Except they are breaking the law, but are too powerful to be brought to heel, largely because of lots and lots of money and powerful, shady friends.

https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/global-bank...

The Mexican drug cartels could not fit cash through the teller stations quickly enough, so HSBC had special teller boxes so that it was far more efficient.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ban...

> U.S. agencies responsible for enforcing money laundering laws rarely prosecute megabanks that break the law, and the actions authorities do take barely ripple the flood of plundered money that washes through the international financial system.

From your first link. It sounds like the law enforcers need to do better at enforcing the law. If they can't enforce it against the banks, how can we expect the banks to enforce the law against themselves?

"It sounds like the law enforcers need to do better at enforcing the law"

While true, it's a non-sequitur.

OP made the point that banks serve criminals and asked then who are the "real crooks". You asked if bankers can serve everyone neutrally rather than be expected to exercise "personal morality". Which is a fair question in my opinion

Questions of individual moral duty aside, however, banks are not merely neutral when the law forbids them from specific activity and they decide to do it anyway.

Now your goalpost appears to be that banks should be able to do whatever they want if law enforcement cannot do anything about it, which is a very strange stance, to be honest

Banks are multibillion dollar institutions and absolutely integral to modern society. We can give them more responsibility.