渥太华华人刘越募捐发生逆转--组委会退捐渠道

verdun

渥太华华人刘越募捐发生逆转--组委会退捐渠道


1. 我来说说事情原委吧。这本来是一件悲剧，每个人一开始听到这个消息，第一反应都是同情和关心吧。事主的邻居兼好朋友是个热心人，就发起了一个募捐活动。发起人可能没想得太多，初衷就是募点应急的费用。但募捐广告发到当地网站后，网站的站主看到了其中的机会（站主在拼命想扩大网站影响力，同时还在与一个本地华人政客合作，支持政客竞选），就把这个悲情事件接管，策划成了由政客和家属上加拿大电视募捐，扩大影响，然后到大统华等华人集中的地方设点募捐（这个后面形式因不对取消了），准备吧事件继续发酵，达到事主，网站，政客的多赢局面。
可惜这事情一开始就有问题，事主家其实是住在渥太华最贵的社区的富裕人家，在当地的亲戚朋友不少，那点应急费本来是可以自己解决的。可是在募捐书上事主被描绘成了“没任何保险”的贫困阶层的样子，而且明确地说明了募捐目的是“应急”。结果真相出来之后，已经募到10万刀左右了。这时很多人质疑募捐书误导大众，同时多出“应急”的钱应适当处理，而不是超出之前范围地自己使用。然而事主很坚强，认为钱就是捐给自己的，除了“应急”，剩下的要给老人，和小孩做教育基金。这时政客看见质疑的人多，已经隐身了，站主不停地声明，说是尊重家属意见，却对募捐书一开始的错误只
字不提，对不同言论删帖压制，又当运动员，又当裁判员。\
2. 再也不相信这些华人社团了，比当地白人还会欺骗人，尤其是自己的同胞，那些拿最低
工资，每周要工作50个小时的捐款人真是可怜。
3. 说实话,这根本就是一次愚蠢的"慈善"捐款
最不知羞耻的要属受捐对象,不给亡夫守灵,不运遗体回来,甚至连灰盒都不愿亲自捧回来,却有心情上电视,抛头露面.
最愚蠢当属组织者,头脑发热,也不管捐合适不合适就发动大家捐,还有意隐瞒关健信息.
最后死不认错.最受伤的就是这些献爱心的人们,爱心被滥用.唉～
最可怜算是死者了,救得了儿子却救不了这家人.还孤零零地远在他乡.
愿死者安息.
4. 这么多直系亲属在身边，不先找亲属借钱。
这么大的房子住着，不想着找银行贷款。这么好的工作单位，不试试先联系保险公司。
想到的是先找华人社区公开募捐。看看那篇倡议书吧，满篇的谎言和漏洞。大家都是认为Riven核实了家庭情况，的确需要钱救急才捐钱的，有多少人是冲着对他的信任才参加捐款的？结果到头来还是个骗局。华人的善意好像提款机，提完了，就没了。
善良的人们光想着让大家体谅刘妈，谁来安慰一下大家感觉受骗的心啊？
5. 要求退款的帖子被删了，做贼心虚啊！
6. 部分网友的发言。

