Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Senate Dems Led by Liz Warren Are In Revolt Against Obama's Wall Street Nominee [View all]RiverLover
(7,830 posts)13. yep, "How (Wachovia) laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs "
Funny how corporate media keeps us largely in the dark about these things.
How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs
Apr 2011
...The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme.
...In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 up 1% on the week of the court settlement....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
Apr 2011
...The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme.
...In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.
More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells Fargo stock traded at $30.86 up 1% on the week of the court settlement....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
So by only paying a large fine to the US govt, not only is Wachovia/Wells Fargo complicit in drug smuggling & profiting from it, so is the US govt.
And the beat goes on.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why Senate Dems Led by Liz Warren Are In Revolt Against Obama's Wall Street Nominee [View all]
xchrom
Jan 2015
OP
yep, "How (Wachovia) laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs "
RiverLover
Jan 2015
#13
He's being paid a $22 million bonus from the bank he works for if he gets this job at Treasury.
RiverLover
Jan 2015
#10
And what's the down side for him when he fails? A very lucrative job for Wall Street?
rhett o rick
Jan 2015
#16
Correct me if I misunderstand your insinuation, but you seem to be suggesting that
rhett o rick
Jan 2015
#23
See clearly the problem is that there aren't enough Wall Streeters in government...
PoliticAverse
Jan 2015
#27
Are there no Progressive Dems without that questionable history and without the bribe money
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#25
The people claimed to be selected for "knowing where the bodies are buried" don't seem overly
TheKentuckian
Jan 2015
#14
Good point. All of Obama's other nominees from Wall Street have worked out pretty well
MannyGoldstein
Jan 2015
#26