Monday, July 11, 2016

Mica Rosenberg — Top U.S. officials rejected push to prosecute HSBC: lawmakers' report

Senior U.S. Department of Justice officials overruled internal recommendations to prosecute global bank HSBC Holdings Plc for money-laundering violations because of concerns about the stability of the financial system, according to a congressional report released on Monday.…
Business Insider
Top U.S. officials rejected push to prosecute HSBC: lawmakers' report
Mica Rosenberg | Reuters

16 comments:

Seve141 said...

"Although we did not find clear evidence that HSBC or their executives intended to violate laws governing the handling of laundered money," he said, "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very, very large amounts of, highly laundered monies."

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey announced

Bob said...

All the unreasonable prosecuters are busy handling the Edward Snowden case...

Matthew Franko said...

Ha Seve LOL!!!!

Andrew Anderson said...

because of concerns about the stability of the financial system, according to a congressional report released on Monday.…

The allowance of accounts for all citizens, their businesses, State and local governments, etc. at the central bank and the end of government-provided deposit insurance and other privileges for the banks would mean the following:

All remaining deposits at depository institutions, aka "banks" would be, BY DEFINITION, at-risk, not necessarily liquid INVESTMENTS, not commingled with necessary day to day liquidity.

In other words, the banks would no longer hold the economy hostage.

John said...

Hillary's case has set a new standard for the term "reasonable". To distort the original intended meaning, this really is a case of foul is fair and fair is foul. What an unbelievable politically motivated outrage by the FBI.

After this and other cases, you start to warm to the libertarian case for abolishing the FBI.

Andrew Anderson said...

It's interesting to me that murder is not necessarily a US Federal crime but robbing a bank is.

Of, by and for the banks seems to be the rule in the US and elsewhere. Indeed, since only the banks and other depository institutions may deal with fiat in convenient, inherently risk-free account form at the central bank, it can be argued that the banks, etc are the ONLY true citizens of the US.

Auburn Parks said...

AA-

Removing deposit insurance wouldnt do anything for anyone, its there to protect depositors not bankers.

Turning the banking system and the Fed into a communist style Govt retail bank for all 300+ million Americans is not a solution to anything.

Why dont you get a new schtick or at least not make the same exact comment in every other post?

Andrew Anderson said...

Why dont you get a new schtick or at least not make the same exact comment in every other post? AP

You're losing your cool, AP, because you know your losing the argument. Indeed, you've already LOST the argument per most any objective observer.

So the question is why do you persist anyway?

I could refute YOUR silly, repetitious objections again but why should I bother since YOUR credibility must be about zero by now? And it's obvious you either can't or won't learn?

Matt Franko said...

Andrew my guess is Auburn doesn't prefer turkey bacon either....

Andrew Anderson said...

Andrew my guess is Auburn doesn't prefer turkey bacon either....

Neither do I, I eat genuine pig bacon because:

1) I'm not Jewish (that I know of).
2) Even if I were I could eat pork with a clear conscience (like Peter did) since I accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Andrew Anderson said...

Turning the banking system and the Fed into a communist style Govt retail bank for all 300+ million Americans is not a solution to anything. AP

Oh this one I can't resist since the hypocrisy and falsehood is so obvious.

Get this: Making banks 100% private with 100% voluntary depositors is communist(!), according to AP.

Is there no end to the lying hypocrisy of bank supporters? And was Dante far wrong in his assessment of bankers (and I presume, bank supporters)?

Auburn Parks said...

"You're losing your cool, AP, because you know your losing the argument. Indeed, you've already LOST the argument per most any objective observer."

Like the rest of your garbage, there is no evidence for this comment. And yes, trolls are bothersome to me. You are ruining my experience at MNE without your mindless inaccurate banking commentary that you repeat in thread after thread.

"
I could refute YOUR silly, repetitious objections again but why should I bother since YOUR credibility must be about zero by now? And it's obvious you either can't or won't learn?"

