especially when the cost of doing the right thing is higher.
i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor
> 400m dollar fine
> isnt even .01% of what they made
...why even use numbers, a concept literally defined to quantify things, if you're just going to use utterly incorrect ones?
HSBC did not launder trillions of dollars over a decade, that figure is three orders of magnitude too high. HSBC is being fined $1.9B, not $400M.[1] HSBC also did not earn 19 trillion dollars over the course of a decade, which is what would make $1.9B your 0.01% figure. Even a $400M fine would still constitute earnings of $4 trillion.
Not only are your numbers incorrect factually speaking, their relationships with each other are entirely out of whack for measuring HSBC's profit, even in an absurd hypothetical scenario in which HSBC did launder trillions of dollars.
_________________________________________
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judg...
If you give me a million dollars in counterfeit bills, and I launder them for you, I might get paid only $10,000. My laundering efforts might have cost me $9,000. In this case my profits are $1,000 even though my earnings were $10,000 and I laundered $1,000,000.
I'm not saying that HSBC laundered 19 trillion, but the earnings and/or profits of HSBC have absolutely no relation to the potential amount they laundered.
While I agree with your sentiment, there is no need to use such inflated and hilarious numbers.
While "trillions" is definitely inflated and hyperbole, I don't think it's THAT far off.
According to this The Guardian article [0] "At least $881m in drug trafficking money was laundered throughout the bank's accounts."
So 0.88 Tn. Definitely not "trillions" but definitely much more than I would've expected if they said "billions laundered".
Also, it says "at least", which I take it to say that the investigation was not complete so a final number couldn't be calculated and only a "lower" cap is given. Potentially it could still be "trillions" as in e.g. "1.3 trillions" (if that final figure is ever calculated or even published of course). So inflated, yes. Hilarious... not so sure.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-u...
You mean 0.00088 Tn.
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article6209613.ece/...
"i mean look at HSBC - laundered trillions of dollars of mega-organized-crime money. for a decade. 400m dollar fine probably isnt even .01% of what they made off that endeavor"
$1.9b may sound like a lot, but there's a lot of blood attached to it.
It's not because any specific fine can ever be adequate compensation for all the suffering caused by the cartels. It's because you want the fine to be large enough to actually deter bad behavior in the future.
In this particular case I believe the fine (perhaps in combination with the threat of other regulatory action) has changed HSBC's behavior as there are many stories about erroneously frozen HSBC business accounts.
I just wonder if any number of deaths will ever change the behavior of the politicians who designed the disastrous war on drugs policies that have so utterly failed. I fear that won't happen as long as voters don't care about facts.
Let's remove the stop signs so all drivers can be as cavalier.
It'd save a lot of drivers the headaches that go along with traffic laws.
But the uber situation would be closer to this - the parking meter costs $20/hr and a parking ticket costs $5. We're creating a situation where people who break the law get ahead of those who obey it. Either we can ramp up enforcement (good luck with that happening) or we can level the playing field.
The US federal government decided 30 years ago that it was going to attempt to prevent some kinds of transactions from being part of the global economic growth. Kinds of transactions that were always here, and always willing to be part of the global economic growth.
It decided to use other people's money to attempt to enforce this blockade, at great expense, for perpetuity.
It does this by creating onerous reporting requirements for companies and individuals worldwide, and onerous and expensive procedures for the individuals that fail to merely file the correct paperwork.
All the while, massive multinational banks have been letting the well funded organizations continue moving their money through them and contributing to the global economic growth, while citizens are being fined and imprisoned for paperwork problems.
And your go-to thought was a satire on anyone suggesting less regulation, implying the same or more regulation would be a BETTER use of public resources?
World economic growth has always been fueled by money whose source you don't agree with. Using everyone's money in a government to merely PRETEND like it can prevent illicit sourced money from being used seems irresponsible and unconscionable, looking at the track record.
Is it really so uncomfortable to admit that multinational "cartels" (organizations of people under a common charter) are pretty good at fueling economic growth globally? Because thats how its always been
They also fail at it while ensnaring otherwise law abiding citizens in the dragnet.
So there is no logic to extrapolate to murders, where there is a victim from the activity of murdering.
AML via the Bank Secrecy Act, Patriot Act and other regulations was a swing and a miss, just looking at the evidence alone. Cash transactions over $10,000 were supposed to be reported, to stop terrorists, and the 1 BILLION of organized drug money that HSBC cleared is the equivalent of a dozen terrorists being financed per day, since 9/11.
Excepts its just people with a little extra cash that get jailed from these reporting laws.