2 ms·

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.