London: Money laundering capital of the world

[Phoenall]

I've heard London described as such by others.

Still, I love the city.

It is a beautiful city but it does not need to have money launders. I think it will become prettier without them.

more money laundering goes on in India than the rest of the world coined.
and didn't you post the same thing about Tel Aviv just last year ? ? ? ? ?

As usual you are wrong:

a. I did not post anything about Tel Aviv last year
b. India does not even come close to UK on money laundering.

(I think you are mistaking India with Israel.)

NOPE I know all about the greasy cogs in India and how you start at the bottom with pennies but pay £0000's when you get to the man in charge.

You just proved my point

 

[Phoenall]

I've heard London described as such by others.

Still, I love the city.

It is a beautiful city but it does not need to have money launders. I think it will become prettier without them.

more money laundering goes on in India than the rest of the world coined.
and didn't you post the same thing about Tel Aviv just last year ? ? ? ? ?

The problem there is, it depends on what you define as money laundering.

Let's take jaywalking. Jaywalking down town, is any time you cross the street outside of a cross walk.

Jaywalking in my suburb of Hillard, is any time you cross the street in disregard of oncoming traffic. We never use the cross walks, because its a low-traffic suburban road.

What *IS* Jaywalking downtown, is *NOT* Jaywalking in the suburbs.

If you were to apply the downtown law, to my suburb, you would claim "Hilliard Ohio is the Jaywalking capital of Ohio!"

But it's not true, because what we're going isn't against the law here. It's only against the law downtown.

Same exact thing is going on with this 'money laundering' claim.

The US has tighter laws on what is considered money laundering. The UK doesn't have some of those laws. If you apply the US bank laws, to other countries, then it would see like they are the law breaking capital of the world. But it's not against the law there.

"So Money Laundering isn't against the law in the UK?"

No.... Money laundering is against the law in the UK. They just don't consider some actions to be money laundering, that they do in the US.

Just like the laws on Jaywalking are not the same in the suburbs, as they are downtown.

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

So do you have a magic wand that when waved shows who is a drug dealer and so bans him from having a bank account. This is against the persons human rights by the way.
More rich criminals hide out in the America's and Islamic states because they know the graft that takes place. They know a few greased palms and the locals don't see them.
The UK extradites more foreign criminals in a day than India extradites in a year.

 

[Phoenall]

The problem there is, it depends on what you define as money laundering.

Let's take jaywalking. Jaywalking down town, is any time you cross the street outside of a cross walk.

Jaywalking in my suburb of Hillard, is any time you cross the street in disregard of oncoming traffic. We never use the cross walks, because its a low-traffic suburban road.

What *IS* Jaywalking downtown, is *NOT* Jaywalking in the suburbs.

If you were to apply the downtown law, to my suburb, you would claim "Hilliard Ohio is the Jaywalking capital of Ohio!"

But it's not true, because what we're going isn't against the law here. It's only against the law downtown.

Same exact thing is going on with this 'money laundering' claim.

The US has tighter laws on what is considered money laundering. The UK doesn't have some of those laws. If you apply the US bank laws, to other countries, then it would see like they are the law breaking capital of the world. But it's not against the law there.

"So Money Laundering isn't against the law in the UK?"

No.... Money laundering is against the law in the UK. They just don't consider some actions to be money laundering, that they do in the US.

Just like the laws on Jaywalking are not the same in the suburbs, as they are downtown.

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

I am not sure I agree with you 100%. A lot of these things are illegal in the UK. Its just that our authorities are light years behind their US counterparts in dealing with the problems.

I dont imagine that the Ukraine shell company scam would last long in America.

You think so? It's just a matter of lax enforcement? Then why was that one bank, I'll have to look it up to see which, all they did was close their US banks, and they continued right along doing what they had been. They operated in numerous other countries including the UK. Certainly all the other nations they operated in, were aware of the US court action that closed down those banks. None of them did anything? They are all lax, even though the actions were illegal in all of them?

That would be shocking to me.

The bank that was forced to close was HSBC. It routinely allowed drug dealers from Latin American countries to deposit large sums of US dollars into its branches in Latin American countries. Then, the bank dumped that illegal money into US market via lending. It is not just the US, India too banned HSBC for the same reasons. Germany too had problems with UK along the same line.

There are a number of countries that have strong stance against money laundering. Also, there are a number of countries that facilitate money laundering; UK is not the only one. Pakistan and China are also known for money laundering activities.

And how about a link then to prove your claims, or will you run away as none exist

 

[Phoenall]

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

I am not sure I agree with you 100%. A lot of these things are illegal in the UK. Its just that our authorities are light years behind their US counterparts in dealing with the problems.

