5 ms·

>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 represen

by 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
        But in this case, the US entity is being victimized. Specifically, they were tricked into violating US sanctions, which can carry criminal penalties for them. I guess you argue that we can simply decriminalize this for the US entity, but that opens a huge loophole for bypassing sanctions. Say you're china and you want to buy some American semiconductors (which are currently banned from being sold into china). All you need to do is set up a company in Russia, buy the semiconductors, promise that they won't be later transferred into china (wink wink), then import it into china.
        billfruit 6y ago
        Bank may not be an US entity is what it appears. Also the bank is supposed to do due diligence. Careful reading of the judgement, indicate that none of the liabilities from the transaction are possibly active, ie, all payments have been made and the matter closed, with no issue of defaults, etc. The question being considered is the 'risk of reputational damage to the bank', which does it sound like a criminal matter?

by mthoms 6y ago

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
        But in this case, the US entity is being victimized. Specifically, they were tricked into violating US sanctions, which can carry criminal penalties for them. I guess you argue that we can simply decriminalize this for the US entity, but that opens a huge loophole for bypassing sanctions. Say you're china and you want to buy some American semiconductors (which are currently banned from being sold into china). All you need to do is set up a company in Russia, buy the semiconductors, promise that they won't be later transferred into china (wink wink), then import it into china.
        billfruit 6y ago
        Bank may not be an US entity is what it appears. Also the bank is supposed to do due diligence. Careful reading of the judgement, indicate that none of the liabilities from the transaction are possibly active, ie, all payments have been made and the matter closed, with no issue of defaults, etc. The question being considered is the 'risk of reputational damage to the bank', which does it sound like a criminal matter?