Comment by Mikeb85 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mikeb85 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

When you think about what HSBC actually did, you realize it really is a joke. Whining about banks is de rigueur nowadays, but what HSBC did is far less nefarious than it's being presented...

Imagine if you faced fines or jailtime if a criminal simply used your product. Let's say I run a McDonalds, and a drug dealer buys a burger from me, then all of I sudden I helped them launder money? Because that's what 'laundering' money really is, simply the legitimizing of illegitimate funds. HSBC is simply being extorted by the US because somewhere along the line a criminal used a bank account (and of course HSBC is one of the most international of all banks, and operates in many countries where law enforcement is poor at best). If every business that ever aided a criminal, or ever did business with a criminal were prosecuted, there wouldn't be any businesses left.

Plenty of you buy and sell bitcoins, imagine if you were prosecuted because your bitcoins where once used to buy drugs? How would you feel then? (and this is actually a fairly probable outcome)

Admissions of guilt on HSBC's part? Doesn't mean they're guilty, only means they plead guilty to avoid worse prosecution/extortion...

Edit - furthermore, I find it hilarious that people will rail against the NSA and American surveillance, yet call for the heads of HSBC execs for not spying on and policing their clients enough...

I agree with your example being a joke because McDonalds cheeseburgers cannot be traded for illicit services and goods as easily as laundered cash. They've admitted to systemic corruption and taken month of revenue in fines because of it simply because the DOJ is too lazy to actually fix the problem. This is a horrible stain on the record of the DOJ and is tantamount bribery disguised with legalese. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't change that fact.

DOJ did not drop it because they are too lazy. They were chomping at the bit to prosecute. Go read up on the background to this.

DOJ dropped it because the Treasury panicked and got into a massive fight with them. Treasury is responsible for AML laws and know full well how stupid they are - they became very scared that actually enforcing the laws Congress had passed to their full extent would trigger another financial crisis due to an exodus of trained staff. What DOJ wanted to do quite literally is jail CEOs in America for crimes committed by drug dealers in Mexico regardless of whether or not they knew anything about it. If they had succeeded, just imagine the impact that would have had on the finance industry. Under that standard, every single banker in the world would be a criminal facing jail time. Many of them would try to get out of banking as fast as possible, and banks couldn't easily survive massive simultaneous exits of senior staff.

You don't get it. The whole point of laundering money is so the criminals can spend it on legitimate things, like cars, houses, and burgers (or tacos?).

You don't launder money to buy more illegal things, you launder money to buy things legally.

Edit - the easiest way to launder money is actually to run a legit business (like a restaurant), and create fake transactions that are settled in cash. And of course, business men will take that cash to the bank. Now how is the bank going to determine if that cash coming in is from a real business, a fake one, if it's drug money, etc...? Because plenty of real businesses, especially in places like Mexico, do most of their business in cash...

Yes, this is what happens when justice gets politicized by populist fury. It's extremely scary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com