Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Reuters)   Banking regulators are pissed that someone is actually regulating their banks   (reuters.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Standard Chartered, Comptroller of the Currency, Barclays plc, New York County District Attorney, revoke, Treasury Department, Benjamin Lawsky  
•       •       •

2219 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Aug 2012 at 3:01 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-08 11:56:55 AM  
Corrupt assholes say WHAT?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-08-08 12:06:50 PM  
I should have known the threat of punishment was too good to be true. The feds may have to relicense US operations under federal law to keep state regulators from regulating.
 
2012-08-08 12:10:31 PM  
If the Feds did their job, the states wouldn't have to do it for them.
 
2012-08-08 12:13:03 PM  
this does not improve my mood.
 
2012-08-08 12:27:01 PM  
In the past, such cases have usually been settled through negotiation - with public shaming kept to a minimum.

Public shaming to a minimum -

img132.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-08 12:49:06 PM  
Benjamin Lawsky: The liberal equivalent of Joe Arpaio.
 
2012-08-08 01:42:17 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Benjamin Lawsky: The liberal equivalent of Joe Arpaio.


Does this mean wee will see bank execs living in tent cities wearing pink underwear?
 
2012-08-08 01:50:20 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Benjamin Lawsky: The liberal equivalent of Joe Arpaio.


Is that is meant to lend Arpaio credibility? Because, the issue of whether a bank does business in Iran is actually provable.
 
2012-08-08 01:50:21 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Benjamin Lawsky: The liberal equivalent of Joe Arpaio.


Yes, because Mr. Lawsky raided all of the bank execs' homes at 3am, manhandled their kids, then jailed everyone in a 10 block radius just because he could.
 
2012-08-08 03:11:35 PM  

ZAZ: I should have known the threat of punishment was too good to be true. The feds may have to relicense US operations under federal law to keep state regulators from regulating.


No, no matter what, they have been punished thanks to Lawsky, biatchslapped by ye olde invisible hand

"The British bank lost over a quarter of its market value in 24 hours after the New York State Department of Financial Services threatened on Monday to cancel its state banking license - critical for dealing in dollars - and called it a "rogue institution" for breaking U.S. sanctions against Iran.

Standard Chartered shares bounced 7.1 percent on Wednesday to close in London at 13.15 pounds, up from a 3-year low of 10.92 hit earlier in the week. They were still down 18 percent since the regulator's threat,
 
2012-08-08 03:32:40 PM  

Magorn: No, no matter what, they have been punished thanks to Lawsky, biatchslapped by ye olde invisible hand


Being somewhat naive in nuanced financial matters, I would suggest that loss of market capitalization is not yet being "biatchslapped by ye olde invisible hand." Sure, it impacts those with options and existing stockholders but doesn't affect the ongoing operations and profitability of the company.

Throwing some (any) of these assholes in jail and revoking or suspending their banking license sends an actual message. Force them to sell their US operations at a fire sale price.
 
2012-08-08 03:36:33 PM  
"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 quote was rendered in documents released by the regulators.

Yeah, when they have quotes like that on you, head between legs, kiss ass goodbye.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:17 PM  

impaler: Lucky LaRue: Benjamin Lawsky: The liberal equivalent of Joe Arpaio.

Does this mean wee will see bank execs living in tent cities wearing pink underwear?


I hope so!
 
2012-08-08 03:50:52 PM  

impaler: Lucky LaRue: Benjamin Lawsky: The liberal equivalent of Joe Arpaio.

Does this mean wee will see bank execs living in tent cities wearing pink underwear?


Alternatively, it would be interesting to see Lawsky round up a "posse" and go door to door down in Wall Street.
 
2012-08-08 03:53:19 PM  

Gosling: "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 quote was rendered in documents released by the regulators.

Yeah, when they have quotes like that on you, head between legs, kiss ass goodbye.


He has a point.

The shiat our banks get away with (got away with) has the ability to destabilize every economy on the planet.

This is the very embodiment of the color black.... calling the kettle black.
 
2012-08-08 03:56:29 PM  

1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2012-08-08 04:07:06 PM  

"You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians?"


No. No, we don't. We only tell us what you can and can't do if you want to do business in the US. If you don't like it, you can GTFO.
 
