關於孚中、揚子公司套匯數目的爭論及其真相

1947年7月29日，南京國民黨機關報《中央日報》突然在第4版刊登了一條披露孔、宋家族企業揚子、孚中等公司利用權勢套購巨額外匯的新聞，頓時在國內外引起強烈的反響。然而兩天之後，這家報紙又在同一版面刊登了一則啟事，說明前日的報導漏列了小數點，如此便將幾家公司套匯的數額縮小了一百倍，避免了一場政治風暴的爆發。四十多年後，親身經歷此事的兩位記者分別撰寫回憶錄，又將此案再次曝光，從而引起學界的廣泛注意，並將此事視為孔、宋家族貪腐的重要證據。本文首先回顧戰後初期的財政政策，認真分析當時進口貿易的規模和種類，再對比當事人的有關回憶，通過選輯常理分析，並根據大量原始檔案的真實紀錄，最終得出幾點結論：一、《中央日報》發表的有關報導確實抄自財政、經濟二部的「會呈」，並非虛構或杜撰；二、《中央日報》公布這一文件時，內容有所刪改；三、原件確實存在小數點，並非事後補救。最後，筆者對此案究竟是「無意之失」還是「有意為之」，提出了自己的看法。

關鍵字

中央日報；孚中實業公司；揚子建業公司；套購外匯；陸鏗

並列摘要

On July 29, 1947, The Central Daily News, an official organ of the Kuomintang, suddenly published an article on page 4 about the H. H. Kung and T. V. Soong families' exploitation of their control of the Fu Chung and Yang Tze Development Corporations to acquire a large amount of foreign currency. Immediately, the news stirred up a huge debate and reaction both inside and outside the country. However, two days later. The Central Daily News published a small announcement on the same page. saying that the previous article had misplaced a digit, thus decreasing the amount of foreign currency in question by a factor of 100, and preventing the outbreak of a potential political crisis. Forty years later, the two reporters who witnessed the event both wrote their memoirs, thus reintroducing this affair back into the limelight and attracting attention from academia interested in evidence on corruption on the part of the Kung and Soong families. This article, conducting a logical analysis based on a large amount of original documents referring to the financial policies and actual trades at that time, as well as examining relevant memoirs, comes to the following conclusions. First, The Central Daily News did accurately copy the Financial and Economic Departments' documents, and the original story was not fabricated. Second, The Central Daily News changed the context of the news when it was first published. But third, the original document contained the digit decimal as reported in the article, and it was not corrected afterwards. Finally, the author concludes with his views as to whether this event was a planned action or a mere accident.