I dont imagine that the Ukraine shell company scam would last long in America.

You think so? It's just a matter of lax enforcement? Then why was that one bank, I'll have to look it up to see which, all they did was close their US banks, and they continued right along doing what they had been. They operated in numerous other countries including the UK. Certainly all the other nations they operated in, were aware of the US court action that closed down those banks. None of them did anything? They are all lax, even though the actions were illegal in all of them?

That would be shocking to me.

The bank that was forced to close was HSBC. It routinely allowed drug dealers from Latin American countries to deposit large sums of US dollars into its branches in Latin American countries. Then, the bank dumped that illegal money into US market via lending. It is not just the US, India too banned HSBC for the same reasons. Germany too had problems with UK along the same line.

There are a number of countries that have strong stance against money laundering. Also, there are a number of countries that facilitate money laundering; UK is not the only one. Pakistan and China are also known for money laundering activities.

Ok, I thought it might be, but wasn't sure.

But from my reading... which I haven't followed the story till now, when I read about it, they were not sure they were drug dealers. It could have been, but there was no proof of that.

Are they now sure of who was doing what? Or is it still "we think it might" like it was when I was reading about it?

So much of a grey area that HSBC went into overkill and closed the accounts of millions of customers that were not related to drug dealing or money laundering leaving them in financial trouble when bills did not get paid. The fact is that most of the problems came from islamonazi terrorists who used HSBC to launder drug money to pay for weapons to be used against the US and UK. So the likes of Finsbury park mosques muslim leaders accounts were closed down as soon as the bank was informed of the problem.

 

[Phoenall]

So you have no problem with banning "Asians" from having bank accounts because of the actions of a few that launder drug money to pay for terrorism. Just because they are called Ali or Mohammed, even Singh because those names come up as terrorist on a regular basis.

How will you show that a person is a drug dealer and laundering money through the banking system then, as most criminals are not proven so you cant take such actions without falling foul of human rights laws.

Once again you allow your RACISM to cloud your judgement and just jump in with both feet

 

[Vikrant]

I've heard London described as such by others.

Still, I love the city.

It is a beautiful city but it does not need to have money launders. I think it will become prettier without them.

more money laundering goes on in India than the rest of the world coined.
and didn't you post the same thing about Tel Aviv just last year ? ? ? ? ?

As usual you are wrong:

a. I did not post anything about Tel Aviv last year
b. India does not even come close to UK on money laundering.

(I think you are mistaking India with Israel.)

NOPE I know all about the greasy cogs in India and how you start at the bottom with pennies but pay £0000's when you get to the man in charge.

You just proved my point

I think that would be more accurate of Israel.

 

[Andylusion]

It is a beautiful city but it does not need to have money launders. I think it will become prettier without them.

more money laundering goes on in India than the rest of the world coined.
and didn't you post the same thing about Tel Aviv just last year ? ? ? ? ?

The problem there is, it depends on what you define as money laundering.

Let's take jaywalking. Jaywalking down town, is any time you cross the street outside of a cross walk.

Jaywalking in my suburb of Hillard, is any time you cross the street in disregard of oncoming traffic. We never use the cross walks, because its a low-traffic suburban road.

What *IS* Jaywalking downtown, is *NOT* Jaywalking in the suburbs.

If you were to apply the downtown law, to my suburb, you would claim "Hilliard Ohio is the Jaywalking capital of Ohio!"

But it's not true, because what we're going isn't against the law here. It's only against the law downtown.

Same exact thing is going on with this 'money laundering' claim.

The US has tighter laws on what is considered money laundering. The UK doesn't have some of those laws. If you apply the US bank laws, to other countries, then it would see like they are the law breaking capital of the world. But it's not against the law there.

"So Money Laundering isn't against the law in the UK?"

No.... Money laundering is against the law in the UK. They just don't consider some actions to be money laundering, that they do in the US.

Just like the laws on Jaywalking are not the same in the suburbs, as they are downtown.

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

That exactly is the problem I am alluding to. The fact that UK banks do not think it is wrong to allow drug dealers and embezzlers to deposit money into their bank is the issue.

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

 

[Vikrant]

more money laundering goes on in India than the rest of the world coined.
and didn't you post the same thing about Tel Aviv just last year ? ? ? ? ?

The problem there is, it depends on what you define as money laundering.

Let's take jaywalking. Jaywalking down town, is any time you cross the street outside of a cross walk.

Jaywalking in my suburb of Hillard, is any time you cross the street in disregard of oncoming traffic. We never use the cross walks, because its a low-traffic suburban road.

What *IS* Jaywalking downtown, is *NOT* Jaywalking in the suburbs.

If you were to apply the downtown law, to my suburb, you would claim "Hilliard Ohio is the Jaywalking capital of Ohio!"