2012-08-08 04:15:30 PM  
FTA: Tom Hibbert, head of the banking litigation group at London law firm RPC, said much may depend on the - unknown - details of Standard Chartered's interaction with the DFS so far:

"But," he said, "History tells us that it is extremely tough to take on the U.S. regulators and win, whatever the merits of the regulator's case."


Yeah, only when the regulator decides to get off its butt. See the secret is to get the regulator to buy in.
 
2012-08-08 04:28:53 PM  
"I think it's a concerted effort that's been organized at the top of the U.S. government. I think this is Washington trying to win a commercial battle to have trading from London shifted to New York," said John Mann, a member of parliament's finance committee, who also called for a parliamentary inquiry.

Yes, the US is trying to have trading shifted from London to New York by stopping a bank from trading in New York. That's so obvious now.

/Seriously, does the right honorable gentleman even listen to himself talk?
 
2012-08-08 04:40:16 PM  
The bank's top executives, some like Sands scrambled back from summer vacations, worked on its defense strategy, having so far contested the regulator's figures and his interpretation of the law, but given little detail. The bank says only a tiny proportion of its Iran-related deals - less than $14 million - were questionable under U.S. sanctions rules.

"But only some of the girls were underage! I swear it!"

/JUMP
 
2012-08-08 04:55:27 PM  

Gosling: "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 quote was rendered in documents released by the regulators.

Yeah, when they have quotes like that on you, head between legs, kiss ass goodbye.


My response to that is this. Feel free to do business with the Iranians, you just won't do business with us. Somehow I think our market is bigger.

Oh wait, that's exactly what we said. Yup, you're right. He better grow to like the taste of ass.
 
2012-08-08 05:27:35 PM  

ScreamingHangover: "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians?"


No. No, we don't. We only tell us what you can and can't do if you want to do business in the US. If you don't like it, you can GTFO.


Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

The US has a very one sided attitude to these matters.

British company leaks oil near the US? They'll pay up or else. US President steps in to make sure.
US company leaks oil off Africa? Tough shiat African country, you're getting nothing.
US company kills and injures tens of thousands in Bhopal? Tough shiat, here's a few dollars. US President steps in to make sure India don't even think about demanding more.
 
2012-08-08 05:30:29 PM  

AngryDragon: Gosling: "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 quote was rendered in documents released by the regulators.

Yeah, when they have quotes like that on you, head between legs, kiss ass goodbye.

My response to that is this. Feel free to do business with the Iranians, you just won't do business with us. Somehow I think our market is bigger.

Oh wait, that's exactly what we said. Yup, you're right. He better grow to like the taste of ass.


If you think it is reasonable for a country to tell a company what other countries it can trade with to be allowed to operate in their country then would you agree that the UK could demand that Ford, for example, not do any business in Argentina to be allowed to operate in the UK?
Isn't that the same? You'd be okay with that?
 
2012-08-08 05:48:11 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

The US has a very one sided attitude to these matters.



Oh for the love of dog, you haven't been paying attention to this at all. The issue at play here is Standard Chartered was falsifying wire transfer data in order to conceal the identities of the clients so those transactions could be processed through the New York financial market. The New York State regulator isn't saying Standard Chartered cannot conduct business with Iranian entities at all. It's saying that you can't process transactions FOR Iranian clients WITHIN (or through) the United States. The bank could be making trades and moving money for Iranians in Dubai for all the regulators would care.
 
2012-08-08 05:48:14 PM  

Flint Ironstag: ScreamingHangover: "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians?"


No. No, we don't. We only tell us what you can and can't do if you want to do business in the US. If you don't like it, you can GTFO.

Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

The US has a very one sided attitude to these matters.

British company leaks oil near the US? They'll pay up or else. US President steps in to make sure.
US company leaks oil off Africa? Tough shiat African country, you're getting nothing.
US company kills and injures tens of thousands in Bhopal? Tough shiat, here's a few dollars. US President steps in to make sure India don't even think about demanding more.


THIS,.

We know you don't notice your double standards, but the rest of the world sure does. This is where the American credibility problem stems from.
 
2012-08-08 05:50:48 PM  

skodabunny: THIS.

We know you don't notice your double standards, but the rest of the world sure does. This is where the American credibility problem stems from.



I know you didn't read this (or any other) article on the issue. That's where your credibility problem comes from.
 
2012-08-08 06:10:36 PM  

JK47: Flint Ironstag: Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

The US has a very one sided attitude to these matters.


