新聞 1+1》更製作了半小時的專題，這是中央級媒體首次以專題節目形式關注章子怡的「捐款門」事件。節目中請來評論員王錫鋅教授與主持探討真相，節目提及當年章子怡在康城籌款，先後傳出的數目有 500萬美金、 200萬美金及 100萬美金，但後來不了了之。王教授指章子怡身為公眾人物，她為四川災民籌款的行為令人感動和佩服，並因此在 08年被網友選為中國十大慈善明星，又獲得 08年年度慈善貢獻獎，說明她已從中獲益，所以大眾確可對她進行監督。
章子怡的「捐款門」事件在內地迴響極大，沒想到海外的 CNN新聞也作相關報道。日前 CNN網上版以題為「中國女演員涉嫌侵吞地震善款」報道章子怡被公眾質疑善款去向，公眾感覺被欺騙了，章子怡目前處於嚴重信任危機中，不過該段新聞稍後已遭刪除，但仍可透過網頁搜尋引擎找到新聞標題。
風波未了落寞慶生
賑災善款糊裏糊塗，章子怡是非一筆未清一筆又起。昨又有報道指有網友聲稱，兩年前章子怡於某慈善晚宴上拍賣自己的手錶，所得的 32萬人民幣至今仍未過賬到上海慈善基金會。不過上海市慈善基金會發言人回應傳媒查詢時表示，至今尚未發現「諾而不捐」或「諾而少捐」的情況。前日在片場拍戲的章子怡被指落寞慶生，看來其風波未了，相信在虎年還要繼續愁。
撰文：丁寧
四川善款失蹤事件簿
08年 5月 15日
章子怡在康城影展募款，報道指為四川地震災民籌得百多萬美元，章又謂個人會捐出 100萬人民幣賑災。
2010年 1月 22日
有網民質疑章子怡救災金額有出入，並發現章只於 08年 5月 15日分別向紅十字基金會滙入共 84萬，而非其宣稱 100萬；至於籌得的 100萬美元也無迹可尋。
1月 28日
章指當年因情況緊急，故在美國臨時設立個人基金處理善款，但不少善款均屬口頭承諾，追款困難。又謂與慈善團體「關愛兒童組織」合作在四川建資源中心，並發聲明承諾公開賬目。
2月 3日
章的經理人承諾日內公開賬目，同時有指章子怡男友 ViVi的一位好友在康城籌得逾 200萬美元都滙到了章子怡的私人戶口內。
2月 4日
章仍未公開基金會賬目，不過卻被揭發基金戶口現存只有約 4萬美元，餘款不知所終；亦有人發現章的基金戶口登記已於去年 5月 15日到期。
2月 6日
章子怡透過經理人否認私吞傳聞中 200萬美元，又謂 08年在康城只籌得約 40萬美元，當中約 35萬只屬口頭捐助，從未滙到基金內。同日「關愛兒童組織」發聲明表示章承諾於資源中心動工日三周內滙入基金中所有的資金、即約 40萬美元。
2月 7日
章的經理人重申基金仍運作正常。
2月 8日
章的經理人發致歉聲明，將所有問題攬上身，解釋章子怡承諾捐款 100萬給紅十字會、結果只捐了 84萬是因她疏忽所致，又表示章已立即補給餘款，但仍拒公開基金賬目。
2月 9日
有網民質疑章子怡 08年在上海一慈善活動上、拍賣個人名錶籌得的 32萬人民幣，未有轉到上海市慈善基金會，而是轉到其個人基金。
資料來源：《蘋果》資料室
CA Attorney General Files Phone Fraud Lawsuits May 29, 2009 23:09 PM LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The California attorney general's office has filed eight lawsuits alleging that 12 charities operating in the state squandered millions of dollars of donations intended to help police, firefighters and veterans. One of the accused is California Police Youth Charities, based in Sacramento. Attorney General Jerry Brown alleges the charity, its executive director and its for-profit fundraisers -- National Consultants, Inc. and Public Appeals, Inc. -- falsely promised contributors that 100 percent of donations would go to support the charity's programs to help at-risk youth. In reality, less than 20 percent of the $9 million raised in 2006 and 2007 was spent on charitable programs. The lawsuit also alleges the charity filed false documents with the IRS and the Attorney General's Office. In 2006, the charity reported that it made almost $1 million in grants, when it actually made grants totaling only $110,000. In all, the lawsuits filed Friday in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Mateo counties name 53 individuals accused of deceiving hundreds of thousands of Californians with bogus phone solicitations. Brown said a majority of the money collected paid for aggressive telemarketing, bloated overhead and -- in one case -- a 30-foot sailboat. The suits seek to stop the charities' alleged deceptive practices and require the repayment of money raised under false pretenses. The lawsuits were filed in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission and other states as part of a nationwide charity fraud sweep. p. 1/1
Chicago – Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced that her office has obtained a preliminary injunction to freeze the assets of an allegedly fraudulent charitable organization and prevent its officers and directors from continuing to allow the organization’s funds to be used for non-charitable purposes and personal use.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Anthony Young has issued preliminary injunctions against the trustees of a now dissolved Chicago-based not-for-profit corporation, Student Leadership Network (SLN). On December 29, 2005, Madigan’s office reached an agreement with defendant trustees Phillip Bleicher, Elizabeth Bruen, and Julie Evans that froze all of SLN’s bank accounts, enjoined them from soliciting on behalf of charity, and prohibited the use of SLN funds to pay their attorneys’ fees. Today, Judge Young entered a similar order against defendant trustees Kimberly Simmons Gray and Barbara Morel as well as a Temporary Restraining Order against defendant trustees Izell Robinson, Aaron Sumrall, and Brandon Bruner.
