Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Laundering money does not mean that a bank keeps the money. When a bank accepts a deposit from someone, then that depositor sends that money on to another institution, and perhaps on to another one, that money then acquires a legitimate source for eventual permanent deposit or withdrawal somewhere. The bank makes their money from fees charged for moving the money. This is a very small percentage. The bank didn't keep the 700 bn. Even if they had, the government would have frozen and seized those accounts as soon as there was evidence of criminal activity at the source of the funds.

Also, the reason why no one is going to jail is probably because no one had any proof that the bank knew where the money was coming from. The way that the US sets up it's reporting, due diligence, and source of funds requirements is very strict, and the bank may have violated those by not doing ENOUGH SOF diligence, but I'm sure that a drug dealer didn't walk into the bank and say, "Hey, I have this big bag full of drug money for you." The big dealers have lawyers and accountants that set up all kinds of fake corporations and business accounts in order to make the money look legit to the bank. The issue for the bank is that they must adhere to much higher standards in the US, as far as being suspicious of every large transaction, (They must file a Suspicious Activity Report for EVERY wire over 10k, for example), and sometimes the banks are not suspicious enough to satisfy those requirements. Thus the fine against the bank.

I'm not defending the banks actions here, I'm simply telling you what goes on, since banking is my business.


.



.