But it's not true, because what we're going isn't against the law here. It's only against the law downtown.

Same exact thing is going on with this 'money laundering' claim.

The US has tighter laws on what is considered money laundering. The UK doesn't have some of those laws. If you apply the US bank laws, to other countries, then it would see like they are the law breaking capital of the world. But it's not against the law there.

"So Money Laundering isn't against the law in the UK?"

No.... Money laundering is against the law in the UK. They just don't consider some actions to be money laundering, that they do in the US.

Just like the laws on Jaywalking are not the same in the suburbs, as they are downtown.

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

That exactly is the problem I am alluding to. The fact that UK banks do not think it is wrong to allow drug dealers and embezzlers to deposit money into their bank is the issue.

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

 

[Andylusion]

The problem there is, it depends on what you define as money laundering.

Let's take jaywalking. Jaywalking down town, is any time you cross the street outside of a cross walk.

Jaywalking in my suburb of Hillard, is any time you cross the street in disregard of oncoming traffic. We never use the cross walks, because its a low-traffic suburban road.

What *IS* Jaywalking downtown, is *NOT* Jaywalking in the suburbs.

If you were to apply the downtown law, to my suburb, you would claim "Hilliard Ohio is the Jaywalking capital of Ohio!"

But it's not true, because what we're going isn't against the law here. It's only against the law downtown.

Same exact thing is going on with this 'money laundering' claim.

The US has tighter laws on what is considered money laundering. The UK doesn't have some of those laws. If you apply the US bank laws, to other countries, then it would see like they are the law breaking capital of the world. But it's not against the law there.

"So Money Laundering isn't against the law in the UK?"

No.... Money laundering is against the law in the UK. They just don't consider some actions to be money laundering, that they do in the US.

Just like the laws on Jaywalking are not the same in the suburbs, as they are downtown.

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

That exactly is the problem I am alluding to. The fact that UK banks do not think it is wrong to allow drug dealers and embezzlers to deposit money into their bank is the issue.

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

 

[Vikrant]

India is not the only country that has issue with UK's money laundering. US also had similar problems with UK banks. Few years back; some UK banks were fined billions of dollars by US government for allowing drug dealers to deposit money into their banks and then circulate that money into US market. One UK bank was so corrupt that it was forced by US government to sell its operations. It was all in news. There is a reason why rich criminals from all across the globe take refuge in UK.

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

That exactly is the problem I am alluding to. The fact that UK banks do not think it is wrong to allow drug dealers and embezzlers to deposit money into their bank is the issue.

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, the actions they were taking in the UK and elsewhere, isn't illegal. It's illegal here, but not elsewhere. That's why the bank you are referring to, sold it's US operations.

As soon as it did that, it was no longer under US law. The laws of other nations, are not as restrictive. Thus they are operating legally.

BTW, for those who claim deregulation is what caused all our problems, this right here is another example, that we have a far more regulated banking system than most of the world. A ton of the things our banks are not allowed to do, and are regulated, or not regulated in the rest of the world.

Another example is operating in Cuba. Many companies have moved operations into Cuba. If those companies have US operations, they could, and do, get into trouble with US authorities. But if they don't.... there's no problem operating in Cuba. Canada has had companies operating in Cuba since the 1990s.

What is illegal here, is not illegal there.

Whether someone is a criminal, depends greatly on what law system they are under, and what breach you think they have done.

That exactly is the problem I am alluding to. The fact that UK banks do not think it is wrong to allow drug dealers and embezzlers to deposit money into their bank is the issue.

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

 

[Vikrant]

That exactly is the problem I am alluding to. The fact that UK banks do not think it is wrong to allow drug dealers and embezzlers to deposit money into their bank is the issue.

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

 

[Andylusion]

I think you are reading into that quite a bit.

I sold some stuff once to a guy, who turned out to be a criminal. Would I if I had known? No. But I believe in innocent until proven guilty.... right....?

You can't just say "that guy is a criminal" and without any proof, black list him off the planet. Be nice if you could, but then that power could be abused.

How are banks supposed to deal with that? You can assume that every time the US authorities say someone is a criminal, then they are? The US has never been wrong......... Gitmo anyone?

Now yes, there have been a few cases where certain specific banks, had accounts with drug dealers, and that was discovered, and cleaned up. But when you say London is the money laundering capital of the world..... are you sure that just isn't because London is the defacto banking capital of the world, and statically, they would logically have more instances of money laundering?

My point isn't as the English man above said sarcastically "Nope, Londons financial sector is spotless."

Of course not.

My problem is that there is an automatic assumption that "They are doing it intentionally, and maliciously to violate the law". Now... Banks are full of people. People just like me. I make mistakes. I don't do it to "intentionally violate the law" blaw blaw blaw.

