zlacker

>>eswat+(OP)
HSBC funneled $1B (that we know about) for cartels, it came out as 100% knowingly committed, and no one went to jail. Basically the government asked for their cut. Why wouldn't do they this again and again? They are above the law, they are the law.

>>user39+Mc
"The government asked for their cut" actually means that for laundering that $881 million in cartel money - they were fined $1.9 billion and then had to pay an additional $665 million in other civil penalties.

They wouldn't do it again and again because they don't earn $880 million when accepting $880 million in dirty money - remember that bank deposits are liabilities to the bank - they only earn money from interest on that -- and it cost them billions in fines to do so...

>>mikeyo+hf
I'd be very surprised if the $880M was the extent of the crime. The government not jailing anyone involved in the scheme is completely inexcusable and in my view makes the government complicit in the crime, in which case my trust that the public information about this case is accurate is 0.

>>user39+zj
HSBC probably got a few percent of that $880M in fees/interest/whatever. So unless they were laundering ~100x more than that, the fines absolutely did make all of that crime (even if it wasn't the full extent of it) net negative for the bank, and probably by a lot.