Oh for the love of dog, you haven't been paying attention to this at all. The issue at play here is Standard Chartered was falsifying wire transfer data in order to conceal the identities of the clients so those transactions could be processed through the New York financial market. The New York State regulator isn't saying Standard Chartered cannot conduct business with Iranian entities at all. It's saying that you can't process transactions FOR Iranian clients WITHIN (or through) the United States. The bank could be making trades and moving money for Iranians in Dubai for all the regulators would care.


Yeah, that is kinda my point. If I am in the US and want to send money to someone in Iran then why should the US have the right to stop me? Is it not my money? Once it leaves the US it leaves US jurisdiction. Whether a bank then sends that money to France or Iraq whose business is it other than the person whose money it is?

AFAIK the UK only imposes sanction under the UN or EU collective banner. It doesn't tell its own citizens what they can and cannot do with their money.
 
2012-08-08 06:12:21 PM  
So now banks are going to have to bribe federal AND state regulators?
 
2012-08-08 06:34:06 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?


considering that the british were the first country (ww1) to tell neutral countries not only who they could or could not trade with, but also seized the trade of any country who disagreed with them, they don't have much leg to stand on. On wow, someone is doing something you've done many times in the past, except you did it at literal gun point? boo hoo
 
2012-08-08 07:01:44 PM  
You want us to do things your way? Bring your biatch ass over here and make us, otherwise STFU and GBTW.
 
2012-08-08 07:03:37 PM  

tlchwi02: Flint Ironstag: Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

considering that the british were the first country (ww1) to tell neutral countries not only who they could or could not trade with, but also seized the trade of any country who disagreed with them, they don't have much leg to stand on. On wow, someone is doing something you've done many times in the past, except you did it at literal gun point? boo hoo


During a world war the rules for neutral countries work that way.

Did you know that during WWII there were RAF pilots who bailed out and landed in (neutral) Ireland and captured as POWs who escaped (the Irish didn't really bother with security) back to the UK and the UK sent them back to Ireland to avoid violating Irish neutrality?
 
2012-08-08 07:41:06 PM  

JK47: Flint Ironstag: Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

The US has a very one sided attitude to these matters.


Oh for the love of dog, you haven't been paying attention to this at all. The issue at play here is Standard Chartered was falsifying wire transfer data in order to conceal the identities of the clients so those transactions could be processed through the New York financial market. The New York State regulator isn't saying Standard Chartered cannot conduct business with Iranian entities at all. It's saying that you can't process transactions FOR Iranian clients WITHIN (or through) the United States. The bank could be making trades and moving money for Iranians in Dubai for all the regulators would care.


Except the transactions only go through the US due to convenience and how they set up their computer system back in the day. If the US wants to scare all international technology and finance firms from ever locating any of their assets on their soil and drive away tens or hundreds of thousands of high end jobs to no end, so those firms can avoid getting caught up in all the little squabbles the US has with virtually every country in the world every few years, feel free to pursue this sort of thing.
 
2012-08-08 08:12:57 PM  

Flint Ironstag: If you think it is reasonable for a country to tell a company what other countries it can trade with to be allowed to operate in their country then would you agree that the UK could demand that Ford, for example, not do any business in Argentina to be allowed to operate in the UK?
Isn't that the same? You'd be okay with that?


Of course it's not the same. They'd be insane to do this, because, well, the US is the boss. We run this world. The Brits (and everyone else) sit at our table, not the other way around.

Honestly, I think they're butthurt that they lost a long time ago, that they aren't in a position to tell us what to do anymore. We CAN tell them who they are allowed to do business with. Deal with it.

Wah, farking Americans, always being the boss!
 
2012-08-08 09:11:43 PM  

xria: JK47: Flint Ironstag: Which no other country does. The UK does not tell US corporations what it can and cannot do in the US and elsewhere for it to trade in the UK, only how it must behave in the UK. What they do in other countries is between the company and that country, none of our business. Ford builds a lot of cars in the UK, maybe we should tell Ford they can't do business with Argentina if they want to operate in the UK? Reasonable?

The US has a very one sided attitude to these matters.


Oh for the love of dog, you haven't been paying attention to this at all. The issue at play here is Standard Chartered was falsifying wire transfer data in order to conceal the identities of the clients so those transactions could be processed through the New York financial market. The New York State regulator isn't saying Standard Chartered cannot conduct business with Iranian entities at all. It's saying that you can't process transactions FOR Iranian clients WITHIN (or through) the United States. The bank could be making trades and moving money for Iranians in Dubai for all the regulators would care.