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

Russia has a long long history of targeting industry, trumping up false charges, and confiscating their stuff.... and calling it "stolen billions of dollars from Russia".

If we go on a case by case basis, then I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously there are specific examples... but given that the UK is the banking capital of the world... what are the ratios? 1 in a million transactions are fraudulent? And how does it compare to US infractions?

I'm not opposed to your claim. But I'd like more evidence. And Russia, I'm sorry, doesn't have any credibility in my book.

The same Russian media claiming that these "oligarchs" are stealing billions from Russia, are the same media outlets that said Ukraine soldiers targeted and raped young Russian girls, that no one can find, no one can interview, and can't be found to have ever existed to begin with.

Moreover, if you haven't noticed, every country on the planet, that engages in socialism, claims the wealthy are stealing money from them. Venezuela did it. Even California said it years ago. "the rich and wealthy are leaving the state, and bleeding us dry" (paraphrase).

I need something more than this. What specific action, is perfectly legal in the UK, that is supposedly money laundering. Give me an example. I'm open to learning.

 

[Vikrant]

It is apparent that there is corruption in UK which facilitates following:

a. Criminals from across the globe flee to UK along with their stolen money
b. UK banks treat drug dealers like regular customers

Ask yourself:

Why are criminals not fleeing to US with their stolen money?
How are US banks able to avoid doing business with drug dealers?

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

Russia has a long long history of targeting industry, trumping up false charges, and confiscating their stuff.... and calling it "stolen billions of dollars from Russia".

If we go on a case by case basis, then I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously there are specific examples... but given that the UK is the banking capital of the world... what are the ratios? 1 in a million transactions are fraudulent? And how does it compare to US infractions?

I'm not opposed to your claim. But I'd like more evidence. And Russia, I'm sorry, doesn't have any credibility in my book.

The same Russian media claiming that these "oligarchs" are stealing billions from Russia, are the same media outlets that said Ukraine soldiers targeted and raped young Russian girls, that no one can find, no one can interview, and can't be found to have ever existed to begin with.

Moreover, if you haven't noticed, every country on the planet, that engages in socialism, claims the wealthy are stealing money from them. Venezuela did it. Even California said it years ago. "the rich and wealthy are leaving the state, and bleeding us dry" (paraphrase).

I need something more than this. What specific action, is perfectly legal in the UK, that is supposedly money laundering. Give me an example. I'm open to learning.

You seem to be on the same page with Brits when it comes to muddying the water. It is not just Russia which has raised the money laundering issue with Britain. US, India and Germany have done the same. When we talk about corruption, we tend to think of countries like Russia or China or some African country, we do not imagine that UK could be corrupt. However, the unfortunate reality is that UK is a corrupt country which gives shelter to embezzlers. This essentially means that UK is participating in the theft. The example in the OP talks about a guy who defrauded banks in India. He borrowed billions of dollars from Indian banks and deposited that money into UK banks and then escaped to UK. This is larceny at a grand scale. India is a developing country and it impedes its development effort when countries like UK steal billions of dollars from it.

 

[Andylusion]

Money is laundered through American banks all the time. Constantly. They are not able to avoid it.

Criminals will always move money through somewhere. There will never be a time where stolen money is not laundered. You do what you can. But the idea you are going to eliminate this... your crazy.

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

Russia has a long long history of targeting industry, trumping up false charges, and confiscating their stuff.... and calling it "stolen billions of dollars from Russia".

If we go on a case by case basis, then I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously there are specific examples... but given that the UK is the banking capital of the world... what are the ratios? 1 in a million transactions are fraudulent? And how does it compare to US infractions?

I'm not opposed to your claim. But I'd like more evidence. And Russia, I'm sorry, doesn't have any credibility in my book.

The same Russian media claiming that these "oligarchs" are stealing billions from Russia, are the same media outlets that said Ukraine soldiers targeted and raped young Russian girls, that no one can find, no one can interview, and can't be found to have ever existed to begin with.

Moreover, if you haven't noticed, every country on the planet, that engages in socialism, claims the wealthy are stealing money from them. Venezuela did it. Even California said it years ago. "the rich and wealthy are leaving the state, and bleeding us dry" (paraphrase).

I need something more than this. What specific action, is perfectly legal in the UK, that is supposedly money laundering. Give me an example. I'm open to learning.

