...Recall that HSBC (HSBA:LN) last summer agreed to a $1.9 billion settlement with the U.S. government over charges it failed to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers and $9.4 billion in purchases of U.S. currency. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Mexican cartels would deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars a day at HSBC Mexico branches, in cash in boxes specially designed to fit the dimensions of the HSBC teller windows. In addition, a Senate report accuses the bank of doing business with companies with ties to terrorist organizations and skirting rules meant to prevent dealings with the governments of Iran, North Korea, Burma, and Cuba. Wachovia, which is now part of Wells Fargo (WFC), has also admitted its failure to report suspected cartel money laundering going through the bank. ING (ING) and Standard Chartered (STAN:LN), among others, have settled in similar cases.
In none of the cases, however, were criminal cases brought against the banks. Justice Department officials argued that doing so would pose too great a risk to the financial system—too big to fail, in the familiar phrase. Nor were there charges brought against any employees, something that would not have posed the same systemic risk. Contrast this with the instance of Shrem, who faces a potential prison sentence of 30 years in a case where the amounts are a rounding error next to those handled by HSBC and Wachovia.
Some Bitcoiners have seized on this divergence to argue against money laundering laws in general. Libertarians see the statutes as just one more way that the government, under the guise of protecting us from criminals, exerts control over our lives, insisting that we disclose the intimate details of our financial lives to Leviathan under threat of confiscation
http://nybw.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-07/bitcoin-enables-a-fraction-of-the-drug-dealing-banks-facilitated#r=rss
