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

Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#81

Post by usrusr »

nostalgk wrote: post #73
usrusr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finance lobbying power must be weaker than popularly assumed if they failed to inspire a proportionate finder's fee that would make flagging worthwhile. Of course, if I tune my cynicism level a bit darker that line of thought breaks down again, because then I start factoring in the possibility of "premium service tiers" with fees so high that a) no client in their right mind would ever consider them unless they have…

Why would lobbyists work towards rewarding those who flag money laundering transactions when, presumably as presented by the parent comment, they make money off of these transactions? If anything, they would be lobbying against a finder's fee. If we take the parent comment to be true, the fees levied against the institution for being caught (provided they can't worm their way out of it in the first place) are merely…

They are mandated to do flagging, but cannot be forced to be good at it. An incentive would not necessarily make them better at it, but it would still add rewards to all the cases they do find, despite all the squinting and bugs and carefully assigning the lowest performers to the task.

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#82

Post by delinka »

nostalgk wrote: post #73
usrusr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finance lobbying power must be weaker than popularly assumed if they failed to inspire a proportionate finder's fee that would make flagging worthwhile. Of course, if I tune my cynicism level a bit darker that line of thought breaks down again, because then I start factoring in the possibility of "premium service tiers" with fees so high that a) no client in their right mind would ever consider them unless they have…

Why would lobbyists work towards rewarding those who flag money laundering transactions when, presumably as presented by the parent comment, they make money off of these transactions? If anything, they would be lobbying against a finder's fee. If we take the parent comment to be true, the fees levied against the institution for being caught (provided they can't worm their way out of it in the first place) are merely…

The idea, presumably, is that the "finder's fee" is money paid to the bank for finding money laundering, and that fee outweighs the profits from the transactions themselves.

"Fees" are not levied against an institution, "fines" are. And in that light, yes, fines are indeed too low to thwart a failure to identify the correct transactions.

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#83

Post by evenmore6789 »

outside1234 wrote: post #34
blattimwind wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is already kinda the money laundering capital of the EU.

But only because Switzerland isn't in the EU.

Good call, sir, would you like to keep your job? Or your infrastructure or your Bridges? Asking for a well informed friend. And well uptateable friend if I might add. "swissparanoia" hashtag

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#84

Post by evenmore6789 »

fwip wrote: post #22
bla3 wrote: post #17

Subjectively it feels like NYT publishes a lot more negative articles about Deutsche Bank than about any other bank, or at least those articles get upvoted much more frequently here. Does anyone know what's up with that? I would've assumed that most banks are equally terrible.

Deutsche Bank is currently implicated in (or at the very least, relevant to) ongoing news regarding the US President's finances. That makes it more newsworthy.

Old habits die hard. Watch the movie 'Leon, the Professional, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110413/ , and you will know who you are. Old habits die hard. Cold or no cold/hot coffee.

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#85

Post by spikels »

fareesh wrote: post #76
notfromhere wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report specifically didn't clear the president of anything; it does describe multiple instances of obstruction of justice, lying by Trump campaign associates, and destruction of evidence.

I remember reading the report on the day of the release and its conclusion was written quite plainly that no American colluded with any foreign government. It was one of the principal conclusions. As for the obstruction aspect - isn't that now a mere technicality? A man and his team have been falsely accused, he tried to get out of the burden of being politically undermined by the drama of an investigation that would…

One of the things I kind of knew but has been clearly exposed by the Trump-Russia-Mueller episode is that humans are not nearly as objective or rational as we pretend. Once you start to realize this you begin see it everywhere. It explains a lot, particularly our many failures.

And even worse you start to see people taking advantage of these human weaknesses. Politicians are perhaps the worst offenders but it is also common in advertising, business and even personal relationships. Somewhat depressing.

Trying to make the case for a rational, objective reading of the Mueller Report is futile while the news media, social media and most people you meet are spewing unfounded innuendo (see OP for example) and outright disproven conspiracy theories.

