
US files criminal complaint against Credit Suisse - us0r
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101614446
======
sdfjkl
Obligatory mention of Brin's "Helvetian War":
[http://davidbrin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/will-worlds-
middle-c...](http://davidbrin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/will-worlds-middle-
classes-rise-up-in.html)

------
rhizome
I imagine we're going to see a trickle of these things over the next 6months
leading up to US midterm elections, but there's still nothing on HSBC
laundering money for terrorists.

~~~
us0r
Wasn't there a settlement for deferred prosecution or whatever its called? (be
good boys for 2-3 years)?

~~~
charonn0
Yes, and that's the problem: HSBC avoided criminal charges.

[0]:
[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-
hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213)

------
tenpoundhammer
I believe that the big win here is the 'Monitor'. Having it publicly that one
of the worlds largest tax havens has agreed to have a monitoring like
functionality employed is a huge hit to the entire tax evasion industry. It
will(should) make large tax evaders worried that other banks are doing the
same thing without public notification, as parts of other plea deals.

This monitoring thing, could be a significant deterrent and informant.

This kind of thing is especially problematic for the types of wealthy that
have to worry about public opinion, politicians and employees of publicly
traded or well known companies etc.

~~~
downandout
I'm not sure it's a "win". The reality is that this will quickly drive
business away from one of Switzerland's largest banks. As a result, the Swiss
will start going back to their old policies and their cooperation in recent
years will cease. It is for this reason that they have only brought civil
charges in the past.

Eric Holder appears to be out of his depth on this one. All this did was
reopen one of the world's largest tax havens.

~~~
us0r
From a few years ago but I found this quite interesting. This guy earned $2.5
million per month in prison. He probably had no idea:

"Sentenced to a 40-month federal prison term in 2009 for his role in a tax
evasion conspiracy involving offshore American accounts, former Swiss banker
Bradley Birkenfeld elicited sympathetic comments from some observers who said
the hefty sentence was likely to discourage other whistleblowers from
cooperating with the government."

"But the former UBS AG employee's situation has recently taken a significant
turn for the better. Now 47 and out of prison, he is to receive a $104 million
Internal Revenue Service whistleblower award for his work in helping the feds
pursue over $5 billion in unpaid taxes on unreported assets at Zurich-based
UBS and other offshore banks"

[http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-
banker_birkenfeld_...](http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-
banker_birkenfeld_gets_104m_for_ubs_case_cooperation_may_be_biggest_us_w/)

~~~
downandout
Criminal charges against individuals (though rare) have long been part of the
mix, but charging the actual bank entity can have a devastating impact on the
company and all of its employees. A felony conviction against an organization
disqualifies it from many core business activities, and many large
corporations have bylaws prohibiting them transacting with such entities.
Insurance companies won't underwrite them on certain things or charge higher
rates etc. A perfect example of this is Arthur Anderson.

------
azinman2
From NYTimes [1]: “This case shows that no financial institution, no matter
its size or global reach, is above the law,” the United States attorney
general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said at a news conference on Monday."

Except even in this criminal case... let's bend the law and not put anyone in
jail, revoke the bank's license to operate or its license to invest, or make
them hand over the names of the Americans that they aided in committing
criminal acts. So basically every real repercussion that is already mandated
by law... nah let's skip all that. Or try to find the guilty Americans who are
already rich and powerful and now getting away with it while the bank get's a
PURPOSELY recoverable slap on its wrist. Basically their stock will go down
for a bit, until they have some good quarters, and a couple people get fired.

There's a reason "Occupy Wall Street" caught on as a slogan.

[1] [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/credit-suisse-set-
to-...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/credit-suisse-set-to-plead-
guilty-in-tax-evasion-case)

------
sexmonad
Can someone explain to me how the US has jurisdiction over Credit Suisse? I
see how they could have gone after the individual tax fraudsters (American
citizens), but how can they police foreign banks?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Can someone explain to me how the US has jurisdiction over Credit Suisse?

Because the US is a sovereign state, which means they have jurisdiction over
whatever they choose to have jurisdiction over, subject to constraints
forcibly imposed by outside parties.

> I see how they could have gone after the individual tax fraudsters (American
> citizens), but how can they police foreign banks?

The US government (even ignoring extraordinary action it could take outside of
the US or with the cooperation of foreign governments) can effectively impose
penalties on any entity that does business in the United States, or holds
assets in the United States.

~~~
cube13
Or because they have branches and accounts in the US:

[https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/](https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/)

------
higherpurpose
I'm sure this time they'll go much further - maybe up to $3 billion in
_settlement_!

EDIT: I posted the above _before_ reading the article, and looks like I was
pretty spot on (although maybe too aggressive for Holder's taste). Holder's
DoJ is becoming so predictable. Don't expect him to put any serious banker in
prison in his time.

------
jonathankoren
25.5 billion in revenues last year.

~~~
jevgeni
Revenues mean sweet FA. You want to look at the profits, and those were around
2 billion.

------
gretful
Crash the economy, get a bailout, help people dodge taxes, go to jail. OK,
long as we know what you're priorities are, Uncle Sam!

------
8ig8
Will anyone do jail time? I wonder.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Of course not. If an individual evades taxes or launders drug money they can
expect harsh penalties in criminal court, or jail time. If a multi-billion
dollar international bank does it then nobody will go to jail and at best only
a fine will result.

~~~
jevgeni
As far as I know, Credit Suisse didn't evade taxes, that they as a corporation
had to pay. What they did, was help American individuals evade taxes in the
US.

And the bank isn't even based in US, but in Zurich. As far as I know, they
only have their investment banking arm in New York.

So what the US government is doing here is a) converting the attractiveness of
the American market into cash for the government (which might be kinda OK, I
dunno) and b) using their control of dollar settlements to bully foreign banks
into following the US law (which is a somewhat dick move).

~~~
InclinedPlane
Credit Suisse operates in the US, and for those operations it is subject to US
law. Which it broke, by violating tax law.

------
carlmcqueen
I found that as these headlines from bloomberg and other financial news apps
started to roll in to my phone and now that I've actually read a few of the
articles that my reaction of 'let the wrist slaps begin' may not be the
reality of the situation.

