Taibbi and Spitzer' Even People On Wall Street Were Blown Away By The Result'


By 121212   Follow   Wed, 2 Jan 2013, 10:34am   1,288 views   24 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

http://dailybail.com/home/matt-taibbi-even-people-on-wall-street-were-blown-away-by-th.html

Matt Taibbi and Eliot Spitzer react to news that DOJ and other federal and state authorities have opted not to file criminal charges against anyone at HSBC.

'Even people on Wall Street were blown away.'

"The decision to not prosecute in this instance belies everything that the government has ever done with regard to drug prosecutions everywhere. I mean, when you think about the way they behave toward ordinary people who get caught up in drug cases, where they seize all your property and they use absolutely the maximum sentences they can possibly avail themselves of, and in this case they catch a bank that launders billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels … for years on end, and they can’t find something to charge these people with?"

"If the law doesn’t apply equally to everybody, then you don’t really have a system of law. And so you have a built-in defense for everybody in every drug case forever. I mean, if you get caught with a stem of marijuana, how do you not stand up and say, ‘You’re going to send me to jail for this where a guy who laundered a billion dollars for a bunch of murderers gets nothing?’"

---

Matt writes:

I had the pleasure of appearing on Eliot Spitzer's Viewpoint last night to talk about the hideous Eric Holder Lanny Breuer HSBC settlement, in which the government elected not to push criminal prosecutions against bank officers who admitted to laundering billions of dollars in drug money. Spitzer was the first guy I thought of when I saw the softball settlement, so it was cool to hear the prosecutorial take on the deal. When I came home after the show, my wife laughed. "It's like you guys were fighting over who was more pissed off."

Matt Taibbi: 'Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves The Drug War Is A Joke'

Viewing Comments 1-24 of 24     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    205 threads
    4,395 comments
    Premium

    1   10:53am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    Eric Holder is a nabob, a compradore for the banksters. As are most of our politicians.

    Betcha three beers Holder gets a nice job in a big Wall Street/DC lawfirm connected to the banking industry after he leaves office.

  2. 121212


    Follow
    Befriend
    83 threads
    687 comments
    male

    2   10:59am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    "Eric Holder Lanny Breuer HSBC settlement, in which the government elected not to push criminal prosecutions against bank officers who admitted to laundering billions of dollars in drug money."

  3. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    812 threads
    10,704 comments

    3   11:24am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Eric Holder doesn't have to answer to anybody. If I were him I would initiate a coup. Since he's an Obama man, he would have the support of about 52% of the US population with out question.

  4. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,644 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    4   11:40am Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    WHAT IS THE CRIME?

    I despise the aristocrats who pull on the economy like puppet strings. If I was emperor, they would certainly be arrested and put into re-education camps.

    However you can't criminally prosecute someone for fucking up the economy no matter how much you think they deserve it.

  5. Facebooksux


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    9 threads
    694 comments
    Mountain View, CA

    5   12:00pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)  

    WTF....did you not ready the intro or are you stoned off your ass from some of that bomb-ass weed Don Roberto just brought back from Kingstown using his thousands and thousands of real estate rental windfall dollars?

    No one is talking about bringing down the economy. They're talking about large-scale money laundering on an institutional basis.

  6. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    812 threads
    10,704 comments

    6   12:02pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Facebooksux says

    No one is talking about bringing down the economy. They're talking about large-scale money laundering on an institutional basis.

    It's OK they didn't finance Romney, so Iwog isn't interested in counting THEIR marbles.

    Or where in the hell they got the marbles for that matter.

  7. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,436 comments

    7   12:03pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    iwog says

    WHAT IS THE CRIME?

    I despise the aristocrats who pull on the economy like puppet strings. If I was emperor, they would certainly be arrested and put into re-education camps.

    However you can't criminally prosecute someone for fucking up the economy no matter how much you think they deserve it.

    It's IWOG against the world. Even the WSJ, the unabashed bastion for the promotion of everything corporate, says it was a bad call to not prosecute. http://online.wsj.com/article/APf21df9fc2afa42bcbca97016d9b18665.html

    The crime was MONEY LAUNDERING (wow, it's much better in caps), did you not read the article? Here, read a description of the crime from the WSJ:

    "The government's charges against HSBC are grim. They sketch a picture of a bank that systemically and purposefully skirted the law.

    HSBC willfully failed to keep proper anti-laundering programs in place and to conduct due diligence on its customers, the government says. Court documents showed that the bank let over $200 trillion between 2006 and 2009 slip through relatively unmonitored, including more than $670 billion in wire transfers from HSBC Mexico, making it a favorite of drug cartels. At the same time, the bank gave Mexico its lowest risk rating for money laundering."

