Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty, (rafflaw) Weekend Contributor
British banking giant, HSBC reached an agreement in 2012 with the Department of Justice that kept it from being hauled in to court on criminal charges due to its systemic assistance in laundering money for drug cartels and allegedly terrorists. HSBC, with its Hong Kong headquarters shown above, is now in trouble again for alleged problems prior to the settlement agreement in 2012.
“The US Department of Justice is considering bringing criminal charges against HSBC and its executives as part of its investigation into whether the bank’s Swiss subsidiary helped US clients evade taxes.
Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren called on prosecutors to “come down hard” on HSBC if the bank is found to have colluded with tax evaders on Tuesday.
Her intervention came as US government officials with knowledge of the DoJ’s investigation provided the Guardian with new details about the inquiry.
Renewed focus has been placed on the long-running investigation into HSBC Switzerland by the department, after a huge leak of secret bank data – passed to the DOJ’s tax division almost five years ago – was obtained by the Guardian and other media.
It shows that HSBC Switzerland helped some clients conceal millions of undeclared assets, and has immediately raised questions on Capitol Hill about the response from prosecutors and tax authorities. US government officials said the investigation is not merely looking at HSBC’s US clients, and could also result in criminal indictments against the bank itself. “That has not been ruled out,” one official said, when asked if HSBC or its executives could be criminally indicted. “It is certainly something that is under consideration.” ‘ Reader Supported News
This latest disclosure of an alleged enterprise to assist wealthy customers and corporations to evade taxes in the United States and internationally was disclosed by an international whistleblower named Hervé Falciani. Mr. Falciani turned over the data to French authorities in 2010. The French shared the information with the United States that same year and we have just recently learned of the pending investigation into the matter. Not only is the alleged illegal activity disturbing, but the fact that the Department of Justice has had this information for at least 4 years is even more distressing.
Did the Department of Justice consider this information before it agreed to the 2012 settlement agreement with HSBC which allowed HSBC to escape criminal prosecution? I am surprised that Loretta Lynch was not asked that question when she was grilled by the Senate committee discussing her confirmation as United States Attorney General. In light of how easy the Department of Justice went on HSBC in 2012, maybe I should not be surprised.
“That nobody from the bank went to jail or paid a dollar in individual fines is nothing new in this era of financial crisis. What is different about this settlement is that the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. “Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, “HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.”
It was the dawn of a new era. In the years just after 9/11, even being breathed on by a suspected terrorist could land you in extralegal detention for the rest of your life. But now, when you’re Too Big to Jail, you can cop to laundering terrorist cash and violating the Trading With the Enemy Act, and not only will you not be prosecuted for it, but the government will go out of its way to make sure you won’t lose your license. Some on the Hill put it to me this way: OK, fine, no jail time, but they can’t even pull their charter? Are you kidding?
But the Justice Department wasn’t finished handing out Christmas goodies. A little over a week later, Breuer was back in front of the press, giving a cushy deal to another huge international firm, the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the so-called LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-raterigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillions (“trillions,” with a “t”) of dollars in financial products. While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company.
“Our goal here,” Breuer said, “is not to destroy a major financial institution.”‘ Rolling Stone
You will recall that infamous concept that the Big Banks are too big to jail. HSBC has taken that knowledge and for years has been doing its best to avoid and elude regulators over its now infamous schemes to hide drug cartels and terrorist money from American and international authorities.
We have an international bank doing substantial business in the United States and they are found to have intentionally hidden assets on more than one occasion, and the Department of Justice is just getting around to consider criminal prosecutions!
I have an idea. If a bank or any corporation has been found to have seriously violated the law on multiple occasions, maybe, just maybe it might make sense to close them down and put the individuals responsible for making the conscious decision to hide assets, in jail. Would other banks and corporations so readily violate our laws if some people are going to jail and some corporate charters are being pulled?
Without sincere efforts by a Department of Justice that is truly blind to size and wealth, can we ever expect these banking criminals to change their behavior? Just because they are corporations, they are just people like you and I, aren’t they?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
39 thoughts on “Will HSBC Be Too Big To Jail…Again?”
I don’t see why not. They combine and backstop our taces for this s@#t all the time
We the people have allowed the banks to get too big and the government to get to big also. We have created monsters who are now taking over our lives. I say pull your money out of all big banks and vote against anything that makes our government any bigger.
LORETTA LYNCH comes up from JV.
Where’s the mystery to it?
The government is a plaything of the TBTFs. There’s no separation. They’re one & the same. Lanny goes back to the defense team @ Covington. Holder goes to J P Morgan Chase. Any separation is a figment of our imaginations.
Might it be that LORETTA LYNCH’s reward for brokering the HSBC “get outta jail deal” is her current nomination to become ERIC HOLDER II? She represented the bankers, not the law, not the people.
Think Congress has the picture? Or, do they have the picture and will confirm her anyway?
“…the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.” Lanny Breuer
…so instead, Lanny opted for the entire Globe to be destabilized? Good job DOJ! Seems to me that move hasn’t worked out too well from the looks of where we’re at. The banks sin and the people pay for it. Are you really sure you didn’t make such an asinine decision just to seal your own cushy future? Stop “Grubering” us!
“The problem obviously is that large financial institutions presently own our Government (whether under a Democratic or Republican Administration). ”
The only solution is less government because that is less government to influence
and remember the USA is a republic not a democracy – we need to do what is right not what is popular
“The only solution is less government because that is less government to influence”
I agree that there is no advantage to having more government than we need to accomplish some specific goals.
But I don’t see how less government is a solution to this particular problem.
At present we seem to have powerful economic institutions using inappropriate influence to assure they can do what ever they want.
Without government regulation those same institutions can simply do what ever they want.
Less government does not solve the problem.
In this case it seems that we actually need government regulation – unless you think it is ok for banks to conspire with drug cartels to launder money.
“But maybe I am missing something.”
You are missing the entire point.
The average Joe has no way in hell of keeping the US gov’t. from knowing where every cent they have is kept, and how they use it.
As a result, you cannot avoid their gluttonous maw.
It should be none of their business how much you’ve saved and what your finances are, but they know every jot and tittle.
Not true for the super rich.
They can evade taxes precisely because they can evade the Eye of Sauron.
Pogo – oh, geez, now we are in trouble, the government has the Eye of Sauron!!!
The “Justice” Department’s position is ridiculous. For one thing, the top corporate officials can be individually prosecuted, fined and jailed without affecting the corporate entity at all; and that would provide a substantial deterrent to further criminal behavior by this or competing corporations. For another, any financial problem caused by monetary penalties is unlikely to be terminal for the corporation; and even if the solvency of the corporation were impaired, the corporation could be put in receivership and continued in operation without significantly affecting the relevant financial market in which it operates. The problem obviously is that large financial institutions presently own our Government (whether under a Democratic or Republican Administration). We are not going to solve that problem until we figure out how to restore a functioning democracy which is responsible to the majority of citizens. Whether we will do that in my lifetime (I am 84) is not likely.
Comments are closed.