New York’s Department of Financial Services, under the authority of Benjamin Lawsky, has leveled a series of charges against Standard Chartered Bank, accusing it of working with Iran on 60,000 secret transactions involving $250 billion in funds. This violates federal law and international tracking of financing suspected in terrorism cases. DFS also found transactions between SCB and other countries previously restricted from bank transactions by the US, including Libya, Myanmar and Sudan. But this complaint focuses on Iran.
Marcy Wheeler asks the right questions here. The sanctions against banks doing business with Iran are federal in nature, and should be monitored by the Office of Foreign Assets Controls at the Treasury Department. Indeed, in response to the charges, Standard Chartered claims to have been working with OFAC, the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the district attorney of New York City AND this Department of Financial Services. Standard Chartered said they approached the regulators in January 2010 about a review of their transactions. In other words, all the agencies except for DFS had at least some knowledge of these transactions for over two years, and yet they did nothing.
Marcy writes:
In fact, we have a pretty good idea what OFAC’s action would look like, because earlier this year it sanctioned ING for actions that were similar in type, albeit larger in number (20,000 versus 60,000) and far larger in dollar amount ($1.6 billion involving Cuba versus $250 billion involving Iran). Both banks were doctoring fields in SWIFT forms to hide the source or destination of their transfers [...]
A likely explanation is that these unnamed other law enforcement agencies are working up yet another Deferred Prosecution Agreement that claims the companies have cooperated when they really haven’t–as Treasury did with ING and even more so with JP Morgan Chase–SFS used its regulatory position to expose the ongoing behavior.
If Yves and I are right, in addition to the outrage at SCB (and Deloitte and Touche, which collaborated in this fraud), DFS’ actions should elicit discussions about why Treasury continues to insist banks are cooperating when they really aren’t.
Yves Smith basically goes down the same road.
What’s interesting here to me is that DFS was essentially created by Andrew Cuomo, pulling a lot of the expertise out of the New York state Attorney General’s office and putting it into an executive agency under his authority. And Lawsky has been simply more aggressive on the banking industry than the AG. In fact, DFS has become more aggressive than the federal regulators, in this case.
You could also apply this to the HSBC case, another case of illegal money laundering, which we found out about from a Senate committee rather than DoJ or Treasury. Simply put, lots of regulators – and even non-regulatory Congressional actors – are doing the work that Treasury and Main Justice refuse to do.
Standard Chartered, meanwhile, could lose their license in the state of New York over this. Shares in Standard Chartered have plummeted. But the feds appear asleep on this one.




11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Is it possble we are seeing evidence that sanctions on Iran are ultimately PR stunts intended for domestic consumption, ie prepairing the American public on the lead up to war?
IOW, everyone knows it’s impossible for Iran to make us happy, so we will continue to pile sanction on sanction, and eventually invade to affect regime change, but in the meantime at least this particular bank feels there is no real reason we can’t make money by doing business with them.
After the coming elections we’ll be treated to “The sanctions aren’t working” meme, and a little while later Obama gets to announce his reluctant duty to invade Iran before it’s too late.
It seems somewhat more likely that this is part of the continuing war on foreign banks. Have you noticed that virtualy all of the banks that have been specifically targeted in recent high profile cases have been foreign banks doing business in the U.S.? Do you really think U.S. banks have not been similarly engaged? It is all part of making it too expensive to do business here securing banking (worldwide that is) for the U.S. banks by limiting foreign bank’s access to the U.S. market or by limiting their ability to do the type of business that U.S. banks are doing around the world. We are, after all, one of, if not the largest off-shore banking havens in the world. This is how the .01% fight among themselves over the spoils of their wars with everyone else.
Sanctions are called diplomacy when done by the US, but in any case they don’t work, really. Just ask Ted Koppel:
NPR, Dec 26, 2011
Recently the U.S. — actually not the U.S. but Obama — has imposed new sanctions with yet another executive order. Yes, the most powerful man in the world, acting as the U.S., has imposed new crippling, biting sanctions on two financial institutions, two giants of the world financial system, China’s Bank of Kunlun and Iraq’s Elaf Islamic Bank. Say what?
Under Treasury Secretary Cohen: “Today’s action exposes these banks’ continued business with designated Iranian banks, and effectively cuts them off from the U.S. financial system.” I bet they’re disappointed.
Way to go, Team USA. Take that, Bank of Kunlun and Elaf Islamic Bank.
Isn’t it encouraging that the regulators can find time to develop a case against Standard Chartered Bank when they’re consumed with investigating and prosecuting the Wall Street Banksters responsible for creating the current global economic disaster?/s
Maybe China will decide to foreclose on the USA. Can they afford to absorb the loss?
Don, does this fall under the “Do as we say not as we do” corollary???
I think, from the Chinese perspective, that the USA if “too big to fail.”
What would they do with all the mess over here anyway?
Actually, maybe they could sell us to Canada.
China is foreclosing on the dollar. The Yuan has increased 23% against the dollar in the last five years because the Yuan is trading more freely principally (recently) as a result of the Iran sanctions.
There also is an increasing use of foreign currency swaps and usage, and new commodity exchanges, all of which tend to devalue the dollar. The Petrodollar doesn’t work for Iran oil which – duh – lessens a need for dollars.
The decline in the dollar is okay with the US because it’s supposed to help exports (of what, corn?) except some Repubs including Romney still want to go after China for “currency manipulation” (an old Geithner theme) because they claim the Yuan is still undervalued.
Of course this is all crazy. I yearn for the good old days, like in the 2008 presidential campaign when the candidates discussed serious subjects honestly. Like toy imports.
Obama: After a series of safety and lead contamination problems with Chinese toys Obama said that if elected president he would ban their import. “I would stop the import of all toys from China,” he said at one point in New Hampshire.
One of the reasons for the bellicosity of USA,Inc. towards Iran is the fact that like Libya & Iraq, they desire to replace the dollar as the primary medium of exchange.
The US charge of currency manipulation bu the Chinese always struck me as projection.
Obama made a lot of promises and he’s doing it again. I don’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth, or Romney’s for that matter.