You seem to be on the same page with Brits when it comes to muddying the water. It is not just Russia which has raised the money laundering issue with Britain. US, India and Germany have done the same. When we talk about corruption, we tend to think of countries like Russia or China or some African country, we do not imagine that UK could be corrupt. However, the unfortunate reality is that UK is a corrupt country which gives shelter to embezzlers. This essentially means that UK is participating in the theft. The example in the OP talks about a guy who defrauded banks in India. He borrowed billions of dollars from Indian banks and deposited that money into UK banks and then escaped to UK. This is larceny at a grand scale. India is a developing country and it impedes its development effort when countries like UK steal billions of dollars from it.

Couple of things.

First, I find it interesting that when people talk about the recent sub-prime mortgage melt down, as it not being the fault of the borrower, but rather the fault of the banks for giving the loans.

But then you turn right around in this instance, and the fault is not the banks of India which are government owns for giving the loans, but rather the fault of the borrower for taking the loans.

In addition, there is yet no proof of money laundering, at least not in the article you posted, or others I have read.

They are filing a case of money laundering, which has yet to be heard.

So do you believe innocent until proven guilty or not?

The facts we do know, is that he owns a ton of money, and that this borrowing was tied to a failed airline business venture.

Here is my prediction. His case will be heard. Whether he is found guilty or money laundering or not, he will end up guilty of avoiding his loans. They will deport him. His assets will be seized, and what can be recovered will pay back the loans.

You are looking at this in a snap shot of time. Between the committing of an act, and the completion of the justice process. The UK banks can't confiscate his assets, and refuse to service a legal citizen, when he's been convicted of no crime.

I don't see this as a systemic problem. It's more of you, wanting justice, before anything has been proved.

This guy didn't just walk into an Indian bank, and borrow $1 Billion, deposit it in UK banks, and leave the country. The debts were part of a business venture. Not his own personal play money.

 

[Vikrant]

I have never heard of US banks getting in trouble with other countries on the issue of money laundering. But as I have cited earlier, there have been numerous instances where UK banks have gotten in trouble with various countries for money laundering.

Not only that, if you study the attitude of British government towards these activities then you cannot help but wonder if these banks get support from the British government. Not too long ago, Obama warned Britain to be careful about not breaking any regulations when Britain joined China's Asia Development Bank. This warning was unusual given the close ties between the US and UK. This was primarily a veiled concern over UK's money laundering activities. BTW, China too is a big time money launderer. I guess this is why US was concerned.

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

Russia has a long long history of targeting industry, trumping up false charges, and confiscating their stuff.... and calling it "stolen billions of dollars from Russia".

If we go on a case by case basis, then I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously there are specific examples... but given that the UK is the banking capital of the world... what are the ratios? 1 in a million transactions are fraudulent? And how does it compare to US infractions?

I'm not opposed to your claim. But I'd like more evidence. And Russia, I'm sorry, doesn't have any credibility in my book.

The same Russian media claiming that these "oligarchs" are stealing billions from Russia, are the same media outlets that said Ukraine soldiers targeted and raped young Russian girls, that no one can find, no one can interview, and can't be found to have ever existed to begin with.

Moreover, if you haven't noticed, every country on the planet, that engages in socialism, claims the wealthy are stealing money from them. Venezuela did it. Even California said it years ago. "the rich and wealthy are leaving the state, and bleeding us dry" (paraphrase).

I need something more than this. What specific action, is perfectly legal in the UK, that is supposedly money laundering. Give me an example. I'm open to learning.

You seem to be on the same page with Brits when it comes to muddying the water. It is not just Russia which has raised the money laundering issue with Britain. US, India and Germany have done the same. When we talk about corruption, we tend to think of countries like Russia or China or some African country, we do not imagine that UK could be corrupt. However, the unfortunate reality is that UK is a corrupt country which gives shelter to embezzlers. This essentially means that UK is participating in the theft. The example in the OP talks about a guy who defrauded banks in India. He borrowed billions of dollars from Indian banks and deposited that money into UK banks and then escaped to UK. This is larceny at a grand scale. India is a developing country and it impedes its development effort when countries like UK steal billions of dollars from it.

Couple of things.

First, I find it interesting that when people talk about the recent sub-prime mortgage melt down, as it not being the fault of the borrower, but rather the fault of the banks for giving the loans.

But then you turn right around in this instance, and the fault is not the banks of India which are government owns for giving the loans, but rather the fault of the borrower for taking the loans.

In addition, there is yet no proof of money laundering, at least not in the article you posted, or others I have read.

They are filing a case of money laundering, which has yet to be heard.

So do you believe innocent until proven guilty or not?

The facts we do know, is that he owns a ton of money, and that this borrowing was tied to a failed airline business venture.

Here is my prediction. His case will be heard. Whether he is found guilty or money laundering or not, he will end up guilty of avoiding his loans. They will deport him. His assets will be seized, and what can be recovered will pay back the loans.

