Hacker News Reader

Comment by sam_lowry_ | Hacker News Reader

This is actually about helping Putin and his gang steal Russian money to the tune of $160B.

The bank ends up paying $2B fine and $1B in settlements.

The details involved in this settlement suggest that the bank has been charged based on the money laundering practices done back in 2016. They were essentially providing ways for russian oligarchs to safely deposit their funds into the US financial system. That sucks, but most likely these same funds are currently being held frozen by the US. Nobody really has the authority to unfreeze them besides the US.

I'm not convinced "that sucks" is a reasonable way of describing what essentially amounts to people transferring vast amounts of wealth from an ostensibly unfriendly state to the US. This seems like something US authorities ought to encourage.

Well... they're stealing it (perhaps legally, but still) from the people of Russia. The people of Russia are not so rich that it doesn't hurt. And people like that sometimes become international aggressors because of that.

It's not just what the oligarchs are doing. You need to think about what happens to the people as well.

City of London tried it for a while. It was not without mmm side effects.

Like what?

Somehow people like money. When offered lots of it they are willing to do shady stuff starting with not checking how the money was obtained (violence, murder and theft). Bad for democracy. See Kleptopia, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnsons-russian-cr... etc.

Dirty money was invested into property, driving up prices.

London real estate is expensive because it's highly desirable, most people buying it up are not using funds derived from criminal sources.

It can be true that a pragmatic relationship with "dirty money" has played a role in making London as desirable as it's today, but that would be a success story rather than a negative side effect as you suggest.

It's not a pragmatic relationship, it's a long term oversight that literally strengthened dictatorships and long term hurt peace for everyone

Does having Berezovsky, Chichvarkin, and Khodorkovsky in London hurt anyone? Or should we have let Russia extradite them back and take all their money?

Well for one if you couldn't get a nice western lifestyle for yourself and kids out of your blood money then you might not have a reason to kill and steal to get it

> Does having [...] Chichvarkin [...] in London hurt anyone?

Dirty bad evil russian money was invested into wine, driving up prices?

Why do you believe that this has strengthened dictatorship? The obvious conclusion is exactly the opposite, moving money out of dictatorships to the UK weakens dictatorships and strengthens the UK.

Read the book. It promotes theft, murder and oppression because that's mostly the source of that money. What use is this money otherwise? To buy Russian made cars and computers?

And if your henchmen can't get toys and flats for themselves and their kids then you may be left without any henchmen. If really no bad money was accepted in the west then dictators' houses of cards fall apart quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com