4 ms·

HSBC has a United States banking license, employs tens of thousands of Americans (in America) and is traded on the New York Stock exchange. Thus it (a) has to a

by mthoms 6y ago

HSBC has a United States banking license, employs tens of thousands of Americans (in America) and is traded on the New York Stock exchange. Thus it (a) has to abide by US finance laws and (b) is afforded some US protections. If having ones head office overseas would provide immunity from US laws it wouldn't be a very effective system would it? :-) >Huawei did not lie to the US government That remains to be seen (as I understand it - maybe you have evidence to the contrary?), but I can't imagine how they would export so much equipment without doing so. >This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions. I agree to an extent. But since everyone (especially banks) need to do business in the United States it's unavoidable.

sudosysgen 6y ago
In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages and should sue the party in order to recover them. If they cannot recover damages in that jurisdiction then they should either stop operating there or stop operating in the US. It's pretty much indefensible to me that someone that has nothing to do with the US operating outside the US would be tried in the US for a crime they allegedly commited elsewhere.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages I've no love for HSBC (at all) but in this instance it appears they are the victim of fraudulent representations made by Huawei. Your "solution" proposes prosecuting not only an innocent party, but one of the victims? That's an ... ummm ... interesting take.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Well no, that is not my solution. That is the only ethical way the US could enforce sanctions. The solution would be to put the Iran deal back up, but I digress. Yes, there is absolutely no way of enforcing sanctions without prosecuting innocent parties. The only way that the US can get foreign banks not to deal with Iran is by punishing them, even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster, not operate in the jurisdiction of the fraudster if that is impossible, or not deal with Iran at all (in which case a competitor will). Otherwise, they can also stop dealing with the US.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster So you're proposing that the government shouldn't prosecute fraud criminally, and it should be up to the banks go after the perpetrators in civil court instead?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, I think that the local government where the fraud happened should pursue criminal charges if appropriate, not the US government. You can be suef in civil and criminal court at the same time.
        gruez 6y ago
        How does this square with jurisdictions that don't enforce those laws because the crimes benefit them? Should russian cybercriminals who victimize americans be allowed go to whatever country they please, knowing that they won't be prosecuted in their home country (because the government turns a blind eye to their activities), and can't be prosecuted/extradited in whatever country they travel to?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        In that case you stop doing business in that jurisdiction.
        yorwba 6y ago
        In this case neither perpetrator nor victim of the fraud appear to be US entities, so your example of Russian cybercriminals victimizing Americans doesn't exactly apply. Unless the country requesting the extradition of said Russian from Canada is, dunno, Australia, for some unrelated beef they have, using the crime against Americans as a convenient excuse.
        gruez 6y ago
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  But they have everything to do with the US, that is the problem. They have multiple divisions with multiple agreements. Phone components, systems, software, all under export controls and they aren't abiding by the agreements they have signed. I'm not sure where you're going with this. How do they have nothing to do with the US?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued, an individual that never dealt with a US entity is being sued for an alleged crime between non-US entities outside the US.
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      She's an elected officer of the company, and thus under US Law and most countries for the matter. She as an individual was a part of and oversaw the actions and complaints alleged. There's no ambiguity at all.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Then prosecute her under the country where she allegedly committed fraud.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued They're not being sued, but they are being charged with: > Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Bank Fraud, and Theft of Trade Secrets Among Nearly Two Dozen Charges https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei-indicted-012819 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei...
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Good, then you can leave the individual non-US citizen that is outside of the US and did not commit a crime in the United States outside of US Court.
- xster 6y ago
  FWIW HSBC has also 'actively circumvented rules designed to “block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.”'. I don't see their CFOs arrested. Then there's the question of Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank, Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo all transacting with Iran (https://archive.is/kyKGf https://archive.is/kyKGf) and not having their CFOs arrested.

by mthoms 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages and should sue the party in order to recover them. If they cannot recover damages in that jurisdiction then they should either stop operating there or stop operating in the US. It's pretty much indefensible to me that someone that has nothing to do with the US operating outside the US would be tried in the US for a crime they allegedly commited elsewhere.

mthoms 6y ago
>In that case, HSBC should be held liable for damages I've no love for HSBC (at all) but in this instance it appears they are the victim of fraudulent representations made by Huawei. Your "solution" proposes prosecuting not only an innocent party, but one of the victims? That's an ... ummm ... interesting take.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Well no, that is not my solution. That is the only ethical way the US could enforce sanctions. The solution would be to put the Iran deal back up, but I digress. Yes, there is absolutely no way of enforcing sanctions without prosecuting innocent parties. The only way that the US can get foreign banks not to deal with Iran is by punishing them, even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster, not operate in the jurisdiction of the fraudster if that is impossible, or not deal with Iran at all (in which case a competitor will). Otherwise, they can also stop dealing with the US.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster So you're proposing that the government shouldn't prosecute fraud criminally, and it should be up to the banks go after the perpetrators in civil court instead?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      No, I think that the local government where the fraud happened should pursue criminal charges if appropriate, not the US government. You can be suef in civil and criminal court at the same time.
      - gruez 6y ago
        How does this square with jurisdictions that don't enforce those laws because the crimes benefit them? Should russian cybercriminals who victimize americans be allowed go to whatever country they please, knowing that they won't be prosecuted in their home country (because the government turns a blind eye to their activities), and can't be prosecuted/extradited in whatever country they travel to?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        In that case you stop doing business in that jurisdiction.
        yorwba 6y ago
        In this case neither perpetrator nor victim of the fraud appear to be US entities, so your example of Russian cybercriminals victimizing Americans doesn't exactly apply. Unless the country requesting the extradition of said Russian from Canada is, dunno, Australia, for some unrelated beef they have, using the crime against Americans as a convenient excuse.
        gruez 6y ago
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
But they have everything to do with the US, that is the problem. They have multiple divisions with multiple agreements. Phone components, systems, software, all under export controls and they aren't abiding by the agreements they have signed. I'm not sure where you're going with this. How do they have nothing to do with the US?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued, an individual that never dealt with a US entity is being sued for an alleged crime between non-US entities outside the US.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    She's an elected officer of the company, and thus under US Law and most countries for the matter. She as an individual was a part of and oversaw the actions and complaints alleged. There's no ambiguity at all.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Then prosecute her under the country where she allegedly committed fraud.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >Then go after Huawei, which is an entity operating in the US? But that is not what happened; Huawei is not being sued They're not being sued, but they are being charged with: > Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Bank Fraud, and Theft of Trade Secrets Among Nearly Two Dozen Charges https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei-indicted-012819 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/chinese-telecom-firm-huawei...
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Good, then you can leave the individual non-US citizen that is outside of the US and did not commit a crime in the United States outside of US Court.
xster 6y ago
FWIW HSBC has also 'actively circumvented rules designed to “block transactions involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes.”'. I don't see their CFOs arrested. Then there's the question of Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank, Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo all transacting with Iran (https://archive.is/kyKGf https://archive.is/kyKGf) and not having their CFOs arrested.