3 ms·
> Someone responsible for that decision, which effectively left that new branch to its own devices, is probably having a bit of a bad taste in their mouth right
by talltimtom 8y ago
> Someone responsible for that decision, which effectively left that new branch to its own devices, is probably having a bit of a bad taste in their mouth right about now.
Why? Their reasoning then was that it would cost them to much to transfer the bank, “discover” the laundering and paying fines, instead they left it so they could earn more money by the time it was eventually “discovered”.
These aren’t kindergartners running these banks and systems, they knew what was going on. They likely did make the right choice, the fines will be the same since now as they would have been then, and now they have a large profit to pay them from.
- arghwhat 8y agoThis explanation is a bit too far fetched. The effort to move the bank to their own banking system is on itself a tremendous effort. We're talking calendar years of implementation time, huge risks and a stall of most other development. The leadership knows that their banking systems are a pile of bleeding horse dung that they wish to avoid touching at any cost. They are not kindergartners, but they are not omnipotent either. Knowing that the Estonian bank had improper processes would by itself require a lot of work to discover, and figuring out if this has been abused would likely be quite a massive task. Doing the move to the new business logic would reveal the issue, but not before it was done. Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. What we see here can be explained with just a little bit of incompetence, or an extreme amount of malice. The former is far more likely.