Skip to main content

In the wake of the HSBC money laundering scandal - where Mexican Drug Cartels, 9/11 hijackers, and Iran laundered money through the bank - other bank's activities have been investigated. Not surprisingly more shenanigans with rogue states were found.

From Reuters:

A New York bank regulator's broadside against Standard Chartered Plc over transactions tied to Iran left investors and the bank questioning the action, which on Tuesday wiped $17 billion off the bank's value.

The White House signaled its strong interest in the case, saying the U.S. government takes alleged violations of economic sanctions "extremely seriously."...

"Sanctions violations are something that this administration takes extremely seriously and has a strong record of action to this end," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "The Treasury Department remains in close contact with both federal and state authorities on this matter."

But hey these are the Masters Of The Universe who is the White House or a State Bank Regulator to tell them what to do?
New York DFS Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky, in his order, described how officials at Standard Chartered had debated whether to continue its Iranian dealings, which he said exposed the U.S. banking system to terrorists, drug traffickers and corrupt states.

He said that on October 2006, the top official for business in the Americas warned in a "panicked message" that the Iranian dealings could cause "catastrophic reputational damage" and "serious criminal liability."

A group executive director in London shot back, according to a New York branch officer quoted in the order: "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians."

The reply showed "obvious contempt for U.S. banking regulations," the order said.

Contempt fits.

According to Lawsky Standard Chartered conducted 60,000 secret transactions over nearly a decade worth approximately $250 billion - generating hundreds of millions of dollars in fees for the bank.

And for those playing at home - laundering money for Iran (besides helping a regime under sanctions pursuing nuclear weapons) means laundering money for Iranian sponsored terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

Also, according to the Joint Chief Chairman Admiral Mullen, Iran was directly involved in killing U.S Soldiers in Iraq. From CNN:

And Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said any potential agreement with Iraq for U.S. forces to stay on beyond the end-of-the-year deadline must confront the issue of Iranian involvement.

"Iran is playing an out-sized role right now," Mullen said at a lunchtime conversation with journalists at the Pentagon. "Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shia groups (in Iraq), which are killing our troops."

So HSBC and Standard Chartered were laundering money for Iran when Iran was helping kill Americans. And America is willing to kill its own citizens without a trial if they are supporting Anti-American militancy. This is a war right? So I have to ask...


Where are the drone strikes?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What gets me most about this is the outrage (9+ / 0-)

    on the part of the banks that they would be held accountable for their actions.  They have to gall to complain about how the rules are complicated.  Oh, boo-fucking-hoo.  They are so used to doing what ever they want that they think they should be able to do anything with no punishment.

    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 10:36:00 AM PDT

  •  And GOP bankers will say "Harsher sanctions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Horace Boothroyd III

    on Iran!" all the while knowing they will still do business

  •  I suggest (4+ / 0-)

    1. Seizure of all their assets in the U.S., pending trial.

    2. Upon conviction, all seized assets are turned over to the armed forces for distribution to service members killed or wounded in Iraq.

    Sure. Believe instead in unicorns and the Easter Bunny.

    Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

    by Eric Twocents on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 10:49:27 AM PDT

  •  Got any other source besides Mullen and CNN (0+ / 0-)

    on what Iran is doing now in Iraq?  The demonization of Iran is in full swing, war is on the horizen, and this ties staying in Iraq with confronting Iran together.  Too convenient.

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 10:51:54 AM PDT

    •  Well, Iran was definitely under sanctions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, TKO333

      if Mullen's charge is taken off the table Standard Chartered still violated US banking regulations which - if they want to operate in the US - they have to comply with.

      •  Iran's been under sanctions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Texdude50

        long before 9/11...I worked in retail banking and there is something called OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) and it was formally created in 1950 by President Truman. Iran was added to the OFAC list, oh I don't know, somewhere around 1979?? This is a very big deal and I don't think anyone should be using this as a means to go after President Obama and drone strikes. I'm not defending drone strikes, I am emphasizing that you diminish the very real importance and the very real consequences of money being funneled into Iran by comparing the two.

        "We love this goddman country and we're taking it back!" Saul Alinsky

        by mindara on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:12:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Drone Strikes are as real as it gets (0+ / 0-)

          Real people, really getting killed.

          And if the money launders won't face the same justice as magazine editors then the policy of drone strikes is absurd.

          But, if the money launders do face death for helping terrorists, then the policy is sound and defensible.

    •  War (0+ / 0-)

      Is not on the horizon. Republicans may be using it as a political ploy, but I doubt there's any realistic planning for such a thing.

  •  This may not be a popular opinion but... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, LNK, luckylizard, adrianrf

    the war on terror is a hoax really. If we were so concerened about defeating...for lack of a better phrase Islamic terrorism or rather Islamism, why are we doing business and sustaining the Saudi regime?

    As the Guardian notes:

    Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

    "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

    Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    The three other Arab countries are also our allies. Our money is being used to fund terrorism against us.

    Not the way to win the war on terror.

    •  Based on HSBC and Standard Chartered (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shawn Russell, TKO333

      if the GWOT isn't "a hoax" as you say it is certainly being fought strangely.

      The money launderers are a key aspect of terrorism and they are getting fined while magazine editors are getting assassinated.

      When it comes to HSBC and Standard Chartered "With us or With The Terrorists" the answer is pretty clear.

    •  Islamism is not the same as fundamentalism (0+ / 0-)

      Islamism is a specific political current in Islamic thought.  Saudi Arabia is not Islamist, they are fundamentalist, Wahabi to be exact.

      I agree with the gist of your comment, I just wanted to make that clarification.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 01:09:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, I've made a convincing case (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSWright, luckylizard

    for imprisoning the board of BP, pretty much everyone on Wall St, and the U.S. military itself under Levin/Gramm's insane new law re: detentions.

    So, yeah, the terrorist money launderers are a pretty easy case to make.

    Remember when Kerry was investigating this same thing in the eighties/early nineties? And nobody wanted him to keep going?

    Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 01:51:46 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site