You are looking at this in a snap shot of time. Between the committing of an act, and the completion of the justice process. The UK banks can't confiscate his assets, and refuse to service a legal citizen, when he's been convicted of no crime.

I don't see this as a systemic problem. It's more of you, wanting justice, before anything has been proved.

This guy didn't just walk into an Indian bank, and borrow $1 Billion, deposit it in UK banks, and leave the country. The debts were part of a business venture. Not his own personal play money.

Fair enough. It was a fairly reasonable post. I just wanted to point out few things:

Money laundering simply means that you are converting black money into white money. His assets at this point are illegal and if it was not for Britain protecting him, it will be frozen. Therefore, Britain is helping him convert his black money into white money.

I agree with you that it was not as simple as him borrowing money from Indian banks and then depositing into British banks. Instead, he used that borrowed money to secure assets that he transferred to UK steadily.

Another thing is that if he borrowed money from government banks then that is even more serious because then he is defrauding the tax payers. I was under impression that he borrowed money from private banks.

 

[Andylusion]

We already covered this. Contrary to the BS crap that the banks were deregulated in the US and this is what caused the sub-prime crash... the truth is, banks in the US are many times more regulated than banks in other countries.

Again... if you have two countries, and one has super strict laws, and the other does not.... which between the two countries which country is likely to find problems with banks operating in other countries? It's obvious.... the country with the stricter laws, is going to find fault with banks in countries where those laws are not as strict.

I gave my example from before. In my suburb, J-walking, is crossing the street in direct disregard of traffic. In Columbus inner city, J-walking is crossing the street outside of the cross walk area.

Now if you take people from columbus, and send them to the suburbs, and take people from the suburbs and send them to columbus.... which group of people is likely to get into to trouble with which authority?

Obviously the suburb people in the inner city area, are the ones going to cause the city authority to complain.

So yeah, of course you are going to find more instances where banks that are used to operating under the laws of other countries, that open shop in the US, are going to get far more complaints and problems, than US banks that open shop elsewhere, simply because we have many times more regulations on our banks than almost any other country in the world.

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

Russia has a long long history of targeting industry, trumping up false charges, and confiscating their stuff.... and calling it "stolen billions of dollars from Russia".

If we go on a case by case basis, then I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously there are specific examples... but given that the UK is the banking capital of the world... what are the ratios? 1 in a million transactions are fraudulent? And how does it compare to US infractions?

I'm not opposed to your claim. But I'd like more evidence. And Russia, I'm sorry, doesn't have any credibility in my book.

The same Russian media claiming that these "oligarchs" are stealing billions from Russia, are the same media outlets that said Ukraine soldiers targeted and raped young Russian girls, that no one can find, no one can interview, and can't be found to have ever existed to begin with.

Moreover, if you haven't noticed, every country on the planet, that engages in socialism, claims the wealthy are stealing money from them. Venezuela did it. Even California said it years ago. "the rich and wealthy are leaving the state, and bleeding us dry" (paraphrase).

I need something more than this. What specific action, is perfectly legal in the UK, that is supposedly money laundering. Give me an example. I'm open to learning.

You seem to be on the same page with Brits when it comes to muddying the water. It is not just Russia which has raised the money laundering issue with Britain. US, India and Germany have done the same. When we talk about corruption, we tend to think of countries like Russia or China or some African country, we do not imagine that UK could be corrupt. However, the unfortunate reality is that UK is a corrupt country which gives shelter to embezzlers. This essentially means that UK is participating in the theft. The example in the OP talks about a guy who defrauded banks in India. He borrowed billions of dollars from Indian banks and deposited that money into UK banks and then escaped to UK. This is larceny at a grand scale. India is a developing country and it impedes its development effort when countries like UK steal billions of dollars from it.

Couple of things.

First, I find it interesting that when people talk about the recent sub-prime mortgage melt down, as it not being the fault of the borrower, but rather the fault of the banks for giving the loans.

But then you turn right around in this instance, and the fault is not the banks of India which are government owns for giving the loans, but rather the fault of the borrower for taking the loans.

In addition, there is yet no proof of money laundering, at least not in the article you posted, or others I have read.

They are filing a case of money laundering, which has yet to be heard.

So do you believe innocent until proven guilty or not?

The facts we do know, is that he owns a ton of money, and that this borrowing was tied to a failed airline business venture.

Here is my prediction. His case will be heard. Whether he is found guilty or money laundering or not, he will end up guilty of avoiding his loans. They will deport him. His assets will be seized, and what can be recovered will pay back the loans.

You are looking at this in a snap shot of time. Between the committing of an act, and the completion of the justice process. The UK banks can't confiscate his assets, and refuse to service a legal citizen, when he's been convicted of no crime.

