General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEric Holder’s Longtime Excuse for Not Prosecuting Banks Just Crashed and Burned
Source: The Intercept
Many critics have long suspected that was bullshit, and that Holder, for a combination of political, self-serving and craven reasons, held his department back.
A new, thoroughly-documented report from the House Financial Services Committee supports that theory. It recounts how career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no.
…
The HSBC case, however, shows that lack of desire at the highest levels of the Justice Department was indeed the primary reason that no prosecutions took place.
Read more: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/12/eric-holders-longtime-excuse-for-not-prosecuting-banks-just-crashed-and-burned/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
think
(11,641 posts)HSBC Names James Comey to The Board
By SAMUEL RUBENFELD - Jan 30, 2013 5:49 pm ET
HSBC Holdingssaid Wednesday it named James Comey, Jr. to its board as of March 4 as it continues to respond to the money laundering scandal that has engulfed the bank since last summer.
Read more:
http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2013/01/30/hsbc-names-james-comey-to-the-board/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"He didn't jail the Bankers for the damage they did to the economy ... Here's the proof he didn't jail the bankers for laundering drug money!"
think
(11,641 posts)just months apart. Such a small small world...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)
think
(11,641 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)to jail criminals for?
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)Dave?
Dave?
Dave?
Dave's not here!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Won't pursue drug cartels, but will go after pot smokers...erkay...something doesn't add up there.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Setting aside your strawman, why didn't he try to stop the drug cartels? He had no problems jailing non-violent drug users?
Politicub
(12,165 posts)a high school debate team to lose.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)think
(11,641 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)YEP. Carlin called it...it is a club and none of us are in it! 
Rex
(65,616 posts)huge corporation after their tour of duty. We ALL knew he was soft on white collar crime. Some just kept quiet about it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But that said ... Does anyone have the least bit of confidence in a House sub-committee report (after the Benghazi reportssss), especially one that is captioned:
INSIDE THE OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S DECISION
NOT TO HOLD WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE
REPORT PREPARED BY THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HON. JEB HENSARLING, CHAIRMAN
114TH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
JULY 11, 2016
And contains the disclaimer:
This report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Financial Services and may not necessarily reflect the views of its Members.
It's not like republicans have sought full and fair investigations of the Administration.
My ... some are a gullible lot.
Rex
(65,616 posts)If the House GOP told me the sun turned green, I would have to go outside to see it for myself. The GOP works for the plutocrats, they have been since Reagan. We need to regain the House to make any significant inroads. IMO.
think
(11,641 posts)March 7, 2013 - By CHRIS GOOD
Elizabeth Warren has a question: How much money does a bank have to launder before people go to jail?
Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts and financial-regulatory maven, posed that question numerous times to financial regulators at a Senate Banking Committee hearing Thursday on banks and money laundering.
In December, U.S. Justice Department officials announced that HSBC, Europe's largest bank, would pay a $1.92 billion fine after laundering $881 million for drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia. At the time, the Justice Department disputed accusations that it views some banks as too big to prosecute.
The two regulators, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen and Federal Reserve Governor Jerome H. Powell, deflected Warren's questions, saying that criminal prosecutions are for the Justice Department to decide....
Read more:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-wants-hsbc-bankers-jailed-for-money-laundering/
Rex
(65,616 posts)If only we had her counterpart in the House! Seriously, how much money does a corporation have to launder before it becomes Enough To Jail?
onecaliberal
(32,865 posts)think
(11,641 posts)By Oscar Williams-Grut - July 12 2016
Britain's Chancellor George Osborne and the UK's former financial watchdog "hampered" the 2012 US investigation into HSBC's money laundering and contributed to a watering down of the banks eventual punishment, according to a damning US congressional report.
The Chancellor and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) warned that a possible criminal prosecution of the bank could lead to "very serious implications for financial and economic stability" and even another "global financial disaster."
The Congressional report, titled "Too Big to Jail", looks at the US Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute HSBC for money laundering offenses in 2012, instead hitting it with a $1.9 billion (£1.44 billion) fine.
The report, prepared by the Republican staff of the committee on financial services in Congress, says (emphasis ours):....
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-too-big-to-jail-report-george-osborne-letter-warned-of-financial-contagion-if-bank-prosecuted-2016-7?r=UK&IR=T
George Osborne's 2012 letter to then Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urging him to ease up on HSBC.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)
snot
(10,530 posts)just prosecute the individuals responsible.
Sure, it might take some work; but we put hundreds of S&L execs. in jail after the S&L crisis; and their fraud was tiny by comparison.
Igel
(35,320 posts)Charge banks? That happened here and there.
But charging the CEOs, which is what most people really demanded, is a different matter. Virtually none of those were charged, and the reason given was a lack of clear evidence that met the requirements in the law.
It's also strange that one instance is evidence of there being a lot of cases that Holder quashed. Once instance is evidence of one instance. It allows the possibility of more, but that's about it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Ford_Prefect
(7,905 posts)If one did it to that extent it is very unlikely the others did not also. The scale of those events and the massive range of repercussions, along with the outspoken and outrageous denials makes this highly probable. It doesn't become actionable evidence at that point but it clearly was deserving of further and in-depth investigation.
Holder and the others clearly had been told to lay off ANY further investigation.
