Five questions answered on HSBC’s money laundering provisions

Mexican drug money has passed through the bank.

HSBC has announced it has put more money aside to deal with US money laundering fines. We answer five questions on HSBC’s money laundering provisions.

How much more money has HSBC put aside?

A further 4800 million (£500 million) to cover potential money laundering fines imposed by the US. It had previously put aside $700 million.

Why does HSBC have to pay money laundering fines?

Because a report by the US Senate said that Mexican drug money had almost certainly passed through HSBC.

How much could these future fines cost HSBC?

HSBC is currently in discussion with US authorities in regards to a final settlement in fines. However, it did tell the BBC the "final amount of the financial penalties could be higher, possibly significantly higher [than the $1.5bn already set aside]".

The bank may also face corporate criminal charges, as well as civil penalties. In a statement released with its third quarter results the bank said:

"While the prosecution of corporate criminal charges in these types of cases has most often been deferred through an agreement with the relevant authorities, the US authorities have substantial discretion, and prior settlements can provide no assurance as to how the US authorities will proceed in these matters."

What about HSBC’s other finances?

Pre-tax profits for HSBC were announced by the bank as $3.5bn from July to September, down $3.7bn from a year earlier. However, underlying profits for the quarter totaled $5bn, more than double the figure recorded for the same quarter a year ago.

Is HSBC, like other banks in the UK, also embroiled in the PPI mis-selling scandal?

Yes. This is also costing the bank significant sums of money. It has set aside a further £223m in the UK to pay for PPI compensation claims, taking its total provisions to £1.3bn and the total for the UK banking industry as a whole to almost £13bn.

HSBC has put money aside to deal with laundering fines. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era