If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Manchester Evening News)   In a shock to everyone, a UK bank did something unethical and illegal in order to reap huge sums of money. I'd fall on my fainting couch, but I had to sell it on Craigslist so I could pay this month's mortgage   (menmedia.co.uk) divider line 15
    More: Asinine, Standard Chartered, british banks, London Stock Exchange, Legal liability, European debt crisis, U.S. Division, senior management, Iranian Government  
•       •       •

1072 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Aug 2012 at 10:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



15 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-07 09:46:15 AM
And nobody will go to jail over it. Except for maybe a mid-level flunkie.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-07 09:48:24 AM
I am beginning to wonder if it's even possible for someone who isn't a criminal to succeed in that industry. It would be like being a one armed boxer.
 
2012-08-07 11:03:00 AM
I like the argument they pushed along the lines of "who does the U.S. think it is to tell us we can't do business with Iran?"

Uh... the ones that have to agree to let you do business here, dumbasses? For all our problems, which is going to be more profitable, shifting dirty money through Iran or doing legit business in the U.S. Because we don't have to let you operate here if we don't want to.

/ who am I kidding, they'll get away with doing both....
 
2012-08-07 11:16:37 AM
As long as you turn a profit, nothing else matters.
 
2012-08-07 11:19:51 AM
The only crime here is "failed to be a deputy of US foreign policy".

It will be a great day when the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.
 
2012-08-07 11:30:18 AM
Doing business with Iran? Maybe if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s and bought the dictator Shah to power the fundamentalists would never have taken over. Iran might still have been a democracy and we'd all be able to trade with them.
 
2012-08-07 11:31:44 AM

Flint Ironstag: Doing business with Iran? Maybe if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s and bought the dictator Shah to power the fundamentalists would never have taken over. Iran might still have been a democracy and we'd all be able to trade with them.


I was under the impression that while the US helped, the *BRITISH* had more to do with that, and more to gain.

What with, you know, the elected leader of Iran cancelling the contracts to British Petroleum and all
 
2012-08-07 12:28:24 PM

Felgraf: Flint Ironstag: Doing business with Iran? Maybe if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s and bought the dictator Shah to power the fundamentalists would never have taken over. Iran might still have been a democracy and we'd all be able to trade with them.

I was under the impression that while the US helped, the *BRITISH* had more to do with that, and more to gain.

What with, you know, the elected leader of Iran cancelling the contracts to British Petroleum and all


The US acted because Mosaddegh was getting close to the Soviets. The US and UK had common interests at the time. A couple of years later, in Suez, the US didn't have any common interest and so left the UK high and dry.

My point was the US is more than happy to overthrow leaders, fund opposition, arrange coups, trade weapons etc with all sorts of people but the moment someone else trades with them they take the moral high ground.

Other countries also understand that their jurisdiction ends at their borders and doesn't try to enforce it's rules on companies operating outside the US.
 
2012-08-07 12:45:13 PM
if they didn't launder Iranian transactions through their u.s. subsidiary, it would have been okay.

it is arrogant for them to willfully ignore our banking laws and regs.

of course, when does the u.s. actually enforce our regs against any mega bank? when it does happen, though, it is often a BSA/OFAC issue.
 
2012-08-07 01:46:35 PM
Pretty sure that's an American bank operating under the name of a British bank. It's like saying a Mcdonalds in Botswanna is serving questionable meat so America is to blame.
 
2012-08-07 01:47:19 PM

Flint Ironstag: Felgraf: Flint Ironstag: Doing business with Iran? Maybe if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s and bought the dictator Shah to power the fundamentalists would never have taken over. Iran might still have been a democracy and we'd all be able to trade with them.

I was under the impression that while the US helped, the *BRITISH* had more to do with that, and more to gain.

What with, you know, the elected leader of Iran cancelling the contracts to British Petroleum and all

The US acted because Mosaddegh was getting close to the Soviets. The US and UK had common interests at the time. A couple of years later, in Suez, the US didn't have any common interest and so left the UK high and dry.