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#86

Post by sjg007 »

fareesh wrote: post #78
sjg007 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mueller Report that totally exonerates the President and yet the President won't release it in full to Congress. The only one sliming the President is Trump himself.

Why would that affect the principal conclusions of the report? The conclusion can't change when the redacted portion is unredacted. The person who came to the conclusion did so after writing those redacted sections, right?

It's called showing your work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/muell...

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#87

Post by nostalgk »

delinka wrote: post #82
nostalgk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would lobbyists work towards rewarding those who flag money laundering transactions when, presumably as presented by the parent comment, they make money off of these transactions? If anything, they would be lobbying against a finder's fee. If we take the parent comment to be true, the fees levied against the institution for being caught (provided they can't worm their way out of it in the first place) are merely…

The idea, presumably, is that the "finder's fee" is money paid to the bank for finding money laundering, and that fee outweighs the profits from the transactions themselves. "Fees" are not levied against an institution, "fines" are. And in that light, yes, fines are indeed too low to thwart a failure to identify the correct transactions.

Ah, I see. You mean to say that the governing body concerned with money laundering would pay the financial institution. I was under the impression the finder's fee would be attributed to the employee, by the financial institution (a silly thought on my end).

Of course, it all wraps back around; the bank would need to have some sort of incentive to lobby for this, and given that they are potentially making money hand over fist not to, and given the current allegations against the governing body...

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#88

Post by nostalgk »

usrusr wrote: post #81
nostalgk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would lobbyists work towards rewarding those who flag money laundering transactions when, presumably as presented by the parent comment, they make money off of these transactions? If anything, they would be lobbying against a finder's fee. If we take the parent comment to be true, the fees levied against the institution for being caught (provided they can't worm their way out of it in the first place) are merely…

They are mandated to do flagging, but cannot be forced to be good at it. An incentive would not necessarily make them better at it, but it would still add rewards to all the cases they do find, despite all the squinting and bugs and carefully assigning the lowest performers to the task.

I'd imagine the fee would need to be at least a bit more rewarding than the current punishment is punishing.

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#89

Post by notfromhere »

fareesh wrote: post #76
notfromhere wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report specifically didn't clear the president of anything; it does describe multiple instances of obstruction of justice, lying by Trump campaign associates, and destruction of evidence.

I remember reading the report on the day of the release and its conclusion was written quite plainly that no American colluded with any foreign government. It was one of the principal conclusions. As for the obstruction aspect - isn't that now a mere technicality? A man and his team have been falsely accused, he tried to get out of the burden of being politically undermined by the drama of an investigation that would…

The report states multiple instances where he attempted to fire the special counsel or interfered with the investigation. Being upset does not make obstruction any less a crime; the report specifically states that it does not clear the president of obstruction of justice.

You are literally arguing that if you feel you are innocent, you are able to obstruct an investigation because you know you are innocent. That is not how justice works and is circular logic that empowers officials to cover up their own misdeeds. Obstruction is a crime in itself because it prevents an investigation from proceeding and shows a guilty conscience.

Re: Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug

#90

Post by jandrese »

delinka wrote: post #82
nostalgk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would lobbyists work towards rewarding those who flag money laundering transactions when, presumably as presented by the parent comment, they make money off of these transactions? If anything, they would be lobbying against a finder's fee. If we take the parent comment to be true, the fees levied against the institution for being caught (provided they can't worm their way out of it in the first place) are merely…

The idea, presumably, is that the "finder's fee" is money paid to the bank for finding money laundering, and that fee outweighs the profits from the transactions themselves. "Fees" are not levied against an institution, "fines" are. And in that light, yes, fines are indeed too low to thwart a failure to identify the correct transactions.

Lawmakers and the public would almost certainly balk at billions in "finders fees" being just given to the banks, even if the money did come from seizures of the illicit assets.
Post reply on HN