Liverpool FC Forum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... laims.html

I recall Standard Chartered 'apparently' not being happy with the Suarez affair around the time the debacle was in motion. Perhaps (figuratively speaking), we as Liverpool fans can get on our moral high horse and stare them in the eyes of hypocrisy.

Also, I noted it was a former Labour minister who was chief executive of the London branch during the 2001-2006 years. hmm. 

Kenny Kan » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:29 am wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9457486/Standard-Chartered-faces-Wall-Street-exit-over-Iran-claims.html

I recall Standard Chartered 'apparently' not being happy with the Suarez affair around the time the debacle was in motion. Perhaps (figuratively speaking), we as Liverpool fans can get on our moral high horse and stare them in the eyes of hypocrisy.

Also, I noted it was a former Labour minister who was chief executive of the London branch during the 2001-2006 years. hmm. 

this culture within the banking system started under thatcher, the `big bang of 1986` basically took british banking out of the control of the captain mainwaring `my word is my bond` types into the hands of the gordon gecko `greed is good` types.

just another dirty bank . there all f.uckin dirty. We should tell them to issue a publc apology , sack there ceo or we'll cut all ties the self righteous tw.ats

It's proposterous!

So private banks can't deal with countries like Iran?

metalhead » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:04 pm wrote:It's proposterous!

So private banks can't deal with countries like Iran?

I don't think so MH, it's the fact that "The order claims that Standard Chartered devised a system to disguise the identity of Iranian client transactions in a deliberate effort to bypass US anti-money laundering defences". and “The Department’s initial focus is on SCB’s apparent systematic misconduct on behalf of Iranian clients.

just seen that on the news .
couldnt give a stuff about them as they are just another dirty greedy bank but hope this wouldnt have any implications on us.if the us regulator proves his claims that they laundered that money and it was used to fund their nuclear program along with filth like hezbollah then fsg will pull the plug on the sponsorship as it wont go down well in the states to be associated with them.
id say that exec who shot his mouth off is gonna get the boot but in a way he has a valid point.

metalhead » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:04 pm wrote:It's proposterous!

So private banks can't deal with countries like Iran?

unfortunately not unless    says so .

Kenny Kan » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:17 pm wrote:

metalhead » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:04 pm wrote:It's proposterous!

So private banks can't deal with countries like Iran?

I don't think so MH, it's the fact that "The order claims that Standard Chartered devised a system to disguise the identity of Iranian client transactions in a deliberate effort to bypass US anti-money laundering defences". and “The Department’s initial focus is on SCB’s apparent systematic misconduct on behalf of Iranian clients.

If it's true, then I would totally be in agreement.

metalhead » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:04 am wrote:It's proposterous!

So private banks can't deal with countries like Iran?

Thanks god someone's talking sense.

Only when sensible men sit down and find ways to resolve problems will the world become a more secure place.
If you cut off international finace to a country of 74,798,599 (2011 Source: World Bank) then you're fast tracking a conflict.

WW2 was largely a result of the restrictions and sanctions (repayments) arising from WW1. If you push a nation too far it goes to war.

Far more sensible to go drink tea and snort the hubble bubble with the buggers and find solutions rather than create problems.

Send Metalhead! 

Reg » Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:07 am wrote:

metalhead » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:04 am wrote:It's proposterous!

So private banks can't deal with countries like Iran?

Thanks god someone's talking sense.

Only when sensible men sit down and find ways to resolve problems will the world become a more secure place.
If you cut off international finace to a country of 74,798,599 (2011 Source: World Bank) then you're fast tracking a conflict.

WW2 was largely a result of the restrictions and sanctions (repayments) arising from WW1. If you push a nation too far it goes to war.

Far more sensible to go drink tea and snort the hubble bubble with the buggers and find solutions rather than create problems.

Send Metalhead! 

I don't understand your stance that only MH is talking sense because he sees 'private banks as not being allowed to do business with Iranians', even though he has got the wrong end of the stick, Standard Chartered's dealings are about 'deceit' rather than the fallacy of 'not allowing the bank to trade with Iran' simply because they're Iranian.

Show me an honest banker Reg and I'll show you an honest politician. If SC have tried to evade US anti-monetary sanctions then they should be held accountable for such deceit. After all, let's not forget the global financial crisis the world is in, and we can attribute that back to the greed of the fat American bankers who took up cheap credit from the federal reserve bank and other international surpluses and borrowed it out to hedge fund investors, home owners and anyone else who wanted to borrow beyond their means. BUST! And the rest they say, is pretty much history. So there, in a nutshell is a simple and ethical reason as to why bankers should be held accountable for any (especially) sanction breaking law a country imposes on another.

Then you have the possible terrorist threat that could exacerbate the situation the US finds itself in, all undergone by SC involvement.

You spoke of the "world becom[ing] a secure place". Which is almost an oxymoron given the context of this issue, you may not want to forgive the septics for being a little paranoid about laundering and financing hidden identities from the islamic republic of Iran but I can forgive them and understand why such sanctions are in place. And in their view not having these sanctions in place obviously doesn't help to make them feel that their country first and foremost, never mind the world is a secure place. As for pushing a nation too far Reg, the Yanks have already experienced the world trade centers collapse to nothing but a pile of rubble killing thousands and it appears such terrorists are willing to fight the jihad over less trivial (to me anyway) 'stuff' than US bank sanctions; i.e for nothing more than their faith for example. So, who can blame them really for tightening their efforts up, in the name of "security", especially when rogue bankers don't give a f.uck about anything else except for lining their own pockets.

Kenny, I'll reply in full when I have time but the US hasn't forgiven the mullahs since the Shah was overthrown and has been provoking non stop ever since. You reap what you sow, so they ramp it up further. Viscious circle. More later.