刘越, 本是一个陌生的名字。但是, 在大浪夺命之后, 成了成百上千人的兄弟或者孩子
。你的家人也成为中外媒体的大众救济和关注的对象。
救济的人里有十岁女童, 倾其所有; 有一家三口挤在一套小房里的医生, 一再慷慨解囊
; 有没有工作, 债务缠身的学生; 有上有小下有老打着“累脖”工的新移民。关注来自
于人性中体恤他人的本性, 关注还来自一种灵魂底层的责任感, 来自于人们对一个父亲
为了救自己的孩子付出生命的感动, 来自对亡灵告慰问, 希望你能够早日入土为安。
然而, 头七过去了, 你仍然孤零零躺在异乡冰冰的冷藏室里。因为你原有的家人和新的
的亲人们为如何使用捐款而争论不休!
和许多人一样, 我不认识你, 但我也捐了款。因为摔断了腿, 但又想让你的家人少交一
些手续费, 我托朋友将支票送到你的家里。这几天每天都想知道你什么时候能够会到我
们这个大大的小村子里, 让没有见过你的乡亲们送你一程。你的父母年事已高, 而且身
体不好, 所以你新的兄弟姐妹们都等着替你的父母为你送行。我曾想像在你的追思会上
如何告诉你那“被宠坏了”的妻子, 我能够理解她的苦痛; 我曾想像如何丢下拐杖, 用
双臂拥抱你的你那一双失去父爱的孩子, 告诉他们现在有有了许多亲人会帮助他们成长
。我曾想像如何面对你的遗像告诉你你可以安心去了。
我不后悔曾给你捐款。如果下一次村里还有人遇到你这样的不幸我仍然会尽我所能帮助
他/她的未亡人。
有人说, 你的妻子是一个贪财者。有人说你的妻子是一个无情的女人。更有人说你妻子
的父母是狠心肠的人。
我不想做这样的评判!
然而, 坦率地说, 你原有家人的行为或无所作为确实令人感到费解。
你的妻子说, 她告诉儿子他的生命是你生命的继续。但她几天来不吃不喝, 显然已经忘
记如果孩子的生命要继续, 她必须首先站起来。你的岳父曾说过要好好多活十年, 帮你
把孩子带大。但是, 他有能力去别人家取支票, 却没有主动承担责任, 带几天孩子让你
和妻子和表妹把你接回来。
更何况, 成百上千的陌生人能够捐尽十万块钱, 相信如果你的家人为了接你回家而需要
他们帮助照顾孩子同样可以送餐问暖。有一位网有说, 如果是他的家人, 爬也要爬到古
巴去, 更何况现在有这样多的资金。有人说, 你伤心的妻子不忍看到你现在的样子。但
如果她珍爱你, 那么这最后一次亲吻你的机会又如何忍心放弃!
刘越兄弟, 你在天有灵, 不要怪罪你的家人。不论现在他们是什么样的心情, 用什么样
的借口, 有什么样的无奈, 你都不必在意了。他们有他们的选择, 他们最终也必须面对
自己的灵魂。
刘越兄弟, 你在天有灵, 去阴霾笼罩的北京探望你那年迈体弱的父母吧! 春假, 你本可
以选择去那里看望他们。但是, 你选择了带妻儿去洒满阳光的古巴。这无可非议, 爱的
选择总是有取舍的。但现在你在天之灵, 必须选择回去告慰你那伤心欲绝的双亲!
刘越兄弟, 你在世的时候是一个好丈夫, 好父亲。里里外外承担了多少责任! 该休息了!
在告慰二老后, 不要忘记为你的亡灵找一块清静纯洁的地方安息! 渥村的父老兄弟们不
能为你送行, 但一定会为你祈祷!
刘越兄弟, 走好! 三维人生,
7. 已经十万了，要不是知情人透露内幕，人家还要全球募捐呢。知情人说，最低二十万，
没有上限，黑，贪，狠。
请问最后捐了多少？上百万了？
8. 这人仗着网站是他自己开的，为所欲为。当初人家捐款就应该感谢人家。人家当初捐款
也是因为他们裹胁着难属，提供不实信息造成的。现在真相大白，人家退捐，这人又是
这么一副嘴脸。当初这人硬钻到这事情里来也是来投机的。以前还投机过侨领选举，人
家吃肉，这家伙连汤都没喝上，这人马上180转弯，反攻倒算。
9. 万对于这样收入的家庭不是笔大钱吧？
信用卡不可以用吗？ 一定要现金？ 何况还有亲戚多个
老公让别人火化，老婆坐等着收包裹－－－－ 感情真好
bu妈的老爹在钱的面前失身了哈－－－不知是第几次了
10. 已经十万了，要不是知情人透露内幕，人家还要全球募捐呢。知情人说，最低二十万，
: 没有上限，黑，贪，狠。
11. 实话,我对Riven倒没有什么成见,只是从这次捐款件中看得出来,此人性格中有诸多不
足,不适合做这类事情.
第一,捐款最初是由家属的朋友发起并受到至疑,结果Riven跳出来说,事实清楚明确,大
家捐吧.随即成立了捐款委员会主导此次捐款.
做事不严谨,不计后果,冲动.
第二,捐款在短时间内就达到第一目标即,遗体运送和丧葬费.此时,不仅没有宣布停此反
而变本加利,安排家属上媒体,进一步扩大捐款范围.
虚荣心强,易膨胀
第三,此时很多网友发出质疑的声音,并提出很多很好的建议,可是,不仅没有听取,反而
以删贴应对.
刚愎自用,容不下批评
第四,最佳纠正时机错过,质疑声越来越强,当事人越描越臭,并一度失控.作为组织者不
积极处理,停止捐款,亡羊补牢.而是发表声明,只停止主动募捐,捐款继续.
贪婪,心存侥幸
第五,事态全面失控,开始推卸责任,实在躲不过去了,利用自已在网站上的特权最后让大
家禁声.
做事没有担当
总的来说,有小聪明没大智慧

