HSBC Get out of Jail Free

[KZN02]

TYT uploaded a few videos about this bank recently. If what organizations they've been helping doesn't surprise you, the fact they got away with it should.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maqSFuI7Uf4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maqSFuI7Uf4</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Sr2JbC4WE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Sr2JbC4WE</a>

[Material Defender]

While I see the logic, unfortunately. Removing the bank from the US could cripple the banking system by how many people would lose their money. I hate this kind of problem though and it really shows that unfortunately, we need to not have large banks. It creates this kind of issue.

[largeham]

TYT uploaded a few videos about this bank recently. If what organizations they've been helping doesn't surprise you, the fact they got away with it should.

No it shouldn't. Companies have got away with doing horrendous stuff for decades, if not centuries. Every major bank will be dirty, the case here is that HSBC got too big and dealt with the wrong clients. I doubt we will see any punitive measures, let alone anything that will prevent this in the future.

[Damen]

I thought it was the motto of most big businesses: "If you can pay the fine do the crime."

Personally, I think their "fines" shouldn't be these pittances they're made to pay but, in this case, they should have been fined in the area of $500 million dollars on top of the total amount they laundered and the total amount of suspicious transfers they failed to investigate.

The only way any company will shape the fuck up is if the fines levied against them will make their accounts see red.

[dpareja]

I thought it was the motto of most big businesses: "If you can pay the fine do the crime."

Personally, I think their "fines" shouldn't be these pittances they're made to pay but, in this case, they should have been fined in the area of $500 million dollars on top of the total amount they laundered and the total amount of suspicious transfers they failed to investigate.

The only way any company will shape the fuck up is if the fines levied against them will make their accounts see red.

But we can't do that; otherwise who would donate to our re-election campaigns?

But seriously, heads need to roll for shit like this. As someone whom I quote in my signature put it, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

[Material Defender]

The thing though I realize that fines aren't as punitive as people like.

But people have to understand that if they do it again, they'll get fined again. And they'll also know that the government is breathing over their neck and they'll probably get fined again if they keep doing it. It also reduces investor confidence and basically a bank's money is dependent on investment. If people are worried that the company will do it again, they'll usually pull out their money and go elsewhere.

A fine isn't "Oh, you pay this money and you can go back to doing your antics." It's "pay us money and stop being an asshole."

That's honestly better than in the past when a big company wouldn't even get a fine and might be rewarded for its illegal activities.

[KZN02]

I wonder with all those conspiracies about 9/11 inside jobs and such would supplanted by news of banks supporting terrorists and such?

[Sylvana]

The thing though I realize that fines aren't as punitive as people like.

But people have to understand that if they do it again, they'll get fined again. And they'll also know that the government is breathing over their neck and they'll probably get fined again if they keep doing it. It also reduces investor confidence and basically a bank's money is dependent on investment. If people are worried that the company will do it again, they'll usually pull out their money and go elsewhere.

A fine isn't "Oh, you pay this money and you can go back to doing your antics." It's "pay us money and stop being an asshole."

That's honestly better than in the past when a big company wouldn't even get a fine and might be rewarded for its illegal activities.

I agree in principle, but the reality is that often the fines are so pitiful that they barely dent the companies profit margins. Not to mention that any fine that does hurt the company are soaked by putting the burden on the employees or the customers.

What needs to happen is the people at the top, who own the banks, need to be put away. The soft rich psychopaths that know they will continue to live in the lap of luxury regardless of what they do need to know that if they commit crime, or allow their company to commit crime, they will pay for it. Right now, even if HSBC were to go under the owners would cry, a little, but it would just mean that one of their cash cows are gone, and they will just milk another. They wont realistically feel the loss of that bank.

The people at the top of businesses and banks need to know that justice hurts more than their profit margins. When it starts to hurt their way of life, then they might start paying attention.

[dpareja]

The thing though I realize that fines aren't as punitive as people like.

But people have to understand that if they do it again, they'll get fined again. And they'll also know that the government is breathing over their neck and they'll probably get fined again if they keep doing it. It also reduces investor confidence and basically a bank's money is dependent on investment. If people are worried that the company will do it again, they'll usually pull out their money and go elsewhere.

A fine isn't "Oh, you pay this money and you can go back to doing your antics." It's "pay us money and stop being an asshole."

That's honestly better than in the past when a big company wouldn't even get a fine and might be rewarded for its illegal activities.

I agree in principle, but the reality is that often the fines are so pitiful that they barely dent the companies profit margins. Not to mention that any fine that does hurt the company are soaked by putting the burden on the employees or the customers.

What needs to happen is the people at the top, who own the banks, need to be put away. The soft rich psychopaths that know they will continue to live in the lap of luxury regardless of what they do need to know that if they commit crime, or allow their company to commit crime, they will pay for it. Right now, even if HSBC were to go under the owners would cry, a little, but it would just mean that one of their cash cows are gone, and they will just milk another. They wont realistically feel the loss of that bank.

The people at the top of businesses and banks need to know that justice hurts more than their profit margins. When it starts to hurt their way of life, then they might start paying attention.

Well, this just goes back to the problem with incorporation, because this is what happens when you give a company a legal identity separate from that of its owners.

[Jack Mann]

Here's my question: How does the fine compare with the money they brought in through illegal means?  We have a comparison to their total annual profit, but that's including their legitimate business, which is presumably much larger than what they got through the shady deals.  But how much?  What was their take?

Did this cost them money, or did they pull a profit after the fine?

[dpareja]

More bad behaviour by banks. I wonder how much more than $1,500,000,000 they made...

[Material Defender]

The thing though I realize that fines aren't as punitive as people like.

But people have to understand that if they do it again, they'll get fined again. And they'll also know that the government is breathing over their neck and they'll probably get fined again if they keep doing it. It also reduces investor confidence and basically a bank's money is dependent on investment. If people are worried that the company will do it again, they'll usually pull out their money and go elsewhere.

A fine isn't "Oh, you pay this money and you can go back to doing your antics." It's "pay us money and stop being an asshole."

That's honestly better than in the past when a big company wouldn't even get a fine and might be rewarded for its illegal activities.

I agree in principle, but the reality is that often the fines are so pitiful that they barely dent the companies profit margins. Not to mention that any fine that does hurt the company are soaked by putting the burden on the employees or the customers.

What needs to happen is the people at the top, who own the banks, need to be put away. The soft rich psychopaths that know they will continue to live in the lap of luxury regardless of what they do need to know that if they commit crime, or allow their company to commit crime, they will pay for it. Right now, even if HSBC were to go under the owners would cry, a little, but it would just mean that one of their cash cows are gone, and they will just milk another. They wont realistically feel the loss of that bank.

The people at the top of businesses and banks need to know that justice hurts more than their profit margins. When it starts to hurt their way of life, then they might start paying attention.

Well, this just goes back to the problem with incorporation, because this is what happens when you give a company a legal identity separate from that of its owners.

Well, then, you can go after the board of directors, the chairmen, and the hired CEO and the like. Share holders are like a voting populace, while the board of directors is like the Representatives (I Know it's not exactly like that, but it's enough to compare.) There should be the ability of a government to force an executive shake up when a company does wrong and fine the individuals who are forced out, as well as removing their so called 'golden parachutes.'