An excellent piece, Matt, and good example of what we all pay for each month.
I saw that Wall Street on Parade also picked up this story. They've done great work for years on banking/Wall Street corruption.
This is more evidence -- if we needed any more after the 08/09 debacle, which we don't -- of the culturally toxic effect of "too big to fail or jail" banks. If banks were smaller & more numerous they'd have a harder time buying politicians, and regulators could regulate effectively and shut them down without any excuse. If it came to it, regulators could:
1. fire all senior management,
2. fire the board
3. retain the workforce to the extent possible (in many cases it would be).
4. recapitalize the bank
5. re-open under a new name or merge with another bank if the combined bank would remain small enough.
If any bank's activity breached criminal thresholds, then prosecute whatever executives deserve it. Banks can afford good lawyers who should be able to keep honest bankers out of trouble. I'm not one who supports lynch mobs or malicious prosecutions. The laws should be made so clear that not even a greedy fool could make a mistake and do something illegal. Therefore, if illegality occurs, it has to be premeditated and willful.
I think the record at this point is clear as day -- the alleged "economic efficiencies" created by "systemically important" big banks are efficiencies for their politician friends (many of whom are Democrats who seem fond of social justice posturing as a diversion), big corporations, and bad actors only, not for Main Street or American society -- if we even have one anymore. Restore Glass-Stegal. End Too Big to Fail or Jail. Make America Great Again! [I had to throw in the last one for fun. hahaha. But there could be some causative truth in this context.].
What’s to be surprised about here. First, this is exceptional journalism and I applaud the effort to uncover these schemes. However, we know the system is rigged against the little guy and will continue to be so until a reset occurs starting with the FED. I mean I deduct my office space on my taxes and the IRS is calling me in to audit a few thousand dollars of a legitimate write-off. That’s how screwed up the system is.
Maybe maybe not. Some "little guys" actually operate with a moral compass and if you don't believe that, you are projecting. But that isn't the point anyway. How does your comment address David Escandon's sentiment? He is merely saying there is a rule of law for the elites and another for everyone else. Could this hint at why this country is going down the tubes?
Thank you for conveying my point. I need to work on my prose; this is not one of my strengths, but I’m getting better at it by reading more of Matt’s writing.
Ah yes, the mythical "little guy with a moral compass" who rises to the heights of the elite mainly on his/her winning smile & love for humanity. I've heard of those. Aren't they in the same Wal-Mart aisle as the "hooker with a heart of gold" & the ever wonderful unicorn? So, when in the history of human civilization hasn't there been 2 sets of rules for the wealthy & the poor?
Matt - Is it possible giving banks a mandate to investigate was a bad idea in the first place? They were never meant to do more than take deposits and extend loans. Expecting them to monitor their clients feels analogous to how FB & Twitter censor their users to stay in good graces with the government. The whole thing feels like law enforcement & legislative authorities passing the buck so they have a whipping boy when the inevitable happens and companies put profits over everything else.
Unfortunately the politicians in a position to change this corrupt system are part of the problem. They all take money from the wealthy people who benefit from this greed. When the oligarchs, Wall Street titans and politicians who benefit most from this corruption end up in real jail, not country club jail, this will end. It is possible to jail the CEO, leading executives and the corporate board of HSBC without ending HSBC as an institution. These folks are criminals. They deserve prison and I'm betting they wouldn't like it much at all. They are no better than the thugs who steal your car, beat their wife or rob your bank. Let's give them equal treatment.
I've gotten to think that the most effective penalty for a financial crime conviction would be a levy or punitive tax rate on future earnings- for 5, 10, 20 years following the conviction, or possibly for life. That would provide some semblance of restorative justice.
Even a prison sentence doesn't do that. In the unlikely event that a wealthy financial criminal ends up doing time, they're practically always able to buy protection from other inmates and favored treatment from prison authorities, who are incidentally well aware that they'd face a massive civil liability suit for huge sums of money by a well-funded legal team upon the first evidence of mistreatment or abuse. Big money buys influence and power, first and foremost. Meanwhile, under the current regime of legal penalties, the convicted offender has most often taken steps to ensure that a substantial portion of their former fortune will still be available to them when they return to life on the outside.