  8. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,644 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    8   12:24pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    bob2356 says

    The crime was MONEY LAUNDERING

    No it isn't. No one is accusing HSBC of money laundering. I read the article. You want criminal prosecution for not keeping proper anti-laundering programs in place? Seriously? There's a huge difference between corporate liability and wanton criminal acts.

    Facebooksux says

    They're talking about large-scale money laundering on an institutional basis.

    No they aren't. They are talking about lax procedures that enabled money laundering to take place by drug dealers. By that definition, the entire city of Las Vegas should be prosecuted.

  9. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,644 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    9   12:28pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    CaptainShuddup says

    It's OK they didn't finance Romney, so Iwog isn't interested in counting THEIR marbles.

    Yeah except of course they did finance Romney and you just made up another fact because reality is subjective.

    http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/hsbc-holdings/3c3f0a2212224ab38161e5c7abbb9fbe

  10. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    812 threads
    10,704 comments

    10   12:49pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    iwog says

    Yeah except of course they did finance Romney and you just made up another fact because reality is subjective.

    So they are bad then right? I just can't seem to keep my fake rage focused.

  11. APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch


    Follow
    Befriend (27)
    379 threads
    10,455 comments

    11   12:55pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Die, HSBC, FUCKING DIE!

    Prosecute!

    Execute the executive lavishly on ESPN, color and commentary by Apocalypse Fuck and Bill Black!

    Then seize all of its US assets under relevant CCE Acts and decharter the fucking thing.

    Decharter these fucking monsters! All of them!

  12. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,436 comments

    12   12:58pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    iwog says

    No they aren't. They are talking about lax procedures that enabled money laundering to take place by drug dealers.

    Of course it's money laundering, the bank moved money that was the proceeds of illegal activity. They should have had controls in place to prevent it and they didn't. It's not like someone came up with a clever way to avoid strong controls. The controls were completely inadequate, far below the standards of the industry. Everyone agrees on that point except you.

    You can't have it both ways, no matter how badly you want it. The executives were very well paid to make sure money laundering didn't happen. It's part of their job, If they failed either willfully to increase profits/bonuses or through bad management they are still fully responsable. Fines don't go to executives, they are paid by shareholders. The threat of criminal prosecution is the best way to make sure people don't knowingly take shortcuts in procedures to increase profits.

  13. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,644 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    13   1:03pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    bob2356 says

    Of course it's money laundering, the bank moved money that was the proceeds of illegal activity. They should have had controls in place to prevent it and they didn't. It's not like someone came up with a clever way to avoid strong controls. The controls were completely inadequate, far below the standards of the industry. Everyone agrees on that point except you.

    Oh get off it. A corner 7-11 that accepts $20 in drug money for a 6-pack of beer is "moving money that is the proceeds of illegal activity".

    I guarantee any case brought against executives for money they never touched, never personally approved, and never profited from other than in the most general way through bank profits will FAIL.

  14. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,436 comments

    14   1:39pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    iwog says

    Oh get off it. A corner 7-11 that accepts $20 in drug money for a 6-pack of beer is "moving money that is the proceeds of illegal activity".

    So in your mind a $10 an hour clerk at 7-11 bears the same level of corporate responsibility as a vice president at a 100 billion a year bank? That's just lame.

    The key phrase you are searching for is "knowingly" as in "knowingly" moving money that is the proceeds of illegal activity. If there was reasonable suspicion that the money was being laundered then a bank executive would be in a criminal situation if they ignored it. HSBC was warned by CNBV (mexico's SEC) since 2002 that they were dealing with drug money. There are recent allegations in British parliament that documents were forged at HSBC to hide activity. There are documents going back to 2005 pointing out non compliance in the US. The OCC issued a cease and desist order to HSBC for bulk money transactions in 2010. They knew, they didn't do anything about it. That is criminal.

    Why don't you just admit you screwed up and didn't read the story very carefully.

  15. PockyClipsNow


    Follow
    Befriend
    19 threads
    1,582 comments
    Los Angeles, CA

    15   2:17pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    In the real world 'the Law' is merely one of many weapons to abuse and take advantage of others. So in this case they only took money but chose not to take prisoners. There are so many laws they can go after anyone almost.

  16. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    371 threads
    19,644 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    16   2:44pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    bob2356 says

    So in your mind a $10 an hour clerk at 7-11 bears the same level of corporate responsibility as a vice president at a 100 billion a year bank? That's just lame.

    No, in my mind a $10 an hour clerk and a $100 million a year CEO are not guilty of money laundering without intent. I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand some of the things you would need to prove in order to prosecute the crimes in which you are alleging.

    The level of corruption you are alleging in the Department of Justice is tantamount to the idiot birther conspiracy theories. What makes you think that this is an easy case to prosecute?

  17. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    17   4:37pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    HSBC is a really shitty bank, money laundering or not. I recommend anybody else.

