zlacker

>>eswat+(OP)
> But more than a year later, D.M. was so dissatisfied with the bank’s response that

I only recognize the HSBC name from scandals in the news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies

>>neilv+p6
Look at any wiki article on any major global bank, the chapter about 'controversies and legal issues' is always a thick list, HSBC ain't worse or better than others.

There are no good guys there, that's not why the business was set up and corresponding folks were/are hired. If you want more controls, enforce more regulations, they do work if well defined.

>>saiya-+X7
HSBC seems worse than many others. When I moved to Canada my immigration lawyer explicitly advised to stay away from HSBC, this was in 2000 or so and they already had a pretty bad rep. The various scandals since then haven't improved that reputation. TD, CT and RB have their own problems but none of them have received even close to the total fines that HSBC has (to the best of my knowledge).

I agree there are no good guys here, but there are shades.

>>jacque+U9
I've been using HSBC in Canada and the USA for 15 years, they're great for exactly the reasons they shouldn't be. Their tooling basically lets you do whatever you want with no oversight. It's kinda weird, but I liked it. Sad they sold their Canadian business to RBC (even though they sold their USA business to Citizen Bank, they allowed high net worths to stay but the Canadian arm did not, wondering if this news is the reason for their exit)

>>neom+Cm
> Their tooling basically lets you do whatever you want with no oversight

What do you mean by this? Maybe some examples would help to clarify.