One of this week’s bigger stories has been HSBC Bank’s criminal money laundering, and the U.S. Department of Justice’s settlement of same. I have links at the end of this article, but the short version of events is: HSBC is guilty of laundering money for multiple drug cartels and ‘terrorist’ organizations over many years time with knowledge and approval of upper level executives. The U.S. Department of ‘Justice’ made no criminal charges or prosecutions, and ordered a $1.9 Billion fine, or approximately 5 weeks worth of HSBC’s profits. Yes, this really happened. (See links.)
What does this mean? Let’s take a hypothetical case where 7 members of a drug ring have been arrested and are being tried. By the precedent set by our country’s top prosecutors in the HSBC case, the drug ring should pay a fine of approximately 5 weeks worth of the drug ring’s profits, (let’s say $100,000) and face no criminal charges in the matter. If the prosecution is seeking any harsher penalty than this, it becomes the jury’s responsibility to find the defendants not guilty, as this would be the only reasonable course of action for any sane, intelligent, and fair individual, in light of the Justice Department actions in the HSBC case. I believe this is known as jury nullification, where the jury gives a not guilty verdict when they disagree with the illegality of the crimes in question, or with the penalty being sought. If you were on the jury of a case where a 12 year old stole a candy bar, and the prosecution was trying her as an adult and seeking the death penalty, would you vote guilty? Maybe not. A more likely scenario for our fictional 7 person drug ring case would be: the police have already confiscated $970,000 worth of cash, drugs, vehicles, and other property, then sold it to buy Ford Explorers, SWAT gear, and machine guns, and the defendants are each facing 15 years to life in prison. This would call for a not guilty verdict, unless prosecution gave defendants back $870,000 and dropped all criminal charges. One person voting not guilty would at least create a hung jury and cause a retrial.
Another conclusion I have come to regarding HSBC’s money laundering came to light during a conversation with a friend. “D” mentioned her home mortgage is through HSBC, and was concerned that the act of making her mortgage payment could get her in legal trouble. The facts of the matter: HSBC laundered money for known middle eastern ‘terrorist’ organizations. According to the U.S. government’s official ‘terrorism’ policy over the last decade, giving aid to terrorists = you are a ‘terrorist’. If “D” pays the interest on her mortgage payment to HSBC, a known ‘terrorist’ organization, thus giving them money as profits, this makes her a ‘terrorist’. This means she is eligible, under NDAA 2012 and 2013, to be imprisoned forever without charges or a trial. Also, should the Obama administration decide they don’t feel like having her arrested, she can be murdered by an extra-judicial drone strike, after being put on the “Disposition Matrix” (Murder Matrix) and chosen for death on ” Terror Tuesday” at the White House. Sorry “D”.
HSBC Money Laundering / ‘Drug War’ : http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213#ixzz2F26TAJzl
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/ian-fraser-hsbcs-1-9-billion-settlement-sets-another-dangerous-precedent.html – good video at bottom of link.
Jury nullification : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification