3 ms·

Drop in the bucket compared to what HSBC alone (continues) to launder [1]. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest the banks may have advised the use of Teth

Drop in the bucket compared to what HSBC alone (continues) to launder [1]. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest the banks may have advised the use of Tether [1] 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-...

EA-3167 2y ago
That sounds like an argument to hold HSBC to account, *and* Tether as well. Or was this meant to be nothing more than a false equivalence?
- capybaraStorm 2y ago
  It is a data point to suggest that Tether has another common property. For instance, it has been observed that oxygen is consumed by all living money launderers. If we could not produce evidence anyone but money launderers breathed, we may be able to assess cutting off oxygen might be a useful tool in surgically cutting out money laundering. Knowing Tether and HSBC are both used for money laundering add a data point in finding surgical precision.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  It’s a textbook whataboutism appeal. HSBC actually paid significant fines, according to the linked article. Tether has not. So in this case Tether does not have moral equivalence despite how much the Tether proponents want everyone looking at everything except Tether.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    It's a claim of selective enforcement. Which is rather different from actual "you need to eat your vegetables because there are starving children in Africa" whataboutism.
Aurornis 2y ago
This is a report of only one type of laundering happening on Tether. I suspect it barely scratches the surface. As a percentage of Tether operations it’s rather significant Regardless, HSBC paid fines. Tether should be held accountable too.
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
I have a feeling that the big international banks like HSBC will have an axe to grind with Tether (and cryptocurrencies in general) because it's eating into their highly lucrative business.
rr808 2y ago
That isn't laundering. In fact I think its really bad for banks to be the judge whether customers are doing illegal work eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/business/banks-accounts-close-suddenly.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/business/banks-accounts-c.... They shouldn't have that power, it should be up to the courts.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Due to the Patriot Act, a post-9/11 bill, banks are required to view every transaction, foreign and domestic, and find every possible trace of potential terrorist activity. This includes any and all forms of money laundering. They will treat even the most innocent transaction on hold if they find it suspicious, because the law requires it. It can even be indirectly tied to the recent cases of debanking, as internal bank departments are far harsher to legal but politically inconvenient speech than they had been. And one must remember, the government knew, at minimum, that there was a major terror attack incoming for 3 years prior and even knew 4 of the 19 terrorists involved, even if scale and date was not known. I find it very telling that the bill that was drafted over the following month and a half, and was rushed into law in three days, had such major, calculated impacts on our freedoms.
  - freefaler 2y ago
    It's a bad law and should be repealed/reworked as it was a rushed decision of "we need to answer somehow and show we've done something" behaviour. However "the government (knew)" is just a lot of unconnected bureaucracies and it's expected they won't work very well together. Someone in the 100s of thousands of people knew something, but the decision makers were not aware or didn't know whom to trust. It's the same problem Stalin had before the Hitler's invasion. Many reports that it'll start any day now, but these were reported repeatedly for 6 months beforehand. It's false positives that drown the real positives.
    - from-nibly 2y ago
      It would be great to repel the patriot act. But it wont happen. That's the one that allows the government to spy on its citizens. They aren't going to give that up.

EA-3167 2y ago

That sounds like an argument to hold HSBC to account, *and* Tether as well. Or was this meant to be nothing more than a false equivalence?

capybaraStorm 2y ago
It is a data point to suggest that Tether has another common property. For instance, it has been observed that oxygen is consumed by all living money launderers. If we could not produce evidence anyone but money launderers breathed, we may be able to assess cutting off oxygen might be a useful tool in surgically cutting out money laundering. Knowing Tether and HSBC are both used for money laundering add a data point in finding surgical precision.
Aurornis 2y ago
It’s a textbook whataboutism appeal. HSBC actually paid significant fines, according to the linked article. Tether has not. So in this case Tether does not have moral equivalence despite how much the Tether proponents want everyone looking at everything except Tether.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  It's a claim of selective enforcement. Which is rather different from actual "you need to eat your vegetables because there are starving children in Africa" whataboutism.

Aurornis 2y ago

This is a report of only one type of laundering happening on Tether. I suspect it barely scratches the surface. As a percentage of Tether operations it’s rather significant Regardless, HSBC paid fines. Tether should be held accountable too.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

I have a feeling that the big international banks like HSBC will have an axe to grind with Tether (and cryptocurrencies in general) because it's eating into their highly lucrative business.

rr808 2y ago

That isn't laundering. In fact I think its really bad for banks to be the judge whether customers are doing illegal work eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/business/banks-accounts-close-suddenly.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/business/banks-accounts-c.... They shouldn't have that power, it should be up to the courts.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
Due to the Patriot Act, a post-9/11 bill, banks are required to view every transaction, foreign and domestic, and find every possible trace of potential terrorist activity. This includes any and all forms of money laundering. They will treat even the most innocent transaction on hold if they find it suspicious, because the law requires it. It can even be indirectly tied to the recent cases of debanking, as internal bank departments are far harsher to legal but politically inconvenient speech than they had been. And one must remember, the government knew, at minimum, that there was a major terror attack incoming for 3 years prior and even knew 4 of the 19 terrorists involved, even if scale and date was not known. I find it very telling that the bill that was drafted over the following month and a half, and was rushed into law in three days, had such major, calculated impacts on our freedoms.
- freefaler 2y ago
  It's a bad law and should be repealed/reworked as it was a rushed decision of "we need to answer somehow and show we've done something" behaviour. However "the government (knew)" is just a lot of unconnected bureaucracies and it's expected they won't work very well together. Someone in the 100s of thousands of people knew something, but the decision makers were not aware or didn't know whom to trust. It's the same problem Stalin had before the Hitler's invasion. Many reports that it'll start any day now, but these were reported repeatedly for 6 months beforehand. It's false positives that drown the real positives.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    It would be great to repel the patriot act. But it wont happen. That's the one that allows the government to spy on its citizens. They aren't going to give that up.