posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:00 PM
Well, Wachovia isn't even around anymore. Wells Fargo has been left to clean up their mess. Wachovia is now a "Wells Fargo" company.
And, all in all, as far as banks go, Wells Fargo has a decent reputation. Wachovia used to be a good bank, until First Union took them over and kept
the Wachovia name because First Union had such a bad reputation for sleaziness.
By deliberately and purposely targeting the Mexican wire transfer business -- hoping to capitalize on all of the funds being shipped by workers to
Mexico, Wachovia recklessly disregarded the advice of the government to stay out of this line of banking business. So, yes, the managers that made
those decisions, should be held accountable.
But, again, I ask you, if you are a teller at a bank, and Joe Mexico wants to wire funds from your branch in Phoenix to Aunt Louisa in Mexico City, is
that a crime? What if he's really sending drug money? What if he's not? That's the dilemma banks face every day. Do we report this? Or do we
turn a blind eye? Banks are obligated to report suspicious wire transfers, by the way.
But then, on this same forum, you will hear people whine and complain as to HOW intrusive the banks can be, how they act like "Big Brother" and all
the rest. You can't have it both ways. You can't have banks turning a blind eye to criminality, and then complain about wire transfers to drug
cartels. Alternatively, you can't have banks report suspicious behavior, and then label the banks as playing Big Brother and being all intrusive.
[edit on 22-7-2010 by CookieMonster09]