Settlement by any other name

Government settlement with HSBC shows danger of too-big-to-fail

The announcement of the U.S. government's decision to settle the money laundering charges against HSBC to the tune of $1.92 billion might have caused gasps around the world, as it is a huge fine and the largest ever leveled, but keep in mind HSBC's U.S. subsidiary alone has $200 billion in assets. Last year's HSBC profits were close to $17 billion. And as Asst. Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer announced, HSBC laundered at least $881 million for drug cartels,  failed to monitor some $670 billion in wire transfers between its Mexican subidiary and U.S. branch, and didn't watch over some $9.4 billion in purchases of physical U.S. dollars from the Mexican branch between 2006 and 2009. So $1.92 billion might seem like a lot, but relatively speaking, it isn't. More incredible is the reason for the settlement: The prosecutors — urged on by the U.S. Treasury and U.S. bank regulators — thought criminal indictments could hurt the bank globally, and thus, because of its size, hurt the global economy.

Money launderers — at least on TV — go to jail, especially when they are washing funds for terrorists and drug cartels. But in real life that doesn't seem to be the case. Although Breuer said HSBC "has replaced virtually all of its senior management, 'clawed back' deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement," I can't help thinking HSBC execs are popping corks all over the world. Replaced "virtually" all of its senior management? "Clawed back" bonuses of those in the thick of things and deferred bonuses? These are punishments? Seems to me, that comes with the territory of breaking the law.

The New York Times reported that prosecutors wanted the bank to at least plead guilty to violations of the federal Bank Secrecy Act, but allegedly U.S. regulators cautioned against it. Regulators, I might add, who dropped the ball in keeping an eye on HSBC's and other banks' bad behavior. Let's hope "virtually" all those regulators have been replaced as well.

HSBC now...Bringing up the bodies

About the Author
Ginger Szala

Ginger Szala

Group Editorial Director Ginger Szala has written for and edited Futures magazine since joining in November 1983. Her main beats were covering the international growth of the business and its players and developing the managed funds coverage of the magazine. As a result she has interviewed some of today's best global hedge fund and commodity trading advisors. In 1999 she was named publisher in addition to editor of Futures, and in 2009 was named Group Editorial Director of Summit Business Media's Professional Services Group, which in addition to Futures includes Treasury & Risk, Credit Union Times and InsideCounsel magazines. She received a master's degree in journalism at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. gszala@futuresmag.com

Comments
comments powered by Disqus

eNewsletter Signup

Get the latest news and timely trading strategies for stock, options, forex, commodity, and financial derivatives markets with Futures' Daily Market Focus - FREE!