from Hacker News

Credit Suisse leak unmasks criminals, fraudsters, corrupt politicians

by DrNuke on 2/20/22, 5:05 PM with 109 comments

  • by barry-cotter on 2/20/22, 7:13 PM

    > This article is a bit difficult to understand; there's a mixture of actual money laundering with the non-crime of "a really bad person has a bank account". There's a difficult and IMO increasingly urgent question here, of whether the banking system is a utility or something else. There's no whistleblowers from the electricity company, even though it literally kept the lights on for murderers and traffickers. Nobody gets sentenced to "and you are not allowed a bank account for the rest of your life". If a criminal hasn't had their whole wealth confiscated as proceeds of crime by the courts, is the convention now that nonetheless they should be deprived of the ability to use them? Maybe. I really don't know the answer in some hard cases. But it feels like if the banking system is going to be part of the law enforcement system, that needs to be established through actual laws passed through the parliament. As far as I can see there are some charges of actual complicity in the article, but it's hard to separate them from "this bad person was a client". https://twitter.com/dsquareddigest/status/149544584780670566...
  • by jdrc on 2/20/22, 7:52 PM

    Everybody likes defending the bank's right to bank with murderers, but god forbid they bank with a cam sex worker.

    https://bitcoinist.com/allie-rae-onlyfans-x-crypto-crossover...

  • by vmception on 2/20/22, 6:17 PM

    Money, liquidity, and fungibility is a public good, it has been (and still is) a waste of public and private resources to attempt to alter that reality.

    Although this isn't a popular or public opinion by the public or banks or politicians, it is also the reality for banks and their host governments, and all lip service otherwise is either a lie for data collection or simply fails spectacularly at actually preventing any flow of funds.

    So, there isn't any point in saying "Credit Suisse is a rouge bank", because the whole idea of pretending to whitelist transactions and clients is flawed and useless. There isn't any point in saying "privacy laws are immoral" because it doesn't matter what anyone's background is, they can still access banking and pools of liquidity to move between assets and trade with others anyway.

    Even the vague idea of avoiding terrorist financing is flawed. Terrorism isn't expensive enough for this whitelisting project. People aren't flying planes into buildings because they don't want to fly planes into buildings. Its not that expensive. Let's drop the charade and reduce overhead costs for everyone.

    Congratulations, we've successfully stigmatized having money, except for the people that actually have it who ignored the cultural stigma and can afford better education and counsel on reality. Let's move on from this data mining and transaction whitelisting project.

  • by seanhunter on 2/20/22, 6:04 PM

    This whistleblower is taking substantial personal risk. The Swiss banking secrecy laws provide for 5 year prison terms for people leaking client-sensitive information and when I worked on sensitive things in Switzerland I had to sign a document setting out the penalties and saying that I understood that I was personally liable and could (and probably would) receive jail time for disclosing anything.
  • by Traster on 2/20/22, 10:32 PM

    I'm honestly always amazed at people in these threads who say "Oh, well in general this is a public good, so we should be hands off". Sure, the default should be hands off, but if you have enough information to know what youre doing is wrong, you are responsible. It's one thing to say it's a public service, but if you know what you're doing is wrong, you know it's wrong,and in a lot of cases, a lot of effort is put into pretending that you don't know it's wrong even though you know it's wrong.

    At the point where your own employees are risking their careers because they know it's wrong. Well... maybe only poor people have moral compasses.

  • by nathanaldensr on 2/20/22, 6:36 PM

    I commend the bravery of the leaker/whistleblower and hope they can maintain their personal safety. It's time to expose the evil amongst the elite--all the elite--once and for all.
  • by WHA8m on 2/20/22, 8:28 PM

    Once again the leaker went to Süddeutsche Zeitung [1] and left his/her/their documents there. Panama papers [2] and Paradise papers [3] started there as well. I'm really wondering why that is.

    [1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Papers

  • by adamhearn on 2/20/22, 8:21 PM

    The accounts (and who they belong to) can be explored on this site: https://cdn.occrp.org/projects/suisse-secrets-interactive/en...
  • by jmyeet on 2/20/22, 8:04 PM

    It's this sort of thing that gives me (even more) confidence that pretty much every government conspiracy or at least the more incredulous claims (eg aliens and UFOs) are false. Such systems would rely on humans and humans tend to be really bad at keeping secrets or they simply have a crisis of conscience and release things they technically shouldn't as is the case here.

