Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulators fined Chase and other big banks for "weak controls". One way to show that these big banks have "strong controls" is to change parameters for these algorithms. Many legitimate transactions fall under structuring, layering, smurfing, laundering. After all, any goal of money laundering is to make their transactions appear "legitimate". Now almost all transactions (except for big businesses and people with few…
> One way to show that these big banks have "strong controls" is to change parameters for these algorithms imagine if some bank knowingly facilitated money laubdering, and needed to show they gave strong controls. What eould you do? Thats right, you would close 10k minor accounts of random schmucks for 'suspicious activity', report 'job done' to the regulator, and continue your corrupt practices
You won't have to imagine very hard, HSBC was caught laundering money, told they had to strengthen their controls, but ultimately all the Justice Department wanted was a small cut of the action in the form of fines and HSBC has been allowed to continue their corrupt practices even after being caught laundering money again and again (in addition to all kinds of other crimes). It seems like as long as they can pay the fines, banks are basically above the law.