4 ms·
So the $670bn number is the volume of wire transfers which were not adequately monitored by HSBC, not a "total laundered amount" > HSBC was accused of failing
by nstj 10y ago
So the $670bn number is the volume of wire transfers which were not adequately monitored by HSBC, not a "total laundered amount"
> HSBC was accused of failing to monitor more than $670 billion in wire transfers
I'm no Heisenberg, but laundering the annual GDP of Switzerland (USD665bn in 2015[0]) is probably outside the reach of a bank.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
- rando444 10y agoWhile I don't know about the exact numbers, I do recall that HSBC was actively coaching the drug cartels (and hezbollah) on tricks to alter their names on forms so they wouldn't get picked up by watch lists. At which point the exact dollar amounts are irrelevant, and the fact that nobody was criminally charged over this is what concerns me more than anything.
- nstj 10y agoSure - but we're all here to learn more, so numbers which we're basing discussion on should have some factual basis :). If you're really interested in this stuff you should read up on some of the material from William K Black of UMKC. He was a regulator during the S&L crisis and has some great perspective on financial and control fraud.
- rando444 10y agoThe numbers are a secondary item, nitpicked by the commenter above. The original parent was discussing how the banks were involved. I was attempting to bring the discussion back around to the original comment, rather than have the discussion be de-railed by a sidebar about exact amounts. It's interesting, and I am interested, but this whole conversation does nothing but to take away from what the first person was trying to express.