This is especially true for wealthy criminals who provide "substantial assistance" as informers who enable more criminal convictions. It should be understood that such informant assistance does not need to consist of "busting up the ladder", i.e., a drug wholesaler giving evidence about their supplier, or a money launderer informing on superiors. It's much more common for drug "kingpins" to obtain a lesser sentence and retain a large portion of their criminal profits by "dismantling the organization"- informing on their partners and subordinates. (ex. Rayful Edmond dismantlng his own cocaine trafficking gang by betraying his underlings; and Carlos Lehder Rivas, Steven Kalish, and Ricardo Bilonick snitching on Manuel Noriega, the leader of a national regime that merely provided a protected transport hub for shipping drugs and cash.) In that game, the people who lose the most are those at the bottom, who are left with no information to bargain with for leniency, so they get stuck with the time.
In the money laundering business, the leniency and permission to hold onto the proceeds of crime is most often obtained by providing information on the clients, not the money laundering networks of the financial industry. (Ex. Max Mirmelstein, money launderer for the Medellin Cartel.)
Anyway, I think that a penalty for financial crime that includes garnishing of future earnings and/or a punitive tax rate would allow financial criminals to return to "productive employment" and the opportunity to use their skills to seek their fortune again (as has so often been the case for white-collar criminals) - while at the same time never allowing them to forget that they owe extra to the government for their misdeeds. And their parole and probation gets to consist of intensive annual audits by the IRS.
I think it would be an easy penalty to exact, and a punishment that would fit the crime. However, so many of my fellow citizens have internalized prole disempowerment and anti-democratic apathy that it's questionable whether enough of them would bother to raise the outcry required to pass and implement legal reforms like those. No matter how much sense the policy makes.
I think because no one believes this will ever happen, a lot of people just want to see it all burn down. That is the moral hazard the oligarchs have gifted to what was once a great nation.
In the 2008 financial crisis, I was a fairly staunch libertarian 21 year old. Seeing the banks get bailed out was one of the biggest slaps in the face and probably the first major wake up call in my political memory. While I’m far less libertarian now, I still wish everything had been burnt to the ground back then. Unfortunately, nothing will change until our entire fake economy collapses.
The recent stories on money laundering that I've read all seem to take for granted how the vast majority of that money was accrued: through the global trade in prohibited substances. The result is to underplay the institutional framework that has made money laundering such a lucrative business: Zero Tolerance Drug Prohibition, a policy ostensibly intended for the purpose of "control" that in practice more resembles a platform to enable "no control": lawlessness and impunity.
The last time I checked, the global market in prohibited substances was larger than any other international trade commodity other than oil and weapons. As McGill Economics Professor R. T. Naylor pointed out as far back as the early 1980s, within a period of a few short years, the annual world balance of trade had shifted from roughly zero- i.e., with all exchanges accounted for- to a deficit of around $110 billion, or 10% of the global trade in that era.
«The last time I checked, the global market in prohibited substances was larger than any other international trade commodity other than oil and weapons.»
By some estimates the criminal economy in the USA (largely about substances) is around 5-10% of GDP, that is similar to the share of the financial sector (a large part of which is "white collar" crime), and they have their own lobbysts, sophisticated and influential. In many areas it is way higher than 5-10% of the local "GDP" (GVA). It is a big business, and it is well represented politically.
If I recall correctly, the Ukrainian government nationalized PrivatBank in order to protect the deposits of millions of Ukrainian citizens. After taking over the bank, outside auditors discovered approximately 5.5 Billion USD missing. Isn't it interesting that during the previous 8 years of the Obama administration, Vice-President Biden was the "point-man" for the Ukraine while Kolomoisky was using Delaware front men to purchase properties in the United States. (Can anyone guess which state Biden represents in the Senate?). Also noteworthy is that a lot of aid from the US and the IMF was deposited in PrivateBank. Could it be that US aid money sent to the Ukraine was used to buy rusted out factories in the US? Just wondering.
