Bank fined for being hilariously sloppy about its money laundering.

Pudney said:
That's because the chain can have multiple ways to money launder and I'm not going to list them all. The second hand car dealer was provided as it's a quick and very simple example. The example can be made more complex easily.

I'm pretty certain this started out as a pedantic correction that money laundering isn't about creating a fake legal explanation... I even said I was being pedantic.... I've since explained how money laundering can happen without fake legal explanations, and I stand by my pedantic correction! :D
Click to expand...

Well if your only example is someone paying for low-value goods with cash then I don't think you have explained anything here even if admittedly trying to be pedantic. As mentioned before a motivation for money laundering is because having large amounts of cash or assets with no explanation for where it came from is risky. If you buy a large number of cheap second-hand cars you still have a large amount of assets with no explanation for where they came from, you're missing the laundering bit - how are your assets now "clean"? They're not AFAIK.

Buying something with cash earned from crime might well constitute an offense under money laundering legislation however doing so in itself doesn't necessarily "launder" any money.
 
dowie said:
Well if your only example is someone paying for low-value goods with cash then I don't think you have explained anything here even if admittedly trying to be pedantic. As mentioned before a motivation for money laundering is because having large amounts of cash or assets with no explanation for where it came from is risky. If you buy a large number of cheap second-hand cars you still have a large amount of assets with no explanation for where they came from, you're missing the laundering bit - how are your assets now "clean"? They're not AFAIK.

Buying something with cash earned from crime might well constitute an offense under money laundering legislation however doing so in itself doesn't necessarily "launder" any money.
Click to expand...

Now if these cars belonged to other people and were licensed taxis that only accept cash and were continually getting jobs to take people to and from a tanning salon.......
 
Pudney said:
[..] I'm pretty certain this started out as a pedantic correction that money laundering isn't about creating a fake legal explanation... I even said I was being pedantic.... I've since explained how money laundering can happen without fake legal explanations, and I stand by my pedantic correction! :D
Click to expand...

Only in a situation in which no explanation is required. If an explanation is required, it will have to be a fake one.
 
dowie said:
Well if your only example is someone paying for low-value goods with cash then I don't think you have explained anything here even if admittedly trying to be pedantic. As mentioned before a motivation for money laundering is because having large amounts of cash or assets with no explanation for where it came from is risky. If you buy a large number of cheap second-hand cars you still have a large amount of assets with no explanation for where they came from, you're missing the laundering bit - how are your assets now "clean"? They're not AFAIK.

Buying something with cash earned from crime might well constitute an offense under money laundering legislation however doing so in itself doesn't necessarily "launder" any money.
Click to expand...

Look, the fact you don't understand is fine. If you want more detail to help you understand I'm not going to provide it, because I find it questionable at best from a professional ethics viewpoint. The fact you can't work out how to money launder from my examples is actually quite nice for me. It shows you lack the required deceptiveness to work it out.

From all relevant definitions of money laundering though, you're wrong. I'm happy to "lose" this internet argument though because my professional ethics are more important to me.

Angilion said:
Only in a situation in which no explanation is required. If an explanation is required, it will have to be a fake one.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but what's also relevant is when an explanation is required and the business doesn't bother to do the proper due diligence. It appears HSBC has been fined today for not doing their due diligence properly, and is ultimately the real point of my pedantic-ness. Yes, organised money laundering exists, but it also exists through lax business practices.
 
Pudney said:
Look, the fact you don't understand is fine. If you want more detail to help you understand I'm not going to provide it, because I find it questionable at best from a professional ethics viewpoint. The fact you can't work out how to money launder from my examples is actually quite nice for me. It shows you lack the required deceptiveness to work it out.
Click to expand...

Now you’re just getting salty tbh.. you provided an example of someone simply buying a second hand car with cash then threw in some “I’m an accountant”/assertions we should just accept.

I’m not disputing some acts can break the law/fall foul of money laundering legislation, I’ll object to your example not demonstrating anything here though.

Pudney said:
It appears HSBC has been fined today for not doing their due diligence properly, and is ultimately the real point of my pedantic-ness. Yes, organised money laundering exists, but it also exists through lax business practices.
Click to expand...

