10 ms·

>Just pay the toll especially when the cost of doing the right thing is higher. i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime m

>Just pay the toll especially when the cost of doing the right thing is higher. i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor

tedunangst 9y ago
If HSBC was making profits of $4 trillion, they were also lying on their financial statements.
- kbenson 9y ago
  If ever you need evidence that people see really large numbers and lose perspective, look to this conversation and how many people completely glossed over the use of trillions instead of billions, a mistake so small it puts HSBC revenue in the realm of well developed nation states...
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    Apparently, when wielding numbers for outrage, the quantitative details are merely a trivial annoyance.
21 9y ago
> laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money While I agree with your sentiment, there is no need to use such inflated and hilarious numbers.
- saganus 9y ago
  Edit: Thanks for the corrections. I definitely messed up the magnitudes here. Was doing some other calculation on another topic and somehow I mixed them both. Sorry about that. Please disregard this comment as it it way off :( While "trillions" is definitely inflated and hyperbole, I don't think it's THAT far off. According to this The Guardian article [0] "At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout the bank's accounts." So 0.88 Tn. Definitely not "trillions" but definitely much more than I would've expected if they said "billions laundered". Also, it says "at least", which I take it to say that the investigation was not complete so a final number couldn't be calculated and only a "lower" cap is given. Potentially it could still be "trillions" as in e.g. "1.3 trillions" (if that final figure is ever calculated or even published of course). So inflated, yes. Hilarious... not so sure. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-u...
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > So 0.88 Tn. You mean 0.00088 Tn.
    - colejohnson66 9y ago
      Well, it’s 0.88 percent of a trillion...
      - StavrosK 9y ago
        0.088.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gleenn 9y ago
    Isn't that 0.881 billion? They're still off by 3 orders of magnitude
  - adamiscool8 9y ago
    Parent might be conflating the amount actually found to be laundered with HSBC's failure to monitor over $200 trillion [1] in suspicious transactions. [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article6209613.ece/BINARY/HSBC.pdf https://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article6209613.ece/...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
panarky 9y ago
And they say we need less regulation of corporate behavior.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Less regulation would be better than the system we have now - where large and connected corporations can buy get out of jail free cards.
  - panarky 9y ago
    Please tell me more about how even less regulation would have held Uber accountable.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      It wouldn't. But I'd wager that Uber isn't going to be held accountable (or not very accountable) for this, so why not write the rules so that everyone gets to be as cavalier? It'd save a lot of companies the headaches that go along with I.T security.
      - panarky 9y ago
        Some drivers don't stop at stop signs. Let's remove the stop signs so all drivers can be as cavalier. It'd save a lot of drivers the headaches that go along with traffic laws.
        alexanderstears 9y ago
        I don't dispute your logic though I would prefer more traffic law enforcement. But the uber situation would be closer to this - the parking meter costs $20/hr and a parking ticket costs $5. We're creating a situation where people who break the law get ahead of those who obey it. Either we can ramp up enforcement (good luck with that happening) or we can level the playing field.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
HSBC did not make trillions from those transactions and they were fined $1.9bn in 2012.
- Scoundreller 9y ago
  Did you ask any families with a family member killed by a cartel if a fine seemed reasonable?
  - CyberDildonics 9y ago
    Why would you respond like this to someone putting forward plain facts.
    - Scoundreller 9y ago
      Because it was in response to a post about how low the fines were: "i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor" $1.9b may sound like a lot, but there's a lot of blood attached to it.
      - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
        Perhaps you should start reading this thread once more, starting with untog's daycare story. Then you might see why the financial facts are important. It's not because any specific fine can ever be adequate compensation for all the suffering caused by the cartels. It's because you want the fine to be large enough to actually deter bad behavior in the future. In this particular case I believe the fine (perhaps in combination with the threat of other regulatory action) has changed HSBC's behavior as there are many stories about erroneously frozen HSBC business accounts. I just wonder if any number of deaths will ever change the behavior of the politicians who designed the disastrous war on drugs policies that have so utterly failed. I fear that won't happen as long as voters don't care about facts.
dsacco 9y ago
> laundered trillions of dollars > 400m dollar fine > isnt even .01% of what they made ...why even use numbers, a concept literally defined to quantify things, if you're just going to use utterly incorrect ones? HSBC did not launder trillions of dollars over a decade, that figure is three orders of magnitude too high. HSBC is being fined $1.9B, not $400M.[1] HSBC also did not earn 19 trillion dollars over the course of a decade, which is what would make $1.9B your 0.01% figure. Even a $400M fine would still constitute earnings of $4 trillion. Not only are your numbers incorrect factually speaking, their relationships with each other are entirely out of whack for measuring HSBC's profit, even in an absurd hypothetical scenario in which HSBC did launder trillions of dollars. _________________________________________ 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judg...
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  You are confusing profit, earnings, and the amount of money laundered, each of which is distinct and very different. If you give me a million dollars in counterfeit bills, and I launder them for you, I might get paid only $10,000. My laundering efforts might have cost me $9,000. In this case my profits are $1,000 even though my earnings were $10,000 and I laundered $1,000,000. I'm not saying that HSBC laundered 19 trillion, but the earnings and/or profits of HSBC have absolutely no relation to the potential amount they laundered.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Sure, but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here.

tedunangst 9y ago

If HSBC was making profits of $4 trillion, they were also lying on their financial statements.

kbenson 9y ago
If ever you need evidence that people see really large numbers and lose perspective, look to this conversation and how many people completely glossed over the use of trillions instead of billions, a mistake so small it puts HSBC revenue in the realm of well developed nation states...
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  Apparently, when wielding numbers for outrage, the quantitative details are merely a trivial annoyance.

