HSBC Admits To Laundering Billions and Financing Terrorsts - Let off With a Fine

[JVB]

HSBC admitted that not only have they laundered billions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels for years, but that they also have financed businesses with known ties to terrorism.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-joke-20121213

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ney-laundering

Despite admitting to all of these things, The Obama Administration has decided not to pursue criminal charges against any of these bankers. They stuck them with a fine and said that pursuing criminal charges would jeopardize the financial system.

Any Obama supporters care to defend this?

[WKL]

Too big to jail!

[firstandten]

opposing viewpoint http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...rosecute-hsbc/

[JVB]

opposing viewpoint http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...rosecute-hsbc/

His argument is that the bankers responsible shouldn't be prosecuted for financing terrorists and laundering billions for drug cartels because the bank could potentially go under without their astute leadership, possibly resulting in job loss.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Meanwhile, the average drug addict goes to prison for getting caught with a hundred dollars worth of dope.

Seems fair.

[gazhekwe]

The argument is that criminally prosecuting the bank would potentially have devastating effects on innocent bystanders. So you get rid of said bank. You also get rid of thousands of jobs, a serious hit on global economy and a loss of considerable power to direct global spending.

[rb336]

His argument is that the bankers responsible shouldn't be prosecuted ...

Actually, it wasn't about that at all -- it was against prosecuting the bank, not against prosecuting the bank employees [[aka "bankers") who were responsible. Additionally, HSBC got a $1.6 billion fine and an outside monitor for the next 5 years. Further, it is not clear if these illegal actions took place in the US or UK, where HSBC is based. If, in fact, they were done in the UK, we have no jurisdiction whatsoever. If they can't prove criminally that the actions took place here, we would waste millions on a trial that would result in...nothing.

[JVB]

The Obama Administration decided against criminally prosecuting the individuals [[ie the guilty bankers) that were responsible for the laundering, criminally prosecuting the bank itself is irrelevant since it could not be incarcerated. All you can do to the company is fine it, but if an individual is shown to have committed a crime while working for a company they are not immune from prosecution. Unless they donated to Obama's PAC maybe?

If you're OK with this, I assume you're OK with the criminal bankers that almost crashed the world economy in 2008? And if you let them get away with it doesn't that give them carte blanche to continue laundering drug money and financing terrorists since they know nothing will happen?

[rb336]

not what I was commenting on. I think HSBC should get the corporate death penalty and all board members should be jailed. unfortunately, US law doesn't work that way. Seize all the US assets and branches and auction them off to smaller banks piecemeal. Might actually end up creating more jobs

[JVB]

not what I was commenting on. I think HSBC should get the corporate death penalty and all board members should be jailed. unfortunately, US law doesn't work that way. Seize all the US assets and branches and auction them off to smaller banks piecemeal. Might actually end up creating more jobs

But I think you're still missing the point. A bank does not launder money, a banker does. A company does not commit a crime, individual[[s) do. Employees of companies are charged with crimes everyday for crimes they committed as an agent of that corporation. The excuse that charging the guilty bankers could result in job loss is laughable.

I don't see how anybody can defend this without compromising their values.

[rb336]

I understand quite well what the point is -- and what you just said actually agrees on the article on which you commented [[the "other viewpoint" posted by firstandten) and which I tried to explain to you. The actions are indefensible. The guy in the article was talking about prosecution of HSBC as an entity, he was NOT defending not charging the individuals.

I have not found a clear statement that the officers of the bank will not be charged.

[JVB]

I understand quite well what the point is -- and what you just said actually agrees on the article on which you commented [[the "other viewpoint" posted by firstandten) and which I tried to explain to you. The actions are indefensible. The guy in the article was talking about prosecution of HSBC as an entity, he was NOT defending not charging the individuals.

I have not found a clear statement that the officers of the bank will not be charged.

The bank was already fined, so maybe he just didn't understand what he was talking about. The problem is Obama's Justice Department stated that criminal proceedings against the bankers that actually did the laundering would not be forthcoming, because it could cause problems in the financial industry and people might lose their jobs.

