FinCEN leaks

[Bird on a Fire]

So, basically all the banks knowingly help criminals move the proceeds of crime and avoid sanctions, and authorities are unable or unwilling to stop them. $2 trillion in this batch of leaks, which is by no means complete.

Cool cool cool.

Eta link https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54226107

[jimbob]

Thanks for the heads up.

I wish I was shocked, but as many financial institutions have systems that discourage probity, it's not surprising.

Good to have the evidence, though

[jdc]

There was an interesting Panorama a while back on banking shenanigans, lots of juicy revelations about Deutschebank, EY and so on.

There's another one on right now on BBC1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... d-powerful

Haven't started watching yet but it says:

It’s the leak that reveals the secrets of British banking. Panorama uncovers secret reports that expose how banks have failed to tackle crime and how terrorists, money launderers and crime bosses are able to use the same banks as us. Reporter Richard Bilton also exposes the double life of the man who funded the Brexit Party, secret deals at the top of British football and the business deals billionaires would rather you didn’t know about.

[Millennie Al]

So, basically all the banks knowingly help criminals move the proceeds of crime and avoid sanctions, and authorities are unable or unwilling to stop them. $2 trillion in this batch of leaks, which is by no means complete.

Cool cool cool.

Eta link https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54226107

Maybe they do, but the story at that link certainly does not say so. Instead it says that banks are reporting suspicions. I would hope that you do not think that banks should take upon themselves to the role of police in investigating crimes. Do you think that if Tesco thinks a shopper has tried to pay with a forged note that Tesco should investigate and ban that person or should Tesco call the police and let them investigate and then let the CPS prosecute and the courts determine guilt? Because one of the things which makes the modern world work so much more efficiently is specialisation - whereby different people and organisations have separate jobs that they can be much better at than everyone doing everything.

Far more worrying in that article should be the fact that it says that suspicions about dollar transations must be reported to the US. This is the typical US attitude that other countries don't matter and their rules must apply everywhere. Unless people are happy with Donald Trump getting to dictate how the world works, they should be opposing this system.

[discovolante]

So, basically all the banks knowingly help criminals move the proceeds of crime and avoid sanctions, and authorities are unable or unwilling to stop them. $2 trillion in this batch of leaks, which is by no means complete.

Cool cool cool.

Eta link https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54226107

Maybe they do, but the story at that link certainly does not say so. Instead it says that banks are reporting suspicions. I would hope that you do not think that banks should take upon themselves to the role of police in investigating crimes. Do you think that if Tesco thinks a shopper has tried to pay with a forged note that Tesco should investigate and ban that person or should Tesco call the police and let them investigate and then let the CPS prosecute and the courts determine guilt? Because one of the things which makes the modern world work so much more efficiently is specialisation - whereby different people and organisations have separate jobs that they can be much better at than everyone doing everything.

Far more worrying in that article should be the fact that it says that suspicions about dollar transations must be reported to the US. This is the typical US attitude that other countries don't matter and their rules must apply everywhere. Unless people are happy with Donald Trump getting to dictate how the world works, they should be opposing this system.

Sorry you what?

Money laundering rules have broad prohibitions on proceeding with transactions where money laundering is suspected. I don't know the details of US money laundering rules but the article BOAF linked to is fairly clear that pretty much the same rules apply. The examples given include continuing to move money around even after a SAR was submitted, and potentially failing to carry out proper customer due diligence in the first place.

It may be that further investigation shows that not all of the examples published implicate the banks themselves, but you seem to have misunderstood the fundamental premise of the issue.

Or someone else could say this is all anti Russian propaganda.

[Woodchopper]

So, basically all the banks knowingly help criminals move the proceeds of crime and avoid sanctions, and authorities are unable or unwilling to stop them. $2 trillion in this batch of leaks, which is by no means complete.

Cool cool cool.

Eta link https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54226107

Maybe they do, but the story at that link certainly does not say so. Instead it says that banks are reporting suspicions. I would hope that you do not think that banks should take upon themselves to the role of police in investigating crimes. Do you think that if Tesco thinks a shopper has tried to pay with a forged note that Tesco should investigate and ban that person or should Tesco call the police and let them investigate and then let the CPS prosecute and the courts determine guilt? Because one of the things which makes the modern world work so much more efficiently is specialisation - whereby different people and organisations have separate jobs that they can be much better at than everyone doing everything.