It’s kind of insane that you can go to prison for life in some states for being caught three times with heroin on you, but if you’re the CEO of a corporation that launders billions of dollars worth of drug money and get caught over and over again, you get nothing.
Okay, let’s be fair, maybe not nothing. Maybe you defer that multi-million dollar bonus you didn’t really even need for a few months and have your lackeys make up some bullshit about how you had no idea this was happening. Or possibly it’s so egregious that you are forced to take that multi-million dollar golden parachute out the door. Maybe though, fucking horror, you get the boot out of the company with nothing! Holy shit what a punishment! Talk about harsh! You head home to your mega mansion in Connecticut to complain to your maid about how life isn’t fair while taking offers from your buddies for a lower profile job that still throws millions at you.
Whoa though, let’s not get into class warfare right? I mean, that guy that did heroin was a real fucking blight on society.
There is much suspicion regarding the reporting of the ICIJ. There were almost -0- consequences from the Panama Papers, and there will not be from this. These leaks have the feeling of "limited hangouts" or propaganda to demonstrate the vast powers of the oligarchy and why resistance is futile.
Your characterization of HSBC as a "European" bank while maybe technically correct in reality the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company is a legacy institution of the British empire.
HSBC is also involved in the case of the Huewei executive kidnapped in Canada providing entrapping evidence to Western authorities.
These stories are just propaganda distractions without much consequence.
The lords of banking and industry are just a form of hoodlum, thug criminals. The USG provides protection and actually supports the cartels in Mexico, 95% of the worlds opium comes out of Afghanistan protected by CIA contractors. The oligarchs that own Exxon also own the opium trade and in fact most of global organized crime, they are the same people. It is THERE money, it belongs to oligarchs no different from Gates or Buffet.
Do you think it was some mistake that the US military was held back from attacking the Taliban until they fully destroyed the opium trade, then moved in to push them out and start the trade all over again with them as the full owners. This is what the US military does every day - protect and expand the power of the oligarchs.
The meeting you talk about at first was nothing more than a planning session on how to proceed, it was never intended for any other purpose. We live in a feudal culture, society and civilization.
What you describe is the British Empire 2.0. After losing colonies and military significance, British and allied European financial elites set about creating a super-national offshore banking system to defeat any way nations could protect themselves from currency manipulation, or get loans for development outside their banking cartel. It is a feudal system, run by unrepentant feudalists. They seek the end of the nation-state system. Tony Blair openly called for a Post Westphalian NWO. Ending the power of national entities such as the US, Russia and China by setting them against one another is classic divide and conquer playbook stuff for the oligarchy. Whatever one thinks of Trump, he threw a monkey wrench into the plan. Re-emergent nationalism is the last thing these globalists want. Hence the coup against Trump, the demonization of Putin, of Xi. The empire is using the USA to kill the nation state system and to kill itself. After the death of FDR and then JFK’s murder, the American political elite has been dumbed down and bought off. They play footsie with the empire,going along to get along, not caring that while we won the revolution, we haven’t ever secured it.
«What you describe is the British Empire 2.0. [...] Ending the power of national entities such as the US, Russia and China by setting them against one another is classic divide and conquer playbook stuff for the oligarchy. [...] The empire is using the USA to kill the nation state system and to kill itself. After the death of FDR and then JFK’s murder, the American political elite has been dumbed down and bought off.»
My guess is that greatly overrates the diabolical cleverness of the english elites and underestimates the american ones, whether they be the east coast bankers, the texas oilmen, the midwest traders or the west coast techies.
The empire you describe is the american empire, a "suzerain" rather than "colonial" empire, that has reduced the english to a joke:
«Barack Obama and his aides regarded the idea of a special relationship between Britain and the US as a joke, it was claimed last night. Jeremy Shapiro, a former presidential adviser, said the special relationship was ‘unrequited’ and he revealed he would insert references to ‘the Malvinas’ – Argentina’s name for the Falklands – into Press conferences. Mr Shapiro said that although US officials stressed the importance of the relationship to British visitors, they would make jokes about the Falklands away from the cameras. He added that the so-called special relationship with Britain ‘was never really something that was very important to the United States’.»