Except the transactions only go through the US due to convenience and how they set up their computer system back in the day. If the US wants to scare all international technology and finance firms from ever locating any of their assets on their soil and drive away tens or hundreds of thousands of high end jobs to no end, so those firms can avoid getting caught up in all the little squabbles the US has with virtually every country in the world every few years, feel free to pursue this sort of thing.


London is a bigger banking center, and the New York operations seemed to just process u.s. dollars for a much larger global operation.

if they want to screw with us, they can. but if they break our laws, we can call them out on it, and they can choose whether or not to do business here. pretending that the Brits are better angels than us is totally ignorant of history.

they were also allegedly laundering money for the Sudan, for Myanmar, and your Iranian buddies. that makes them scum bags imo, even if you like scum. you can farking hug Hitler for all I care. doesn't mean I have to like it.

/if our regulators suck, so do British ones because those banks are also super corrupt. I'm not defending any of those ass holes
 
2012-08-09 10:44:21 AM  

Arkanaut: "I think it's a concerted effort that's been organized at the top of the U.S. government. I think this is Washington trying to win a commercial battle to have trading from London shifted to New York," said John Mann, a member of parliament's finance committee, who also called for a parliamentary inquiry.

Yes, the US is trying to have trading shifted from London to New York by stopping a bank from trading in New York. That's so obvious now.

/Seriously, does the right honorable gentleman even listen to himself talk?


Actually, if you think about it, that makes a lot more sense than thinking that the regulators are acting out of legal morality.
 
2012-08-09 11:02:34 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Yeah, that is kinda my point. If I am in the US and want to send money to someone in Iran then why should the US have the right to stop me? Is it not my money? Once it leaves the US it leaves US jurisdiction. Whether a bank then sends that money to France or Iraq whose business is it other than the person whose money it is?


Uh...Actually of course the US (or any other nation that issues a currency) has the right to stop you--even as an individual, let alone if you were a corporation or other such entity, where more stringent rules prevail.

Firstly, do you think a government doesn't have the vested interest, and shouldn't have the ability, to prevent money being sent across its borders to terrorist groups or enemies of the state? Secondly, especially if it's in US currency, the issuer of that currency has all the rights to be wary of where it goes once it leaves the borders.
 
2012-08-09 11:27:47 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Yeah, that is kinda my point. If I am in the US and want to send money to someone in Iran then why should the US have the right to stop me? Is it not my money? Once it leaves the US it leaves US jurisdiction. Whether a bank then sends that money to France or Iraq whose business is it other than the person whose money it is?



If you're in the United States then you are subject to the laws of the United States. The Federal Government reserves the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" among other things. That power applies to everyone and everything engaging in commerce in the United States.

Frankly, the assertions you are making are inconsistent. You are arguing that the United States should respect the laws and commercial practices of firms based on other countries yet you are arguing that the United States should have no authority or control over transactions taking place in or passing through it's own jurisdiction. If you want the US to respect the rights of firms to do business with whomever they please then you should also acknowledge the right of the US to say we'll have no part in those transactions.
 
2012-08-09 01:57:02 PM  
After reading a number of articles on this issue, the only thing I can conclude is that since Standard Chartered did 90%+ of its business for clients in Asia and the Mid-East, they should have LEFT the US after that law was passed so they could continue doing business with most of their client base and not had to LIE to the U.S. regulators. Instead, they decided to try and have it both ways, which usually ends up getting you farked in both ends.
 
2012-08-09 04:50:25 PM  

ScreamingHangover: "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians?"


No. No, we don't. We only tell us what you can and can't do if you want to do business in the US. If you don't like it, you can GTFO.


You know, a much better solution than fining them would be to fine them and ban them from doing business in NY for, say, 5 years.
The loss of business would hurt them much more than the fine and have the effect of giving notice to all of the other banks that maybe they should pay attention to some of the laws which they are breaking.
 
2012-08-09 04:51:05 PM  

cefm: After reading a number of articles on this issue, the only thing I can conclude is that since Standard Chartered did 90%+ of its business for clients in Asia and the Mid-East, they should have LEFT the US after that law was passed so they could continue doing business with most of their client base and not had to LIE to the U.S. regulators. Instead, they decided to try and have it both ways, which usually ends up getting you farked in both ends.


There you go using reality based logic.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report