21 9y ago

> laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money While I agree with your sentiment, there is no need to use such inflated and hilarious numbers.

saganus 9y ago
Edit: Thanks for the corrections. I definitely messed up the magnitudes here. Was doing some other calculation on another topic and somehow I mixed them both. Sorry about that. Please disregard this comment as it it way off :( While "trillions" is definitely inflated and hyperbole, I don't think it's THAT far off. According to this The Guardian article [0] "At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout the bank's accounts." So 0.88 Tn. Definitely not "trillions" but definitely much more than I would've expected if they said "billions laundered". Also, it says "at least", which I take it to say that the investigation was not complete so a final number couldn't be calculated and only a "lower" cap is given. Potentially it could still be "trillions" as in e.g. "1.3 trillions" (if that final figure is ever calculated or even published of course). So inflated, yes. Hilarious... not so sure. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-u...
- kelnos 9y ago
  > So 0.88 Tn. You mean 0.00088 Tn.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    Well, it’s 0.88 percent of a trillion...
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      0.088.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gleenn 9y ago
  Isn't that 0.881 billion? They're still off by 3 orders of magnitude
- adamiscool8 9y ago
  Parent might be conflating the amount actually found to be laundered with HSBC's failure to monitor over $200 trillion [1] in suspicious transactions. [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article6209613.ece/BINARY/HSBC.pdf https://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article6209613.ece/...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

panarky 9y ago

And they say we need less regulation of corporate behavior.

alexanderstears 9y ago
Less regulation would be better than the system we have now - where large and connected corporations can buy get out of jail free cards.
- panarky 9y ago
  Please tell me more about how even less regulation would have held Uber accountable.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    It wouldn't. But I'd wager that Uber isn't going to be held accountable (or not very accountable) for this, so why not write the rules so that everyone gets to be as cavalier? It'd save a lot of companies the headaches that go along with I.T security.
    - panarky 9y ago
      Some drivers don't stop at stop signs. Let's remove the stop signs so all drivers can be as cavalier. It'd save a lot of drivers the headaches that go along with traffic laws.
      - alexanderstears 9y ago
        I don't dispute your logic though I would prefer more traffic law enforcement. But the uber situation would be closer to this - the parking meter costs $20/hr and a parking ticket costs $5. We're creating a situation where people who break the law get ahead of those who obey it. Either we can ramp up enforcement (good luck with that happening) or we can level the playing field.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

HSBC did not make trillions from those transactions and they were fined $1.9bn in 2012.

Scoundreller 9y ago
Did you ask any families with a family member killed by a cartel if a fine seemed reasonable?
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  Why would you respond like this to someone putting forward plain facts.
  - Scoundreller 9y ago
    Because it was in response to a post about how low the fines were: "i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor" $1.9b may sound like a lot, but there's a lot of blood attached to it.
    - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
      Perhaps you should start reading this thread once more, starting with untog's daycare story. Then you might see why the financial facts are important. It's not because any specific fine can ever be adequate compensation for all the suffering caused by the cartels. It's because you want the fine to be large enough to actually deter bad behavior in the future. In this particular case I believe the fine (perhaps in combination with the threat of other regulatory action) has changed HSBC's behavior as there are many stories about erroneously frozen HSBC business accounts. I just wonder if any number of deaths will ever change the behavior of the politicians who designed the disastrous war on drugs policies that have so utterly failed. I fear that won't happen as long as voters don't care about facts.

dsacco 9y ago

> laundered trillions of dollars > 400m dollar fine > isnt even .01% of what they made ...why even use numbers, a concept literally defined to quantify things, if you're just going to use utterly incorrect ones? HSBC did not launder trillions of dollars over a decade, that figure is three orders of magnitude too high. HSBC is being fined $1.9B, not $400M.[1] HSBC also did not earn 19 trillion dollars over the course of a decade, which is what would make $1.9B your 0.01% figure. Even a $400M fine would still constitute earnings of $4 trillion. Not only are your numbers incorrect factually speaking, their relationships with each other are entirely out of whack for measuring HSBC's profit, even in an absurd hypothetical scenario in which HSBC did launder trillions of dollars. _________________________________________ 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judg...

StanislavPetrov 9y ago
You are confusing profit, earnings, and the amount of money laundered, each of which is distinct and very different. If you give me a million dollars in counterfeit bills, and I launder them for you, I might get paid only $10,000. My laundering efforts might have cost me $9,000. In this case my profits are $1,000 even though my earnings were $10,000 and I laundered $1,000,000. I'm not saying that HSBC laundered 19 trillion, but the earnings and/or profits of HSBC have absolutely no relation to the potential amount they laundered.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Sure, but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here.