verdun

刘越捐款事件始末(中英文版)

中文版 (仁者)
概要
a）募捐倡议书与家庭实际经济状况不符，向公众提示了误导性的不真实信息。
b）在家属上全国电视台和全国报刊媒体募捐之前，募集到的善款已经远远超过运回尸体和办理丧葬的费用；全国媒体用误导性的信息误导不明真相的全国全世界广大民众。
c）宣布停止募捐后，账户依然开着，继续接收捐款。
d）停止募捐的公告仅仅用中文贴于CFC。
e）善款大量募集到后，中途任意改变善款用途，建议20%用于丧葬费用，20%用于支持刘越先生的父母，30%用于为两个孩子各建立一个教育基金。  
f）尸体在古巴火化而不是运会渥太华，家属没有到火化场向遗体告别，托词是被加拿大领事馆告知家属到火化场的要求被拒绝。
g）CFC有选择性地删除帖子，比如募捐倡议和质疑帖子，但是充满恶毒语言进行诬蔑谩骂人身攻击的帖子没有被删除。
h）CFC对质疑声音不是做正面证实或澄清，而是屡次删帖炸楼锁版封禁ID、IP禁止讨论。
i）募捐组织者有一部分是公务员，有公器私用、违反公务员道德规范之嫌疑。

详细时间表
2014/March/19 下午，刘越遇难。
2014/March/20 卜凡雁及孩子回到渥太华。
2014/March/22 晚上，募捐文告发布到CFC。曾经短暂被CFC删除，2小时后重新登出。募捐文告表明遗体转运费是1万多加元，家属想运遗体但是没钱的状况。文告刻意回避 了事主是双公务员家庭，有良好的政府生命保险的事实；文告中着重提到：“救急不救穷”“杯水车薪”“没有旅游保险”“只有单位基本的生命保险”等几个关键 词。另外首份文告遇难者名为：“刘悦”，后期改为“刘越”及拼音“Yue Liu”，该是一个人。
2014/March/23 CFC发布消息：由CFC组织专业团队（专业团对指包括CFC、英文媒体发言人Andy、3名加拿大联邦税局的联系人电话和姓名、几份华人的社团等），全面推动募捐事件向全球媒体。“募捐委员会”依然未表明遇难着的公务员的身份。
2014/March/24 1pm 筹款委员已收到260笔总额达到$37,565 的捐款。单笔最高捐款额达到$1,000， 已经远超运回尸体的需要；即使是后来加上的丧葬费用， 也远远超过了。
2014/March/24 4pm Andy Wang提供的最新消息：CTV和CBC当天晚些时候将对刘越先生的遗孀卜凡雁进行专访。有网友指出这样上电视台不合适，CFC组织者反复回帖说上电视台 有助于扩大捐款范围进如主流社会。募捐者想“募捐金额无上限”的心态完全表露。
2014/March/24 ＣＴＶ记者NataliePierosara 对刘越的遗孀卜凡雁进行了现场采访，并在《晚间6点新闻》里播出。
2014/March/24 网上第一次直接披露：遇难者夫妻皆为政府公务员，福利很好，暗示募捐者家庭环境良好，有骗捐的嫌疑。网上连接被帖出：卜凡雁的联邦政府雇员的工作部门、电话等网络连接（联邦政府的雇员，所有人办公电话是公开的）。
