11–20 of 126 posts
>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.
> 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 yea…
My gut says these leaked reports will have a greater negative impact on current corruption investigations than any positive impact from public consumption.
>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.
So literally the only 2 publications remaining with a semblance of journalistic integrity that have proven to be beyond political bias? Sure, that makes complete sense. /s
I'm a paid subscriber to Guardian online and occasionally subscribe to its weekly paper summary; I would agree with its journalistic integrity; while I agree with their perspective though, it actually gets too much even for me these days, and I would not call them "beyond political bias" by ANY stretch of imagination. If nothing else, they explicitly endorse candidates.
> 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 yea…
>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.
> 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 yea…
Seriously. If the reports are “years old” then there is no excuse for these to not have been dealt with.
"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?
>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.
What would be weird is if they topped with Mukhtar Ablyazov (alphabetical order by last name) or Reza Zarrab (reverse alphabetical order by last name).
"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?