I don't see this as a systemic problem. It's more of you, wanting justice, before anything has been proved.

This guy didn't just walk into an Indian bank, and borrow $1 Billion, deposit it in UK banks, and leave the country. The debts were part of a business venture. Not his own personal play money.

Fair enough. It was a fairly reasonable post. I just wanted to point out few things:

Money laundering simply means that you are converting black money into white money. His assets at this point are illegal and if it was not for Britain protecting him, it will be frozen. Therefore, Britain is helping him convert his black money into white money.

I agree with you that it was not as simple as him borrowing money from Indian banks and then depositing into British banks. Instead, he used that borrowed money to secure assets that he transferred to UK steadily.

Another thing is that if he borrowed money from government banks then that is even more serious because then he is defrauding the tax payers. I was under impression that he borrowed money from private banks.

You seem to be operating on information that I do not have.

I have seen no information that this guys assets are illegal. It certainly isn't in the article you post, nor in any of the articles I have read besides.

When this guy had his citizenship, and his assets in the UK, and his bank accounts opened, he was not doing anything illegal, nor was he even under investigation.

Quite frankly, if he came to the US, it would be exactly the same. And equally, if a guy in the US did the same thing, but moved to India, and had assets there, the Indian banks would do the same thing.

He hasn't been convicted of anything. Right? Why would they freeze his assets, if he's done nothing wrong?

And no, his assets are not products of money laundering. Vijay Mallya has several completely legitimate businesses, that have earned healthy profits, that he has made millions on. Most of his assets are legit.

The only debt he has defaulted on, are the debts related to the failed airline company he tried to start.

He didn't go to the bank, sign out billion dollar loans, and then fly away. He opened a business, which the banks loaned him money for the business. The business failed. This happens. It's very common.

The only way that this is money laundering, is if he did not use the loans from the banks, to run the business. If he diverted loaned money, to other things.... then you have a case. But that has not been proven, or at this point, even really accused yet. We know the banks started to file a money laundering case, but that doesn't mean jack.

I can accuse you of eating babies. But that doesn't mean jack until it's investigated, and evidence is found.

But until then, for you to expect the UK banks to freeze an innocent man's assets on the basis of nothing... I think your expectations are wrong. If evidence is found, and charges are filed, then I wager his assets will be frozen.

 

[Vikrant]

With all due respect, money laundering is money laundering. There is not much room for ambiguity there. There are a number of countries that have expressed displeasure with UK' money laundering activities. As a matter of fact, right now, Russian government is not amused that Britain has giving shelters to Russian criminals who have stolen billions of dollars from Russia and deposited that stolen money into UK banks. It seems like money laundering has become a major chunk of UK's economy.

If Britain needs to make stricter law to cope with money laundering then what is stopping them from doing so?

Russia has a long long history of targeting industry, trumping up false charges, and confiscating their stuff.... and calling it "stolen billions of dollars from Russia".

If we go on a case by case basis, then I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously there are specific examples... but given that the UK is the banking capital of the world... what are the ratios? 1 in a million transactions are fraudulent? And how does it compare to US infractions?

I'm not opposed to your claim. But I'd like more evidence. And Russia, I'm sorry, doesn't have any credibility in my book.

The same Russian media claiming that these "oligarchs" are stealing billions from Russia, are the same media outlets that said Ukraine soldiers targeted and raped young Russian girls, that no one can find, no one can interview, and can't be found to have ever existed to begin with.

Moreover, if you haven't noticed, every country on the planet, that engages in socialism, claims the wealthy are stealing money from them. Venezuela did it. Even California said it years ago. "the rich and wealthy are leaving the state, and bleeding us dry" (paraphrase).

I need something more than this. What specific action, is perfectly legal in the UK, that is supposedly money laundering. Give me an example. I'm open to learning.

You seem to be on the same page with Brits when it comes to muddying the water. It is not just Russia which has raised the money laundering issue with Britain. US, India and Germany have done the same. When we talk about corruption, we tend to think of countries like Russia or China or some African country, we do not imagine that UK could be corrupt. However, the unfortunate reality is that UK is a corrupt country which gives shelter to embezzlers. This essentially means that UK is participating in the theft. The example in the OP talks about a guy who defrauded banks in India. He borrowed billions of dollars from Indian banks and deposited that money into UK banks and then escaped to UK. This is larceny at a grand scale. India is a developing country and it impedes its development effort when countries like UK steal billions of dollars from it.

Couple of things.

First, I find it interesting that when people talk about the recent sub-prime mortgage melt down, as it not being the fault of the borrower, but rather the fault of the banks for giving the loans.