I still don't understand why individual actors cannot be arrested. As far as I am aware, there is no law or immunity clause that prohibits that. If an investigation reveals that a bank employee or employees from the loan officer on up to the top floor were aware of and/or facilitated the money laundering, why aren't they be arrested on criminal charges? Seems to me that would be a simple fix without bringing down big banks, which could disrupt economies.
What was that quaint old saying that applies here? Let me see...what was it?
Oh yeah, Crime Doesn't Pay.
What a hoot.
I wish this was shocking.
Luckily for all involved most news is dissecting every fart & burp out of Trump's orifices so I suspect that this news item will get very little air time.
"Divide & conquer" is a much better 21st "news" strategy than "Hey those respectable rich bankers are in bed with drug cartels."
I’ve been following Matt since 2008 and his amazing coverage on the Financial Crisis. Let’s not kid ourselves, we are still in a financial crisis with very little being paid to the real problems facing our nation and while yes most attention on Trumps farts and burps. Why? Media found a way to monitize them.
You're right. The financial crisis never ended. Isn't that why states are teetering on insolvency? They blew so much on shitty investments...let me rephrase...they blew so much on AAA rated shit investments that they have nothing for crisis management.
I've been sitting here watching my 401k from a previous job shoot skyward while local lines at food banks are obscenely long and disturbing numbers of folk are being evicted.
It doesn't take a particularly high IQ to see that when politicians & the news media talk about how wonderful the US economy is doing they only mean how wonderful rich folk are doing. They rest of us are inconsequential.
«we are still in a financial crisis with very little being paid to the real problems facing our nation»
Because a lot of people are having it really good and those who are being shafted don't vote or anyhow don't matter, as a previous comment says:
“I've been sitting here watching my 401k from a previous job shoot skyward while local lines at food banks are obscenely long and disturbing numbers of folk are being evicted.”
In particular a funny author said that real estate prices are the national USA religion; as long as real estate prices are doing better many voters are happy, and they could hardly care less about the losers.
There are no respectable banks, and they are in bed with *everybody with money*. "pecunia non olet" ("money does not smell") is a nearly 2,000 year old saying.
Next year will mark the 30 year anniversary of when I was first made aware of how the banks willingly launder money for drug cartels. It saddens me that nothing has changed.
I thought I knew a lot about money laundering by the late 1990s. Then back around the year 2000, I read some of the material presented by Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI, 9th district)- I think Levin was at that point Chairman of the House Banking Committee- on correspondent banking accounts.
Basically, if someone has a large enough amount of money in the form of cash- the minimum most often mentioned was $1 million- the big banks had divisions dedicated to offering special services to high-dollar clients, using employees with the skills to set up a "correspondent banking account" that amounted to a personal bank, private and anonymous. A loophole wide enough to toss the moon through it.
Impunity and anonymity, provided the depositor has $1 million USD, cash. Meanwhile, Lord help anyone who tries to deposit more than $9999 cash in a regular bank account.
It's possible that actions have been taken to narrow that loophole since 2000, when I first heard about it. I seriously doubt that it's been closed completely.
I would think that writing of this as you do on a regular and on going basis would tend to depress as you essentially simply write about the same thing over and over with some name changes and the amounts getting larger and larger.
Some poor pothead pulled over on a tail light violation could have his auto confiscated bec of some stray white dust particles. Or whatever. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Minimum: Confiscate the “$2 trillion in suspicious transactions“ or leave the poor pothead alone.
An excellent piece, Matt, and good example of what we all pay for each month.
I saw that Wall Street on Parade also picked up this story. They've done great work for years on banking/Wall Street corruption.
This is more evidence -- if we needed any more after the 08/09 debacle, which we don't -- of the culturally toxic effect of "too big to fail or jail" banks. If banks were smaller & more numerous they'd have a harder time buying politicians, and regulators could regulate effectively and shut them down without any excuse. If it came to it, regulators could:
1. fire all senior management,
2. fire the board
3. retain the workforce to the extent possible (in many cases it would be).
4. recapitalize the bank
5. re-open under a new name or merge with another bank if the combined bank would remain small enough.
