• Wed
  • Sep 17, 2014
  • Updated: 11:51pm
My Take
PUBLISHED : Friday, 07 December, 2012, 12:00am
UPDATED : Friday, 07 December, 2012, 4:14am

Mafia extortion or double standard?

BIO

Alex Lo is a senior writer at the South China Morning Post. He writes editorials and the daily “My Take” column on page 2. He also edits the weekly science and technology page in Sunday Morning Post.
 

The American extortion of Standard Chartered is nearly over. The British bank is ready to pay off, sorry I mean settle with, the rest of the US mafia crew otherwise known as federal regulators, with a fine of US$330 million for breaching US sanctions against Iran. New York State's top financial regulator, Benjamin Lawsky, first broke ranks by making incendiary money-laundering and conspiracy accusations against the bank worthy of Tom Clancy.

That forced StanChart to cough up US$340 million, never mind the fact Lawsky might make a better spy novelist than a fair-minded prosecutor. The more senior dons were upset that Lawsky, a publicity-hungry and politically ambitious upstart - the state's first superintendent of financial services - got the first bite of the cherry. That's not how it's traditionally done - he wasn't showing any respect, acting before the other godfathers were ready to make a move. Now they have demanded a comparable sum, for reason of face as much as anything, for the same "offences"; and StanChart can do little but comply. There is no such thing as double jeopardy when it comes to a financial penalty.

The US, you see, effectively claims jurisdiction over foreign financial institutions with a US address. Given the dominant US position in the world financial system, it's pretty hard to avoid a presence there. This means foreign financial institutions and investors are liable even if their transactions are merely routed through the US while their origin and destination are overseas and the clients reside outside the US. That apparently is what got StanChart into trouble for transactions it did for Iran over a decade. You may have no beef with Iran, but you still have to follow US sanctions.

The US is tough on foreigners, but it is anything but with its own companies. In the past decade, the US Treasury Department granted exemptions to almost 4,000 US companies to do business worth billions of dollars with countries under sanctions, such as Iran, Sudan and Cuba. And, depending on the outcome of a court appeal next year by Ross Mandell, the self-styled "bad boy of Wall Street", it may become legal for Americans to cheat foreign investors so long as the securities involved are traded overseas. That will be some double standard.

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

5

This article is now closed to comments

hsch
I have just read your comment titled 'Mafia extortion or double standard' in the SCMP today.
My short answer is: both! Actually I don't usually express any sympathy to the banks but in this context they really appear to be victims of a newly discovered revenue stream for the US.
Anyway - great comment; enjoyed reading it. Keep up the good work!
xiaoblueleaf
Has Lo run out of ideas to write something much ado about nothing? Sanction of Iran may be unjust (or just), but the law is the law, money laundering included. Consider oneself lucky if not caught when breaking the law.
John Adams
The hypocrisy and double standards of the USA is unbelievable.
I personally know of a well-known USA listed company that has knowingly not only done millions of dollars of business with Iran in the past 5 years, but has even sold Iran vital equipment for making nuclear weapons. The pictures of this company's equipment on Iranian nuclear centrifuges are on google images and there is even a USA news report on youtube about the case
Was the company exposed, let alone fined? No !
chaz_hen
Corporations are people (Thanks, Mitt) and people are hypocrites.
pslhk
First, some of the main points AL has missed
then the reason why.
Extortion?
(1) All in the name of THE RULE OF LAW
(Audrey, Margaret and Tanya)’s audacity down the drain where it belongs
(2) In the 20th century, the need was to recycle petro-dollars. This is the 21st century version; to recycle QE and decadent consumers’ incontinent dollars; China ->British bankers -> Uncle Sam
(3) SCB and HSBC would grovel and owe up like that only in Yankee America; never in Malaysia, India, Arabia, Latin America and Africa
(4) You aim’t see nothing yet: in Uncle Sam’s ****nal, this is musket compared with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) backed up by assassinator drones.
(5) You hear what the locals mumble when they pay at New Jersey turnpikes?
(6) …
Why?
AL has been partial about SCB. HSBC is making a much bigger donation but not getting any of his mention. That’s why he delved on the mundane and missed the important.
 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or