Color Me SHOCKED! HSBC Is Said to Avoid Charges Over Money Laundering

[spanone]

9:49 p.m. | Updated
State and federal authorities decided against indicting HSBC in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world's largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system.

Instead, authorities on Tuesday are expected to announce a record $1.9 billion settlement with the bank, according to law enforcement officials briefed on the matter. The bank, which is based in Britain, faces accusations that it transferred billions of dollars for nations like Iran and enabled Mexican drug cartels to move money illegally through its American subsidiaries.

While the settlement is a major victory for the government, the case raises questions about whether certain financial institutions, having grown so large and so interconnected, are too big to indict. Four years after the failure of Lehman Brothers nearly toppled the financial system, regulators are still wary that a single institution could undermine the recovery of the industry and the economy.

But the threat of criminal prosecution acts as a powerful deterrent. If authorities signal such actions are remote for big banks, the threat could lose its sting.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to-near-1-9-billion-settlement-over-money-laundering/?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print

[kewhawaii]

1. Prosecute them

Jail time is the only thing that will get their attention.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. An open admission that too big to fail = above the law.

The admission could prove significant.

[frylock]

4. too big to jail

[woo me with science]

3. K&R

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. Whadayaknow, this is getting some traction. n/t

[spanone]

6. looks like crime pays...laundering money for iran and drug cartels.....hard to believe

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Crime has always paid better than anything else for those in the proper class. n/t

[spanone]

7. more:Too Big Too Indict, HSBC, Barclays and UBS Set Ugly Precedent

Today’s New York Times carries the story that HSBC has escaped criminal prosecution because of fears that an indictment on money laundering charges would undermine the financial system. It’s a familiar argument – too familiar. But the actions of prosecutors risk undermining the broader social system, with even more serious consequences.

In London last weekend Occupy protestors seized a Starbucks and set up a library. The Occupy cause is fairness, in this case drawing attention to Starbuck’s legitimate, low tax burden as “unfair”.

Clearly protestors have a case, as do those who say Starbucks is following the law, not breaking it.

However, the underlying moral issue will not easily be wished away. Occupy and similar movements are interested in changing the law because they see it legitimating bad behavior. In the case of Starbucks, as much as HSBC, they see a system embellished with laws that protect some forms of anti-social behavior. The side effect is that the behavior of all businesses is now being drawn into the net. We haven’t seen that type of conflict since the 1980s.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2012/12/11/too-big-too-indict-hsbc-barclays-and-ubs-set-ugly-precedent/print/

[Solly Mack]

8. No doubt those who refuse to indict now will be shocked when it happens again.

Snort.

[spanone]

9. they will probably profit from it, when it happens again.

[Solly Mack]

10. Too true.

[Divine Discontent]

11. if we did this we'd be sent to a tiny cell for decades.... absolutely shameful, SHAMEFUL, that they

do not get even a day of punishment for showing the Iranians how to hide millions, and giving special boxes to Mexican drug lords that fit into the bank drive thru windows....

appalled at this decision.

[banned from Kos]

12. Who would they prosecute? Some EVP in New York that let the laundering happen?

Fine.

The HSBC Board of Directors would rather that happen than pay $1.9 billion out in fines.