View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Sat Aug 16, 2025 11:41 am
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
HSBC the worlds favourite Bankster ...
Author |
Message |
MrStevenRogers
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm Posts: 4860
|
you have just got to love them bankers ... accounts. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... gns-senatemaybe the drug cartels can do to the bankers what national Govts. can not or are unwilling to do ...
_________________ Hope this helps . . . Steve ...
Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ... HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...
Last edited by MrStevenRogers on Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:29 am |
|
 |
davrosG5
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am Posts: 6954 Location: Peebo
|
I was watching this on Channel 4 News last night and they did make one point. US banks have been caught at this as well in the past but have got off very lightly. The suggestion being that the US authorities are taking the opportunity to hammer the UK's banks to bolster the position of their US counterparts and regain the position of Wall Street as the most important financial centre.
While what HSBC and the other banks has done is unconscionable you've got to wonder what governments motivations are in all this as well.
_________________ When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum. -Billy Connolly (to a heckler)
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:29 am |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|

Given recent events (and the fact that the general consensus is the LIBOR scandal has much further to run than just Barclays) I begin to wonder not if all our banks are 'clean', but more if it's possible for banks above a certain size to be clean. Is a financial organisation above a certain size almost bound to become corrupt at some point? Is it inherently 'human', once you grow to a certain amount of wealth and power, to believe you are above the law and can do what you like? Is 'ethical capitalism' only possible if there are legal requirements for companies not to grow too big?
We recognise that monopolies are a bad thing, so we have systems to prevent them. Should we equally have systems which assume companies above a certain turnover are almost inevitably going to have people within them willing to do things outside the law and therefore companies that reach such a size should be required to split in some way, to limit the damage such people can then do?
I'm not against capitalism and profit but is there a flaw in the philosophy such that capitalism, if left unchecked, will always run amok? Simply because in the end it relies on imperfect people to steer it?
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:58 am |
|
 |
ShockWaffle
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am Posts: 1911
|
Perhaps, but small outfits seem to get up to just as much dirtiness as far as I can see; they just lack the scale to make the news, and it's easier for their directors to cut and run if the feds come a sniffin'.
Financial outfits tend to misbehave until new regulations force them to reform, but that process reinforces economies of scale. On he one hand it requires costly investment in new systems and processes, and on the other it imposes capital costs making the money they wield more expensive and reducing the returns on it. All of which tends to suggest that rather than splitting banks up, we will be more likely to drive a new round of consolidation if we try to actively fix anything.
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:12 am |
|
 |
bobbdobbs
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm Posts: 5490 Location: just behind you!
|
We only recognise the abuse of a monopoly status as a bad thing, otherwise we wouldnt have the patent sytstem at all. We could assume any company will have people who could do things outside the law, but I know what you mean here. The too big to fail ( a bit like the eurozone, its too big (politically as well) to fail so we will ever increase the money to stop it going belly up. every political system will run amok if left unchecked, which is why we need such checks and balances in place and for them to be used.
_________________Finally joined Flickr
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:29 am |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|

Both arguments re: small companies doing bad things as well are correct, in my view. However it struck me the amount of 'collateral damage' a company can do when/if the bad things get found seems to me to be roughly proportional to it's turnover. A small company doing dodgy things affects maybe a handful of employees and a few dozen customers. A larger company could affect more, say hundreds of staff and thousands of customers. The major financial institutions making irresponsible judgements and dodgy deals has by consequence affected pretty much every single person in the country, one way or another.
The basic point is that a company that is 'too big to be allowed to fail' is also surely 'too big to be allowed to do anything stupid' and doing something which will knock billions of pounds off your share price therefore affecting the mortgages and pensions of millions of people, is pretty much a test case of 'stupid'. As the influence on society of a company grows, is it fair to expect that as a consequence society should take more interest in it not doing anything that might cause damage? To use a quote 'with great power comes great responsibility' and are we now at the point where the evidence is such that we simply can't rely on massive companies to be responsible? And is this inherently always going to be the case?
Jon
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:13 am |
|
 |
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm Posts: 45931 Location: Belfast
|
Read a book recently where a drug dealer walked into a London bank in the 70s with two large suitcases of cash and got it transferred to various accounts and companies after the top brass counted it by hand and deducted their fee... I'd say it's the same deal these days, only nobody gets their hands too dirty.
_________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:50 pm |
|
 |
MrStevenRogers
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm Posts: 4860
|

