The FT notes in this morning FT Alphaville email that:
Standard Chartered is pushing for a settlement with the New York state banking regulators over its Iranian dealings, ahead of a preliminary hearing on Wednesday. The bank will agree to comply with a request from New York's Department of Financial Services to hire an external monitor to ensure it meets US compliance rules. Any deal would have to be first agreed by several US regulators. Sources close to StanChart said no such offer had yet been made.
As I noted last week, when all were shouting about how inappropriate this challenge to Standard Chartered was and mutterings of counter-claims were doing the rounds, Standard Chartered have actually already pleaded guilty to the charges.
So what that it's only 0.1% of transactions they got wrong? Anti-money laundering laws are targeted at the tiny proportion (one hopes) of transactions that involve money laundering. If you fail to spot them the fact that they're just 0.1% of the total makes no difference: you got that 0.1% one hundred percent wrong.
And now Standard Chartered are going for a settlement. That does not surprise me one little bit. So would I if I was them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It’s just an amazing answer isn’t it ?
Can you imagine Mr Farooq the chemist says 999 of the morphine tablets I sold went to genuine patients, only 1 went to a drug dealer-what’s the big deal ?
Mr Singh the off-licencee says 999 of the beers I sold went to adults, only 1 went to a child-what’s the big deal ?
Mr Smith the confectioner says 999 of the cigarettes I sold went to adults, only 1 went to a child-what’s the big deal ?
They’d be nailed to the wall & they are small shopkeepers. YOU ARE A HUGE BANK & YOU GOT 1 in 1000 WRONG !
You should be Raas crucified.
I am not sure you are being entirely fair to Standard Chartered. Anti-money laundering is not a precise science, so a 0.1% failure rate in its prevention is actually quite good. I am sure you would argue that a 0.1% in tax evasion detection would be a good performance. As would 0.1% in benefit fraud prevention.
I don’t agree
They failed
A lot of UK pontificators are looking a bit silly right now. SC had, as Richard says, accepted guilt but were arguing this was a “minor technicality”. Now they’ve paid a pretty huge fine & basically held their hands up. Their apologists like John Mann who is, God help us, a LABOUR MP, need to, well, apologise.