3 ms·
this is parroted so often but is usually quantifiably false. Usually the fines are small compared to overall profit of a company because the actions are relati
by rtpg 13y ago
this is parroted so often but is usually quantifiably false. Usually the fines are small compared to overall profit of a company because the actions are relatively small compared to total operations, but most fines defintely cost the company more than not doing the actions would have in financial cases.
- sheetjs 13y agoHSBC paid 1.9B fine for money laundering related to Mexican drug cartels. To understand this number, lets look at the DOJ claims: > Between 2006 and 2009, according to DOJ, HSBC failed to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers and $9.4 billion in cash transactions from its Mexico bank operations. We don't know exactly how much HSBC profited from these specific alleged activities, but even a 1% rate (pretty low if they turned a blind eye, especially on the cash side) would net more than triple the fine. (and yes, profiting 7B and paying 2B in fines is a net profit of 5B) I do, however, agree that quotes like "X days profit" generally refer to the entire bank's profit and not to the actual activity in question
- rtpg 13y agoAccording to HSBC's US site, there's a fixed $30 rate for a signle wire transfer. Mexico's rates are probably less (for reference, here in France it costs me nothing to do a wire transfer within Europe). I sincerely hope they didn't come out on top of this.
- rayiner 13y agoSo they failed to monitor $10 bn in transactions. 1% of that is $100 m. The fine was 19x larger. What am I missing?
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago"HSBC failed to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers"