That's because they are one of the most global bank, therefore a prime choice when it comes to moving money from countries to countries. Most bank have a much smaller global footprint and can't be used as such.
Banks don't benefit from their customer laundering money just like landlords don't benefit from drug trafficking in their building: it's a hindrance and it costs a lot to do anything about it.
By what metric? I’d argue the driving factor is their proximity to dirty money. Same with Russian banks. Then other people notice you’re used to looking the other way and you get word-of-mouth network effects. With money launderers.
I don't know much about HSBC's history with dirty money, but they are well known to be one of the most global banks. Only Citibank and Standard Chartered operate in more countries.
Don't they? Surely they make some interest on the money if it is parked for any length of time? Plus transaction fees and such? And individuals probably get bonuses etc. based on volume in some way? (IANAB(anker), just wild guesses here.)
