Yes, there were Americans involved on this side of the pond. I don't recall his name, but he was the chief operating officer over here. Emails exist showing him complaining to his boss in England and the response he got was the US was being too overbearing concerning money laundering and to shut up. As for US law HBSC in the settlement concedes US law does apply. Part of the settlement is that if the bank stays clean for 5 years no criminal charges will be brought.

What act specific act, date / time and action, did this US COO do? Bitching to his boss isn't a crime. Not picking up the phone and reporting it isn't a crime. Failing to file http://www.fincen.gov/forms/files/fin8300_cashover10k.pdf is a crime if the cash was in the USA.

US laws apply to the corporation because it had a physical presence in the USA.

---

Gary, I'm sure you read newspapers. This is in at least 3 papers I have read in the last two days.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to-near-1-9-billion-settlement-over-money-laundering/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121211
Being part of a conspiracy is a crime!

---

Being part of a conspiracy is a crime!

Knowing about a crime or failing to report a crime is not the same as attempting to cover up a crime. You have to prove a specific act in furtherance of the crime to have a conspiracy. It is a fine point but an important one.

The guy who hears scuttlebutt at the water cooler isn't a conspirator. The guy who overhears crooks planning the next heist at the restaurant isn't a conspirator. The guy who brings maps to plan with is a conspirator.

Now if this COO certified they were in compliance and he knew it was false, that is a primary crime of perjury. But proving he knew it was false is proving his mental state when he signed. He may have suspected it was BS, but there is a difference between suspecting something and knowing it for a fact.

As you may gather actually proving these things is very hard without a confession or documentation of mental state, e.g. phone taps.

---

Queen questions financial crisis

"When told that the officials in the room were there to prevent another crisis, the Duke jokingly asked: "Is there another one coming?""

Of course there'a another coming your highness, how else do you think we serfs are kept in line?

---

Being part of a conspiracy is a crime!

Knowing about a crime or failing to report a crime is not the same as attempting to cover up a crime. You have to prove a specific act in furtherance of the crime to have a conspiracy. It is a fine point but an important one.

The guy who hears scuttlebutt at the water cooler isn't a conspirator. The guy who overhears crooks planning the next heist at the restaurant isn't a conspirator. The guy who brings maps to plan with is a conspirator.

Now if this COO certified they were in compliance and he knew it was false, that is a primary crime of perjury. But proving he knew it was false is proving his mental state when he signed. He may have suspected it was BS, but there is a difference between suspecting something and knowing it for a fact.

As you may gather actually proving these things is very hard without a confession or documentation of mental state, e.g. phone taps.

Gary, that is one spin being put out, another is the fear that criminal charges could bring down HSBC. As for evidence all they did not have is wire taps. They do have internal HBSC documentation and a confession. As it is going down the only penalties are to the share holders in the loss of the revenue going to pay the fine, the people who committed the money laundering will suffer no punishment. I fail to see how that will deter future crimes. This is a very sordid affair.

---

Being part of a conspiracy is a crime!

Knowing about a crime or failing to report a crime is not the same as attempting to cover up a crime. You have to prove a specific act in furtherance of the crime to have a conspiracy. It is a fine point but an important one.

The guy who hears scuttlebutt at the water cooler isn't a conspirator. The guy who overhears crooks planning the next heist at the restaurant isn't a conspirator. The guy who brings maps to plan with is a conspirator.

Now if this COO certified they were in compliance and he knew it was false, that is a primary crime of perjury. But proving he knew it was false is proving his mental state when he signed. He may have suspected it was BS, but there is a difference between suspecting something and knowing it for a fact.

As you may gather actually proving these things is very hard without a confession or documentation of mental state, e.g. phone taps.

Gary, that is one spin being put out, another is the fear that criminal charges could bring down HSBC. As for evidence all they did not have is wire taps. They do have internal HBSC documentation and a confession. As it is going down the only penalties are to the share holders in the loss of the revenue going to pay the fine, the people who committed the money laundering will suffer no punishment. I fail to see how that will deter future crimes. This is a very sordid affair.

betreger, I posting what is, not what should be. Think of it as a prosecutor deciding what a judge will let get in front of a jury and what a defense lawyer will get tossed.

