3 ms·

Translated: "HSBC wanted to avoid the cost and hassle of complying with the law."

• mike_hearn 13y ago
  Which is correct behaviour and what governments all ask banks to do, believe it or not. It's called the "risk based approach" in the AML jargon. The problem with AML laws is that they are so vague, it's impossible to ever really be sure you're in compliance. They turn banks into a privatised police force. How much effort should they make? Governments won't tell. They just say "be sensible about it". Banks hate this, as would you in their position, they want clarity about what to do, but governments don't want to give them a list of boxes to tick because they feel it'd be too slow and inflexible to keep up with criminals. See the problem? Banks invest VAST sums in AML compliance. They develop automated software to spot suspicious transactions, they have massive internal compliance departments, they ID verify all their customers. It's a huge, huge drain (which is passed on to all of us, of course). But how much is enough? As far as the Justice Department is concerned, there can never be enough. Whilst criminals exist, it must mean failures of compliance by banks.
  • csallen 13y ago
    I'm not saying that the laws aren't overly vague or in need of improvement. But classifying Mexico as a low-risk country despite KNOWING that it's high-risk was not an accidental misinterpretation of what was expected from them.