4 ms·

Reminds me of when HSBC knowingly laundered money for drug dealers and terror organizations for years and was fined < 5% of its profits that year.

by dmos62 7y ago

missedthecue 7y ago
HSBC allegedly laundered 800 million (not revenue, not profit, but total amount allegedly laundered). They were fined 1.9 billion. People really need to stop with the 'cost of doing business' BS
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  'Ultimately, the prosecutor’s office came to believe the case was “the tip of the iceberg” in terms of suspicious transactions conducted through HSBC, according to documents reviewed by Reuters and reported earlier this year.' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-...
  - nradov 7y ago
    Punishments are based on what can be proved in court, not what prosecutors believe.
    - emiliobumachar 7y ago
      As it should be. But the "cost of doing business" theory can survive the fine being much bigger than the provable ill-gotten profits. It's just smaller then the overall ill-gotten profits.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      In this case it actually wasn't though. The case was never tried. In the US the government can impose huge fines for AML violations directly, without ever having to prove their case. Combined with a culture of hyper-aggressive prosecutors and you don't really get justice in the traditional sense. Dig into the details and you'll see that HSBC's "crime" looks very different to how it's been publicly portrayed.
      - dmos62 7y ago
        They sabotaged their own money laundering filters: they edited e.g. "Pablo Escobar" to "Pablo Escobar-", so that that activity wouldn't get flagged. What are your optics of that?
        thu2111 7y ago
        So the USG claims. But they claim many things; without a trial and a proper defence who knows the truth? A lot of the claims in that case were dubious, like the idea that every transaction connected to Mexico should have been treated as inherently suspicious. Why? Well, because the Treasury decided that would have been convenient for their case. What about the huge numbers of non-suspicious Mexican transactions? Irrelevant - HSBC should have institutionally "just known".

Reminds me of when HSBC knowingly laundered money for drug dealers and terror organizations for years and was fined < 5% of its profits that year.

by dmos62 7y ago

Reminds me of when HSBC knowingly laundered money for drug dealers and terror organizations for years and was fined < 5% of its profits that year.

missedthecue 7y ago

HSBC allegedly laundered 800 million (not revenue, not profit, but total amount allegedly laundered). They were fined 1.9 billion. People really need to stop with the 'cost of doing business' BS

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
'Ultimately, the prosecutor’s office came to believe the case was “the tip of the iceberg” in terms of suspicious transactions conducted through HSBC, according to documents reviewed by Reuters and reported earlier this year.' https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-...
- nradov 7y ago
  Punishments are based on what can be proved in court, not what prosecutors believe.
  - emiliobumachar 7y ago
    As it should be. But the "cost of doing business" theory can survive the fine being much bigger than the provable ill-gotten profits. It's just smaller then the overall ill-gotten profits.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    In this case it actually wasn't though. The case was never tried. In the US the government can impose huge fines for AML violations directly, without ever having to prove their case. Combined with a culture of hyper-aggressive prosecutors and you don't really get justice in the traditional sense. Dig into the details and you'll see that HSBC's "crime" looks very different to how it's been publicly portrayed.
    - dmos62 7y ago
      They sabotaged their own money laundering filters: they edited e.g. "Pablo Escobar" to "Pablo Escobar-", so that that activity wouldn't get flagged. What are your optics of that?
      - thu2111 7y ago
        So the USG claims. But they claim many things; without a trial and a proper defence who knows the truth? A lot of the claims in that case were dubious, like the idea that every transaction connected to Mexico should have been treated as inherently suspicious. Why? Well, because the Treasury decided that would have been convenient for their case. What about the huge numbers of non-suspicious Mexican transactions? Irrelevant - HSBC should have institutionally "just known".