They did not charge HSBC Inc because a felony conviction automatically would bring it down. That puts the taxpayers on the hook for the deposit insurance.

As to the people, as far as I suspect could be proved to a jury, the people in the USA were nothing more than people hearing about it around the water cooler. The people doing the laundering were in the UK and other countries. As such US law against money laundering does not apply to them as individuals. As to the bank itself, if it wants a US license, it has one, then the bank must agree to abide by US bank regulations. It didn't abide by them. The US doesn't want to be on the hook for the deposit insurance. Ergo a negotiated fine. I don't know how they arrived at the amount of the fine and I doubt the press would report that. You have to trust that the bureaucrats at least took all the profit of the money laundering away plus all the investigatory costs.

---

Gary your quote "You have to trust that the bureaucrats at least took all the profit of the money laundering away plus all the investigatory costs."
My response, I doubt it. I suspect HBSC still made a net profit. They were doing big time money laundering for over a decade and their internal documents claimed it to be a "low risk" transaction.
We agree the reason no criminal charges were brought is probably the thought of HBSC going down. Sadly the bastards in the UK and elsewhere who helped finance mutual foes will suffer not.

---

Sadly the bastards in the UK and elsewhere who helped finance mutual foes will suffer not.

Just in line with the US mainland Banks involved in the rate setting fiasco, as were UK Banks. The traders involved in the US were never prosecuted either, and, in their case, for that issue the US regulations applied. Cannot have it one way, but the threat to their 7lUS license is a big deterrent ...

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Sadly the bastards in the UK and elsewhere who helped finance mutual foes will suffer not.

Just in line with the US mainland Banks involved in the rate setting fiasco, as were UK Banks. The traders involved in the US were never prosecuted either, and, in their case, for that issue the US regulations applied. Cannot have it one way, but the threat to their 7lUS license is a big deterrent ...

We have allowed these lords of the universe to become so large that they are deemed too big to fail. The small felon will do the time and these crooks can do as they please and I do consider this money laundering to be treason. Don't you Brits also have trade embargoes against Iran?

---

Don't you Brits also have trade embargoes against Iran?

Of course the British Government has.

Iran Sanctions

Well it seems that neither your government or mine is willing to take the individuals at HBSC to task for their nefarious deeds.

---

Nor for the vipers in the US Banking nests.

Problem is, as said earlier, the Banks are now too big to fail and the Tax Payer is open to take responsibility for deposits in Banks the do fail. That is where the Banks have the various Governments by the short and curlies, and the reason for no prosecutions.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

You can't stop vulnerable entities like pension funds from investing in banks. If they get it right, they make a lot of money. If they get it wrong, like dozens of Councils throughout the UK did with the Icelandic banks, then the man in the street could suffer. How on earth do you legislate for that?

Doesn't the man on the street suffer when these banks help finance wars against your national interest?

---

You can't stop vulnerable entities like pension funds from investing in banks. If they get it right, they make a lot of money. If they get it wrong, like dozens of Councils throughout the UK did with the Icelandic banks, then the man in the street could suffer. How on earth do you legislate for that?

Doesn't the man on the street suffer when these banks help finance wars against your national interest?

Which one can you pass a tax increase to cover? Bad pension fund loans or a war?

---

You can't stop vulnerable entities like pension funds from investing in banks. If they get it right, they make a lot of money. If they get it wrong, like dozens of Councils throughout the UK did with the Icelandic banks, then the man in the street could suffer. How on earth do you legislate for that?

Doesn't the man on the street suffer when these banks help finance wars against your national interest?

Which one can you pass a tax increase to cover? Bad pension fund loans or a war?

Gary, a country can't afford to lose a war and in this case of money laundering the pension funds and a war are interwoven. The only way to reduce this behavior is that the people responsible personally suffer serious penalties.

---