2014/March/25 11pm  因有骗捐嫌疑，质疑声鼎沸，CFC第一次封闭论坛主题禁止讨论。
2014/March/25 11pm  募捐金额在8万左右。CFC发布公告：不再进行主动募捐活动，不再进行主动媒体宣传，但是保留捐款账号和捐款页面，如果有朋友在生活上想继续支持刘越的家属，仍然可以通过这些途径捐款。
2014/March/26 CFC的Riven发布20%、20%、30%、30%的善款使用方向的声明。该声明引起更大的质疑声。
2014/March/27 CFC的Riven宣布暂停所有捐款账号和捐款页面、Paypal 停止接受新的捐款。
2014/March/27 卜凡燕发布感谢信改变款项用途（安慰刘越在北京的父母及给两名小孩的教育基金），声明如果捐款者如不认同可以退款的声明，退款以7日内提出为限。原话： “出于为了刘越遗体或骨灰运输丧事的办理，以及为帮助我们全家面对今后生活挑战，发起了募捐活动。 ”
2014/March/28 有捐款者发帖要求退款并阐明理由（不同意家属改变捐款用途），引起热烈讨论，数小时后帖子被CFC删除，CFC第二次关闭论坛。
2014/March/30 卜凡燕发布公开信：“如今在调整数日之后，我觉得身体条件允许我亲自前往古巴取回刘越骨灰。我感谢自告奋勇愿意陪同我到古巴迎取刘越骨灰的两位志愿者，也 感谢Andy帮忙联系加拿大领事馆、敦促古巴的丧葬代理公司尽快进行遗体火化，并为我们争取可以去古巴迎接骨灰的机会”。被加拿大驻古巴领事馆告知：家属 到火化现场与遗体告别的要求被拒绝。
2014/March/31 热烈讨论：钱够了，未啥遗体不运了？CFC第三次关闭论坛。
2014/April/08 刘越治丧委员会发布：刘越遗孀卜凡雁女士将在两位志愿者的陪同下，于四月八日飞往古巴首都哈瓦那将刘越先生的骨灰亲自迎回加拿大安葬。
2014/April/12 刘越先生追思会。
2014/April/13 追思会后，CFC上逐步恢复讨论，但大家发言谨慎，怕被删贴。
2014/April/21 卜凡雁发布感谢信，刘越善款处理小组成立，公布善款处理草案（第二稿）。
2014/April/22 CFC宣布募捐收入“$104050”、 善款交由善款处理小组处理，刘越募捐委员会解散，并发通知禁止一切关于捐款的讨论，直到善款处理完毕。

2014/May 2 有人报警并将报警过程在OCN 网上公开.
2014/May 5, CFC 发布薛金生代表 Chinese Community Association of Ottawa 英文公告. 公告称捐款人将收到邮件选择捐款处理方法. (1) 转捐慈善但不给退税凭证 (经证实此信息可能不属实); (2)  退款给捐款人; (3) 留给刘越遗孀自行处理.
2014/May 6-7  捐款人陆续收到邮件. 由于邮件内容与公告有悖, 论坛上再次质疑声起, 高达近1000个帖子. 该帖被CFC删除.

