3 ms·

I'm all for jailing execs who break the law (e.g, HSBC's entire C-suite and board should have probably been in cuffs after the bank was caught laundering money

I'm all for jailing execs who break the law (e.g, HSBC's entire C-suite and board should have probably been in cuffs after the bank was caught laundering money again for terrorists, drug/human traffickers, and general human rights abusers AFTER paying a substantial fine for laundering money on behalf of terrorists, drug/human traffickers, and general human rights abusers [0]). But the "protect the children" angle is a steep, nebulous, subjective and very slippery slope that will likely target small fry who are not really harming anyone... Unlike the execs running HSBC who enabled money laundering for terrorists, drug/human traffickers, and general human rights abusers. [0] 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-...

from 4y ago
The ICIJ investigation showed that HSBC reported on a bunch of suspected criminals and it turns out some of them were in fact criminals. There is no law that requires closing accounts after a suspicious activity report, some banks do so after multiple of them but it is not a requirement at all. Generally companies are not penalized for what they report on. And like what is this? > The records show HSBC worked with a bank in Tiraspol, within Moldova’s breakaway territory of Transnistria, for four years after the U.S. Treasury Department issued a 2011 advisory warning of the risks of doing business with the Tiraspol bank. An advisory warning is not binding, is not an act of Congress, does not show up in the Federal Register, and just generally means the bank should monitor customers specified in the notice more, not that they should deny service entirely. These articles never say it directly but they are basically arguing for "derisking" which in practice means excluding large numbers of customers based solely on nationality.

from 4y ago

The ICIJ investigation showed that HSBC reported on a bunch of suspected criminals and it turns out some of them were in fact criminals. There is no law that requires closing accounts after a suspicious activity report, some banks do so after multiple of them but it is not a requirement at all. Generally companies are not penalized for what they report on. And like what is this? > The records show HSBC worked with a bank in Tiraspol, within Moldova’s breakaway territory of Transnistria, for four years after the U.S. Treasury Department issued a 2011 advisory warning of the risks of doing business with the Tiraspol bank. An advisory warning is not binding, is not an act of Congress, does not show up in the Federal Register, and just generally means the bank should monitor customers specified in the notice more, not that they should deny service entirely. These articles never say it directly but they are basically arguing for "derisking" which in practice means excluding large numbers of customers based solely on nationality.