It's indefensible. Anybody that offers a "differing view" needs their head examined.

[rb336]

If you have a link to anything actually stating that no HSBC employees will be prosecuted, I would like to see it

[JVB]

I posted two links in the fist post, take you pick. The justice Department wrapped up their investigation and issued a fine and declined to further prosecute.

If you have a link indicating that criminal charges against any of these bankers are forthcoming you could post it. Otherwise, I'm taking the Administration at their word and as far as they are concerned they're done with it.

Edit: You can also read the New York Times take on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/op...t.html?hp&_r=0

[jiminnm]

Wachovia also paid a fine for laundering drug cartel money [[prior to being taken over by Wells Fargo). As far as I know, no human suffered any punishment as a result.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-u-s-deal.html

[TKshreve]

JVB -

While I join you in being dismayed by the fact that known banksters are getting a hall pass on serious injustices, let's not just point the Obama finger and give everyone else the "whatever" pass.

GWB and friends had eight years to examine, predict and act on the housing bubble [[or financial calamity) that was snowballing our way. We can sit here and pretend that nobody saw it coming, but in reality there was punishable negligence in my opinion by the administration/Fed/financial giants for not only tying the hands of regulation, but also what seems to be a "grab as much as you can while the jar is open" mentality put forth by those whom were selected to lead our country [[businessmen and public officials altogether).

So don't be so surprised that certain individuals will once again "skate" on their wrongdoings. I have learned to accept that those at the top have purchased/inherited certain luxuries [[under the guise of democracy and capitalism at its finest) I will never have the chance to enjoy. They include everything from tax code advantages to law enforcement to healthcare options.

That's life, and until we as a nation [[re?)instill some ethics and morals into our way of living and leading, this caste system of perks and benefits will continue to play out.

[JVB]

While I join you in being dismayed by the fact that known banksters are getting a hall pass on serious injustices, let's not just point the Obama finger and give everyone else the "whatever" pass.

GWB and friends had eight years to examine, predict and act on the housing bubble [[or financial calamity) that was snowballing our way.

I was wondering how long it would take for Bush to be brought up in a thread about a failing of the Obama Justice Department. We can start another thread on the housing bubble and talk about the roles of both the Bush and Clinton administrations [[and Congress) in that, but this thread is about the HSBC money laundering case.

As also pointed out by jiminnm, Wells Fargo was give the same pass in 2010 for a similar, but smaller scale case of drug money laundering for the cartels. It also looks like there will be no prosecutions in the LIBOR scandal which is coming down the pipes here shortly. The largest banking scandal in human history - expect another fine.

Our elected leaders need to be held accountable for shit like this, even if you support them politically. Excusing this type of behavior takes away any right we have to criticize when a member of the "other" party does something similar.

The Obama Administration has decided on numerous occasions that they will not prosecute people for laundering drug money or financing terrorists as long as they work for a bank. Meanwhile he has increased the number of little people locked up "fighting" the War on Drugs, while he encourages the financing of it to continue. Is there anything more hypocritical than that?

[TKshreve]

I was wondering how long it would take for Bush to be brought up in a thread about a failing of the Obama Justice Department. We can start another thread on the housing bubble and talk about the roles of both the Bush and Clinton administrations [[and Congress) in that, but this thread is about the HSBC money laundering case.

No, this thread is about those who remain untouchable in our justice system. How they have come to be untouchable and at whose bidding do these people remain untouchable.

As much as you would like to deny the connection between the bankers who sold our economy down the river and those at HSBC who participated in money laundering for questionable sources...... there is in fact a huge comparison between these types of people.

Bottom line: Those in the financial industry will continue to push the edge of the envelope as long as those in public office will protect them from individual punishment.

[JVB]

Bottom line: Those in the financial industry will continue to push the edge of the envelope as long as those in public office will protect them from individual punishment.

So why is Obama and his administration so hellbent on allowing them to continue doing so?

[TKshreve]

So why is Obama and his administration so hellbent on allowing them to continue doing so?

I would venture to guess it has to do with connections JVB. If Obama pursued key players in this situation, it must somehow have future ramifications for the President, his successors and/or things he is trying to accomplish. Or do you think his administration presumes the Republicans would politicize the event as another example of job losses [[as stated above)? Or perhaps some of these HSBC individuals made substantial donations to his campaign?

It could be any combination of those items, or something completely different. I don't know, and neither do you. We most likely will never know. It's how things have gone in Washington for decades. At least they got their shakedown through, right?

Speaking of shakedowns.... where is your acknowledgement and applause for the fact that the Obama administration has indicted individuals on charges of manslaughter in relation to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill? In my opinion, that fits the scope of this discussion, does it not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/bu...able.html?_r=0

From the article:

She noted that it was unusual for the Justice Department to prosecute individual corporate officers in recent years, including in the 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion that killed 15 workers, where only the company was fined.

[JVB]

Speaking of shakedowns.... where is your acknowledgement and applause for the fact that the Obama administration has indicted individuals on charges of manslaughter in relation to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill? In my opinion, that fits the scope of this discussion, does it not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/bu...able.html?_r=0

I especially found this quote from the article hilarious:

"They are the faces of a renewed effort by the Justice Department to hold executives accountable for their actions."

Now that's funny. I guess since they didn't work for the banks that gave millions to Obama, they get treated a little differently.

It's also funny that you keep trying to derail this thread and act as an apologist for the Obama Administration by changing the subject of the thread [[twice now). Do you think letting the executives and others involved with the drug money laundering at HSBC off the hook is justifiable? It's ok to come out and call it like you see it, defending inexcusable actions when they fall on your side of the party line is quite hypocritical.

[oladub]

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation contributed $75,000 to the 2012 Obama campaign; a relative drop in the bucket compared with the $960,000 Goldman-Sachs contributed toward his 2008 campaign.

[JVB]

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation contributed $75,000 to the 2012 Obama campaign; a relative drop in the bucket compared with the $960,000 Goldman-Sachs contributed toward his 2008 campaign.

That almost makes it worse that he sold out for so little..

[TKshreve]

Do you think letting the executives and others involved with the drug money laundering at HSBC off the hook is justifiable? It's ok to come out and call it like you see it, defending inexcusable actions when they fall on your side of the party line is quite hypocritical.

Wow...... the first words I typed in this thread:

While I join you in being dismayed by the fact that known banksters are getting a hall pass on serious injustices, let's not just point the Obama finger and give everyone else the "whatever" pass.

If anybody is deflecting here..... it's you.

And no, I'm not trying to derail the thread JVB. Thought I'd open the scope of the discussion up to areas outside of OBAMA-OBAMA-OBAMA. To discuss existing examples where large corporate officers were overlooked for prosecution due to dubious reasoning. To deny they belong in this conversation is basically ignoring the topic in general.

But I guess it does not fit the narrow margins of your Obama lampooning, does it? You war cries are falling on deaf ears as long as your pre-programmed agenda is so apparent.

[JVB]

But I guess it does not fit the narrow margins of your Obama lampooning, does it? You war cries are falling on deaf ears as long as your pre-programmed agenda is so apparent.

Don't feel bad, I did the same thing to Bush supporters when they would deflect and defend the indefensible. My agenda is not against just Obama, it is against hypocrisy in general. He just happens to be the guy in charge now and his supporters seem to be particularly blind to his misdeeds.

It is very rare to find an Obama supporter come right out and say "that's bullshit, I don't support that". Instead they waffle and change the subject to Bush [[like you did).

[TKshreve]

It is very rare to find an Obama supporter come right out and say "that's bullshit, I don't support that". Instead they waffle and change the subject to Bush [[like you did).

To deny that the policies of the Bush Administration still have a lasting impact on the current events of today is incredibly naive on your part. I suppose you're one of those people that buy into the notion that whatever economically/politically/socially happens between January 2008-January 2016 is directly that result of President Obama himself and nobody else?

For every time some right wing idiot spews talking points about the debt and the 2009 stimulus spending, there should be a leveling liberal right there reminding them of the failed tenure in office of GWB which forced the government to spend it.