Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
A British bank failed to comply with certain American banking regulations, (that only apply to banks that have offices in the US). The British Bank was fined a HUGE amount by the American government for their non-compliance.
End of story.
According to your logic Crockett, you should be pissed at all the OTHER countries in the world that do not require the same reporting criteria that the US does. HSBC is not breaking laws in any other country, only in the US, therefore all of the other countries are failing to require the same level of AML compliance.
You aren't making sense here. Why aren't you lashing out at the UK for failing to implement tighter regulations for their own banks? The US has BY FAR the strictest and most heavily enforced anti-money laundering regulations in the world. This is why they paid this fine in the US and nowhere else. According to your logic you should be applauding the US here.
.
.
|
No it's not end of story it's bull shit. The reason the feds didn't go criminal with the case is because yet once again a bank is "too big to fail".
A nice quote on the matter from NYtimes..
"State and federal authorities decided against indicting HSBC in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world’s largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system."
Clearly showing that if you have enough money you can do the crime with out doing the time. Nice write up on this very subject..
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/...ey-laundering/
The end result being the "only" reason criminal charges were not filed was because the bank was too big to fail and bringing criminal charges against it's officers would have caused that failure. This was a criminal act that any lessor organization would have been brought up on these charges, but the justice dept couldn't prosecute HSBC officers due to the reach of the bank's investments, as it would greatly affect the world's economy.