Madigan filed a lawsuit and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Appointment of a Receiver in Cook County Circuit Court on Wednesday, December 21. The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Solicitation for Charity Act and the Illinois Charitable Trust Act.
Madigan’s lawsuit alleges the defendants, posing as a legitimate youth leadership organization, solicited schools nationwide and collected more than $3 million dollars for goods and services that they never delivered. Schools that paid SLN’s invoices allegedly never received the promised goods and services, including a student advisor kit, leadership magazine, student council charter certificate, membership cards, nomination forms, directories, access to an online magazine, discounts on conferences and unlimited support and assistance.
Instead, Madigan’s lawsuits alleges, the defendants sent fraudulent invoices to the schools and created cloned checks to withdraw additional funds from the schools’ bank accounts. According to Madigan’s complaint, at least two of the trustees withdrew funds from the organization’s bank accounts to pay for international travel to Rio de Janeiro, and purchase items at department stores, boutiques, a liposuction clinic, a movie theater and a custom wig store.
“We allege that SLN engaged in outright fraud in selling educational products that never materialized,” Madigan said. “Money for our schools is scarce. These con artists took limited resources to pay for products that have no business being paid for by schools that think they are buying products that will help children learn.”
According to financial documents filed by SLN with the Office of the Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Division, the allegedly bogus charity had gross public revenue totaling $3,126,075 for fiscal years 2000-2003. SLN was a registered not-for-profit corporation until it was dissolved this past summer.
Madigan’s lawsuit alleges the defendants solicited funds from schools in Illinois and across the nation by sending fraudulent invoices to the schools’ front offices. The invoices allegedly misled schools because they contained language such as “renewal,” “past due,” and “overdue” to create the appearance that the schools had previously established business relationship with the company. In addition, the invoices imitated the language and format of invoices used by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), a legitimate student leadership organization.
To increase their profits, the defendants allegedly forged unauthorized imitations of the checks sent as payments by the schools and then deposited both the original and cloned checks for payment. The cloned checks, which allegedly bore the same check numbers as the original checks, would often be made out for a greater dollar amount than the original check. Schools whose checks were cloned paid twice for goods and services that SLN never intended to provide, Madigan’s lawsuit alleges.
