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 ain't worse or better than others

Money laundering does seem to be their choice in poisons.

>>JumpCr+A8
That's because they are one of the most global bank, therefore a prime choice when it comes to moving money from countries to countries. Most bank have a much smaller global footprint and can't be used as such.

Banks don't benefit from their customer laundering money just like landlords don't benefit from drug trafficking in their building: it's a hindrance and it costs a lot to do anything about it.

Source: I work on AML in a global bank.

>>emmanu+os
> they are one of the most global bank

By what metric? I’d argue the driving factor is their proximity to dirty money. Same with Russian banks. Then other people notice you’re used to looking the other way and you get word-of-mouth network effects. With money launderers.

>>JumpCr+Ss
I don't know much about HSBC's history with dirty money, but they are well known to be one of the most global banks. Only Citibank and Standard Chartered operate in more countries.