英文版(三维人生草译)

Overview

a）The intended beneficiary’s financial situation does not matchinformation provided by the fundraising committee in its public appeal fordonations, i.e., the intended beneficiary’s financial situation does notjustify the need for A public donation campaign. In order to achieve what thefundraisers INTENDED to achieve (i.e., scamming a large sum of money out of thepublic who don’t know the truth),  the fundraisers spoon-fed thepublic with fabricated false/misleading financial information.

b) Before the family appeared on national television and print media to appealfor donations, funds raised already far exceeded what was needed forrepatriating the body and funeral-related costs, i.e., false/misleadingfinancial information was INTENTIONALLY given to the general public nation-wideand world-wide.

c) After the campaign was announced by the fundraisers and CFC, paypal and bankaccounts were still open and continued to receive donations.

d) While the donation drive was done nationally, fundraising-stop announcementwas posted only in Chinese on CFC.

e) After a large sum of money was raised, the fundraisers arbitrarily changedthe donation allocation and usage as purported in the call for donations, “ALLmoney raised would be strictly used to repatriate the body and coveredfuneral-related expenses”. The fundraisers announced a fund allocation andusage decision: 20% for body repatriation and funeral-related expenses, 20% tosupport Mr. Liu Yue's parents, 30% for the two children each to establish aneducational fund.

f) After a large sum of donation was collected, the dead body was cremated inCuba instead of being repatriated to Ottawa. The family did not even sayfarewell at the crematorium, the excuse given being that the family wasinformed by the Canadian Consulate that the family’s request for paying lastrespect at cremation was declined, without telling who declined that request,which was later proven to be a lie.

g) CFC biasedly deleted posts, such as those that questioned the fundraisinginitiative, the non-disclosure of truthful financial information. On the otherhand, abusive posts that attacked questioners, often in languages full ofvicious personal attacks and slander, are not deleted.

h) CFC never provided clarification or confirmation of information norresponded to questioning but repeatedly deleted posts, banned ID, IP and shutdown discussions/debates against the will of the overwhelming majority ofposters.

i) Some of the fundraising organizers are civil servants who may have used worktime and office facility for private purposes, and likely in violation ofpublic servants’ ethics and values.

Chronology

2014/March/19: Liu Yue drowned while playing in the ocean. His son was saved byWoody (Robert Wudkevich) from BC. Woody provided email address to widow.

2014/March/20: The widow and children returned to Ottawa.

2014/March/22: In the evening, fundraising solicitation letter was posted onCFC. It was deleted but reposted two hours later. The letter indicated thatover $10,000 was needed to repatriate the body. The family wanted to bring homethe deceased but had no money to do so. The letter deliberately omitted thefact that both the victim and his widow were civil servants with very goodgovernment-sponsored life insurances.

The letter purported that:
(a)   the Chinese people “aid those in crises but not in poverty”;the work-provided basic insurance amounted to “a drop in the bucket”;
(b)   the couple had no travel/mortgage/life insurance; and
(c)   used several other key words to exaggerate the financialdifficulties they were under. Also known as the first proclamation of thevictim: "Liu Yue (“刘悦" ), was later corrected to "Liu Yue"(“刘越”) and Pinyin "Yue Liu", which presumably referred to the sameperson.
2014/March/23: CFC published news: CFC had organized a professional team(including CFC, English media spokesman Andy, 3 employees of CRA with phone andnames, and several Chinese associations, etc.), to launch and promotefund-raising events on global media. The "Fundraising committee"still did not mention the fact that the victim and his widow were publicservants.

2014/March/24: 1pm: According to CFC updates, the fundraising committee hadreceived 260 donations totalling $37,565. Highest single donation was $1,000.The total amount far exceeded what was purported to be needed to repatriate thedeceased body and cover funeral expenses, which were actually added to the callfor donations later.

2014/March/24 4pm:  Andy Wang provided the latest news: CTV and CBCwere to interview Mr. Liu’s widow later in the day. Some online forumparticipants challenged the appropriateness of the TV interview. CFC organizersreplied repeatedly that the TV stations would strengthen the reach of donationappeal in the mainstream society, completely revealing the mentality of thefundraisers who INTENDED to raised “donations without limits”.

