should US law overrule UK law in this country?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
This is a UK bank that holds a UK banking Licence. However it also has subsidiary or partner banks holding banking licences in many other countries.

As a bank it needs to comply with the banking licence (and therefore financial law) within the country that it operates. However you then cannot avoid an inherent conflict of interest as some transactions which are ethically questionable can quite legally take place via a subordinate office.

Now if you're a privately owned company that's less of an issue, but if you are public traded and have an all encompassing ethical policy there are issues.

This isn't as simple as "letting the Americans dictate policy" it's an issue they have created themselves by choosing to knowingly trade in areas that could cause a conflict of interest within the group of companies.

On a separate issue, is it still a requirement that all international US$ transactions transit through a US Bank?

I transfer US$ to China with reasonable regularity and up until this year all my transactions went via New York, I now pay directly to Bank of China from Barclays.
 
markjay said:
As for the OP... I actually raised this very issue a week ago in another thread, but there appeared to be little interest in it at the time.

I then noticed that most discussions in the media relate to the professional-financial aspects, not so much the moral ones.

I think the explanation is that this is not the Asperger's Gary McKinnon - this is a wealthy bank that made a small fortune trading - right or wrong - behind the American's back.

It will always be taken with a grain of salt when someone claim to take an ideological stance and patriotically announces that 'the Americans should not be telling us what to do', while at the same time it just so happens that said patriot also benefits to the tune of $250 billion of turnover in the process.

This is probably pretty much what we think when we get a rant about how CCTV is an invasion of our privacy and an infringement on our human rights, from someone who just got fined for not having a valid tax disk.

So I guess the lack of interest both here and in the general public suggests that this is not the best choice of topic for America bashing.


Standard Chartered: My dollar, my rules | The Economist

Might be interesting that the Americans themselves see that the witch-hunt has gone to far

This is what was originally differing to in my post above..

One week ago, the general media had these sort of headlines:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-160bn-transactions-Iran-U-S-government.html

Then it all subsided... and now a week later, it is telling that this article was published in the Economist, i.e. the debate continues mainly in professional financial circles.

As said above, my explanation is the the public simply does not warm-up to the shenanigans of the 'greedy' bank in the same way they did to an Aseperger's sufferer.

It is largely seen as s quarrel between a bully and a swindler , where neither side should be taken at their word as to who's actually in the wrong.

Which is funnily where I find myself with regards this thread - being devoid of strong anti-US sentiments, I try to look at it impartially and find I have little to offer by way of support to either side.
 
Last edited:
We do of course have democracy here , through free election. In keeping with the modern trend of appearing to give more for less , we landed up with two ***** for the price of one.
 
grober;1529129 ----Oil is traded in Dollars---- the Iranian's chief export is oil--- how exactly are they supposed to sell their oil without "ultimately" dealing with the American banking system? [/quote said:
It's *priced* in dollars. How its' actually paid for is immaterial. Some countries barter commodities using an agreed price to set the exhange rate of one commodity for the other in to avoid having to actually use currency.
 
This of greater worry:

Russia says new U.S. sanctions on Iran could affect ties | Reuters

Obama always said that he will use 'whatever means necessary' to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

At current, it seems that the sanctions act as a damper on the posibility of an American attack on Iran.
 
It's *priced* in dollars. How its' actually paid for is immaterial. Some countries barter commodities using an agreed price to set the exhange rate of one commodity for the other in to avoid having to actually use currency.


I think any bank that deals with US$ (virtually any bank on the planet) has to get access at some point to the US Banking System. If you want to use the US Banking System you have to comply with something called the U-Turn rule which is the rule (very vague on the implementation) that Standart Chartered is alleged to have broken (and with it JP Morgan and their ilk).

The problem is that when Saddam tried to sell his Oil in € he was accused of developing WMD and we all know how that story panned out.

So as the Economist had put it, its the American hegemony on the world reserve currency and they make the rules of the game as it suits them which is fair enough as they have the biggest stick. (US Military)

Not bashing the Americans as I would rather have the Ayatollah have a bow an arrow rather than a Minuteman missile...

Though on another matter that somebody mentioned it does sound like the American regulators are inclined to check/punish only British banks (Barclays, HSBC, Standart Chartered, etc) but are giving the US ones a bit of leeway (JP Morgan comes to mind since they not really honest either [think about you helped Greece cook the books])
 
I haven't read all the comments but regarding the article. What is happening here is Wall Street has the City of London in it's sights.

The American banking system is one by one systematically plundering Europe, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and now the City.
 
This is a relic if you like of Western commercial and financial dominance - this is just how traditionally things were done with regards to many commodities.