My point was the US is more than happy to overthrow leaders, fund opposition, arrange coups, trade weapons etc with all sorts of people but the moment someone else trades with them they take the moral high ground.

Other countries also understand that their jurisdiction ends at their borders and doesn't try to enforce it's rules on companies operating outside the US.


The BRITISH are complaining about a country projecting power around the world? A former British colony at that?

Sounds like sour grapes. The US isn't spotless on the skein of history and has bloody hands for two centuries, but don't even pretend to be 'high and mighty' from that standpoint. Britain has us beat in spades.
 
2012-08-07 05:08:04 PM

Deneb81: The BRITISH are complaining about a country projecting power around the world? A former British colony at that?

Sounds like sour grapes. The US isn't spotless on the skein of history and has bloody hands for two centuries, but don't even pretend to be 'high and mighty' from that standpoint. Britain has us beat in spades.


You make it sound like those same British imperialists are still alive today. Why should new humans born be forced to support policies of a dead government from the past?

You're a moron flinging hyperbole around as if you think it makes you look smart, when in fact it makes you a blaring idiot.
 
2012-08-07 06:23:36 PM

Deneb81: Flint Ironstag: Felgraf: Flint Ironstag: Doing business with Iran? Maybe if the US hadn't deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s and bought the dictator Shah to power the fundamentalists would never have taken over. Iran might still have been a democracy and we'd all be able to trade with them.

I was under the impression that while the US helped, the *BRITISH* had more to do with that, and more to gain.

What with, you know, the elected leader of Iran cancelling the contracts to British Petroleum and all

The US acted because Mosaddegh was getting close to the Soviets. The US and UK had common interests at the time. A couple of years later, in Suez, the US didn't have any common interest and so left the UK high and dry.

My point was the US is more than happy to overthrow leaders, fund opposition, arrange coups, trade weapons etc with all sorts of people but the moment someone else trades with them they take the moral high ground.

Other countries also understand that their jurisdiction ends at their borders and doesn't try to enforce it's rules on companies operating outside the US.

The BRITISH are complaining about a country projecting power around the world? A former British colony at that?

Sounds like sour grapes. The US isn't spotless on the skein of history and has bloody hands for two centuries, but don't even pretend to be 'high and mighty' from that standpoint. Britain has us beat in spades.


But we don't then demand companies who do business in the UK follow our laws even in their subsidiaries elsewhere in the world. An American bank operating in the UK has to follow our laws here, what the rest of the company does elsewhere is nothing to do with us and is down to those countries who have different laws.

We don't ban our own citizens from visiting certain other countries like Cuba.

It's not the use of power I'm commenting on, it's the use of power to trade with enemies and then demand that companies outside your jurisdiction comply with your laws not to trade with those enemies, even when such trade is not illegal in those countries. If you as an American go to Germany you can do 100mph on their motorways. Would you be happy for the US to issue you with a speeding ticket when you got back home on the grounds that such a speed is illegal in the US? That is in effect what the US is doing here. It is saying "You must follow our speed limit even when you are operating in countries with different speed limits"

AFAIF it is even illegal for you to have a Cuban cigar even when outside the US. I love the US and it's a great place to visit and while I am in the US I follow US laws. But when I leave the US I leave your jurisdiction. Your laws no longer apply.
 
2012-08-07 08:31:20 PM
And if the queen had balls, she'd be king...

Called to defend their right to trade on the exchange is an encouraging step. Even if uncle Sam can't or won't do anything, certain parties distancing themselves hits them where it hurts.
 
2012-08-08 10:54:38 AM
Flint Ironstag:AFAIF it is even illegal for you to have a Cuban cigar even when outside the US. I love the US and it's a great place to visit and while I am in the US I follow US laws. But when I leave the US I leave your jurisdiction. Your laws no longer apply.

Novus ordo seclorum, my friend :(
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report