2014/March/24: CTV Reporter Natalie Pierosara interviewed the widow Andy Wang.The Interview was aired on "6 o'clock news" and quoted Wang as sayingthat “$20,000 had been raised within 24 hours.” The family also told thereporter that they did not who Woody was and where he was from.

2014/March/24: First direct online exposure: The victim and his widow werecivil servants with good benefits. The poster hinted at good family financialconditions and that the fundraiser was suspected to be a scam. The post wasfollowed by posts of the widow’ exact place of work, work phone and emailaddress (as these were public information).  

2014/March/25 11pm: Due to suspected scam, the forum was boiling with voices ofdoubt. CFC for the first time shut down discussions/debates on thetopic.  

2014/March/25 11pm: Funds raised reached about $80,000. CFC announcement:no-longer active fund-raising activities, no more active pursuit of media, butkept donations account and donations page open; “if you have friends who wantto help Liu Yue’s family, they can continue to donate through these channels.”

2014/March/26:  CFC released the now-infamous 20/20/ 30/30 formulafor donation allocation and usage. The statement caused a greater wave ofcriticism.

2014/March/27: CFC announced the suspension of all contributions and donationspage account, but the Paypal account was kept open to accept new donations.

The widow released a thank-you letter which changed the use of proceeds (toinclude funds as consolation to Liu Yue’s parents in in Beijing and twochildren’s educational funds). The statement also indicated that “those whodonated but did not intend to donate” could withdraw their donation in 7 days.The note was posted in Chinese and on CFC only.

2014/March/28: Donors posted a refund request and soughtexplanation/clarification because they did not agree with how the family hadchanged their plans on the use of the funds raised. Heated discussions/debatesfollowed. Many postings were deleted by CFC. A second round of shut-down ofdiscussions by CFC.  

2014/March/30: Fanyan Bu issued an open letter: “after several days ofadjustment, I now feel my physical condition would allow me to travel to Cubato bring home Liu Yue’s ashes. I thank the two volunteers who will betravelling with me to Cuba to bring home Liu Yue’s ashes. I also thank Andy forliaising with the Canadian consulate to urge the Cuba funeral agency to crematethe body expediently and to strive for an opportunity for us to travel to Cubato bring home the ashes.” The letter indicated that the Canadian Consulate hadinformed the family that their request to pay last respect to the victim onsite of cremation was rejected.

2014/March/31: Heated discussions on CFC: the questioning theme was around abasic question, “since this much funds have been raised, why not bring the bodyhome? CFC decided to completely shut down discussions for the thirdtime.  

2014/April/3: Ottawa community s headlined Liu Yue’s death. Andy Wang wasquoted as saying $30,000 was needed to bring the body home and only $20,000 wasraised.   Wang was also quoted as saying that Woody was unidentifiedand that the family was still looking for him.

2014/April/7: Liu Yue Funeral Organizing Committee announced: Liu Yue’s widowFanyan Bu, accompanied by two volunteers, was to travel to Havana, Cuba onApril 8 to bring Liu Yue’s ashes home for the funeral. First and only confirmationthat Liu Yue worked at CRA.

2014/April/12: Mr. Liu Yue’s memorial service.

2014/April/13: After the memorial service, discussions resumed on CFC, butpeople spoke cautiously, being afraid that postings would be deleted and ID’sbanned.

2014/April/21: the widow released a letter thank-you letter, a donationmanagement team was announced to have been established which issued a draftdonation management processing.

2014/April/22: CFC announced the donation totalling "$ 104,050" washanded to the “donation management team”. The Liu Yue fundraising committee wasannounced to be dissolved. Any discussions related to the donation campaignwere banned indefinitely.

2014/May/02:  The FraudUnit of the Ottawa Police Force established a case to investigate the donationcampaign. The case number is 2014-109126; The phone number to report asuspicion is 1-613-230-6211.

2014/May/05: Riven of CFC announced the Final Solution to the Yue LiuDonation Campaign proposed by the Chinese Community Association of Ottawa(English only, no Chinese version).