4 ms·
It's possible this was started by some sub-org within HSBC, where 881M would be a large fraction of that org's size. The management layer above them then doesn
by albntomat0 4y ago
It's possible this was started by some sub-org within HSBC, where 881M would be a large fraction of that org's size. The management layer above them then doesn't look too deeply, or ensure prior compliance procedure, while promoting and giving bonuses to those who hit high numbers.
- bitcharmer 4y agoThis is exactly how these things happen. In an organisation that employs quarter of a million employees it's impossible to have perfect transparency and controls everywhere. At this scale you just have to trust that people below you do the right thing. That's not to say there should be no criminal charges for individuals. Just explaining how this transpired.
- mnau 4y agoIt's responsibility of the CEO/BoD to ensure compliance. At that size and in that market, compliance departments are huge. We get regular audits of our work by an outside company. The exact auditing company rotate to ensure no incompetence/cronyism hides something. As the article states: > Indeed, prior to 2010 when the OCC cited the bank for many AML deficiencies—including a huge backlog of unreviewed accounts and failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs)—for the previous six years the agency failed to take any enforcement action against the bank
- rqtwteye 4y agoIf the big guys aren’t able to be responsible for bad things they also shouldn’t take responsibility for good things and not get their big paychecks. In the end if an organization is too big to be controlled and to take responsibility it shouldn’t exist and be broken up.