[gadders]

>> When HSBC laundered money for the Mexican Cartel [1], just had to pay a one time fine of $1.92B [2] and say "we're sorry".

It was a little bit more than that. They had a deferred prosecution agreement, and had an independent monitor in the company that reviewed all steps to improve their compliance processes and could have triggered the DPA if they didn't improve.

I was working at HSBC during this time, and no-one took for granted that they would get passed their "parole" period.

[tg180]

A deferred prosecution agreement is in fact an AMNESTY (in exchange of an accomplishment of requirements), but most people involved in drug crimes never had that chance.

It's not my place to condemn nobody, but if you believe in fairness you have to realize that in a just society you either condemn white collars as anybody else, or condemn nobody. If the execs or anybody at HSBC was scared is of little to no value, when the decision of the justice system is unfair.

Which is what the article says straight in the subheading.

> If you're suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses five weeks' income and execs have to partially defer bonuses

[gadders]

I'm not saying it's just. I'm just saying it was more than saying "Sorry".

I don't think any of my colleagues at the time would have complained if the people responsible for the money laundering went to jail.