1) they benefit from the system
2) they haven't been harmed (yet) by the system
3) they just want a female prez soooo badly

Maybe on a private server somewhere.

That strikes me as big news. Wonder why we never heard that?

There seem to be so many bizarre double standards in and weird choices for the media in deciding what to harp on.

I read several years ago that UBS had provided some names, but didn't know about this detail of the deal. Doesn't strike me as a very good deal when if we were really serious we could have convicted UBS and Swiss banks.

No, we couldn't have convicted UBS of complying with Swiss law in relation to Swiss accounts.

So, we should have gotten nothing. Is that your point?

Or are you of the Donald Trump school of "I would have gotten a much, much better deal out of the Swiss government."

I'm sorry, but remind me of how many countries come to us and say, "We have a problem that requires you to not enforce a law which is important to your economy and national values. Would you mind making an exception for us?" Oh, and, it is a country with a strict neutrality policy in foreign affairs.

Just tell me, oh great bargainer, what you would have gotten and how.

Because once you do that, then I have a job for you. I have a judgment against a city government in a foreign country in an amount over $100,000. In order to collect that judgment, I need the national government to order the city to pay it. They won't. I'll give you have if you go over and get it for me. Okay? I'm not kidding.

And the penalty was throwing UBS the fuck out of our country if they didn't abide by our laws.

Honestly, this is the first time I've seen the 4500 versus 50,000 number so I'm glad it was posted.

I think there is a huge difference between trying to collect a judgment from a foreign city and enforcing the law on a foreign corporation that has offices and does business in The US...

Especially in a highly regulated business such as banking and investments.

UBS wants access to that big fat pile of .01% money. They should have to, unequivocally, abide by our laws. Too bad they have politicians in their pocket to make sure that doesn't happen (I'm thinking of people like Phil "the bad economy is all in your head" Gramm)

What law? The many hundreds the state and federal government can use to make a bank miserable when they play shenanigans. I'm in the mortgage business and saw the paranoia and trouble and hoops my company had to jump through to become a "bank" .... We had to dot every i and cross every t. It even went to the extreme of making sure our desks were clean and files were never left out on a desk. But we didn't have lobbyists and politicians in our pocket to explain why unsecured files aren't such a bad thing when the man comes callin'

I'm very familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act and I know part of the "teeth" of the law is making a bank's life difficult when they want to expand and haven't been pulling their weight. A bank always has to be on their toes because they know they will be in front of the regulators when they need or want to make changes.

Apparently, from what I've read since the beginning of these laws, throw them the fuck out has always been part of the conversation. So don't tell me it's not possible. Access to our franchise is always part of the conversation. Just not nearly enough, IMO.

And to say UBS overseas can get away with murder because their wholly owned subsidiary UBS US is a different entity in just plain dumb. Talk about pulling stuff out...

Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

violate our felony statutes, including IRS tax evasion. Yes, we could have indicted Swiss bankers for violating US law. Private citizens may also pursue a foreign claim through US courts if there is a nexus with actions that took place inside the U.S. That part of U.S. law has been in place since the early 19th Century. Google: Foreign Claims Act.

Also, see,

[PDF]Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/.../94-166.p...

Federation of American Scientists
Feb 15, 2012 - Efficiency Act, P.L. 111-79, which authorizes federal courts to issue ... Current Extent of American Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction . ..... 2011)(here and elsewhere internal citations are ..... 55 (“the common-law revenue rule, rather than barring any recognition of foreign revenue law, simply allow[s] courts.

They were providing banking services.

They were providing banking services in Switzerland, under Swiss law.

There was never a question here about whether UBS was violating any law.

It was their CUSTOMERS that the IRS wanted information about. Swiss law did not allow Swiss banks to the IRS. And, no, it is not a violation of US law for someone in another country to refuse a subpoena on the ground that answering the subpoena would put them behind bars in their own country.

The Swiss company had a perfectly valid reason - UNDER US LAW - for not complying with the subpoena. The only workaround was to negotiate with the Swiss government to allow the disclosure to go forward. And, again, the Swiss are a neutral country, and that's important to the people who elect the Swiss government, as are their privacy laws.

We threw the leader of a sovereign government in Marion Federal Penitentiary. Remember Manuel Noriega? It's amazing what can be done under US law when your clout disappears.

Sorry. The Judge apparently didn't agree with you. Anyway, State and Treasury gave away far too much if they allowed 90% of US tax cheats safe harbour under the 2012 implementation agreement. That's not the best deal we could gotten if we really wanted to go after this type of violation. If they had been the proceeds of drug crimes that were legal or protected under the law of some Banana Republic, the DEA, DOJ, State and Treasury would have found a way to get the names and prosecute the violators and their bankers.

But, these are just "white collar criminals", One-Percenters, so Hillary and the rest really didn't care about it.

