4 ms·

Ye of little faith. Google: HSBC cartel money.

• enkid 6y ago
  HSBC 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 ago
      And the record of not having a proper record.
      • rapind 6y ago
        So 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.