If someone hires a hitman for $9,000, and then that person goes to Bank of America to withdraw money from their account, we don't typically hold BOA liable unless we assume that they know that the reason you're withdrawing the money is for something illegal.
Similarly, why sanction the crypto exchange?
This action also has the side effect of making it illegal for a victim organization to pay a ransom that would run through this exchange, which may be desirable outcome from the government's POV.
Out of curiosity, what do regular banks (e.g. BOA in my example) do to avoid this problem? Just basic background checks and reporting suspicious behavior to the FBI or SEC or something?
https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report
https://www.fincen.gov/reports/sar-stats
Millions of these are filed per year. Obviously not all of these - probably not even most of these - are about actual crimes or end up in actual prosecutions, but the banks still have to file them.
> Just basic background checks and reporting suspicious behavior to the FBI or SEC or something?
yes that's part of it (FinCEN though I think, not necessarily direct to the fbi/sec)
I’m all for going after companies that are complicit in crime, but we shouldn’t give the big players an easier time than the small ones.
Because surely something would happen to them if that were the case.
Edit: I can’t reply to the person who responded, but if you read my original comment, I say I think both should be punished instead of the government going hard against small fish while letting large-scale corruption thrive.
And so they (HSBC) did[0]. And quite blatantly too.
HSBC should have been smacked down hard. They were not. And that was wrong.
Is your argument that others doing the same should get a pass because HSBC only got a slap on the wrist?
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...
Edit: Added link to details of HSBC's bad behavior.
If there is precedent for a lesser punishment, then the guilty should all receive it, not just the guilty of with the right connections, wealth or… skin color.
There’s another similar argument to be made for mandatory minimum sentences.
I'd say that parties--when proven guilty--should receive similar punitive action relative to the scope of the issue.
But I don't see it as "HSBC got off lightly, so everyone else should too." I see it as "The DOJ dropped the ball with HSBC, and there should have been company-breaking fines/sanctions and those who knowingly assisted the cartels should do real prison time for money laundering and associated RICO charges.
That should be the standard, not "oh gee, HSBC got a slap on the wrist so no one should have to take responsibility for actions supporting global narco-traffickers (whether or not such drugs should be legal is another discussion) and state sponsors of terrorism.
If a case is handled inappropriately, the solution isn't to handle all similar cases inappropriately -- the solution is to do it correctly the next time and the time after that and the time after that, etc.
Being a chartered bank (or any corporation) is a privilege that can and should be revoked if those privileges are abused as HSBC did.
Or are you standing up for the banking system being allowed to knowingly profit from the death, murder and misery of other people?
The irony of HSBC's origins as the funder the opium trade in China isn't lost on me. But that was ~150 years ago and times have changed.
Fair enough. And I don't disagree. At all.
IMNSHO, HSBC should no longer be allowed to operate as a bank and those who allowed this to happen should still be in 8x10 boxes somewhere.
But it's an imperfect world.
Edit: Fixed typo (IMNHSO vs. IMNSHO).
HSBC laundered money for cartels and helped eg Iranians avoid sanctions. Those are issues, but they aren’t directly related to ransomware crime like a crypto exchange facilitating payments for ransomware crime is. It’s somewhat off topic.