But then you turn right around in this instance, and the fault is not the banks of India which are government owns for giving the loans, but rather the fault of the borrower for taking the loans.

In addition, there is yet no proof of money laundering, at least not in the article you posted, or others I have read.

They are filing a case of money laundering, which has yet to be heard.

So do you believe innocent until proven guilty or not?

The facts we do know, is that he owns a ton of money, and that this borrowing was tied to a failed airline business venture.

Here is my prediction. His case will be heard. Whether he is found guilty or money laundering or not, he will end up guilty of avoiding his loans. They will deport him. His assets will be seized, and what can be recovered will pay back the loans.

You are looking at this in a snap shot of time. Between the committing of an act, and the completion of the justice process. The UK banks can't confiscate his assets, and refuse to service a legal citizen, when he's been convicted of no crime.

I don't see this as a systemic problem. It's more of you, wanting justice, before anything has been proved.

This guy didn't just walk into an Indian bank, and borrow $1 Billion, deposit it in UK banks, and leave the country. The debts were part of a business venture. Not his own personal play money.

Fair enough. It was a fairly reasonable post. I just wanted to point out few things:

Money laundering simply means that you are converting black money into white money. His assets at this point are illegal and if it was not for Britain protecting him, it will be frozen. Therefore, Britain is helping him convert his black money into white money.

I agree with you that it was not as simple as him borrowing money from Indian banks and then depositing into British banks. Instead, he used that borrowed money to secure assets that he transferred to UK steadily.

Another thing is that if he borrowed money from government banks then that is even more serious because then he is defrauding the tax payers. I was under impression that he borrowed money from private banks.

You seem to be operating on information that I do not have.

I have seen no information that this guys assets are illegal. It certainly isn't in the article you post, nor in any of the articles I have read besides.

When this guy had his citizenship, and his assets in the UK, and his bank accounts opened, he was not doing anything illegal, nor was he even under investigation.

Quite frankly, if he came to the US, it would be exactly the same. And equally, if a guy in the US did the same thing, but moved to India, and had assets there, the Indian banks would do the same thing.

He hasn't been convicted of anything. Right? Why would they freeze his assets, if he's done nothing wrong?

And no, his assets are not products of money laundering. Vijay Mallya has several completely legitimate businesses, that have earned healthy profits, that he has made millions on. Most of his assets are legit.

The only debt he has defaulted on, are the debts related to the failed airline company he tried to start.

He didn't go to the bank, sign out billion dollar loans, and then fly away. He opened a business, which the banks loaned him money for the business. The business failed. This happens. It's very common.

The only way that this is money laundering, is if he did not use the loans from the banks, to run the business. If he diverted loaned money, to other things.... then you have a case. But that has not been proven, or at this point, even really accused yet. We know the banks started to file a money laundering case, but that doesn't mean jack.

I can accuse you of eating babies. But that doesn't mean jack until it's investigated, and evidence is found.

But until then, for you to expect the UK banks to freeze an innocent man's assets on the basis of nothing... I think your expectations are wrong. If evidence is found, and charges are filed, then I wager his assets will be frozen.

I think your are right on his assets' issue in a sense that they should not be frozen yet. The issue here is that he committed a crime in India. Indian government is asking UK to hand him over to India so that he can be tried for his crime just like you are suggesting. So far, UK government is not co-operating and protecting a criminal who possibly committed grand larceny and money laundering. This is the major issue.

BTW, India has fairly reasonable bankruptcy laws. So if his business simply went bankrupt, he could have filed for bankruptcy instead of fleeing to UK.

 

[Vikrant]

In fresh trouble for liquor baron Vijay Mallya, the Enforcement Directorate has registered a money laundering case against him and others in connection with the alleged default of over Rs 900 crore loan from IDBI bank.

Official sources said the agency recently filed charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) based on an FIR registered last year by CBI in the same case.

They said while the ED’s zonal office here has registered the case, sleuths are also looking at the overall financial structure of the now defunct Kingfisher airlines and a separate probe under foreign exchange violation charges could also be initiated.

“Mallya and others will soon be questioned. The agency has collected relevant documents from concerned authorities and the bank in question,” they said.

...

ED registers money laundering case against Vijay Mallya

 

[Vikrant]

The Central Bureau of Investigation has decided to invoke the allegation of cheating against businessman Vijay Mallya, Kingfisher Airlines and others in the alleged Rs.900-crore IDBI Bank loan wilful default case. The agency is also probing over 5 lakh financial transactions of the company since 2004.

The CBI had last July registered the case under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust) read with Section 120 B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and other provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against unknown IDBI officials pertaining to abuse of office to allegedly extend favoursto Mr. Mallya’s Kingfisher Airlines.

...

CBI to charge Vijay Mallya with cheating