Few people realise for example that London controls the world's Cocoa trade (in spite of the fact the the world's biggest Coca producer - Côte d'Ivoire with 40%+ of world Cocoa production - is in fact an ex-French colony, and de-facto still under French military control, albeit sanctioned by the UN).

I suspect however that those commodities markets that are under control will not open up any time soon - the Western governments involved can ill-afford the massive financial loses.
 
This of greater worry:

Russia says new U.S. sanctions on Iran could affect ties | Reuters

Obama always said that he will use 'whatever means necessary' to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

At current, it seems that the sanctions act as a damper on the posibility of an American attack on Iran.

Russia, or more particularly Putin, a worry in general.

Sanctions are all that is available to the US if Russia is going to stymy moves for a military strike. If Russia is so onside with Iran, shouldn't we consider them (Iran) to be nuclear weapons enabled already? Another Cold War, with Iran and Syria in the mix?
 
Personally, I believe that Russia's backing of Iran and Syria has more to do with 'my enemy's enemies are my friends' than with Russia's immediate or local interest in theses countries.

Putin wants to build a new 'Eastern Bloc' - though through political influence and military aid rather than through aggression - made up of Asia (and Africa?) with Russia at the heart of it.

If the American's dream of propagating US-style Democracy around the Arab world will come true, it will be a serious blow to Russia's influence and power.

In short I am not sure that Putin actually wants Iran to posses nuclear weapons, or for Assad to slaughter his own people, instead he is being pushed into the corner of defending and assisting these regimes mainly because they strongly oppose the US, and he believes that their downfall may potentially bring the US a step closer to world dominance.

So from his point of view he has no choice.... Assad and the Ayatollahs are the lesser of two evils, as any political success for the US around the Arab world means further marginalisation of Russia as a regional and world power.
 
This is a relic if you like of Western commercial and financial dominance - this is just how traditionally things were done with regards to many commodities.

Few people realise for example that London controls the world's Cocoa trade (in spite of the fact the the world's biggest Coca producer - Côte d'Ivoire with 40%+ of world Cocoa production - is in fact an ex-French colony, and de-facto still under French military control, albeit sanctioned by the UN).

I suspect however that those commodities markets that are under control will not open up any time soon - the Western governments involved can ill-afford the massive financial loses.

...also the price of oil is dependent on North Sea Oil even though it accounts for a tiny fraction of the oil produced in the world.
 
I just wonder how long before someone mentions Libor.... ;)
 
...also the price of oil is dependent on North Sea Oil even though it accounts for a tiny fraction of the oil produced in the world.

Then we can count on Russia's support for our independence!

I suspect Russia's foreign policy is firmly rooted in the need for resources and is a more pressing reason for them to involve themselves in the ME, though where it will leave them with regard to Syria if it succeeds in overthrowing Assad is anyone's guess.
 
Syria is a strange one, I don't think people realise the type of affiliations the FSA have. If they take control and you're a Christian (10% of the population) you can forget about it.

These guys are just as bad as Assad.
 
...also the price of oil is dependent on North Sea Oil even though it accounts for a tiny fraction of the oil produced in the world.

It's not 'dependent'.

There are various benchmark prices for oil that are quoted. Brent crude is one of them. It's effectively a price for a grade of of the commodity.
 
If the American's dream of propagating US-style Democracy around the Arab world will come true,

Is this really America's aim though? Where has it worked before? Anywhere?

Syria is a strange one, I don't think people realise the type of affiliations the FSA have. If they take control and you're a Christian (10% of the population) you can forget about it.

These guys are just as bad as Assad.

Taking the summary execution (and rape) of Gadaffi in Libya, are we to really believe the ME wants US type democracy? Or do they just want shot of their dictators and sing the democracy song to garner Western financial and military aid?
Also, any democracy that does not seperate religion from state is not a democracy. Who believes the ME will put democracy ahead of Allah? They won't, and it's about time we woke up to the fact.
 
...Also, any democracy that does not seperate religion from state is not a democracy. Who believes the ME will put democracy ahead of Allah? They won't, and it's about time we woke up to the fact.

I agree in general terms, though I also think that Turkey is a good example of a Democratic Muslim state, so it can work. Let's see what transpires in Egypt with Mursi.
 
Personally, I believe that Russia's backing of Iran and Syria has more to do with 'my enemy's enemies are my friends' than with Russia's immediate or local interest in theses countries.

Russia has a base in Syria, hence the backing of Assad:

Russian naval facility in Tartus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This should give a model for future Syrian democracy:

March 8 Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom