> But moreover the US never managed to prove the money actually did come from cartels. Their case amounted to: there's lots of cash moving from Mexico to the USA via HSBC. It must obviously contain drug money. Therefore HSBC is guilty.
Mike, where do you get off? Rather.. where the hell are you coming from? Ad-hominem attacking Shrem for being related to the silk road and laundering money; and in the same thread defending HSBC with disinformation?
What's your angle here.
The case did not amount to anything like that. They were literally removing information on transactions that would warrant scrutiny, among many other things much more damning than 'there was a lot of money'.
Mike, where do you get off? Rather.. where the hell are you coming from? Ad-hominem attacking Shrem for being related to the silk road and laundering money; and in the same thread defending HSBC with disinformation?
What's your angle here.
The case did not amount to anything like that. They were literally removing information on transactions that would warrant scrutiny, among many other things much more damning than 'there was a lot of money'.