Comment by kagamine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kagamine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Reasons I can think of for why the banks are responsible for the wrong-doings of their customers, as you put it, is because HSBC among others have been caught laundering money[1] (or at the very least not preventing it). So making them responsible is similar to making barmen responsible for checking IDs before serving alcohol. Sure, the underage drinker is the one perpetuating the crime, but by criminalizing the barman you insist upon a check in the system.

The hosting company comparison doesn't fit, you can publish a myriad of content and quickly to a host, checking all of it, against laws for explicit content and copyright alone would be a mammoth task. Banks only offer financial services they themselves choose to provide. In essence they only provide FTP and the only file you can FTP is a number (to put it simply).

Banks need regulating (is there anyone alive in this day and age who doubts this?), not just on an international level, but locally and for the 'little man' too. My own experience this last year involved making a formal complaint to the consumer financial complaints body where I live about an error made by the bank, freely admitted to by the bank, and the result was "suck it up", including the financial cost. Banking is in a poor state, having lost the faith of the public.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC#Controversies

To meanduck:

No. From what I gather, kagamine is saying that the banks should be held responsible for money laundering to a point, much like someone selling alcohol checks a person's ID. They are in the position to spot money laundering and can do things to prevent fraud, just like the person checking an ID for alcohol can stop a crime from happening by doing a simple check.

The last bit gives it away: "Banks need regulating... not just on an international level, but locally and for the 'little man' too."

In other words, they are only on the hook for fraud, but not for screwing folks over - and we need that regulation.

caught laundering money[1] (or at the very least not preventing it)

Those are of course two totally different things. Money laundering has a very vague definition in law. So banks can never prevent it entirely. That makes a huge difference.

I suggest you follow the link provided before splitting hairs over the distinction.

So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it because Govts cant find better revenue source ? The amount of overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue is staggering. I shudder to think what would happen if UBI is added into the mix.

> So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it

I said nothing of the sort.

> overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue

Follow the link from my previous post, are you suggesting that laundering the profits from trade in opiates and helping fund terrorism is better than some laws that require banks to be accountable for their actions? Those money laundering transactions are processed for a fee. HSBC made money from people suffering and from people dying/being killed.

It looks to me as though in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the banks have been given a procedure by the government to be followed but have neglected to implement a workable solution, based on there being no recourse for individual customers. It appears, at least in the case of Mohammad Rahman that the bank failed in their duty to the customer while citing "it's not our fault and we don't really care anyway". Followed by "oh shit, bad press! Remedy at 12 o'clock!" but that nothing will change in the long term because they still don't care either morally or ethically.

If banks want to be in the business of banking then they ought to make banking their job and that does not only involve profit at the cost of everyone and everything, not excuse themselves with a shrug every time demands are placed on the banking system.

The laws that powers banks to withhold someone money are the same laws that Govts use to maximize tax revenue. Drug/Terrorism is mostly irrelevent.

It isn't irrelevant at all when the law allowing them to seize funds exists directly due to the law being changed in order to prevent HSBC and others having been caught laundering money from cartels and terrorists. It really is not irrelevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com