HSBC tells Embassies in England to take business elsewhere!

This is just amazing. In reading the story, it sounds like little to no warning was given on this action. They just got called like a bad credit card debt and told their business was no longer needed or desired, go elsewhere.

HSBC bank has reportedly asked more than 40 diplomatic missions to close their accounts as part of a programme to reduce business risks.

The Vatican's ambassadorial office in Britain, the Apostolic Nunciature, is among those said to be affected.

It seems these Embassies are treated like standard business accounts. So the actions of the Embassy for Papua New Guinea, for instance, is under precisely the same standard and account guidelines as a dry cleaner on High st. Okie Dokie.... That makes ..umm.. No sense?

HSBC said embassies were subject to the same assessments as its other business customers. They need to satisfy five criteria - international connectivity, economic development, profitability, cost efficiency and liquidity.

A spokesman said: "HSBC has been applying a rolling programme of "five filter" assessments to all its businesses since May 2011, and our services for embassies are no exception.

I really scratched my head a bit on this one. Why? Why rock international boats like this. Has HSBC no consideration of the fact that as they treat National Governments, so they too can be treated? I mean, how many breaks do they think THEY'LL be getting in any of the nations impacted by this? Given that HSBC is an international bank, that would have been something to consider, wouldn't it?

Then...I think I found what this is all about. It came at the end of the story, as the zingers to a confusing headline often seem to.

The Riggs National Bank in Washington was fined and later sold off after a 2004 US Senate report revealed executives in its embassy business had helped Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet hide millions of dollars.

HSBC was fined $1.92bn (£1.26bn) by US authorities last year after it was blamed for alleged money laundering activities said to have been conducted through its Latin American operations by drug cartels.

Source

Perhaps the Embassies should look toward the idiots in the Governments who think utterly destroying banks over stupid decisions and diplomatic account activity was a good idea? Something needs done about things like money laundering and who am I to say that wasn't the path....except to note that unintended consequences can be a REAL painful thing to have slap people across the face. Oops?

I don't even know what to say about this. I am so confused... I mean... what? Why? Maybe I am broadcasting my ignorance here but I saw this on BBC earlier and just

reply to post by ValentineWiggin


Just the first bomb thrown in world-wide financial armageddon and WW3?

This could be it. I bet the next big bomb will involve the vatican, in some way.

The bank doesn't want to be rolled into any scandal or investigation involving corruption, bribery, money laundering, tax avoidance, cronyism, so they've politely told these embassies to go away.

Looks like someone forgot some very telling words by a very famous banker; "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild . Well HSBC had control of the embassies accounts and the US hit them for $1.9B fine last year. When you can't make salary or pay for things that's needed and the bank refuses to do business with you, then the US just might remember WHO controls the money.

The US fined HSBC over money laundering due to not insuring that governments and individuals were not doing said same. This is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Since the US is guilty of money laundering and other illegal money matters HSBC is just insuring that such activity is not occurring in their financial institution.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Don't worry about the Embassies, I'm pretty sure that the Bank of England will step up to the mark, after all the Vatican already has an account with them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


To be honest, as they have posted first half profits today of £9.2 billion, i don't think they will be that bothered about potentially "losing" this custom.

HSBC first half profits rise 10%

reply to post by Flavian


Hmmm... If HSBC isn't concerned and generally along those lines for reasoning? Then why deliberately antagonize entire national governments this way? As noted, they are an international bank. They do have to operate around the world. What they're doing is almost self defeating to a remarkable extreme in those terms. There has to be one heck of a compelling reason, given the very real blowback they WILL take over this. The Government of Papua New Guinea sounded pissed enough to throw things. I'm sure they are only one of many...and even that bank is a little runt and small time player in the game when entire Governments are looking at them with the Evil Eye.

If NOT for concern of losing money...then what would drive HSBC to cut their nose off? If not greed and the protection of money and assets within the bank...what motivation? I'm open to saying greed isn't it...this once in a million for a bank (and THAT sorry bank in particular) ...but not without a real good motive to stand in it's place?

Originally posted by stormcell
The bank doesn't want to be rolled into any scandal or investigation involving corruption, bribery, money laundering, tax avoidance, cronyism, so they've politely told these embassies to go away.

edit on 4-8-2013 by stormcell because: (no reason given)

yes because they are not involved in any of that on their own... weren't they part of a drug money laundering scheme not too long ago??

or perhaps they want out simply because they are not getting a cut from those shady dealings.

reply to post by Happy1


Happy,

What are the other boms we should be looking for?

Good. They did the same thing to all us 'regular' people when they were corn-holing the economy and taking our homes and businesses. Good to see they are equal opportunity thieves and villains. Save the world, eat a banker.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

To be honest, as they have posted first half profits today of £9.2 billion, i don't think they will be that bothered about potentially "losing" this custom.

HSBC first half profits rise 10%

and that is what they are declaring for half a year .

i have worked inside banks and see the way they blow money £200 pounds per roll for wallpaper and that was 28 years ago money was no object .

what are those banks really making in a year that they do not declare if they can tell embassies to shove it

reply to post by stormcell


That actually seems most likely to me. The embassies have proven to be trouble. The kind of trouble which can cost the bank A LOT of money, so the bank has simply decided that the embassies are not worth the trouble. Sure, those embassies possibly have huge accounts which can ensure the bank has plenty of investment capital but the risk of getting hosed over something the embassies did is too much to bear. The embassies can blame their own governments for this one.

This situation also exposes the contradiction of private banks and governments having very close ties. When the banks allow something, or do something, highly illegal to happen it is very hard for any government to really punish them because the banks have too many financial ties with said government. Feels like a form of fascism to me.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The BBC are proven liars so please don't get all excited and quote and worse, believe and take literally, everything those BBC liars say.

When it comes to MSM liars, you have to read between the lines. This is about Iran.

It appears that the bank is being punished in losing those accounts because it was helping "terrorists" (i.e. anyone who goes against the illegal policies of the USA) and so the USA have threatened it and forced it to create a "a new position" and take on its Mr Werner who will prevent the bank from helping Iran.

Your BBC article even says it, tucking the most important bit conveniently at the end:

"At the same time, it also appointed a former US official, Bob Werner, to work as its head of financial crime compliance, a new position the bank has created.

The bank said that he will be responsible for beefing up its anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance systems.Mr Werner was previously the head of the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, the agency responsible for enforcing the US sanctions on countries, including Iran".

Iran - the last of the 7 countries that Wesley Clark was talking about:

reply to post by rottensociety


Okay, you noted another aspect of the story, but please explain where and how the BBC outright lied on the rest of it? I've caught the BBC exaggerating and copying bad stories off other sources to be made fools of. I have never seen or even heard of the BBC fabricating stories or material out of whole cloth? I'd be interested in hearing specifics for where or how that happened here?