Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

investopedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 118 posts

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#61

Post by seanmcdirmid »

photochemsyn wrote: post #18

Why aren't bankers who launder billions for drug cartels given the kind of multi-decade federal prison sentences that 25-yr-old kids smuggling a few kilos of cocaine from Mexico to the United State are? It certainly makes it look like outfits like the FBI and DEA are little more than the enforcement arms of an organized white-collar crime cartel operating out of Wall Street offices, doesn't it? Amusingly James Comey…

Aren’t most of the offenders located outside of the USA? The USA claims international jurisdiction on money laundering and bribery and such, but other countries don’t necessarily agree. The best they can do is fine a company a lot of money (which they pay up because otherwise they can’t do business in the USA), actual criminal prosecution against individuals would require a lot of cooperation in countries like China or Singapore who are unlikely going to provide that. Even London (where the top execs are based) is going to be a stretch.

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#62

Post by emmanuel_1234 »

electric_mayhem wrote: post #51

Another one? Corporate death penalty needs to be a thing. Do bad business consistently, as HSBC has since basically the dawn of its existence, and get your corporate charter revoked. Corporations are cynical, self-aware entities. And some, like HSBC, are sociopaths and a blight on civilization.

> Another one?

It's about the 2012 case.

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#64

Post by [deleted] »

binarymax wrote: post #3

If nobody goes to jail, and the bank retains its licenses, then the fine is meaningless no matter how large. The fine is just seen as a poor investment, which is common in finance. They lost money, and move on to the next investment. People need to go to jail for these transgressions, otherwise there is little disincentive.

[deleted]

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#65

Post by belter »

photochemsyn wrote: post #18

Why aren't bankers who launder billions for drug cartels given the kind of multi-decade federal prison sentences that 25-yr-old kids smuggling a few kilos of cocaine from Mexico to the United State are? It certainly makes it look like outfits like the FBI and DEA are little more than the enforcement arms of an organized white-collar crime cartel operating out of Wall Street offices, doesn't it? Amusingly James Comey…

"Why not a single banker was jailed over HSBC’s billion-dollar money laundering scandal" - https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/hsbc-money-laundering-sc...

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#66

Post by riskpreneurship »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #50
AlbertCory wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard of that. I know casinos had been a good way to launder money (buy $100,000 worth of chips, lose $5,000, cash out for $95,000), but I think they caught on to that.

The best way today is to give the money to friends and family and then have them give it back to you as a gift. Gift income is legitimate, the IRS can’t go challenge the people and ask where they got the money to give to you.

IIRC you can only gift in the range of 5 figures/year/person.

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#67

Post by vishnugupta »

bastawhiz wrote: post #59
olalonde wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate banks as much as anyone but... The concept of "money laundering" is a fabricated offense that shouldn't even exist. It basically shifts the duties of law enforcement onto private businesses and individuals. The expectation for bankers or real estate agents to uncover criminals when the police struggle to do so is unreasonable and doesn't make sense. Sure they should cooperate with police investigations but the…

I don't think you answered the question. If I facilitate a drug cartel moving kilograms of cocaine, I'll be in jail until I'm very old. If a bank knowingly facilitates the same outcome through different means, why doesn't anyone at the bank face the same charges? What you're saying is that even though money laundering is necessary for drug cartel operations, it shouldn't be a crime (or should be a much lesser crime).…

You bring up a fascinating aspect of money which I like to contemplate about often.

Money is the pure abstraction in the sense that it hides just about everything that brought it into existence. If I look at two $100 bills they are exactly the same; theoretically and practically. And yet they couldn't possibly be similar, they could have originated in crimes, be parts of legitimate businesses, so on and so forth. But they still continue to exist as pure abstraction. One could get into all sorts of philosophical rabbit holes.

What sorts of arguments would have had at the cusp of using coins?

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#68

Post by gadders »

fogforthought93 wrote: post #56
fmajid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For HSBC I doubt it. But I remember seeing a map of all the branches the defunct BCCI bank had, and they had something like 10x more branches in Colombia than in the US (this was a Pakistani Bank). They went under a few years later.

I'm surprised that you'd bring up BCCI in this instance, an institution absolutely steeped in intelligence spookery. Refer to The Outlaw Bank by Jonathan Beaty. HSBC was founded to finance the Opium wars in China in the 19th century. Let's be adults here, the world's biggest banks aren't letting drug trade profits, the world's most lucrative trade, simply fall to small fries. They own it.

Global size of illicit drug economy: $360 billion

Global size of FX market: $7.5 trillion per day

It's not small money, but it's not that big compared to financial markets.

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#69

Post by dan-robertson »

mirekrusin wrote: post #25
binarymax wrote: post #3

If nobody goes to jail, and the bank retains its licenses, then the fine is meaningless no matter how large. The fine is just seen as a poor investment, which is common in finance. They lost money, and move on to the next investment. People need to go to jail for these transgressions, otherwise there is little disincentive.

Who said poor investment? $1.9 billion is just small cut on return to pay, no?

What was their return here? It looks like they were mostly transmitting money and doing currency exchange on I guess the actual return was having a smaller compliance department (not gonna save you $2B though) and getting more business due to lax controls making onboarding easier (I find it hard to believe that the advantage would make them $2B though).

Re: HSBC's Money Laundering Scandal (2022)

#70

Post by irusensei »

buildbuildbuild wrote: post #54
sygirgafhi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Schwab account I made online and had to deal with basically 0 humans to create. The worst I have to deal with is sometimes if I spend a lot at once I have to answer some automated questions to confirm my information hasn't been stolen. How do you reconcile this with the claim it's getting "harder and harder" when the bar to open and access a bank account is so low?

For the ~95% I think banking must be smooth or there would be great outcry. In my experience the risk of becoming unbanked, even temporarily, has become worse and worse for the increasing number of “outliers”: - a common name - previous victims of identity theft or doxxing - legal domestic cryptocurrency exchange use - privacy-minded people (VPN use, even accidental) - nomadic lifestyles (lots of IPs, a VOIP number)…

- you have the wrong passport
Post reply on HN