4 ms·

Please point me to the law that the executives broke that would send them to jail. Cross-reference it with the government's charges. If you read the DOJ's side

Please point me to the law that the executives broke that would send them to jail. Cross-reference it with the government's charges. If you read the DOJ's side of things, HSBC is guilty of things like "we said Mexico is high-risk, HSBC disagreed and so failed to automatically monitor a bunch of transactions," in more legalistic language.

wprl 13y ago
How about basic decency? You have to admit that there is a parallel here with many "everyday" drug cases, and that the punishment of ordinary people in parallel situations is drastically disproportionate to the punishment of HSBC.
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  It's extremely hard to send drug kingpins to jail, and these are people who are actually breaking the law. I'm sure, however, that the US government can try to prosecute mid-level HSBC managers and maybe some random bank tellers in Jersey and Mexico and wherever. Somehow I doubt this is what the article author actually wants to happen.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    "I'm sure, however, that the US government can try to prosecute mid-level HSBC managers and maybe some random bank tellers in Jersey and Mexico and wherever." They are not even doing that. And given your view that the executives should not get done because of mid level managers being responsible, what do you think of the fact that they are not being held to account either? Or do you honestly believe that this money was laundered through HSBC with nobody at HSBC helping?
- rayiner 13y ago
  If you're a bank, your services will be used to launder money. It's guaranteed to happen. All you can do is implement controls to keep that activity below a certain threshold. And banks reasonably want to implement as few controls as they can get away with while complying with the law, because it costs them money to do so. Failure to implement sufficient controls for compliance is not tantamount to an intent to assist money laundering. There's absolutely no parallel here to the situation of ordinary people. If you see that Joe Schmoe's bank account was used to launder money from a drug cartel, you can very reasonably infer that he intended to assist that cartel. There's no reasonable explanation that involves trying to save money or hassle on regulatory compliance issues. Those sorts of transactions don't just accidentally or incidentally happen to ordinary people.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
New York State Penal Law Charge 62. DANY alleges, and HSBC Holdings admits, that its conduct, as described herein, violated New York State Penal Law Sections 175.05 and 175.10, which make it a crime to, “with intent to defraud, . . . (i) make[ ] or cause[ ] a false entry in the business records of an enterprise [defined as any company or corporation] . . . or (iv) prevent[ ] the making of a true entry or cause the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.” It is a felony under Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Law if a violation under Section 175.05 is committed and the person or entity’s “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.pdf http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.p...
justincormack 13y ago
Starting in the first para http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.pdf http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.p..., the DOJ says they have violated the Bank Secrecy Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act which has punishments including imprisonment.
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  The Bank Secrecy act encapsulates hundreds of pages of law and regulations. Which part are you talking about? You can't just link a law and say "it says somewhere here someone can go to prison for some reason, so I'm sure that bank executives should go to prison." The Wikipedia article's blurb about prison does not seem to cover HSBC's conduct, but it's also hopelessly vague.
  - mattdeboard 13y ago
    The DOJ themselves said HSBC is in violation, therefore the point is made without the need for us lay readers to know the exact part.
    - cynicalkane 13y ago
      ??? The Bank Secrecy Act carries with it an enormous amount of different regulations and different laws and different penalties. The exact part is what you need to make your "point". If you can't produce it, no point has been made. The DOJ hasn't bothered to produce any reason to throw executives in jail, and I bet you can't either. Blithe self-righteousness is not a reason. A vague reference to a multi-hundred-page set of laws and regulations is not a reason.
      - mattdeboard 13y ago
        Ok, thanks for participating in our conversation
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
FireBeyond 13y ago
No, HSBC didn’t disagree. They initially agreed, then /executives/ at the bank said “this will reduce profitability, so we need to change our position”. They are very much at fault. We don’t need to cross-reference anything. You should be disproving things. Why? Because HSBC admitted guilt and liability.

wprl 13y ago

How about basic decency? You have to admit that there is a parallel here with many "everyday" drug cases, and that the punishment of ordinary people in parallel situations is drastically disproportionate to the punishment of HSBC.

cynicalkane 13y ago
It's extremely hard to send drug kingpins to jail, and these are people who are actually breaking the law. I'm sure, however, that the US government can try to prosecute mid-level HSBC managers and maybe some random bank tellers in Jersey and Mexico and wherever. Somehow I doubt this is what the article author actually wants to happen.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  "I'm sure, however, that the US government can try to prosecute mid-level HSBC managers and maybe some random bank tellers in Jersey and Mexico and wherever." They are not even doing that. And given your view that the executives should not get done because of mid level managers being responsible, what do you think of the fact that they are not being held to account either? Or do you honestly believe that this money was laundered through HSBC with nobody at HSBC helping?
rayiner 13y ago
If you're a bank, your services will be used to launder money. It's guaranteed to happen. All you can do is implement controls to keep that activity below a certain threshold. And banks reasonably want to implement as few controls as they can get away with while complying with the law, because it costs them money to do so. Failure to implement sufficient controls for compliance is not tantamount to an intent to assist money laundering. There's absolutely no parallel here to the situation of ordinary people. If you see that Joe Schmoe's bank account was used to launder money from a drug cartel, you can very reasonably infer that he intended to assist that cartel. There's no reasonable explanation that involves trying to save money or hassle on regulatory compliance issues. Those sorts of transactions don't just accidentally or incidentally happen to ordinary people.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

New York State Penal Law Charge 62. DANY alleges, and HSBC Holdings admits, that its conduct, as described herein, violated New York State Penal Law Sections 175.05 and 175.10, which make it a crime to, “with intent to defraud, . . . (i) make[ ] or cause[ ] a false entry in the business records of an enterprise [defined as any company or corporation] . . . or (iv) prevent[ ] the making of a true entry or cause the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.” It is a felony under Section 175.10 of the New York State Penal Law if a violation under Section 175.05 is committed and the person or entity’s “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.pdf http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.p...

justincormack 13y ago

Starting in the first para http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.pdf http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/hsbc/dpa-attachment-a.p..., the DOJ says they have violated the Bank Secrecy Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act which has punishments including imprisonment.

cynicalkane 13y ago
The Bank Secrecy act encapsulates hundreds of pages of law and regulations. Which part are you talking about? You can't just link a law and say "it says somewhere here someone can go to prison for some reason, so I'm sure that bank executives should go to prison." The Wikipedia article's blurb about prison does not seem to cover HSBC's conduct, but it's also hopelessly vague.
- mattdeboard 13y ago
  The DOJ themselves said HSBC is in violation, therefore the point is made without the need for us lay readers to know the exact part.
  - cynicalkane 13y ago
    ??? The Bank Secrecy Act carries with it an enormous amount of different regulations and different laws and different penalties. The exact part is what you need to make your "point". If you can't produce it, no point has been made. The DOJ hasn't bothered to produce any reason to throw executives in jail, and I bet you can't either. Blithe self-righteousness is not a reason. A vague reference to a multi-hundred-page set of laws and regulations is not a reason.
    - mattdeboard 13y ago
      Ok, thanks for participating in our conversation
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago

FireBeyond 13y ago

No, HSBC didn’t disagree. They initially agreed, then /executives/ at the bank said “this will reduce profitability, so we need to change our position”. They are very much at fault. We don’t need to cross-reference anything. You should be disproving things. Why? Because HSBC admitted guilt and liability.