If any bank's activity breached criminal thresholds, then prosecute whatever executives deserve it. Banks can afford good lawyers who should be able to keep honest bankers out of trouble. I'm not one who supports lynch mobs or malicious prosecutions. The laws should be made so clear that not even a greedy fool could make a mistake and do something illegal. Therefore, if illegality occurs, it has to be premeditated and willful.
I think the record at this point is clear as day -- the alleged "economic efficiencies" created by "systemically important" big banks are efficiencies for their politician friends (many of whom are Democrats who seem fond of social justice posturing as a diversion), big corporations, and bad actors only, not for Main Street or American society -- if we even have one anymore. Restore Glass-Stegal. End Too Big to Fail or Jail. Make America Great Again! [I had to throw in the last one for fun. hahaha. But there could be some causative truth in this context.].
What’s to be surprised about here. First, this is exceptional journalism and I applaud the effort to uncover these schemes. However, we know the system is rigged against the little guy and will continue to be so until a reset occurs starting with the FED. I mean I deduct my office space on my taxes and the IRS is calling me in to audit a few thousand dollars of a legitimate write-off. That’s how screwed up the system is.
Reminds me of the saying “if you owe the bank $100, it’s your problem. If you owe the bank $1 million, it’s the banks problem”. Same with the IRS.
That’s why I never wrote mine off because they are big on auditing that deduct. Meanwhile,as you say, the system is rigged for those in power.
We also know that if "the little guy" would ever get to be "the big guy" he/she would, without a moment's hesitation, do the exact same thing.
Maybe maybe not. Some "little guys" actually operate with a moral compass and if you don't believe that, you are projecting. But that isn't the point anyway. How does your comment address David Escandon's sentiment? He is merely saying there is a rule of law for the elites and another for everyone else. Could this hint at why this country is going down the tubes?
Thank you for conveying my point. I need to work on my prose; this is not one of my strengths, but I’m getting better at it by reading more of Matt’s writing.
Ah yes, the mythical "little guy with a moral compass" who rises to the heights of the elite mainly on his/her winning smile & love for humanity. I've heard of those. Aren't they in the same Wal-Mart aisle as the "hooker with a heart of gold" & the ever wonderful unicorn? So, when in the history of human civilization hasn't there been 2 sets of rules for the wealthy & the poor?
Yes, I misread your comment. I agree, no one gets to the heights of power without pretty much being scummy.
Not a problem. I didn't take it personally.
Matt - Is it possible giving banks a mandate to investigate was a bad idea in the first place? They were never meant to do more than take deposits and extend loans. Expecting them to monitor their clients feels analogous to how FB & Twitter censor their users to stay in good graces with the government. The whole thing feels like law enforcement & legislative authorities passing the buck so they have a whipping boy when the inevitable happens and companies put profits over everything else.
Unfortunately the politicians in a position to change this corrupt system are part of the problem. They all take money from the wealthy people who benefit from this greed. When the oligarchs, Wall Street titans and politicians who benefit most from this corruption end up in real jail, not country club jail, this will end. It is possible to jail the CEO, leading executives and the corporate board of HSBC without ending HSBC as an institution. These folks are criminals. They deserve prison and I'm betting they wouldn't like it much at all. They are no better than the thugs who steal your car, beat their wife or rob your bank. Let's give them equal treatment.
I've gotten to think that the most effective penalty for a financial crime conviction would be a levy or punitive tax rate on future earnings- for 5, 10, 20 years following the conviction, or possibly for life. That would provide some semblance of restorative justice.
Even a prison sentence doesn't do that. In the unlikely event that a wealthy financial criminal ends up doing time, they're practically always able to buy protection from other inmates and favored treatment from prison authorities, who are incidentally well aware that they'd face a massive civil liability suit for huge sums of money by a well-funded legal team upon the first evidence of mistreatment or abuse. Big money buys influence and power, first and foremost. Meanwhile, under the current regime of legal penalties, the convicted offender has most often taken steps to ensure that a substantial portion of their former fortune will still be available to them when they return to life on the outside.
