# So...NOW can we charge the banks under RICO? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 3, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426 "2010-07-03T14:25:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/1 "2010-07-03T14:25:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal > > This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers – including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine. > > The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years. > … > Wachovia admitted it didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That’s the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history – a sum equal to one-third of Mexico’s current gross domestic product. > > “Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case. > > [Banks Financing Mexico Drug Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal - Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html) 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: > [@](#): > > Wachovia’s new owner paid $160 million in fines and penalties, less than 2 percent of its $12.3 billion profit in 2009. > > If Wells Fargo keeps its pledge, the U.S. government will, according to the agreement, drop all charges against the bank in March 2011. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/2 "2010-07-03T14:34:05Z")
Salutary hangings are called for. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/3 "2010-07-03T14:50:36Z")
I think necklacing would be more appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/4 "2010-07-03T14:53:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/5 "2010-07-03T15:04:14Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yehay… look, not to interrupt your rant, but there is a large difference between sloppy enforcement and murder. This was not just “sloppy enforcement”; this was willful ignorance in the pursuit of profit that facilitated 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. They would not be nearly as profitable or capable of laundering their money without the aid of the major banks. > [@](#): > > Getting futilely angry is just silly. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/6 "2010-07-03T15:26:14Z")
> [@](#): > > So…NOW can we charge the banks under RICO? No, because their conduct as described is not violative of RICO. Are you having trouble finding the text of the RICO statues? ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/7 "2010-07-03T15:39:55Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > I think necklacing would be more appropriate. Colombian neckties perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/8 "2010-07-03T16:07:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/9 "2010-07-03T16:30:08Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Colombian neckties perhaps? That is what I meant. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/10 "2010-07-03T16:49:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, because their conduct as described is not violative of RICO. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/11 "2010-07-03T17:22:52Z")
Mother of Mercy, is this the end of RICO? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/12 "2010-07-03T17:59:38Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > INAL, so I have no idea. Truer words . . . ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/13 "2010-07-03T19:10:32Z")
I’m waiting for somebody to go after the Catholic Church with RICO laws. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/14 "2010-07-03T19:17:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Mother of Mercy, is this the end of RICO? That would be suave. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/15 "2010-07-03T21:18:38Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/16 "2010-07-03T21:32:04Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > 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. The one that precludes said violation from becoming a criminal charge on the same level as that directed against mobsters. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/17 "2010-07-03T22:18:26Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > The one that precludes said violation from becoming a criminal charge on the same level as that directed against mobsters. 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” > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/18 "2010-07-03T23:00:11Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > 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” 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/19 "2010-07-03T23:02:23Z")
> [@](#): > > …Shrieking on constantly is bloody tiresome. 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. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426/20 "2010-07-04T15:19:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-can-we-charge-the-banks-under-rico/545426.md?page=2)