there seems to be very low key reporting over here in the UK about this ...  |  |  |  | Quote: International banking giant HSBC may have financed terrorist groups and funneled Mexican drug money into the US economy through its lax policies, a damning Senate report reveals. The bank’s bosses have apologized for the misconduct.
David Bagley, HSBC’s Head of Group Compliance, admitted during a Senate subcommittee hearing that the company had made a number of lapses, adding that he planned to resign.
“I recognize that there have been some significant areas of failure,” Bagley told the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. “I have said before and I will say again: despite the best efforts and intentions of many dedicated professionals, HSBC has fallen short of our own expectations and the expectations of our regulators.”
Irene Dorner, CEO and President of the bank's American operation (HBUS), told the panel that HSBC deeply regrets the lapses in oversight, apologizing for the company's mistakes.
Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the subcommittee, gave details of one such intricate scheme to launder cash between 2006 and 2009. “Because our tough AML (anti-money laundering) laws in the United States have made it hard for drug cartels to find a US bank willing to accept huge unexplained deposits of cash, they now smuggle US dollars across the border into Mexico and look for a Mexican bank, or ‘casa de cambio’ to take the cash.,” Levin noted. “Some of those casas de cambio had accounts at HB Mexico, which, in turn, took all the physical dollars that it got, transported them by armored car or aircraft back across the border to HBUS for deposit in its US Banknotes account, completing the laundering cycle.”
The Senator welcomed HSBC’s apologies, but said it also had to be held accountable. He called on the bank to consider shutting down its Mexican affiliate, as well as other banks suspected of providing funding for terrorists. Earlier, Levin said “the culture at HSBC was pervasively polluted for a long time.”
The findings are the results of a year-long Senate probe into HSBC’s activities, highlighting systemic negligence throughout the bank’s international structure. The probe was published in a 340-page report in Washington on Tuesday.
Financing terror and flouting the rules
HSBC’s activities in Saudi Arabia were brought into question in the report, specifically referencing banking with Al Rajhi Bank. The investigation claims the Saudi bank has links to financing terrorism based on evidence gathered after the September 11 attacks. Information collated by investigators suggests one of Al Rajhi’s founders was an “early financial benefactor of al-Qaeda.” HSBC forbade its affiliates from doing business with the Saudi bank in 2005, but this policy was overturned only a few months later when the banks resumed dealings.
In addition, the report cites dealings with two Bangladeshi banks thought to have links with terrorist organizations. "From an oversight perspective, the failure of accountability here is dramatic," Senator Levin commented. The probe also details how the bank bypassed US safeguards that protect against transactions potentially involving terrorists, drug lords, and rogue regimes. The investigations committee alludes to almost 25,000 transactions to Iran amounting to over $19 billion conducted through the bank's US office over a period of seven years. The bank did not disclose that the funds were being sent to Iran.
Narco-banking
The reports cities HSBC’s activities in Mexico, highlighting the fact that the country was treated as a long-risk client despite being a known hub for drug trafficking and money laundering. It gives reference to the banking conglomerate’s Mexican affiliate transporting a total of $7 billion in hard cash to HBUS from 2007 to 2008. The sheer quantity of capital transferred raised concerns that some of it came from illegal drugs sales in the US.
The report also implicates the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a US financial regulator, for failing to regulate HSBC’s activities. The OCC reported multiple failings on the part of HSBC in 2010 to implement anti-money laundering measures, namely its failure to monitor $60 trillion in bank transfers and 17,000 account alerts detailing suspicious activity. The Senate report lays the blame for HSBC’s negligence over the past six years partly at the feet of the OCC for its lack of action in spite of consistent evidence of the banks money laundering issues.
"We have learned a great deal working with the subcommittee on this case history and also working with US regulatory authorities, and recognize that our controls could and should have been stronger and more effective in order to spot and deal with unacceptable behavior,” HSBC said in a statement. The bank also emphasize that they had already taken “concrete steps” to address the issues including drastic changes to “strengthen compliance, risk management and culture."
The new report comes after the UK’s largest bank revealed it would have to pay a $1 billion fine to US authorities for money laundering offenses committed between 2004 and 2010. |  |  |  |  |
HSBC the worlds favourite Bankster ...
_________________ Hope this helps . . . Steve ...
Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ... HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...
|
Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:46 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|