This is especially true for wealthy criminals who provide "substantial assistance" as informers who enable more criminal convictions. It should be understood that such informant assistance does not need to consist of "busting up the ladder", i.e., a drug wholesaler giving evidence about their supplier, or a money launderer informing on superiors. It's much more common for drug "kingpins" to obtain a lesser sentence and retain a large portion of their criminal profits by "dismantling the organization"- informing on their partners and subordinates. (ex. Rayful Edmond dismantlng his own cocaine trafficking gang by betraying his underlings; and Carlos Lehder Rivas, Steven Kalish, and Ricardo Bilonick snitching on Manuel Noriega, the leader of a national regime that merely provided a protected transport hub for shipping drugs and cash.) In that game, the people who lose the most are those at the bottom, who are left with no information to bargain with for leniency, so they get stuck with the time.
In the money laundering business, the leniency and permission to hold onto the proceeds of crime is most often obtained by providing information on the clients, not the money laundering networks of the financial industry. (Ex. Max Mirmelstein, money launderer for the Medellin Cartel.)
Anyway, I think that a penalty for financial crime that includes garnishing of future earnings and/or a punitive tax rate would allow financial criminals to return to "productive employment" and the opportunity to use their skills to seek their fortune again (as has so often been the case for white-collar criminals) - while at the same time never allowing them to forget that they owe extra to the government for their misdeeds. And their parole and probation gets to consist of intensive annual audits by the IRS.
I think it would be an easy penalty to exact, and a punishment that would fit the crime. However, so many of my fellow citizens have internalized prole disempowerment and anti-democratic apathy that it's questionable whether enough of them would bother to raise the outcry required to pass and implement legal reforms like those. No matter how much sense the policy makes.
I think because no one believes this will ever happen, a lot of people just want to see it all burn down. That is the moral hazard the oligarchs have gifted to what was once a great nation.
But it sure looks like that will never happen.
In the 2008 financial crisis, I was a fairly staunch libertarian 21 year old. Seeing the banks get bailed out was one of the biggest slaps in the face and probably the first major wake up call in my political memory. While I’m far less libertarian now, I still wish everything had been burnt to the ground back then. Unfortunately, nothing will change until our entire fake economy collapses.
The pretense of justice is worse than the laundering.
The recent stories on money laundering that I've read all seem to take for granted how the vast majority of that money was accrued: through the global trade in prohibited substances. The result is to underplay the institutional framework that has made money laundering such a lucrative business: Zero Tolerance Drug Prohibition, a policy ostensibly intended for the purpose of "control" that in practice more resembles a platform to enable "no control": lawlessness and impunity.
The last time I checked, the global market in prohibited substances was larger than any other international trade commodity other than oil and weapons. As McGill Economics Professor R. T. Naylor pointed out as far back as the early 1980s, within a period of a few short years, the annual world balance of trade had shifted from roughly zero- i.e., with all exchanges accounted for- to a deficit of around $110 billion, or 10% of the global trade in that era.
I recommend Naylor's book Hot Money and the Politics of Debt for more on that subject; the 1987 edition is good, but the 1994 edition contains the best summary of the financial machinations of the Iran-Contra affair that I've run across. (I haven't read the 2004 edition.) https://books.google.com/books/about/Hot_Money_and_the_Politics_of_Debt.html?id=z9C5bA5xN84C
«The last time I checked, the global market in prohibited substances was larger than any other international trade commodity other than oil and weapons.»
By some estimates the criminal economy in the USA (largely about substances) is around 5-10% of GDP, that is similar to the share of the financial sector (a large part of which is "white collar" crime), and they have their own lobbysts, sophisticated and influential. In many areas it is way higher than 5-10% of the local "GDP" (GVA). It is a big business, and it is well represented politically.
If I recall correctly, the Ukrainian government nationalized PrivatBank in order to protect the deposits of millions of Ukrainian citizens. After taking over the bank, outside auditors discovered approximately 5.5 Billion USD missing. Isn't it interesting that during the previous 8 years of the Obama administration, Vice-President Biden was the "point-man" for the Ukraine while Kolomoisky was using Delaware front men to purchase properties in the United States. (Can anyone guess which state Biden represents in the Senate?). Also noteworthy is that a lot of aid from the US and the IMF was deposited in PrivateBank. Could it be that US aid money sent to the Ukraine was used to buy rusted out factories in the US? Just wondering.
