UBS Is Fined $4.2B in French Tax-Evasion Case

Post by Shaanie » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 7:17 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #9

misiti3780 wrote: post #6

Another slap on the wrist. No one goes to jail because of Deferred Prosecution Agreements HSBC got fined about half that when they caught laundering money for the Mexican cartels a few years back. True story: HSBC had to design special teller windows because the standard ones were too small to fit the sacks of money that were being brought in and laundered. If you want to know why these guys don't go to jail, pull up…

HSBC allegedly laundered (not revenue, not profit, they laundered ) $880 million. They were fined $1.9 billion. Not "fined about half"

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 7:24 AM UTC

acchow wrote: post #30

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP's point is fair, though. Money is fungible, which is just another way of saying that it has no color. Anti-money-laundering schemes are essentially DRM for money. Now it is my personal and completely biased opinion that money laundering and tax evasion are very big problems affecting society negatively, while copyright infringement on-line is mostly a non-issue due to IP laws being abusive; still, while relati…

Except it's not DRM for money. I, as a normal software engineer, have never encountered any difficulty in moving money around. Even fairly large sums ($100k+) across continents. It was quick and almost painless. I imagine most of us here have never felt like our money had "DRM" on it. Our money is, in fact, a different color from the terrorists'.

Post by thefounder » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 7:27 AM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #9

misiti3780 wrote: post #6

Another slap on the wrist. No one goes to jail because of Deferred Prosecution Agreements HSBC got fined about half that when they caught laundering money for the Mexican cartels a few years back. True story: HSBC had to design special teller windows because the standard ones were too small to fit the sacks of money that were being brought in and laundered. If you want to know why these guys don't go to jail, pull up…

HSBC allegedly laundered (not revenue, not profit, they laundered ) $880 million. They were fined $1.9 billion. Not "fined about half"

Post by Someone » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 7:37 AM UTC

smallgovt wrote: post #4

arama471 wrote: post #3

Does anyone know what the likelyhood of the 4.2B being paid out is? I imagine that UBS will go through all possible appeals processes. Also if the article is right in that this was affected by the protests, then that is a big win for protesting.

UBS's market cap is $46B. After this was announced, their stock fell 4%. This drop, if permanent, would equate to a loss of ~$1.84B in market cap. There are many factors that could be influencing price, but if we attribute this 4% delta entirely to the announcement, the market is guessing the actual penalty will amount to $1.84B. This could be bc the market thinks UBS can appeal with a 50% success rate, or can negoti…

Post by nraynaud » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 7:45 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #15

Hermel wrote: post #14

We are shifting more and more towards a legal system where not only those who actually did something wrong (here the tax evaders), but also those whose services have been used to do so are considered guilty. Another example is copyright, where websites are increasingly held liable for user uploads. I'm not convinced that this is a good development.

If a stranger walks up to you, and gives you $10,000 to drive a large, heavy, body-sized bag to the outskirts of town, and dump it in a river, I think most reasonable people would consider you to be at least an accessory to murder. On the other hand, if you were a department store clerk who sold that bag, most reasonable people would consider you in the clear. There's a spectrum for this sort of thing, and I think UB…