Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

The EU will always say that the only way to solve a crisis is by transferring yet more powers and money to the EU. They are just like socialists in this respect:


Just a thought, are white gloves really very practical for that sort of work?
 
Last year I stayed in a hotel in Greece that had universal electric sockets. You could plug in all the major world sockets and USBs.

The EU could have mandated that all new hotels And all hotels being refitted must have those type of sockets. Cost is minimal and it would be useful for citizens. Of course the EU would never do anything like that because the citizens don’t matter. The EU had to be dragged screaming to sort out roaming charges and pet passports which are about the only things it has ever done that directly benefited citizens. Why doesn’t it care about the punters? Because there is no democratic accountability or any other accountability.

Roaming charges were a small help and not the massive thing they made it out to be.

The vast majority of citizens dont go to other countries for anything other than a short holiday, and the first thing everyone does is log onto the hotel internet to skype/messenger/whatapp.
 
Agreed, although I never understood the wankathon over India. (maybe it's to do with population size?) A country so heavily corrupt, stuck in a caste system and surrounded by enemies including recent border skirmishes with China. Can't see them usurping the US anytime soon.

you clearly didn’t read what I posted, did you sock?
 
Last edited:
I dont think many do.

at Least I alway have you. ;-)
meanwhile, perhaps the sock should before jumping in with both left feet in his mouth?

”in the top tier, the USA, China
in the middle tier, India, Brazil, Russia, Nigeria, the EU”
 
Last edited:
@Banker

Could the FinCEN leaks have an impact on the negotiations? The EU now, surely, have a weapon to beat The City with? They could easily say that the UK finance industry is not as pure as we like to believe, therefore giving the EU a reason not to allow direct trade in the related fields?

 
@Banker

Could the FinCEN leaks have an impact on the negotiations? The EU now, surely, have a weapon to beat The City with? They could easily say that the UK finance industry is not as pure as we like to believe, therefore giving the EU a reason not to allow direct trade in the related fields?



Stones, glasshouses and all that

"Deutsche Bank AG handled about $1.3 trillion of the suspicious transactions. The global financial industry is under the spotlight again after a cache of leaked documents show years of transactions handled by the world's largest banks linked to money laundering, corruption and fraud"

 

Humperdoo

Clanker
you clearly didn’t read what I posted, did you sock?
Considering I replied to Dread and not your post, which I'm in general agreement with and about India in particular. You posted a link to the World Bank in support of your argument, Dread then countered with the supposed validity of the World Bank itself as a credible source.
There is no need to get yer'sel into such a fettle, which sock do you think I am? Left or right?
 
@Banker

Could the FinCEN leaks have an impact on the negotiations? The EU now, surely, have a weapon to beat The City with? They could easily say that the UK finance industry is not as pure as we like to believe, therefore giving the EU a reason not to allow direct trade in the related fields?


No, it's pretty much a non-event.

The City's anti-money-laundering regulations are now pretty robust, and the legal requirements are clear. Most banks go well beyond the legal requirements, particularly the retail banks (there's less risk with investment banks).

I'd argue that the fact there's such a volume of SAR's shows the system is working, at least the reporting pathway from bank to regulator. What we don't know is what the regulator (US Fed in this case), does with the data.

The Panorama story on the ponzi-scheme is a case in point. Being BBC, it is typically sensationalist and ill-informed. They suggest that HSBC should have immediately closed the offending accounts, but it is unlawful to tip-off a subject of a SAR to the fact that a report has been made (five years in prison and an unlimited fine, see Sect. 333A, Proceeds of Crime Act (2002)). Thus, regulators can investigate without fear of the offender being aware of the investigation. Panorama just haven't done their homework. Indeed, it may be the case that the BBC have committed a crime by tipping-off the subjects of the SAR's via their publication, particularly so it such disclosure prejudices an ongoing investigation. Their cavalier behaviour has the potential to pervert the course of justice. In no way, neither morally nor at law, is disclosure justified. The "public interest" here is due process leading to prosecution, not the BBC winning ratings points.

There's really nothing so see, other than perhaps a few genuine (and generally obvious) cases and names being named that will cause headlines. I've had cause to instigate SARs, but mostly as an arse-covering exercise. The majority of reports will have originated in the same circumstances. Once you've submitted a report, you're prohibited at law from doing anything further, nor can you inform any party outside your own compliance department. Even legal are excluded. It's a "get out of jail free" card, albeit not one played lightly.

You can probably tell I've been down this particular road a few times.
 
Last edited:

philc

LE
No, it's pretty much a non-event.

The City's anti-money-laundering regulations are now pretty robust, and the legal requirements are clear. Most banks go well beyond the legal requirements, particularly the retail banks (there's less risk with investment banks).

I'd argue that the fact there's such a volume of SAR's shows the system is working, at least the reporting pathway from bank to regulator. What we don't know is what the regulator (US Fed in this case), does with the data.

The Panorama story on the ponzi-scheme is a case in point. Being BBC, it is typically sensationalist and ill-informed. They suggest that HSBC should have immediately closed the offending accounts, but it is unlawful to tip-off a subject of a SAR that a report has been made (five years in prison and an unlimited fine, see Sect. 333A, Proceeds of Crime Act (2002)). Thus, regulators can investigate without fear of the offender being aware of the investigation. Panorama just haven't done their homework. Indeed, it may be the case that the BBC have committed a crime by tipping-off the subjects of the SAR's via their publication, particularly so it such disclosure prejudices an ongoing investigation.

There's really nothing so see, other than perhaps a few cases of names being named that will cause headlines. I've had cause to instigate SARs, but only as an arse-covering exercise. The majority of reports will have originated in the same circumstances.

What I did learn was that moving rounded up sums around ie. 50 Million raises red flags, so no more of that for me.
 
What I did learn was that moving rounded up sums around ie. 50 Million raises red flags, so no more of that for me.

It's round-trips that really raises flags.

The question is, should it be viewed, from an ethical standpoint, as really being much different to legitimate corporations exploiting cross-border tax loopholes, often with the complicit sovereign states (take one step forward Ireland) and executing those same payment round-trips, for far, far greater gain?
 
Considering I replied to Dread and not your post, which I'm in general agreement with and about India in particular. You posted a link to the World Bank in support of your argument, Dread then countered with the supposed validity of the World Bank itself as a credible source.
There is no need to get yer'sel into such a fettle, which sock do you think I am? Left or right?
****?
Soz, I know it's a cheap shot, but I had to take it. :p :p
 

Londo

LE
What the f*ck is going on here? That lass in the white is not wearing ear defenders?
Didn't need them after the shot was fired . There had been a series of photo's posted on this forum quite some years ago including some after pics.
Not much of her head left TBH . The two blokes holding her in position though .... I think they may have needed ear protection .
IIRC she had been convicted of drug dealing or smuggling in that nice Chinese place .
EDIT
Might have been North Korea not Communist China
 
The European Union will negotiate with Britain in good faith in Brexit talks, EU Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic said on Tuesday, following a meeting of Europe ministers in Brussels.


A tacit admission that the EU has not been negotiating in good faith.

Tell the EU, in good faith, to fark right off
 

Latest Threads

Top