Its not unusual for private companies to be expected to enforce the law. For example, Tesco is expected to enforce laws on purchasing alcohol (including banning customers).

[discovolante]

I do feel uncomfortable that anyone can happily support Chelsea though.

[jaap]

With Deutsche Bank’s help, an oligarch’s buying spree trails ruin across the US heartland
I saw this article on Language Log, where it was posted due to the confusing headline, but it seems to be pertinent here. Once again Deutsche Bank is in the middle of it.

[Millennie Al]

So, basically all the banks knowingly help criminals move the proceeds of crime and avoid sanctions, and authorities are unable or unwilling to stop them. $2 trillion in this batch of leaks, which is by no means complete.

Cool cool cool.

Eta link https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54226107

Maybe they do, but the story at that link certainly does not say so. Instead it says that banks are reporting suspicions. I would hope that you do not think that banks should take upon themselves to the role of police in investigating crimes. Do you think that if Tesco thinks a shopper has tried to pay with a forged note that Tesco should investigate and ban that person or should Tesco call the police and let them investigate and then let the CPS prosecute and the courts determine guilt? Because one of the things which makes the modern world work so much more efficiently is specialisation - whereby different people and organisations have separate jobs that they can be much better at than everyone doing everything.

Its not unusual for private companies to be expected to enforce the law. For example, Tesco is expected to enforce laws on purchasing alcohol (including banning customers).

If Tesco are required to refuse to serve a customer based only on a suspicion, then that's just wrong. What happend to innocent until proven guilty?

[lpm]

Know Your Customer is a boringly commonplace principle. Many capitalist enterprises are regulated in this way, as Woodchopper pointed out - either by direct regulation law or by voluntary codes of practice that have been negotiated.

Banks aren't allowed to lend money to anyone who asks, mobile phone companies are banned from letting everyone buy an iPhone on two year contracts, casinos are required to identify problem gamblers, solicitors must watch for laundering, recruitment consultants have to watch for discrimination.

A country is too big a thing to be run by government.

[dyqik]

Maybe they do, but the story at that link certainly does not say so. Instead it says that banks are reporting suspicions. I would hope that you do not think that banks should take upon themselves to the role of police in investigating crimes. Do you think that if Tesco thinks a shopper has tried to pay with a forged note that Tesco should investigate and ban that person or should Tesco call the police and let them investigate and then let the CPS prosecute and the courts determine guilt? Because one of the things which makes the modern world work so much more efficiently is specialisation - whereby different people and organisations have separate jobs that they can be much better at than everyone doing everything.

Its not unusual for private companies to be expected to enforce the law. For example, Tesco is expected to enforce laws on purchasing alcohol (including banning customers).

If Tesco are required to refuse to serve a customer based only on a suspicion, then that's just wrong. What happend to innocent until proven guilty?

That's only ever applied to state enforced judicial sentences. You don't have a right to shop in Tesco, so no right is being removed. Exactly the same situation as the fact that your freedom of speech is not affected at all if you get banned from here.

[Bird on a Fire]

I do like the suggestion that Tesco's should sell everybody booze and fags unless Tesco's can prove that the would-be customer is underage.

Wish I'd had the nerve to try "prove it" or "whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?" when I was underage.

[Millennie Al]

Know Your Customer is a boringly commonplace principle. Many capitalist enterprises are regulated in this way, as Woodchopper pointed out - either by direct regulation law or by voluntary codes of practice that have been negotiated.

Banks aren't allowed to lend money to anyone who asks, mobile phone companies are banned from letting everyone buy an iPhone on two year contracts, casinos are required to identify problem gamblers, solicitors must watch for laundering, recruitment consultants have to watch for discrimination.

A country is too big a thing to be run by government.

Such types of restrictons are indeed now commpnplace. They are a fundamental part of the "hostile environment" policy, whereby someone who cannot prove a right to residence in the UK is refused banking services by banks, housing by landlords, healthcare by the NHS etc. I am disappointed to see such widespread support for such a malign principle. The phrase "judge, jury, and executioner" used to be used to indicate excessively concentrated power, but now we are seeing people being "informer, investigator, judge, jury, and executioner" and it is somehow not immediately obvious to people that this is a really bad idea.