Why is there no coverage in the media about this? Mainline media, sure I get they don’t want to tarnish Biden; however, what about other outlets?
It’s kind of insane that you can go to prison for life in some states for being caught three times with heroin on you, but if you’re the CEO of a corporation that launders billions of dollars worth of drug money and get caught over and over again, you get nothing.
Okay, let’s be fair, maybe not nothing. Maybe you defer that multi-million dollar bonus you didn’t really even need for a few months and have your lackeys make up some bullshit about how you had no idea this was happening. Or possibly it’s so egregious that you are forced to take that multi-million dollar golden parachute out the door. Maybe though, fucking horror, you get the boot out of the company with nothing! Holy shit what a punishment! Talk about harsh! You head home to your mega mansion in Connecticut to complain to your maid about how life isn’t fair while taking offers from your buddies for a lower profile job that still throws millions at you.
Whoa though, let’s not get into class warfare right? I mean, that guy that did heroin was a real fucking blight on society.
There is much suspicion regarding the reporting of the ICIJ. There were almost -0- consequences from the Panama Papers, and there will not be from this. These leaks have the feeling of "limited hangouts" or propaganda to demonstrate the vast powers of the oligarchy and why resistance is futile.
Your characterization of HSBC as a "European" bank while maybe technically correct in reality the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Company is a legacy institution of the British empire.
HSBC is also involved in the case of the Huewei executive kidnapped in Canada providing entrapping evidence to Western authorities.
These stories are just propaganda distractions without much consequence.
The lords of banking and industry are just a form of hoodlum, thug criminals. The USG provides protection and actually supports the cartels in Mexico, 95% of the worlds opium comes out of Afghanistan protected by CIA contractors. The oligarchs that own Exxon also own the opium trade and in fact most of global organized crime, they are the same people. It is THERE money, it belongs to oligarchs no different from Gates or Buffet.
Do you think it was some mistake that the US military was held back from attacking the Taliban until they fully destroyed the opium trade, then moved in to push them out and start the trade all over again with them as the full owners. This is what the US military does every day - protect and expand the power of the oligarchs.
The meeting you talk about at first was nothing more than a planning session on how to proceed, it was never intended for any other purpose. We live in a feudal culture, society and civilization.
What you describe is the British Empire 2.0. After losing colonies and military significance, British and allied European financial elites set about creating a super-national offshore banking system to defeat any way nations could protect themselves from currency manipulation, or get loans for development outside their banking cartel. It is a feudal system, run by unrepentant feudalists. They seek the end of the nation-state system. Tony Blair openly called for a Post Westphalian NWO. Ending the power of national entities such as the US, Russia and China by setting them against one another is classic divide and conquer playbook stuff for the oligarchy. Whatever one thinks of Trump, he threw a monkey wrench into the plan. Re-emergent nationalism is the last thing these globalists want. Hence the coup against Trump, the demonization of Putin, of Xi. The empire is using the USA to kill the nation state system and to kill itself. After the death of FDR and then JFK’s murder, the American political elite has been dumbed down and bought off. They play footsie with the empire,going along to get along, not caring that while we won the revolution, we haven’t ever secured it.
«What you describe is the British Empire 2.0. [...] Ending the power of national entities such as the US, Russia and China by setting them against one another is classic divide and conquer playbook stuff for the oligarchy. [...] The empire is using the USA to kill the nation state system and to kill itself. After the death of FDR and then JFK’s murder, the American political elite has been dumbed down and bought off.»
My guess is that greatly overrates the diabolical cleverness of the english elites and underestimates the american ones, whether they be the east coast bankers, the texas oilmen, the midwest traders or the west coast techies.
