5 ms·

Probably referring to people like African oligarchs who steal international aid intended to help their citizenry and Russian oligarchs who engaged in a variety

Probably referring to people like African oligarchs who steal international aid intended to help their citizenry and Russian oligarchs who engaged in a variety of criminal shenanigans during the nationalization of USSR agencies in 92, among others.

valuearb 6y ago
It’s not the transfers that are problematic, it’s the theft.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  In many cases, the transfers serve the purpose of laundering the theft. Consider cases like 1MDB, where the bankers' sole job was helping Jho Low hide the fact that he was stealing all the money. (Although it must be noted that the regulatory regime here failed to prevent 1MDB!)
  - andi999 6y ago
    Do you have a link which elaborates this more? (The bankers helping jho low to hide the fact)
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The Guardian has (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/1mdb-inside-story-worlds-biggest-financial-scandal-malaysia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/1mdb-inside-st...) a pretty good overview of the scenario. The basic trick was to create an account owned by Jho Low (or in some cases by his co-conspirator Najib Razak), say "this account is owned by 1MDB", and send a bunch of 1MDB's money to it. The Goldman bankers' roles were to set up investment deals, bond offerings, etc., in order to create a plausible explanation for why money needed to go to these fraudulent accounts.
      - andi999 6y ago
        I read the article, it doesnt explain the wrongdoing of goldman. It states they set up the bond offering. Where do you get the information that goldman new about it beeing a private account? Or do you mean it was jho low private account at goldman? I mean if the board of a sovereign wealth fund assign your bank to raise funds and transfer to a designated account is this wrong, or unusual?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's not inherently wrong or unusual, but banks have an affirmative and well-known duty to perform due diligence, to the point where deliberately attempting to evade due diligence or your bank's compliance department is near-ironclad evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. A senior Goldman Sachs official involved in those efforts did indeed plead guilty to knowing about the money laundering. (https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/digital_assets/db4e5755-ccbc-42a6-84d2-3acf3b0a86d9/US-v-John-Doe--transcript-of-Leissner-plea-hearing-(9-November-2018).pdf https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/digital_assets/db4e57...)
        andi999 6y ago
        Thanks. Is the guilty plead about 1mdb?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It is. It's focused on the benefits that Leissner obtained for himself and Goldman Sachs and the bribes that were paid to facilitate and overlook things, since those are the two aspects subject to US jurisdiction.
pessimizer 6y ago
True, but in that way "oligarch" is being used (as it always is) as a slur against the foreign wealthy that implies wrongdoing, rather than naming it. I agree virtually 100% of the time that the way people named as oligarchs accumulate and maintain their wealth is terrible, I just don't know any criterion justifying why the wealthy in the US aren't also referred to as oligarchs and the same protocols applied to them. I think they aren't because they own the US media and political parties, just like named oligarchs do back in their home countries (where they aren't referred to as oligarchs, but instead in respectful tones.)
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  There is no such criterion. The US is full of oligarchs. It’s just not commonly used to describe them because US oligarchs own, among other things, the definition of the word oligarch in the US.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

valuearb 6y ago

It’s not the transfers that are problematic, it’s the theft.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
In many cases, the transfers serve the purpose of laundering the theft. Consider cases like 1MDB, where the bankers' sole job was helping Jho Low hide the fact that he was stealing all the money. (Although it must be noted that the regulatory regime here failed to prevent 1MDB!)
- andi999 6y ago
  Do you have a link which elaborates this more? (The bankers helping jho low to hide the fact)
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The Guardian has (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/1mdb-inside-story-worlds-biggest-financial-scandal-malaysia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/1mdb-inside-st...) a pretty good overview of the scenario. The basic trick was to create an account owned by Jho Low (or in some cases by his co-conspirator Najib Razak), say "this account is owned by 1MDB", and send a bunch of 1MDB's money to it. The Goldman bankers' roles were to set up investment deals, bond offerings, etc., in order to create a plausible explanation for why money needed to go to these fraudulent accounts.
    - andi999 6y ago
      I read the article, it doesnt explain the wrongdoing of goldman. It states they set up the bond offering. Where do you get the information that goldman new about it beeing a private account? Or do you mean it was jho low private account at goldman? I mean if the board of a sovereign wealth fund assign your bank to raise funds and transfer to a designated account is this wrong, or unusual?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's not inherently wrong or unusual, but banks have an affirmative and well-known duty to perform due diligence, to the point where deliberately attempting to evade due diligence or your bank's compliance department is near-ironclad evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. A senior Goldman Sachs official involved in those efforts did indeed plead guilty to knowing about the money laundering. (https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/digital_assets/db4e5755-ccbc-42a6-84d2-3acf3b0a86d9/US-v-John-Doe--transcript-of-Leissner-plea-hearing-(9-November-2018).pdf https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/digital_assets/db4e57...)
        andi999 6y ago
        Thanks. Is the guilty plead about 1mdb?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It is. It's focused on the benefits that Leissner obtained for himself and Goldman Sachs and the bribes that were paid to facilitate and overlook things, since those are the two aspects subject to US jurisdiction.

pessimizer 6y ago

True, but in that way "oligarch" is being used (as it always is) as a slur against the foreign wealthy that implies wrongdoing, rather than naming it. I agree virtually 100% of the time that the way people named as oligarchs accumulate and maintain their wealth is terrible, I just don't know any criterion justifying why the wealthy in the US aren't also referred to as oligarchs and the same protocols applied to them. I think they aren't because they own the US media and political parties, just like named oligarchs do back in their home countries (where they aren't referred to as oligarchs, but instead in respectful tones.)

staticautomatic 6y ago
There is no such criterion. The US is full of oligarchs. It’s just not commonly used to describe them because US oligarchs own, among other things, the definition of the word oligarch in the US.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]