I think that what the major banks have been up to for the past decade already falls under the characteristics of criminal organization–they’ve just had lobbyists to carve out loopholes for them.
Unfortunately, it does not seem like even criminality of this magnitude is enough to put the banksters in jail:
Salutary hangings are called for.
I think necklacing would be more appropriate.
Yehay… look, not to interrupt your rant, but there is a large difference between sloppy enforcement and murder. Down at the bottom of it, you’re not going to stop drug gangs from moving their money. They will find a way, and it’s just not possible for all the banks everywhere to be secure against everything. Yes, maybe they theoretically should be, but they aren’t and never will be. Someone will always be asleep at the switch. Getting futilely angry is just silly.
This was not just “sloppy enforcement”; this was willful ignorance in the pursuit of profit that facilitated murder.
They would not be nearly as profitable or capable of laundering their money without the aid of the major banks.
Agreed. But who says this is futile? There is a movement building that’s going to make the current financial regulation bill look like a cakewalk for the banks. They’ve just added fuel to the fire.
No, because their conduct as described is not violative of RICO.
Are you having trouble finding the text of the RICO statues?
Colombian neckties perhaps?
Looks like “we” can change one bank with something. But your cite is a far cry from supporting the notion of charging “the banks” under RICO. Not that you really care what charges can and cannot be supported.
That is what I meant.
INAL, so I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I would not be surprised if it were not possible due to holes made by banking lobbyists.
Mother of Mercy, is this the end of RICO?
Truer words . . .
I’m waiting for somebody to go after the Catholic Church with RICO laws.
That would be suave.
That’s more than a wee bit irrational as your own little American article puts them in violation. What “loophole” are you dreaming up in your ranting.
Personally, as I do a lot of business in places that America gets its knickers all in a twist about (West Africa notably), and have to ensure none of our bloody payments touch an American bank for fear of months of tediousness, I am unmoved by your ignoramus rant.
The one that precludes said violation from becoming a criminal charge on the same level as that directed against mobsters.
That is completely understandable. I work in medical research and am sometimes annoyed by all the IRB forms that have to be filled out for basic human subjects research. But, I realize that there is purpose to it and it is for the greater good of society.
Such as it not meeting the standard, as per our American lawyer above so noting. I do recall he has some practice experience. Just because they fucked up doesn’t make it criminal, so shut the bloody fuck up. No bloody “loop hole”
Yes Americans being stupid risk averse twats who like to impose their bloody rules on the planet, that’s what. Shrieking on constantly is bloody tiresome.
Really don’t see your point there. Banks have obtained all sorts of exemptions, probably more than most industries. I am not a specialist in finance law; neither is Bricker. Having said that, based on the shady goings-on of banks being engaged in predatory lending in the lead-up to the housing crash, it would not surprise if the banks’ conduct did fit the criteria for RICO if it were any other type of institution. “Willful ignorance” is precisely what RICO was intended to address.
Americans are overly prone to litigiousness, this is true. However, in the context of banking regulation and medical research, such caution is very much warranted.
Depends on whether one is the shrieker or the shrieked upon, doesn’t it? We find it rather invigorating, and morally instructive. YMMV. We don’t care.
Bolding mine. Oddly, you seem to be the ones shrieking, so you finding it “morally instructive” doesn’t mean all that much.