Fin CEN Documents Leak and the dirty $2 trillion

Banks, Bah. They are just the facilitators. What really wants the spotlight turned on it is the worlds stock markets. The trillions they ship about the world would startle the average man. But, let the man in the street believe it's a minor bit of gambling "stock go up as well as down" BS. Think about a few years back when one man , a Mr Soros, nearly bankrupted a whole country. That's the UK who's supposed to be running these banking "scams".

a reply to: lakenheath24

We're constantly reminded that we don't have to look at the political threads if we don't want to, but they're insidious on ATS.

You'd think people would be more concerned with threads like these than politics, events that impact themn on a daily basis rather than who's in the whitehouse or if Biden wears nappies.

a reply to: lakenheath24

they say the difference this time with the other banking leaks is that its not just one bank with evidence of this happening its multiple banks with the SAR's

but what is most shocking is this statement from the article

Once a bank has filed a report to the authorities, it is very difficult to prosecute it or its executives, even if it carries on helping with the suspicious activities and collecting the fees.

seems like the only time when someone notifies the authorities of crimes and they dont get convicted
even with evidence and even with witnesses , when it comes to matters of international finance.

Yep and guess why?
,congress writes the laws that banking lobbyists and big business hand them.

And the British government HAS to be in on it. I wonder if it will even get brought up at PM question time?




a reply to: sapien82

Its because this is an issue that everyone can agree on, so no arguments to be made.
Unless of course certain politicians csn be linked to it.


a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

a reply to: lakenheath24

I'll keep an eye out for it on parliament tv or in scottish parliament tv to see if they mention it anywhere
I seen it mentioned briefly on the financial section of sky news
but I havent seen anything else live about it , just the BBC news article and the ticker tape thing at the bottom of sky news during the financial bit , the guy on sky news did mention the documents but they only mentioned it briefly as a side not in discussion with another economist

havent seen anything on al jazeera or RT about it

That tells one a LOT ya know. Its not like it was from some anonymous or dodgy source. I watched the Panorama program on it last nite. Oh boy, would love to read up on some.of that 3ft high stack of indictments!!!!!


I mean 3 THOUSAND UK companies. Holy moly.




a reply to: sapien82

a reply to: lakenheath24

When the UK is named is a Hub and over 3000 companies then something needs done about it , our government must know and are turning a blind eye because of the donations

how bad does this look for the government of the UK

I remember back around 2010 (I think) reading a long article about some of the big banks, including HSBC (again) being handed big fines for laundering $Billions in cartel cash. Back then, they were all handed deferred prosecution agreements and nobody ever saw a jail cell or courtroom. It was all handled by the lawyers, the government took their cut and the story was swept under the rug. Then, a couple of years later, another article I read stated most of the big fines that get handed down to big banks and big corporations are largely written off as business expense and tax relief applied. So, no jail time, no guilt ever admitted and it’s large ones all round at the club to figure out another way of hiding the laundering operation!

Meanwhile, the little guy selling some weed gets a multi-org SWAT raid in the early hours and, if he’s lucky, makes it through the ordeal without being riddled with bullets.
There is then the matter of civil asset forfeiture, where people have their properties seized with only the probability that they are involved in drug trafficking. Surely, you’d think, this should also be applied to banks and corporations given the sums involved?

As long as members of our governments, the banks, lawyers and judges are all making money this will never change.

I just have to ask , if this was any other government say labour or SNP or whoever , we never hear the end of it
"how could this happen on your watch"

why isnt this on the front pages of the news
why isnt it being discussed in parliament

oh because we have a pandemic to worry about

oh really , 2 trillion in dirty money gets leaked and 3000 UK companies and the government taking donations all linked to dirty money and there is zero mention of it in government

So looks like some questions were raised to the government

fin cen / hmrc

HSBC moved millions around the globe ven after it discovered the fraud

FinCEN Files: HSBC moved Ponzi scheme millions despite warning

The 2tn and 3000 companies is the tip of the iceberg. UK banks launder nearly all Russian Mafia, Oligarchs,Italian Mafia, Quatari money and Mexican Cartel money via offshore accounts - the banks spend billions a year in counter surveillance and creating honey pots to catch and identify any press or people investigating the subject.

The Russian Mafia and Mexican Cartels then magically get hold of this info and either murder, issue death threats or threaten to rape them and their family unless they drop the investigation. It's almost as if the banks actively hire and pay them to work as enforcers putting the frighteners on people. Almost.

He told an audience at Hay-on-Wye: “If I asked you what is the most corrupt place on Earth you might tell me well it’s Afghanistan, maybe Greece, Nigeria, the South of Italy and I will tell you it’s the UK.

www.independent.co.uk...

Some journalists havre even been paid visits by the MET police and issued harrasment notices jus for making a phonecall to to ask questions about convicted fraudsters.

Press Gazette revealed earlier this month how two phone-calls to a convicted fraudster and one doorstep visit saw Croydon Advertiser journalist Gareth Davies served with a Prevention of Harassment Letter by police.

Now Florida-based UK journalist David Marchant has revealed how he was given a harassment warning by the Met as a result of his investigation into an alleged £100m investment fraud. He insists that he has never contacted in any way the person he is alleged to have harassed.

pressgazette.co.uk...

The ammounts of money are so big that the UK economy would collapse and we'd be nearer third world country GDP without it so no convictions will ever take place or police investigation as it comes under immunity granted by MI5/MI6 for national security.

The leaker and journalists invovled in this are pretty much guaranteed to be killed - car bomb is the favoured device used. 'Malta car bomb kills Panama Papers journalist'
www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: bastion

thats mental

CEASE YOUR INVESTIGATIONS

pretty much the whole worlds governments are in bed with criminals then
so nae # will do anything about it
not the donald , the boris , or anyone else for that matter

a reply to: sapien82

The UK and European government and courts have even come scarilly close to imposing a legal clause of 'prior notification' on UK Press over the last 15 years where they would legally be forced to notify any company or individual of the content of a story or investigation before it could be printed or broadcast.

If allowed to happen it would kill off what little investigative reporting there is as a company or individual would just slap an injunction or super-injunction on the subject.

www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk...

A hot topic this month has been ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley’s bid to persuade European judges that the UK media should give people prior notification of stories affecting their privacy.

He wants the European Court of Human Rights to require a new legal obligation to be imposed on the press to contact individuals pre-publication so they can seek an injunction before privacy is lost.

But it is a curious paradox that while the media face demands for a new duty to give notice so that litigants can dash to the High Court for a gagging order, many litigants are not complying with existing legal obligations to give the media prior notification that they are applying for an injunction.

The first that many newspapers and broadcasters know of injunctions is when they slide slyly off the newsroom fax.

Only yesterday, the Leicester Mercury received an injunction of which it had had no prior notice in a family case. The order required the disclosure and delivery-up of certain documents the paper was alleged to have received – about which its actually believes it knows nothing – and to provide a sworn statement about the position.

The injunction also gagged it and “any associated newspaper” from publishing anything that might lead to the identification of two particular children in any context, about whom it believes it knows nothing.

The order was not directed at any individual or corporation but simply at “the Leicester Mercury”, which is not a ‘legal person’ in law, and required the steps to be taken “within 48″ [sic].

At the time of writing, the situation is yet to be clarified but serious questions remain as to whether the local authority that successfully applied for the order had drawn the court’s attention to the prior-notification procedures set out in S.12(2) of the Human Rights Act.

The banks write in the fines as part of doing business. They don't care who they are doing business with, Profit is all they care about.