    Look at the Manhattan project. utmost secrecy. Attempts to segregate the workers in towns to limit contact with potential spies. Yet people felt ideologically the US should not have a monopoly on such a weapon so leaked it to th Soviets anyway.

    Go back to antiquity and you have Julius Caesar who held ultimate power in Rome and had loyal legions and immense wealth. And he was undone by a handful of principled people with knives.

    I actually think this is why things are never as bad as they seem and conversely never as good as they seem.

    This leak, the Panama papers, the Paradise papers and so on. I applaud whoever is in a position to leak this information and does so at great personal risk.

  • by umvi on 2/20/22, 6:15 PM

    People on HN often dismiss the "nothing to hide" argument as invalid when it comes to strong privacy rights, but... the fact remains that those who very much want to hide their illegal activities and ill-gotten gains are first in line to the banks/services with the strongest privacy guarantees (swiss banks, cryptocurrencies, e2e chat apps, etc).

    It's a hard problem and I don't think saying "oh well, having human traffickers and terrorists use the service to enable their activities is just the cost of privacy rights" is going to fly any more than "oh well, having tons of criminals use guns for murder is just the cost of the second amendment" flies. The latter argument used to fly, but it's increasingly unpopular to say that these days, and I suspect the same will happen when it comes to services with strong privacy guarantees.

  • by amai on 2/21/22, 4:24 PM

    Democratic Switzerland should at least force its bank to only make business with customers from democratic countries. By doing that they would avoid a huge number of highly problematic customers. So basically only make business with countries which have a score of 6.0 or higher in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Components
  • by kragen on 2/20/22, 7:41 PM

    Another day, another answer to "what is Bitcoin good for?"

    Earlier today we were discussing the false-positive rate of Google Drive's copyright-scanning approach: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30404587. What do you suppose the leaker's false-positive rate on "fraudsters and corrupt politicians" is?

    The article does admit this:

    > It is not illegal to have a Swiss account and the leak also contained data of legitimate clients who had done nothing wrong.

    Moreover, almost all of the examples in the article seem to be cases of "ex-con nevertheless is able to open bank account". Isn't that a good thing? Do we want a criminal conviction to implicitly include a lifetime of exclusion from the financial system?

    The sole exception seems to be "an allegedly fraudulent investment in London property that is at the centre of an ongoing criminal trial of several defendants, including a cardinal," which is to say, the accountholder may turn out to be innocent. This suggests that the whistleblower's false-positive rate was upwards of 99%.

    So, if you've done nothing wrong but you don't want your banking details to be leaked for journalists in hostile countries to comb through looking for something they can pin on you, maybe Bitcoin would be a better alternative.

    Not a hosted wallet like Coinbase or Binance, though. They're probably almost as vulnerable as Credit Suisse.

    Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30375671

  • by leroman on 2/20/22, 6:04 PM

    I understand the need for privacy and exclusive access, but would love some kind of anonymized stats per country, year etc..
  • by joseloyaio on 2/20/22, 7:07 PM

    Switzerland is all about Neutrality

    What's the point of neutrality if you are gonna ignore it when it's convenient.

    There's a reason Switzerland held Jewish and Nazi gold alike.

  • by jokoon on 2/20/22, 8:22 PM

    Bank secrecy and shadow banking should not exist.

    The worst thing about capitalism and globalism is tax dodging and bank secrecy.

  • by rosndo on 2/21/22, 2:00 AM

    Oof. Some incredibly problematic stuff in this article:

    > Such controls might be expected to prevent a bank from opening accounts for clients such as Rodoljub Radulović, a Serbian securities fraudster indicted in 2001 by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The Guardian seems to be proposing that people with (certain?) criminal convictions should not be allowed to have bank accounts.

    Is there any other way to interpret this?

  • by mouzogu on 2/20/22, 6:25 PM

    covid ends. russia war begins. putin to discuss ceasfire. credit suisse expose.

    is there any connection between these events, or am i just taking the simulation hypothesis too seriously.