> terrorists, pedophiles, drug dealers, and money launderers
At some point, unless you want everyone making their own personal moral judgements (including people who e.g. don't think women should have rights?), it should be permissible to deal neutrally with everyone who wants to do business with you. Let the law enforcers enforce the law, let the bankers bank.
Edit: clarity.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/global-bank...
The Mexican drug cartels could not fit cash through the teller stations quickly enough, so HSBC had special teller boxes so that it was far more efficient.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ban...
From your first link. It sounds like the law enforcers need to do better at enforcing the law. If they can't enforce it against the banks, how can we expect the banks to enforce the law against themselves?
While true, it's a non-sequitur.
OP made the point that banks serve criminals and asked then who are the "real crooks". You asked if bankers can serve everyone neutrally rather than be expected to exercise "personal morality". Which is a fair question in my opinion
Questions of individual moral duty aside, however, banks are not merely neutral when the law forbids them from specific activity and they decide to do it anyway.
Now your goalpost appears to be that banks should be able to do whatever they want if law enforcement cannot do anything about it, which is a very strange stance, to be honest