  18. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,436 comments

    18   6:15pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    The level of corruption you are alleging in the Department of Justice is tantamount to the idiot birther conspiracy theories. What makes you think that this is an easy case to prosecute?

    Why is simply not prosecuting corruption? Where did you read corruption into what I said, it's not there. There are many politically driven decisions at the Justice department, this is one of them.

    So you are saying ease of prosecution is the primary driving factor on what crimes the justice department prosecutes? It would be a very hard case, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of reason to prosecute. Knowingly allowing illegal activity to happen in order to boost profits is intent. That's what all the Nazi's said at Nuremberg, I didn't do it, I allowed it to happen. They all got hung. Good thing they weren't worried about how easy it would be back then.

  19. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    19   11:50pm Wed 2 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    So you are saying ease of prosecution is the primary driving factor on what crimes the justice department prosecutes

    Ease of prosecution is the primary driving factor for every prosecutor, period. Why do you think so many criminal cases are settled with plea bargains?

    What information do you personally have about what went on at HSBC that leads you to believe that prosecuting this case would have been worthwhile?

  20. APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch


    Follow
    Befriend (27)
    379 threads
    10,455 comments

    20   4:19am Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    What information do you personally have about what went on at HSBC that leads you to believe that prosecuting this case would have been worthwhile?

    The laundering of criminal revenue was a continuing enterprise. There is a whole raft of laws designed just for this kind of situation - to deter just this kind of criminality. If it were a one-off, sure, time for the regulators to step in, fine and schedule audits on the issue. When a bank makes a business of criminal enterprise, it is time to put some banksters behind bars.

  21. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,436 comments

    21   7:01am Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    Ease of prosecution is the primary driving factor for every prosecutor, period. Why do you think so many criminal cases are settled with plea bargains?

    True, but the settlement was with the corporation, there was no prosecution or settlement at all with the officers of the corporation. Not the same thing.

    Why do I need to have to have personal information to agree with hundreds of publications that are outraged that the case against the executives involved was dropped? Read, or at least skim it's really big, the senate report or look at the witness testimony. http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/us-vulnerabilities-to-money-laundering-drugs-and-terrorist-financing-hsbc-case-history. Then try to tell me the executives involved didn't go to great lengths to circumvent the law. That makes them culpable and prosecutable.

    Here's a somewhat hysterical (to be expected, it comes from the San Francisco) but nicely written piece that puts a lot of the opinions about the case in one spot. http://www.globalresearch.ca/fraud-money-laundering-and-narcotics-impunity-of-the-banking-giants-no-prosecution-of-hsbc/5317406

    Decisions made at the Justice department about cases this public and this big are always highly political. I don't believe Holder made this call without the white house, aka Obama, being very involved.

    AF why are you being so kind? Put them in a comfy warm jail cell? Wouldn't public drawing and quartering after being forced to watch their families broken on the wheel be much more appropriate? Just a thought.

  22. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    22   9:50am Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

    The laundering of criminal revenue was a continuing enterprise.

    You have evidence that the DoJ doesn't?

    bob2356 says

    there was no prosecution or settlement at all with the officers of the corporation

    Criminal charges based around a corporation's activities have an extraordinarily low rate of success. I can count on one hand the number of successful prosecutions for criminal wrongdoing against officers of a company in my lifetime.

    The bar is very high:

    - You have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the company's activities were criminal.

    - You have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers were complicit in the criminal activity.

    So, maybe they really did let a good case go because of politics. I don't know. I do know that nobody on this thread knows what actual guilt exists.

  23. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,436 comments

    23   2:07pm Thu 3 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    So, maybe they really did let a good case go because of politics. I don't know. I do know that nobody on this thread knows what actual guilt exists.

    No one on this thread knows if guilt or innocence exists. That would be up to a jury to decide wouldn't it? We are discussing if there should have been a prosecution or not. There are plenty of people in positions to know the details better than you or I that think the case should have been pursued. After reading a pretty big chunk of the Senate report I personally can't believe the case was dropped.

    Even if the case were unsuccessful it would still make the point that executives can't use the it looked like a duck, waddled like a duck, quacked like a duck, but we didn't realize it was a duck excuse without consequences. That's worthwhile in and of itself.

  24. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    205 threads
    4,395 comments
    Premium

    24   9:17am Mon 7 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected  

    When you are designing teller windows to accept a certain size briefcase that holds a certain amount of money, that isn't negligence.

    Of course Banks launder lots of drug money and do so knowingly. If they didn't, we'd see towers made of $20 and $100 bills rising in the Andes because the Drug Cartels, which handle countless billions a year, would have no where to put it.

    However, if you're a contractor carrying a few thousand dollars in cash, better hope the cops don't stop you.

121212 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 104 milliseconds to create.