...then you don't even appear to quash a subpoena. Why make an appearance? Any enforcement of an order from a US court would have to go through a court in Switzerland, which is most definitely not going to order the bank to turn over the data in violation of Swiss law.

It would be like the King of Thailand getting an injunction against my blog critical of the king and then seeking to enforce it in the US. Not gonna happen. In a situation like that, you'd be an idiot to go litigate it in Thailand, when you know that a collateral challenge to enforcement of the US is a slam dunk.

Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)

You also seem to pretend that foreign financial corporations aren't regularly party to US criminal prosecution and civil litigation.

A subpoena can be issued and command appearance or production of evidence wherever the court has reach. The US holdings of a foreign-based bank are treated as any other multinational corporation. In criminal and civil matters, both the foreign entity and its US holdings are subpoenaed and can be ordered to produce evidence and witnesses. The exception to that would be where the statute expressly bars extraterritoriality in enforcement (which the Internal Revenue Code does not, as cited above) or, in some civil enforcement matters, where there are no substantial US presence of the non-party foreign entity.

Here's an extract of an article on the subject of the reach of the US International Trade Commission in enforcement actions: http://www.steptoe.com/publications-10310.html

to enforcement actions by agencies. Administrative action can be as devastating as criminal prosecution of banks. HRC seems to have bartered both away in 90 percent of the cases. There is serious reason to doubt how the implementation agreement with Switzerland was handled.

maybe she had no idea what was goin' on? kinda like with the IWR thing?

She is just as smart as can be. In my opinion.

From the article:

According to the report, the US State Department was grateful to the Swiss for their support in places like Cuba and Iran and for “helping to broker a deal that normalized relations between Turkey and Armenia”.

Sounds like normal state department stuff to me.

That's just how it works.

Always has. Is it shocking to you that diplomacy has always included that? Always. You act like Hillary came up with it.

There's always been problems. Like when the country first started it was extremely corrupt and they even had slaves and killed Indians and all manner of horrible stuff. Then people fought and made things better. And so we can fight to make things better in our time. If you think it's OK for powerful government officials to get million dollar paydays from giant wealthy companies and then help those companies break the law, that's your prerogative.

Is being a real Democrat! Un-fuggin-real.

Funny defending a corrupt system on the basis that everyone does it. Yeah that's why it's called the system.

now Bernie who has made a central issue of his campaign.

OWS was a huge factor in drawing attention to this issue. They provided the simple lingo that has helped people express in simple terms what is wrong with our corrupt system.

As a Swiss bank in Switzerland, it would have been a criminal offense for them to provide the information sought by the IRS.

Getting around that required the US to negotiate with Switzerland.

When that happens, the US has a kind of, oh, what do you call it... A sort of "top person who talks to other governments for us". I'm sure there's a name for it.

She didn't have to intervene like that. She could have let the law suit play out. Or let it play out longer as pressure to negotiate a stronger deal.


Anyways the bigger issue is government officials getting huge paydays from corporations and this is still an example of it.

It was against Swiss law for the bank to provide the information the IRS was seeking.

There is no "lawsuit" you can file which will result in an order to break a criminal law.

"Or let it play out longer as pressure to negotiate a stronger deal."

Let what play out as "pressure" on whom? Sue the bank in a Swiss court to get them to break Swiss law? That'll "play out" in about an hour as the judge laughs your ass back to the US.

You are truly and most completely ignorant of the situation.

But, oh, here comes Donald Trump with "I would have held out for a better deal."

Switzerland is fucking neutral in world affairs and have strict privacy laws.

Yes, it required the intervention of the US Secretary of State on a government-to-government level in order to allow UBS to disclose anything, and it was an extremely unpopular move in Switzerland. The fuckers have a democratic government there, and the people don't like other countries telling them when to enforce or not enforce their own laws.

Hey I've read several articles on it, and I'm coming away with a very different impression than you're painting.

The USA exerts pressure in lots of different ways, against lots of different countries, pursuing a lot of different goals.

There is no reason the US shouldn't vigorously pursue tax evaders hiding their money in Switzerland. It's not the job of US Secretary of State to protect the sanctity of secret banking in Switzerland. Her job is to pursue American interests.

And yes the IRS was suing UBS and yes Clinton did intervene. And yes that is unusual and interesting information.

And there is a major conflict of interest.

All of it and all of them.

I never, ever want Clintons in the White House again.

They seem quite absent in this thread. Hmmm.

UBS is Bad To The Bone

http://bankimplode.com/blog/2008/11/04/ubs-is-bad-to-the-bone/

UBS and the Nazis......


Swiss bank exploited Nazi slaves

........................ just do a search on any of these titles.

USB is not a good guy.

Lots of companies had ties to the Nazis but it's never gets less chilling