You havent refuted anything. YOu just keep repeating the same myths

1. deposit insurance privileges banks = wrong. Its there for depositor protection and to prevent bank runs and crises as they happened repeatedly before the reform of deposit insurance in the 1930s. Refute that.

2. You havent presented one single reasonable argument how turning the entire risk free retail banking system (eliminating deposit insurance guarantees on private bank deposits) into a communist style Fed bank for everyone model would benefit anyone other than your repeating false claim that it would allow everyone to get $20K in free money from the Govt. It wouldnt and its irrelevant to giving citizens that $20K Refute that.

3. Your repeated false claims that the banking system as it stand now is not voluntary. This is wrong, nobody iis forced to use a commercial bank, the Govt pays out benefits with pre-loaded debit cards if you dont have a bank account. Refute that.

"Get this: Making banks 100% private with 100% voluntary depositors is communist(!), according to AP."

No, thats you idiot straw man reading of my commment. Wanting the Govt to take over the entire risk free retail banking sector is an extreme socialist policy. I have nothing against sociialism, collective action and ownership is a normal part of living in a society, you have simply failed to acknowledge that a) this is explicitly what you want and B) why this would be for the benefit of anyone.

Andrew Anderson said...

Wanting the Govt to take over the entire risk free retail banking sector is an extreme socialist policy. AP

If you simply mean risk-free accounts and transactions in fiat for ALL citizens and not just for depository institutions, aka the usury cartel, then no it isn't; it's simply an obvious duty of a monetary sovereign.

And since those accounts and transactions are inherently risk-free then government-provided deposit is obviously unnecessary and thus a subsidy of what should be 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors.

I have nothing against sociialism,

You're a liar. You attempted to smear me with the communist label.

collective action and ownership is a normal part of living in a society, you have simply failed to acknowledge that a) this is explicitly what you want AP

But it isn't what I want. Fiat is a nation's money supply and is meant for all citizens to use, not just depository institutions. I could hope for the elimination of unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat just so usury cartel lovers like yourself would not even have that fig-leaf to hide behind.

and B) why this would be for the benefit of anyone. AP

You don't see the advantage of an alternative payment system that does not work through the banks?!

Well, too bad for you but I assure you that others can see the benefit of that.

Andrew Anderson said...

And since those accounts and transactions are inherently risk-free then government-provided deposit is obviously unnecessary and thus a subsidy of what should be 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors. aa

Not just a subsidy for the banks but a subsidy for those who want welfare proportional to account size since risk-free accounts should pay at most 0% interest.

So yes, AP, government-provided deposit insurance is for depositors too - shameless ones who desire welfare proportional to wealth.

Now try to hide behind poor depositors but that won't work since the welfare we don't waste on the rich, we can give to the poor instead.

Random said...

"Wanting the Govt to take over the entire risk free retail banking sector is an extreme socialist policy."

Come on now. I don't even support Andrew but that is ridiculous.

Even the wildest free-marketeers would hesitate to place our entire road network in private hands, so banking transactions should be protected in the same way.

It is a common good required by all. It makes sense for the state to fund its existence - because there is no money in running it.

"It wouldnt and its irrelevant to giving citizens that $20K"

What would happen under Andrew's plan is increase the cost of lending and govt spending to fill the gap.

Andrew misdescribes the MMT reforms to a small extent - MMTers are fine with banks 'creating as many liabilities as they want' - the regulation is only for banks that want the access to the central bank.

Basically give banks that want access to fiat a list of things to do that serve the public purpose - and ban them from everything else. And yes we will need to expand grants and public investment.

Andrew Anderson said...

Basically give banks that want access to fiat a list of things to do that serve the public purpose - and ban them from everything else. And yes we will need to expand grants and public investment. random

I can't see the need for public loans to the private sector and they continue a very bad precedence we should end decisively. Let the private sector lend to itself.

If something serves the public purpose such as more doctors, nurses and dentists then grants are the way to go with a proviso that modestly paid public service for a few years or so is required before the receiptent can enter private practice.