HSBC fears U.S. money laundering fines to top $1.5 billion

[dipsydoodle]

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - A U.S. fine for anti-money laundering rule breaches could cost HSBC significantly more than $1.5 billion (938.5 million pounds) and is likely to lead to criminal charges, Europe's biggest bank said on Monday.

HSBC said the U.S. investigation had damaged the bank's reputation and forced it to set aside a further $800 million to cover a potential fine for breaches in anti-money laundering controls in Mexico, adding to $700 million put aside in July.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/uk-hsbc-results-idUKBRE8A40AF20121105

---

edited to reflect Reuters changes to their own link.

[banned from Kos]

1. There are well defined criminal statutes for money laundering

unlike providing mortgages (which many Occupy types believe is a crime).

[2pooped2pop]

2. I don't think providing mortgages is a crime.

Though I do believe that doing so with the intention of that buyer not being able to pay and then taking out insurance to get paid again when that mortgage does fail, should be a crime.

I also think that refusing to work with homeowners while the country was in free fall and creating hundreds of thousands of vacant and now rotting homes across the country should be a crime too. Had they worked with people, they would still be in their homes, they would not be getting damaged sitting vacant, and it would have gone a long way to stop the housing collapse.

They planned it and have effectively redistributed the wealth once again from the low and middle class back to the ultra rich.

May there be a hell for them to spend eternity in.

[banned from Kos]

3. No bank "intended" for their mortgage loans to fail. They lost billions.

Please don't be ridiculous.

Were they too casual concerning credit worthiness? Of course. Were they motivated by fees? Yes again. Did Wall St and the GSEs want to buy their garbage? Yes again.

[2pooped2pop]

5. they bet on them to lose

they were insured for them to lose. And this is why, I am told, that they don't want to work it out. They get paid double this way, plus usually end up with the house, if they want it in the end.

[leftyohiolib]

6. well they didnt care b/c wall street was buying them up so it didnt matter to the bank

if the loans were viable the banks were just gonna dump them on wall street

[amandabeech]

9. Then wall street dumped them on investors.

"Investors" included pension funds advised by big bond funds.

Wall Street has done a good job, too, of off-loading that crap on the Federal Reserve, whose balance sheet is full of the stuff.

We won't really know what is outside the Fed until the toxic stuff has to be carried at market value on the financial statements of the holders, and I am beginning to doubt whether, at 57, I'll ever see that day.

[eggplant]

7. What's with the thread hijacking? n/t

[dipsydoodle]

8. The original headline mentioned criminal charges.

Reuters then changed their headline on the same link so I edited the headline to accord with LBN rules.

When edits are switched back on you'll be able to see the original.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Oh, I get it. The investigation had caused "considerable reputational damage"

not the actual crime.
I guess that makes sense, in the Alice in Wonderland world we have today.

and do be sure to note:
"The timing of any settlement is in the hands of regulators"
which will be months, if not years from now, and equal about 10% of the stolen money, and NO criminal charges will follow.