zlacker

> 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+(OP)
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-+y1
> HSBC ain't worse or better than others

Money laundering does seem to be their choice in poisons.

>>saiya-+y1
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+v3
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)

>>JumpCr+b2
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+Zl
> 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.

>>jacque+v3
They started off as an opium bank, that heritage and culture still pervades their business practices.

If you want to read more about this: https://philebersole.com/2013/02/15/hsbcs-history-and-the-or...

>>neom+dg
> 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.

>>emmanu+Zl
Don't they? Surely they make some interest on the money if it is parked for any length of time? Plus transaction fees and such? And individuals probably get bonuses etc. based on volume in some way? (IANAB(anker), just wild guesses here.)

>>hiatus+qR
I can give you one: one guy I met while I lived in Canada had a scheme going where they got people to sign up for a service using a credit card and then they also signed them up for a bunch of unrelated very low monthly fee services that automatically renewed and/or unrelated one time charges marked as 'donation to some charity'. HSBC was happy to shield the company from VISA and MC for the longest time because they made money on it. This was pretty much a clear case of theft and without HSBC cooperating I really doubt it would have worked.

>>xurbax+O21
Late reply, sorry.

They do, but it's nothing compared to what they make loaning money, which is their (and any banks) core business.

>>JumpCr+tm
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.