> Well that again isn't an example of someone being caught and receiving a penalty lower than the gain from the crime.
I disagree... and frankly, just saying it isn't is a poor answer.
> Maybe there wasn't sufficient evidence to win?
Once again, your ignorance shows. The Justice Department expressed concern it would threaten the health of the financial system if they were too hard on HSBC at the time so they gave a low fee and ignored another crime.
> But this isn't an example of a caught party with a "so low that they don't matter" penalty.
I didn't say it was. I was answering your above question about a party that was 'caught' and faced a lower... NO penalty, in this case.
Banks are require to abide by a charter that requires good behavior. For evidence of criminal conduct that charter can be revoked and HSBC should have lost their right to operate in the United States. I would certainly call that a fee so low they don't matter penalty.
Especially since HSBC is now being accused of money laundering again... this time by Nigeria.
All you are giving is negative arguments. Saying things are not, and raising speculation without a basis does not add to the discussion. I am done with this.
