Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
theguardian.com
Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#2"However, the filing of an SAR does not require the bank to cease doing business with the client in question."
This feels broken. Was this intended to prevent competitors from falsely filing SARs against each other to freeze their business? What are the penalties for abusing this system?
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#3>According to the ICIJ the documents relate to more than $2tn of transactions dating from between 1999 and 2017.
Way to pitch it that it’s somehow Trump doing it all.
I wish HN would flag publications like, unfortunately, the guardian, bbc, that are known to twist data to suit a political agenda.
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#4> In a statement released earlier this month FinCEN condemned the disclosure of the leaked documents and said it had referred the matter to the US Department of Justice.
> “The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is aware that various media outlets intend to publish a series of articles based on unlawfully disclosed suspicious activity reports (SARs), as well as other sensitive government documents, from several years ago,” it stated.
> “As FinCEN has stated previously, the unauthorised disclosure of SARs is a crime that can impact the national security of the United States, compromise law enforcement investigations, and threaten the safety and security of the institutions and individuals who file such reports
Government response: Punish the leakers
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#5"However, the filing of an SAR does not require the bank to cease doing business with the client in question." This feels broken. Was this intended to prevent competitors from falsely filing SARs against each other to freeze their business? What are the penalties for abusing this system?
> Banks and other financial institutions file SARs when they believe a client is using their services for potential criminal activity.
It sounds like banks file SARs about their own clients. I'm guessing they don't have to cease doing business with the client because that would create an incentive not to file SARs.
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#6"However, the filing of an SAR does not require the bank to cease doing business with the client in question." This feels broken. Was this intended to prevent competitors from falsely filing SARs against each other to freeze their business? What are the penalties for abusing this system?
> Banks and other financial institutions file SARs when they believe a client is using their services for potential criminal activity. It sounds like banks file SARs about their own clients. I'm guessing they don't have to cease doing business with the client because that would create an incentive not to file SARs.
...and tipoff the 'suspicious' actor
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#7>According to the ICIJ the documents relate to more than $2tn of transactions dating from between 1999 and 2017. Way to pitch it that it’s somehow Trump doing it all. I wish HN would flag publications like, unfortunately, the guardian, bbc, that are known to twist data to suit a political agenda.
Hmm i saw no mention of trump behind behind this. I saw a mention of manafort, and a 1 sentence description describing what he is most famous for: being trumps campaign manager
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#8>According to the ICIJ the documents relate to more than $2tn of transactions dating from between 1999 and 2017. Way to pitch it that it’s somehow Trump doing it all. I wish HN would flag publications like, unfortunately, the guardian, bbc, that are known to twist data to suit a political agenda.
OK so your point is top line includes Paul Manafort who is connected to Trump, but you cite here the leaks include transactions going back to the time of the Clinton administration?
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#9>According to the ICIJ the documents relate to more than $2tn of transactions dating from between 1999 and 2017. Way to pitch it that it’s somehow Trump doing it all. I wish HN would flag publications like, unfortunately, the guardian, bbc, that are known to twist data to suit a political agenda.
The Guardian highlighting Paul Manafort as a way to tie this scandal to Trump is interesting for sure. The scandal is certainly bigger than one person.
I have a hunch will go the way of the libor scandal which resulted in mostly fines, and the panama papers scandal which resulted in the journalist (Daphne Caruana Galizia) who broke the details winding up assassinated by a car bomb.
Re: Leak reveals $2T of possibly corrupt US financial activity
#10>According to the ICIJ the documents relate to more than $2tn of transactions dating from between 1999 and 2017. Way to pitch it that it’s somehow Trump doing it all. I wish HN would flag publications like, unfortunately, the guardian, bbc, that are known to twist data to suit a political agenda.
I don't get it, Trumps name is only mentioned twice, and both times it concerns facts to place Manafort in the bigger picture.