The absence of Mexico from the FATF blacklist simply means that Mexico makes a good effort at implementing the FATF recommendations. Which makes sense since Mex

The absence of Mexico from the FATF blacklist simply means that Mexico makes a good effort at implementing the FATF recommendations. Which makes sense since Mexico is a FATF member (I don't think there is a single FATF member in the FATF list of high-risk and non cooperative countries). It doesn't account for the high risk of money laundering associated with the social context of drug trafficking (this was also the government's point I think). For what it's worth, the 2009 IMF report on Mexico's FATF compliance[1] identifies a lot of issues regarding Mexico's AML process (see the ratings table starting at page 311). Reading the Statement of Facts, I personally find the evidence compelling that there was a lot of blind eye turning at HSBC to say the least. Just one example: When suspicious activity was identified, HSBC Mexico repeatedly failed to take action to close the accounts. Senior business executives at HSBC Mexico repeatedly overruled recommendations from its own AML committee to close accounts with documented suspicious activity. In July 2007, a senior compliance officer at HSBC Group told HSBC Mexico’s Chief Compliance Officer that “[t]he AML committee just can’t keep rubber-stamping unacceptable risks merely because someone on the business side writes a nice letter. It needs to take a firmer stand. It needs some cojones. We have seen this movie before, and it ends badly.” (BTW I don't "keep saying this". It was my first comment on the topic. You probably confused me with milkshakes or dalke.) [1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2009/cr0907.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2009/cr0907.pdf