4 ms·

Yes. Some of the most damning evidence in the HSBC investigation was internal documents by the people whose only job was making sure HSBC complied with AML law

by patio11 13y ago

Yes. Some of the most damning evidence in the HSBC investigation was internal documents by the people whose only job was making sure HSBC complied with AML laws -- departments full of them! -- were saying things like, paraphrased from memory, "Why are we accepting this business? We have seen this movie before. It will end badly." or "You [people at one branch of HSBC] need to immediately stop [a particular banking practice] because it is certainly out of compliance with HSBC global policies and relevant AML laws in [our branch's] jurisdiction. You need to fix this, immediately." And then it didn't get fixed, which is why they had to pay two billion dollars. Edit: The movie quote part of a longer email excerpted extensively in the Congressional report. It's so amazing that I think I'll just copy/paste the whole excerpt. A number of items jump out from your most recently weekly report (02JUL-06JUL) but everything pales in comparison with the ML items on page 4. It looks like the business is still retaining unacceptable risks and the AML committee is going along after some initial hemming and hawing. I am quite concerned that the committee is not functioning properly. Alarmed, even. I am close to picking up the phone to your CEO. [Redacted by HSBC] looks like another [Unimed306] type of situation – what on earth is an ‘assumption responsibility letter’ and how would it protect the bank if the client is a money launderer? Please note that you can dress up the USD10 million to be paid … to the US authorities as an ‘economic penalty’ if you wish but a fine is a fine is a fine, and a hefty one at that. What is this, the School of Low Expectations Banking? (“We didn’t go to jail! We merely signed a settlement with the Feds for $ 10 million!”) … So, [Unimed307] is strike one. [Redacted by HSBC] is strike two. Let’s now look at strike three. (I hope you like baseball.) The same person who is giving the sancrosanct ‘assumption responsibility letter’ for [Redacted by HSBC] … is being asked by the CEO to explain why he retained the [Casa De Cambio Puebla308] relationship after USC11 million was seized by the authority in [Puebla309] account with Wachovia in Miami. What?! The business was okay with this? The 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.” 7/17/2007 email from HSBC John Root to HBMX Ramon Garcia, with copies to Susan Wright, David Bagley, and Warren Leaming, “Weekly Compliance Report 02JUL-06JUL07,” HSBC OCC 8875925-927.

egocodedinsol 13y ago
But what I don't quite understand is why there aren't 'perp walks'. It seems odd, because I imagine lots of FBI agents would love to take down guys at a big bank. I'm not saying this to point out a huge injustice, it's just very curious.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Consultant32452 13y ago
  You need attorney generals, which generally run on shoestring budgets, to be willing to criminally prosecute millionaires and billionaires who are likely going to drag court out forever and most likely walk anyways. It's much easier to pop a couple of low level guys for possession to make your numbers look better.
  - aestra 13y ago
    Wow. Why are you just randomly making up your own pet theory when the question was actually answered and also had a catchy phrase to go with it? HSBC was "too big to jail" http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-big-to-jail/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-b... Holder responded by saying he was not talking about HSBC in particular but that, "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." From Holder's statements, it appears that the government was so worried about the dangerous repercussions that could result from prosecuting such a large, complex and globally significant institution that it shielded HSBC from criminal liability.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      That's what he says publicly. The real reason is that he knows prosecuting HSBC's leaders -- a group of very well-connected billionaires -- would end his political career and greatly reduce the amount of future campaign donations financial institutions make to Democratic candidates.

by patio11 13y ago

egocodedinsol 13y ago

But what I don't quite understand is why there aren't 'perp walks'. It seems odd, because I imagine lots of FBI agents would love to take down guys at a big bank. I'm not saying this to point out a huge injustice, it's just very curious.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Consultant32452 13y ago
You need attorney generals, which generally run on shoestring budgets, to be willing to criminally prosecute millionaires and billionaires who are likely going to drag court out forever and most likely walk anyways. It's much easier to pop a couple of low level guys for possession to make your numbers look better.
- aestra 13y ago
  Wow. Why are you just randomly making up your own pet theory when the question was actually answered and also had a catchy phrase to go with it? HSBC was "too big to jail" http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-big-to-jail/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-b... Holder responded by saying he was not talking about HSBC in particular but that, "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." From Holder's statements, it appears that the government was so worried about the dangerous repercussions that could result from prosecuting such a large, complex and globally significant institution that it shielded HSBC from criminal liability.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    That's what he says publicly. The real reason is that he knows prosecuting HSBC's leaders -- a group of very well-connected billionaires -- would end his political career and greatly reduce the amount of future campaign donations financial institutions make to Democratic candidates.