4 ms·

Are you implying 40% of HSBC clients are blatant criminals? Because surely something would happen to them if that were the case.

PretzelPirate 5y ago
The percentage doesn’t matter. I’m saying that HSBC has helped launder money for terrible people/organizations and the US government would stop more crime by appropriately punishing them vs a small exchange. Edit: I can’t reply to the person who responded, but if you read my original comment, I say I think both should be punished instead of the government going hard against small fish while letting large-scale corruption thrive.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >The percentage doesn’t matter. I’m saying that HSBC has helped launder money for terrible people/organizations and the US government would stop more crime by appropriately punishing them vs a small exchange. And so they (HSBC) did[0]. And quite blatantly too. HSBC should have been smacked down hard. They were not. And that was wrong. Is your argument that others doing the same should get a pass because HSBC only got a slap on the wrist? [0] https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n... Edit: Added link to details of HSBC's bad behavior.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    Actually there is legitimate value in saying that all parties should receive the same punishment. If there is precedent for a lesser punishment, then the guilty should all receive it, not just the guilty of with the right connections, wealth or… skin color. There’s another similar argument to be made for mandatory minimum sentences.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Actually there is legitimate value in saying that all parties should receive the same punishment. I'd say that parties--when proven guilty--should receive similar punitive action relative to the scope of the issue. But I don't see it as "HSBC got off lightly, so everyone else should too." I see it as "The DOJ dropped the ball with HSBC, and there should have been company-breaking fines/sanctions and those who knowingly assisted the cartels should do real prison time for money laundering and associated RICO charges. That should be the standard, not "oh gee, HSBC got a slap on the wrist so no one should have to take responsibility for actions supporting global narco-traffickers (whether or not such drugs should be legal is another discussion) and state sponsors of terrorism. If a case is handled inappropriately, the solution isn't to handle all similar cases inappropriately -- the solution is to do it correctly the next time and the time after that and the time after that, etc. Being a chartered bank (or any corporation) is a privilege that can and should be revoked if those privileges are abused as HSBC did. Or are you standing up for the banking system being allowed to knowingly profit from the death, murder and misery of other people? The irony of HSBC's origins as the funder the opium trade in China isn't lost on me. But that was ~150 years ago and times have changed.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Edit: I can’t reply to the person who responded, but if you read my original comment, I say I think both should be punished instead of the government going hard against small fish while letting large-scale corruption thrive. Fair enough. And I don't disagree. At all. IMNSHO, HSBC should no longer be allowed to operate as a bank and those who allowed this to happen should still be in 8x10 boxes somewhere. But it's an imperfect world. Edit: Fixed typo (IMNHSO vs. IMNSHO).
- finiteseries 5y ago
  The US government is having to address ransomware crime, a topical issue, in the middle of a gigantic rise in ransomware crime. HSBC laundered money for cartels and helped eg Iranians avoid sanctions. Those are issues, but they aren’t directly related to ransomware crime like a crypto exchange facilitating payments for ransomware crime is. It’s somewhat off topic.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Didn't your parents ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

PretzelPirate 5y ago

The percentage doesn’t matter. I’m saying that HSBC has helped launder money for terrible people/organizations and the US government would stop more crime by appropriately punishing them vs a small exchange. Edit: I can’t reply to the person who responded, but if you read my original comment, I say I think both should be punished instead of the government going hard against small fish while letting large-scale corruption thrive.

nobody9999 5y ago
>The percentage doesn’t matter. I’m saying that HSBC has helped launder money for terrible people/organizations and the US government would stop more crime by appropriately punishing them vs a small exchange. And so they (HSBC) did[0]. And quite blatantly too. HSBC should have been smacked down hard. They were not. And that was wrong. Is your argument that others doing the same should get a pass because HSBC only got a slap on the wrist? [0] https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n... Edit: Added link to details of HSBC's bad behavior.
- true_religion 5y ago
  Actually there is legitimate value in saying that all parties should receive the same punishment. If there is precedent for a lesser punishment, then the guilty should all receive it, not just the guilty of with the right connections, wealth or… skin color. There’s another similar argument to be made for mandatory minimum sentences.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Actually there is legitimate value in saying that all parties should receive the same punishment. I'd say that parties--when proven guilty--should receive similar punitive action relative to the scope of the issue. But I don't see it as "HSBC got off lightly, so everyone else should too." I see it as "The DOJ dropped the ball with HSBC, and there should have been company-breaking fines/sanctions and those who knowingly assisted the cartels should do real prison time for money laundering and associated RICO charges. That should be the standard, not "oh gee, HSBC got a slap on the wrist so no one should have to take responsibility for actions supporting global narco-traffickers (whether or not such drugs should be legal is another discussion) and state sponsors of terrorism. If a case is handled inappropriately, the solution isn't to handle all similar cases inappropriately -- the solution is to do it correctly the next time and the time after that and the time after that, etc. Being a chartered bank (or any corporation) is a privilege that can and should be revoked if those privileges are abused as HSBC did. Or are you standing up for the banking system being allowed to knowingly profit from the death, murder and misery of other people? The irony of HSBC's origins as the funder the opium trade in China isn't lost on me. But that was ~150 years ago and times have changed.
nobody9999 5y ago
>Edit: I can’t reply to the person who responded, but if you read my original comment, I say I think both should be punished instead of the government going hard against small fish while letting large-scale corruption thrive. Fair enough. And I don't disagree. At all. IMNSHO, HSBC should no longer be allowed to operate as a bank and those who allowed this to happen should still be in 8x10 boxes somewhere. But it's an imperfect world. Edit: Fixed typo (IMNHSO vs. IMNSHO).
finiteseries 5y ago
The US government is having to address ransomware crime, a topical issue, in the middle of a gigantic rise in ransomware crime. HSBC laundered money for cartels and helped eg Iranians avoid sanctions. Those are issues, but they aren’t directly related to ransomware crime like a crypto exchange facilitating payments for ransomware crime is. It’s somewhat off topic.
mdoms 5y ago
Didn't your parents ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?