The empire you describe is the american empire, a "suzerain" rather than "colonial" empire, that has reduced the english to a joke:
:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4964236/Special-relationship-seen-joke-diplomats.html
«Barack Obama and his aides regarded the idea of a special relationship between Britain and the US as a joke, it was claimed last night. Jeremy Shapiro, a former presidential adviser, said the special relationship was ‘unrequited’ and he revealed he would insert references to ‘the Malvinas’ – Argentina’s name for the Falklands – into Press conferences. Mr Shapiro said that although US officials stressed the importance of the relationship to British visitors, they would make jokes about the Falklands away from the cameras. He added that the so-called special relationship with Britain ‘was never really something that was very important to the United States’.»
I still don't understand why individual actors cannot be arrested. As far as I am aware, there is no law or immunity clause that prohibits that. If an investigation reveals that a bank employee or employees from the loan officer on up to the top floor were aware of and/or facilitated the money laundering, why aren't they be arrested on criminal charges? Seems to me that would be a simple fix without bringing down big banks, which could disrupt economies.
What was that quaint old saying that applies here? Let me see...what was it?
Oh yeah, Crime Doesn't Pay.
What a hoot.
I wish this was shocking.
Luckily for all involved most news is dissecting every fart & burp out of Trump's orifices so I suspect that this news item will get very little air time.
"Divide & conquer" is a much better 21st "news" strategy than "Hey those respectable rich bankers are in bed with drug cartels."
I’ve been following Matt since 2008 and his amazing coverage on the Financial Crisis. Let’s not kid ourselves, we are still in a financial crisis with very little being paid to the real problems facing our nation and while yes most attention on Trumps farts and burps. Why? Media found a way to monitize them.
You're right. The financial crisis never ended. Isn't that why states are teetering on insolvency? They blew so much on shitty investments...let me rephrase...they blew so much on AAA rated shit investments that they have nothing for crisis management.
I've been sitting here watching my 401k from a previous job shoot skyward while local lines at food banks are obscenely long and disturbing numbers of folk are being evicted.
It doesn't take a particularly high IQ to see that when politicians & the news media talk about how wonderful the US economy is doing they only mean how wonderful rich folk are doing. They rest of us are inconsequential.
«we are still in a financial crisis with very little being paid to the real problems facing our nation»
Because a lot of people are having it really good and those who are being shafted don't vote or anyhow don't matter, as a previous comment says:
“I've been sitting here watching my 401k from a previous job shoot skyward while local lines at food banks are obscenely long and disturbing numbers of folk are being evicted.”
In particular a funny author said that real estate prices are the national USA religion; as long as real estate prices are doing better many voters are happy, and they could hardly care less about the losers.
There are no respectable banks, and they are in bed with *everybody with money*. "pecunia non olet" ("money does not smell") is a nearly 2,000 year old saying.
"There’s an incentive for banks to cycle through creative ways of looking like they’re engaging in compliance, without actually doing so."
So basically, it's money-laundering laundering.
Next year will mark the 30 year anniversary of when I was first made aware of how the banks willingly launder money for drug cartels. It saddens me that nothing has changed.
I thought I knew a lot about money laundering by the late 1990s. Then back around the year 2000, I read some of the material presented by Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI, 9th district)- I think Levin was at that point Chairman of the House Banking Committee- on correspondent banking accounts.
Basically, if someone has a large enough amount of money in the form of cash- the minimum most often mentioned was $1 million- the big banks had divisions dedicated to offering special services to high-dollar clients, using employees with the skills to set up a "correspondent banking account" that amounted to a personal bank, private and anonymous. A loophole wide enough to toss the moon through it.
Impunity and anonymity, provided the depositor has $1 million USD, cash. Meanwhile, Lord help anyone who tries to deposit more than $9999 cash in a regular bank account.
It's possible that actions have been taken to narrow that loophole since 2000, when I first heard about it. I seriously doubt that it's been closed completely.
I would think that writing of this as you do on a regular and on going basis would tend to depress as you essentially simply write about the same thing over and over with some name changes and the amounts getting larger and larger.
Some poor pothead pulled over on a tail light violation could have his auto confiscated bec of some stray white dust particles. Or whatever. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Minimum: Confiscate the “$2 trillion in suspicious transactions“ or leave the poor pothead alone.
Better yet - arrest the bank *individuals* involved (all of 'em) and if guilty, throw 'em in prison.