That latter part is the crux of it, you’re looking at any acts which fall under anti money laundering rules as pointed out before. A bank being slack etc.. can allow it to occur.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Now you’re just getting salty tbh.. you provided an example of someone simply buying a second hand car with cash then threw in some “I’m an accountant”/assertions we should just accept.

I’m not disputing some acts can break the law/fall foul of money laundering legislation, I’ll object to your example not demonstrating anything here though.
Click to expand...

It wasn't salty. More warm fuzzy feelings for an innocent mind.
 
Pudney said:
It wasn't salty. More warm fuzzy feelings for an innocent mind.
Click to expand...

It was just a bad example (buying something with cash) that didn’t actually make the argument tbh.. All it required was a straight up “proof by contradiction”. The inability of people to give straightforward explanations highlights bad arguments. “Trust me bro, I’m an accountant” isn’t an argument.
 
dowie said:
It was just a bad example that didn’t actually make the argument tbh.. The inability of people to give straightforward explanations highlights bad arguments. “Trust me bro, I’m an accountant” isn’t an argument.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's fine. You're right, I'm wrong.
 
dowie said:
Like I said, no need to be salty. I was just engaging in discussion yet I pop in today and there is a reply from you with a load of petty posturing. It’s a bit silly tbh..
Click to expand...

I'd posted a reply somewhere else and had alerts. The fact you don't understand is fine, I don't want to help you understand. So I'm fine to lose.

This isn't the first time I've conceded an argument on this forum to protect my professional ethics :cry:.
 
Pudney said:
I'd posted a reply somewhere else and had alerts. The fact you don't understand is fine, I don't want to help you understand. So I'm fine to lose.

This isn't the first time I've conceded an argument on this forum to protect my professional ethics :cry:.
Click to expand...

No I understand that people could money launder via second hand cars (or indeed various cash businesses), the problem is that when you throw in additional steps you end up with @Angilion being correct, some fake legal explanation(s) being required.

A bank being slack has allowed it to occur in the cases in this thread, the bank however is just one part of it. I’ll assert again that I think individual acts that form part of it/fall under money laundering legislation are being conflated here. You had your “accountant hat” on and you engaged in some pattern matching when seeing Angilions statement… he’s wrong because X & Y break rules you learn annually etc..
 
What is 'fake' about buying a car? :confused:

Edit: lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dowie said:
No I understand that people could money launder via second hand cars (or indeed various cash businesses), the problem is that when you throw in additional steps you end up with @Angilion being correct, some fake legal explanation(s) being required.

A bank being slack has allowed it to occur in the cases in this thread, the bank however is just one part of it. I’ll assert again that I think individual acts that form part of it/fall under money laundering legislation are being conflated here. You had your “accountant hat” on and you engaged in some pattern matching when seeing Angilions statement… he’s wrong because X & Y break rules you learn annually etc..
Click to expand...

Ok, you're right. The example I gave cannot be money laundering.
 
Pudney said:
Ok, you're right. The example I gave cannot be money laundering.
Click to expand...

Why pretend that’s what was argued?

You appeared to give an example (buy something (2nd hand car) with dodgy cash) which might break the law/fall under money laundering legislation.

That’s doesn’t really counter what the other poster/Angilion claimed, it’s incomplete. Nor does the later “you don’t understand” type posturing where you seemingly want the reader to imagine any extra steps required for your own argument/example. Especially when those extra steps could well involve what Angilion was claiming in the first place.
 
dowie said:
Why pretend that’s what was argued?

You appeared to give an example (buy something (2nd hand car) with dodgy cash) which might break the law/fall under money laundering legislation.

That’s doesn’t really counter what the other poster/Angilion claimed, it’s incomplete. Nor does the later “you don’t understand” type posturing where you seemingly want the reader to imagine any extra steps required for your own argument/example. Especially when those extra steps could well involve what Angilion was claiming in the first place.
Click to expand...

1) I don't want the reader to imagine the next steps.
2) I am suggesting there could be more steps if you want to make it better and more effective money laundering.
3) I am asserting none of the steps require a fake explanation.
4) I refuse to give details.
5) I accept that if I won't provide details there's no reason for you to believe me.
6) Accordingly I accept defeat in this argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom