Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
I understand that the money isn't the bank's money. It's just the middle man that is making the transaction. However you don't think they made more than 1% profit holding that money?
That 1.9 bil isn't even .5% of just the drug money transactions, meaning they have still most likely profited by a large amount from this money.
As far as proof, yes there was proof. In 2010 HSBC was warned that they were dealing in drug money and it needed to be stopped but they were not fined at that time. HSBC continued to deal in that money so two years later they have been fined.
This means yes they did know they were partaking in criminal actions.
|
Fist of all,if it was just a direct series of transactions over time,then no, they did not make anywhere close to 1% on the money. At most they could use the funds to add to their books as temporary tier one capital.
The wording of the article is deliberately misleading as regards to the "warning". If the government had any evidence at all, then forfiture laws would have kicked in at the time and the accounts would have been frozen. When i owned a check 21 processing company, the bank recieved a report that there was something potentially suspicious about processing for adult by the government. The government then investigated and there was no evidence. If the bank had stopped doing business with us at the "warning" of potentially suspiciuos activity, a lot of webmasters would not have gotten paid.
The fact is that a bank get many of these warnings, of a variuos nature and level, on a daily basis. I know that many of the webmasters here have had their transactions, even simple wires, flagged as potential suspicious, even though your bank does not tell you about it.
.