3 ms·
Well the settlement with HSBC was to pay a $1.9 billion fine -- it's unlikely that Liberty Reserve would be able to come up with something of that order of magn
by JackFr 13y ago
Well the settlement with HSBC was to pay a $1.9 billion fine -- it's unlikely that Liberty Reserve would be able to come up with something of that order of magnitude. Additionally, I think the prosecutors would make the case that Liberty Reserve was _primarily_ a criminal money laundering operation while HSBC was a large, multi-faceted organization which engaged in certain criminal acts.
And anyway, they still may face criminal prosecution -- the judge has yet to sign off on the deal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/23/hsbc-court-threat-money-laundering-charges http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/23/hsbc-court-th...
- Comeingro 13y ago"HSBC was to pay a $1.9 billion fine -- it's unlikely that Liberty Reserve would be able to come up with something of that order of magnitude" That was for $60 Trillion in un-monitored transactions. The fine is very roughly ~ 1/32,000th of the total transaction dollars. Perhaps rather than shutting them down, the feds could fine them 1/32,000th of all of LR's un-monitored transaction? This "break the law to make money and pay the fine later on" is just part of the revenue model now. Fines are not a deterrent (in fact I think they are more appropriately called "bribes"), they are considered like insurance, or rent, or banking fees. All just part of the cost of making the most profit possible.