Madigan’s lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the defendants from soliciting on behalf of charity and from further violating Illinois’ consumer protection and charitable trust laws. The lawsuit seeks a civil penalty of $50,000 and additional penalties of $2,000 per violation of the Solicitation Act and $50,000 for each violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act or Charitable Trust Act found to have been committed with the intent to defraud. Finally, Madigan’s lawsuit asks the court to order the defendants to pay restitution to consumers.
Madigan’s office was assisted by investigators from the Chicago Board of Education’s Office of the Inspector General. Bureau Chief Chaka Patterson and Assistant Attorneys General Harpreet Khera, David Cole and Erin Alexander are handling the case for Madigan’s Special Litigation Bureau.
-30-
Charitable Trust Doctrine
The charitable trust doctrine requires that a gift accepted by a charitable corporation must only be used for the expressly declared charitable purposes of the donee corporation at the time of the acceptance, even if the corporation changes its purpose, transfers those assets or dissolves. Such restriction is imposed notwithstanding the fact that the donor did not expressly place any restrictions on the gift. Accordingly, if a charitable corporation amends its charitable purposes, gifts received pre-amendment may be used only to further the original charitable purposes. Pre-amendment gifts may not be used to further the new charitable purposes if such use is not in furtherance of the original charitable purposes.
The charitable trust doctrine may apply not only to gifts received by the charitable corporation but also to revenues generated by the corporation (e.g., earned income). The rationale for this expansive view of the doctrine is that (i) it may be impossible to separate out donations and contributions from other revenues, and (ii) such revenues may have only been derived from the "base capital" created by the donated assets.
The expressly declared charitable purposes of a charitable corporation are first evidenced by its articles of incorporation and other formal manifestations of its declared purposes. Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles, 41 Cal.2d 844 (1953). They may also be evidenced by oral and informal declarations of the corporation's charitable purposes. Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, 61 Cal.2d 750 (1964). Moreover, such purposes may be deduced from the corporation's dominant activities and its representations to tax authorities and the public. Queen of Angels Hospital v. Younger, 66 Cal.App.3d. 359 (1977).
The exception to the general rule of the charitable trust doctrine applies where the charitable purpose has become illegal, impossible or impracticable. In such case, the cy pres doctrine requires that the gift accepted to further the original charitable purpose be used to further a charitable purpose that is as near as possible to the original charitable purpose.
Click here for the Robert A. Katz article "Let Charitable Directors Direct: Why Trust Law Should Not Curb Board Discretion Over a Charitable Corporation's Mission and Unrestricted Assets." 80 Chicago-Kent Law Review (Spring 2005). See pages 701-703 for a description of the charitable trust doctrine.
作者：也来凑个热闹吧 回复日期：2010-02-11 14:49:36
看的有点悲观，zzy现在躲起来了，什么都不说，过段时间就没人管了。
最好的办法，就是把zxy, 高端老婆，wendyjj,她的vivi惹生气，但是估计可能很小，现在这个时候都怕更多的事情被抖出来，huanghuang也是要赶快帮忙，zzy看来把很多人的把柄拿住了。。。
骗了一笔钱，糊涂账，反正也没人去点，还赢了一堆好名声，错误百出，谎都不肯认真做了功课去园。连基金会这个羊头都不肯renew,直到大家查到了才去办，背后一堆她睡过的男人来保她，估计背后的人牵连的不比远华案的少。。。
最后就是不了了之。。
re
对国内很失望，非常失望，我原来是坚定的要回国去的，天天和我lg argue就是要回到中国去，现在偶不想回去了，太失望了，依然爱我在中国的家人朋友，一草一木，美丽的山河，自豪于中国的文化，但我对那个体制和gcd的机构太失望了。