I also recommend Netflix’s Dirty Money. It covers the HSBC scandal. I am so disappointed in our American federal government. Totally a sold out of our justice system. Fuck that shit. It was literally a “too big to fail, too big to fuck with”. Disclaimer: I was okay with bail out - but I am not okay with letting these bankers get away with their crimes involving money laundering.

This whole Justice Department going after cash instead of convictions can be blamed largely on Eric Holder.

Matt Taibbi writes about this extensively in one of his books, I can't remember which, but the main points are included in this article for anyone interested.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/eric-holder-wall-...

>> When HSBC laundered money for the Mexican Cartel [1], just had to pay a one time fine of $1.92B [2] and say "we're sorry".

It was a little bit more than that. They had a deferred prosecution agreement, and had an independent monitor in the company that reviewed all steps to improve their compliance processes and could have triggered the DPA if they didn't improve.

I was working at HSBC during this time, and no-one took for granted that they would get passed their "parole" period.

A deferred prosecution agreement is in fact an AMNESTY (in exchange of an accomplishment of requirements), but most people involved in drug crimes never had that chance.

It's not my place to condemn nobody, but if you believe in fairness you have to realize that in a just society you either condemn white collars as anybody else, or condemn nobody. If the execs or anybody at HSBC was scared is of little to no value, when the decision of the justice system is unfair.

Which is what the article says straight in the subheading.

> If you're suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses five weeks' income and execs have to partially defer bonuses

I'm not saying it's just. I'm just saying it was more than saying "Sorry".

I don't think any of my colleagues at the time would have complained if the people responsible for the money laundering went to jail.

I’m not so sure. The global economy is awash at the moment with money laundering, aggressive banking practices, and other shady activity.

It seems Australia (in particular) has had enough, and is starting to throw it into the public domain. Australia has a good reputation to follow through (see Catholic abuse commission)

The Australian public in particular has had a guts full of persistent high housing prices, aggressive foreign investment behaviour, and foreign hedge funds carving out Australian businesses.

Both major parties have enthusiastically consulting but never quite getting around to passing second tranche of anti-money laundering legislation [1].

Some people say no one is interested in passing it because it might reduce flows of money necessary for sustaining the price of Australian real estate.

[1] https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/03/federal-government-...

The Australian government has no choice but to push hard to get regulators to go after the banks. They were asleep at the wheel for years and it was only after enormous pressure that they allowed a Royal Commission.

Now they are singing a different tune. I'll be very interested in seeing what happens.

> persistent high housing prices, aggressive foreign investment behaviour, and foreign hedge funds carving out Australian businesses.

yet here in the USA, thinking the same way would get you branded a facist..

See this book by a Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-chickenshit...

Really good (if faintly depressing) book - I read it a couple of weeks ago after seeing a previous recommendation on HN.

second the reco- the most interesting thing I learned was the decision of whether or not to indict is pretty much the whole thing; the vast majority of white collar criminals never make it to trial, only the ones that don't negotiate a settlement.

"Money laundering" is a bullshit, victimless crime. Deposit your cash in the wrong account: money laundering. Run a business that the banking cartel doesn't approve of (i.e. porn, gambling, weed) and you're practically forced into so called money laundering. It's just one of the many ways the rich keep getting richer while others are locked out of legit banking.

I wonder what is the real reason why HSBC had to pay a fine. I don't buy money laundering charge, as the law is setup so that cartel existence is natural, so legislator had to take into an account that resulting huge black market will need banking facilities one way or another. If legislator didn't want cartels to exist, drugs wouldn't be made illegal in the first place.

> If legislator didn't want cartels to exist, drugs wouldn't be made illegal in the first place.

Cartels are far from dedicated to just drugs. Anything illegal that means money is their turf: kidnapping, ransom, prostitution, human trafficking, and a long etc.

Let's be blunt: many people push drug legalization because they just want recreational drugs, not because they want to fight crime. If all drugs were legalized, the cartels would still launder money from other areas, and you can't legalize everything that makes them money.

It is easy to start with drugs and then expand to other areas. Drugs are much much easier money than kidnapping or ransom. Once you hit the ceiling with the drugs it is only natural that you'll look for something else and you'll have money to fund it. Without the drugs it would have been much harder to organise other source of income. I think by delaying repeal of prohibition most of the countries risk to have their cartels grow to the size of too big to fall. I think in many countries this has already happened - especially those where any logical debate about legalisation of drugs cannot be conducted. The corrupt reasons behind keeping it up are just too obvious, but nobody dares to change the status quo.

You're absolutely right.

At best, someone will resign.

More likely, the megacorps will be fined a token amount of money, and continue with business as usual.

Nope, not this time. We currently have a Royal Commission and it's uncovering more and more shocking issues every day. The political pressure to prosecute bank executives is growing every day.

This time, I think there is a good chance someone in banking will go to jail. Why do you think the ACCC are going so hard on them?

Lets be clear, nearly all of the issues presented at the royal commission were already known by ASIC and APRA.

Sure, but without the Royal Commission, I doubt there would be consequences.

They have been criminally charged. This isn't a civil trial.