How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's drug gangs and got away with it

[HPLovecraft]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ico-drug-gangs

Okay, so this article from the Guardian is pretty long, but it is extremely interesting, and fairly shocking. Really, quite shocking. It concerns the US bank Wachovia.

Here are some quotes in case you don't want to dive into the full thing:

During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo.

The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico border that ignited the current drugs war.

Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's "deferred prosecution" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear. It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.

At the height of the 2008 banking crisis, Antonio Maria Costa, then head of the United Nations office on drugs and crime, said he had evidence to suggest the proceeds from drugs and crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to banks on the brink of collapse. “Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade,” he said. “There were signs that some banks were rescued that way.”…

[Paul] Mazur [lead infiltrator of the Medellin drug operation] said that “a lot of the law enforcement people were disappointed to see a settlement” between the administration and Wachovia. “But I know there were external circumstances that worked to Wachovia’s benefit, not least that the US banking system was on the edge of collapse.”

It's quite an intensive article and a very, very, very good read if you have the time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ico-drug-gangs

[THE SCUD]

LoL the Guardian

[MacGruber]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

LoL the Guardian

i demand an explanation.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by MacGruber

i demand an explanation.

These guys are going to make those bankers and drug dealers pay...

[MacGruber]

i think the coyotes guardian should be a crazy sheriff who breaks the law on his ongoing quest to destroy illegal immigrants!

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by MacGruber

i demand an explanation.

The Guardian is the left-wing, newspaper-equivalent of Fox news. When the topic is profiteering big banks, they skew the story so ridiculously that it might as well be fiction.

I mean come on "the only money available to banks to lend was drug money".

Right...

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

The Guardian is the left-wing, newspaper-equivalent of Fox news. When the topic is profiteering big banks, they skew the story so ridiculously that it might as well be fiction.

I mean come on "the only money available to banks to lend was drug money".

Right...

Did they fabricate that quote or something? That was quoted from then head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Should they not quote him?

Instead of the same old "left-wing, right-wing" dismissal of subjects and discussions so predominant in American issues of any colour or persuasion, why not actually refute what was said in the article? What, exactly, did the Guardian skew? Actually, did you even read the article or just grab a line out of the block quote and judge the entire thing?

[THE SCUD]

Just hate the Guardian - Not interested in an actual debate because I think the subject is crazy- Might be true, but if if it's from Guardian, I don't care about the subject, just hate the Guardian

Keep Calm and Carry On!

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Just hate the Guardian - Not interested in an actual debate because I think the subject is crazy- Might be true, but if if it's from Guardian, I don't care about the subject, just hate the Guardian

Keep Calm and Carry On!

You dismiss an entire story, without knowing if it's true or not, and completely ignorant of anything it contains, based on some preconceptions and past judgements on your part? And you think this is a healthy mentally? Come on . . .

[MacGruber]

hating on the guardian is hillarious. a respected world class newspaper... oooh but they lean slightly to the left!

lemme guess, your internet radio is set to go to rush limbaugh and glenn beck automatically when they come on right?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I'm sure the story is legit but the Guardian is somewhere between the Calgary Sun and the National Inquirer in terms of some of their content.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MacGruber

hating on the guardian is hillarious. a respected world class newspaper... oooh but they lean slightly to the left!

lemme guess, your internet radio is set to go to rush limbaugh and glenn beck automatically when they come on right?

That's like saying that Calgary spring weather is slightly unpredictable.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm sure the story is legit but the Guardian is somewhere between the Calgary Sun and the National Inquirer in terms of some of their content.

This.

The Guardian is a basically a tabloid based on actual stories instead of lies. They still skew, reword, and play around with the truth for a more dramatic story like every tabloid.

See their coverage of the Madeline McCann case for reference.