Standard Charter fine: not enough.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by VulchR, Aug 14, 2012.

  1. VulchR, Aug 14, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2012

    VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #1
    OK so Standard Charter gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar laundering Iranian money, thereby supporting a repressive regime, possibly contributing to terrorism and breaking US law. They got fined (less than the estimated profit the were said to earn from the illegal transactions) and NOBODY is prosecuted for breaking the law, in spite of various incriminating e-mails and a very clear paper trial. And all Standard Charter can say is that they think they laundered a mere $14 million (chump change, apparently; the US authorities estimate it was $250 billion - that's right, 'billion' with a 'b').

    One law for the bankers, one law for the rest of us.

    [EDIT: Fixed some typo's and also provide this link to the BBC news item, which I forgot to add. :eek:]
     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    It's a best practice to provide a link when starting a thread in PRSI.
     
  3. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #3
    284million GBP was it?

    Sure look at the UK and US governments - who fined them for dealing with terrorists? Bankers, Pols, Toffs - free reign to **** about.

    Rest of us get fined for as much as running out of money.
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    yeah this type of wrist slap means they would freely do it again.

    It should of been all profit + the fine.

    I know plenty of companies that will knowenly do something that will get them fined because the fine is cheaper than the profit or the savings they are going to get on the other end.
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    For those not up on the story:

    I am so sick of this "give the bank a slap on the wrist and tell them they've been naughty" routine.

    Let the government seize it, break it up, and send the responsible people to jail.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    How do you think that happens? We live in a country where you get due process, and if the Government has been gutted of the resources necessary to enforce anti-trust and/or other major offenses against extremely well funded defendands...

    Reagan knew what he was doing when he started us on the path to strangling the government of its power to do anything. I regularly battle with well funded opponents, and I can tell you I do NOT have the resources they do. I can't imagine trying to go after a mega bank and their counsel. It would be a one sided fight.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  8. VulchR thread starter macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #8
    A bank pays a fine – in essence admitting massive criminality – and UK papers have focused a the Olympics, the Euro lottery winners, and a 6% increase in rail fares. It is as though the press have gone 'm'eh' and shrugged their shoulders. :eek:
     
  9. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #9
    So, how do we implement due process?
    • The sheriff thinks I might be a person of interest: I can be detained as material for a short time
    • Time's up, the sheriff now must release me or indict me: in the latter case, he continues to hold me until bail is met
    • I can be kept in jail to the end of the trial, even if I am ultimately found guilty, if bail is not posted or set

    Which is to say, the government would have the right to take control of a bank or corporation that had not yet been found guilty, on a premise similar to holding a suspect. Except, as there is no physical entity for which freedom is a concern, bail would not be relevant. Once a conviction is obtained, the business would then be subject to dissolution, reorganization or whatever. There would be no appeal for the business, though some of the principals might appeal for their own hardship.

    The problem that arises when smashing up corporations is that other corporations scoop up the shrapnel. Why should this be ok? Why should we countenance allowing massive business entities to accrete and function within our system, when the net effect of LBO and M&A really benefits almost no one?
     
  10. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #10
    There's more to this than meets the eye.

    Mixed in with some dodgy-dealings done by Standard Chartered (I'm sure they're not squeaky clean), there's another story here... and that is the latest move in a US trade war with non-US financial institutions.

    The US are seeking to gain money and limit operations of non-US banks, by imposing their own restrictive sanctions regimes that go above and beyond UN agreed sanctions.

    http://3cadvisory.com/imperialism-and-bullying-the-americans-are-not-playing-cricket/

    Should the US be allowed to unilaterally dictate global economic policy? Effectively they have the power to do so, because all institutions require access to US markets. But on a global basis... should this regulation not be decided at a higher level (the UN, IMF etc.)?

    I'd ask VulchR and niuniu if they supported the actions of Visa, Mastercard and PayPal in freezing all of Wikileaks' assets? That's a not-dissimilar example of the global power of the US State, which has control over services that we'd got used to treating as 'global infrastructure'. Of course, ICANN and Internet names/addresses are similarly US-controlled.

    And on the subject of Iran as a terrorist state, let's not forget historical US funding of terrorists in the UK...
     
  11. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #11

    No idea about vulchr, but I certainly have no support for the US freezing assets through global institutions like Paypal. It's International totalitarian control at an economic and infrastructural level as you pointed out.

    They have little respect for international law or standards, paying concessions when it suits and flouting it just as often.

    It's also worrying how quickly they can manufacture and market a new threat on the global stage. Type Iran into Google today and the first hit comes up as 'Romney: US must stop Iran's genocidal regime'. This slow leak into the public consciousness is a terrifying abuse of media influence. But that's another story of another day.

    Fascism certainly didn't die in the World Wars..
    http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm
     
  12. VulchR, Aug 19, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012

    VulchR thread starter macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #12
    The US is trying to stop tax havens from assisting the super-rich from tax evasion. I support that, even though it will put the spotlight on all US citizens earning money overseas including me. Frankly, I prefer that kind of disclosure to the super-rich dancing from one country to another trying to avoid their fair contribution to the societies that paid to provide the infrastructure and security of the companies from which they got rich. My understanding is that in order for a banking institution to conduct business in the US, it must declare the bank accounts of US citizens. That doesn't seem to be like a trade war, nor do I buy accept the argument that all banking institutions must have access to the US. Indeed, my main worry is that multinational banking institutions will tell the US to ******* off and decide not operate in the US.

    As for Wikileak's, if the credit card companies and Pay Pal operate in the US, then I expect them to obey US laws and comply with court orders.

    Lastly, a vanishingly small proportion of US citizens supported NORAID, the US government did not.
     

Share This Page