3 ms·
Let me get this straight: the core accusation is that banks are flagging suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities, then proceeding to process the tr
by omginternets 6y ago
Let me get this straight: the core accusation is that banks are flagging suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities, then proceeding to process the transaction.
Did I miss something?
The authors seem to be implying that the banks should have blocked the transaction, to which I ask: do we really want the banks to act as judge, jury and executioner? Isn't the real scandal here that these SARs are apparently not being investigated by actual law enforcement?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rjtavares 6y agoYou missed this: > The FinCEN Files show trillions in tainted dollars flow freely through major banks, swamping a broken enforcement system.
- refurb 6y agoWhat does “tainted” mean? That seems like a weasel word to imply something nefarious without proof. As the OP stated. The banks are flagging these transactions as per regulations. Should we have them block every “suspicious” transaction?
- joe_the_user 6y agoQuote (again): "In some cases the banks kept moving illicit funds even after U.S. officials warned them they’d face criminal prosecutions if they didn’t stop doing business with mobsters, fraudsters or corrupt regimes." The situation and the article is only slightly complicated. Why are there so many folks not getting it?
- franciscop 6y agoHow does the bank determine who is e.g. a mobster? If a judge, or maybe even the police says "person X is a mobster don't do transactions with them" it's pretty clear and I'm sure they'd comply. Otherwise it's again a totally ambiguous statement since it implies the bank would need to do the police's job better than the police.
- refurb 6y agoI think the key is your statement says "in some cases" and the parent quote is "trillions of dollars in tainted money". I'm not arguing the banks are innocent here. Just that the author seems to be bucketing all of the different cases, that range from outright illegal activity to simply "suspicion", together.
- joe_the_user 6y agoQuote1: "In some cases the banks kept moving illicit funds even after U.S. officials warned them they’d face criminal prosecutions if they didn’t stop doing business with mobsters, fraudsters or corrupt regimes." I don't know if it's true but it's clearly making a strong claim. It's remarkable that all the highest voted comments summarize the article as only claiming that there was a problem because a FinCEN was filed. Clearly, the article is about the particular interpretation of those FinCEN files. Quote2 (edit): "Along with sifting through the FinCEN Files, ICIJ and its media partners obtained more than 17,600 other records from insiders and whistleblowers, court files, freedom-of-information requests and other sources. The team interviewed hundreds of people, including financial crime experts, law enforcement officials and crime victims." IE, the organization did their own investigation and found a lot of shadiness - they allege. But they are very clear that just FinCEN doesn't prove an illegal transaction.
- omginternets 6y agoLink? I completely missed this...
- joe_the_user 6y agoI'm quoting the linked article Search in the article for the quotes. I suppose the article has several places where it might look like it ends but doesn't.
- omginternets 6y agoAh right you are. That was exactly the problem.