3 ms·
I'm pretty sure there's no bank in the world that would be willing to make a transaction in the billions and not keep a record of it.
by enkid 6y ago
I'm pretty sure there's no bank in the world that would be willing to make a transaction in the billions and not keep a record of it.
- beached_whale 6y agothat's about 750,000 times what banks have to track. I think anything over $10k must be tracked or groups of transactions that are linked that are at/over that.
- geoduck14 6y agoAnything over $10k must be reported. Or anything that "looks suspicious". Or anything that "looks like it is trying to subvert the $10k rule"
- barbazoo 6y agoYou're probably right. I was thinking of the usual suspects when it comes to offshore accounts but also Switzerland with historically very strong privacy laws. But I'm know nothing about the banking industry so I could be totally off here.
- otterley 6y agoEven Switzerland eventually bent to pressure from the United States: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443713704577601473375807822 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443713704577601... https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578512783477933910 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578512... https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-23415 https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-MBB-23415
- rapind 6y agoYe of little faith. Google: HSBC cartel money.
- enkid 6y agoHSBC knew what they were doing.... Because of their records.
- rapind 6y ago“The confidential records and interviews with former employees reveal that compliance officers often filed SARs lacking even basic information about who owned companies banking with HSBC, the nature of their businesses, and where the money came from. Sometimes, records show, they asked branches for the information and were ignored or rebuffed.” There’s records and then there’s “records”. https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
- edoceo 6y agoAnd the record of not having a proper record.
- rapind 6y agoSo we’re good? A record of a record (of a record of a record of a...) that doesn’t tell you who the money went to, doesn’t fill in that blank. It’s useful to ascertain fault at the bank (which in HSBC’s case didn’t result in much of consequence ). So yes records (of sometimes dubious quality) are kept from a pedantic standpoint, but I understood GP to mean that this would prevent someone from laundering large sums through (large respectable) banks which is demonstrably not always the case. Not only may these logs be questionable, but apparently the penalties, using the HSBC example, don’t seem to be a deterrent. TLDR; banks having records doesn’t mean shit when you want to launder large sums of money.