Hong Kong protestors call for sanctions against HSBC bank

[Lucius]

Who with a little common sense can use a bank like HSBC for anything, least of all to raise donations for protests directed directly against the communist regime? Well, in that recent past, that bank has been involved in global money laundering of drug sales, terrorist financing and all kinds of financial fraud. HSBC is a bank founded by the British (1865) and served primarily for opium trades, and little has changed since that period.

When HSBC was just one step from the prohibition of work in USA, the British prime minister personally intervened to prevent this from happening, and everything is forgotten for $2 billion fines. Protesters in Hong Kong may complain to the British government over human rights abuses, but this will not help them too much because no one will interfere with China's internal affairs.

For a better understanding of what kind of bank it is, I suggest you read a wiki article, especially the part Controversies

[1715341441]

1715341441

[1715341441]

1715341441

[1715341441]

1715341441

[1715341441]

1715341441

[1715341441]

1715341441

[1715341441]

1715341441

[dothebeats]

HSBC IMO is just caught between a rock and a hard place. As a banking entity who wishes to just create profits and profits, they would love to take the money of the HK protesters and use it somewhere else. Then again, they have to comply with what the Chinese government wants else they would be facing severe repercussions in the end.

Too bad for the HK protesters they have used a bank which have been known to conspire with elite money launderers and fraudsters, and that is the government and other head honchos of crime syndicates all over the world.

[MuffinMaster]

If that is the case then all banks must be banned since they all are anti crypto. Government backed central banks have showed there intentions very early against crypto and those who think that bank will adopt our unregulated crypto are living in fools paradise. 

[el kaka22]

HSBC is a British bank from headquarters if I am not wrong. So, that means they are not a Hong Kong bank like the name suggests nor they are a Chinese bank. When you look at it as a British bank that has nothing to do with the governmental approach of china or the protests of Hong Kong people you can realize why HSBC is favoring the powerhouse here and not the protesters. It is obvious that bank wants to be sided with China who would be making them more profits and not care about the small time protesters that may not help them at all in the future.

I can understand the naming of the bank should give them some loyalty but this is a bank we are talking about and they will always favor the party that will make them more profits over humanity any time they are tasked such a decision.

[Lucius]

HSBC is a British bank from headquarters if I am not wrong. So, that means they are not a Hong Kong bank like the name suggests nor they are a Chinese bank.

There is no doubt about that, you just have to read my previous post and visit the HSBC Wiki link. The fact that HSBC HQ is in London does not mean that decisions on such matters are made solely there, this was a decision of a subsidiary in HK. China is too strong for the UK to do anything about, and yet it is an internal issue of one country that no one clever will interfere with (who wants to risk a conflict with China except the USA?)


I don't think using banks for cases like this makes sense at all, because this would happen anywhere in the world. It is a fully centralized system that can freeze any account at any time, especially those that fund protests. WikiLeaks BTC account was banned few years ago by Coinbase, so it doesn't make much sense in what some say protesters should have collect donations in crypto.

The centralized crypto is identical to the centralized fiat, the only way is to be your own bank, but even then you may have big problems with selling crypto on centralized exchanges.

[1Referee]

The faster world banks fall in the form in which they are, the faster the digital future will come. I'm not sure everyone will like it, but it will definitely swing each of us

Digital future is already here. Banks by far conduct most of their transactions digitally, which means that it concerns dozens of trillions worth of transactions every single day. Banks in various countries have rolled out instant transfers, and that regardless of the day or hour. You no longer have to wait a full business day for your money to post in your bank account, that's awesome.

Even if banks fall (which I don't believe they will), something else will replace them and that something else might very well be even worse than the current banks you want to see fall. In that regard, be careful what you wish for, because it can back fire on you and everyone else very hard. Nothing changes if the people on top of the food chain don't change.

If by digital future you mean that crypto will take over, I highly doubt it. It's an alternative and will likely stay that for ever, especially if in so many countries the legal status of Bitcoin is different. It's not going to become legal tender ever.

[CarnagexD]

HSBC is a British bank from headquarters if I am not wrong. So, that means they are not a Hong Kong bank like the name suggests nor they are a Chinese bank. When you look at it as a British bank that has nothing to do with the governmental approach of china or the protests of Hong Kong people you can realize why HSBC is favoring the powerhouse here and not the protesters. It is obvious that bank wants to be sided with China who would be making them more profits and not care about the small time protesters that may not help them at all in the future.

No. HSBC is originally from the Hong Kong, HSBC stands for Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporations but you are right the headquarters is located somewhere in U.K. Prior to that information, basically there is a big fraction of China that has the control to the bank, and HSBC itself don't want to withdraw their asset worth billions just to go with HK protesters.

I can understand the naming of the bank should give them some loyalty but this is a bank we are talking about and they will always favor the party that will make them more profits over humanity any time they are tasked such a decision.

Banks are being banks no matter how silly the situation from the outside world is, money will be more important to wealthy people.

[xen1oph]

If people begin to use crypto on a massive scale, then no one will have any problems with banks. It’s so simple. But at the same time, it is so difficult at present. Most people are not ready for any changes. Rather, people want a better life, but do not want to do anything for this.

[veleten]

well for one none cares if some wise guys are using a bank to collect money directed against the system that the bank is a part of
this is simply not clever to put it mildly
HSBC is an old bank that made money on opium wars and is involved in all kind of controversy , google it if you want to know more
not that they are even any different from all of the banks around the world
most of them are serving one purpose and the sooner we get rid of them the better

[exstasie]

International banking cartels would appear to universally oppose populist independence movements like brexit and hong kong. Banks appear to side with china and the left politically. I hope this information is useful in helping people to decipher a motive behind certain policies and angles being supported.

It's not about siding with China, or the political left. Banks are on the side of stability first and foremost. They are always going to follow orders from the state. The police ordered the account to be frozen; what would you expect?

Even if banks fall (which I don't believe they will), something else will replace them and that something else might very well be even worse than the current banks you want to see fall. In that regard, be careful what you wish for, because it can back fire on you and everyone else very hard.

I have a hard time seeing the model fundamentally changing either. Then again, there have been times of extreme distrust in banks (the "cash under the mattress" days) and it seems like we're entering another similar period. If this element of distrust were combined with, say, collapsing fiat currencies, who knows what could happen? These are interesting times, that's all I know.

[squatz1]

Everyone saying banks have "no choice" in this matter. They must obey the state & government.

How do you explain the following.

#1  Banks regularly laundering money for drug cartels contrary to laws made by governments.
#2  Banks taking action, punishing entire nations like the UK for their pro brexit stance.
#3  Banks closing the accounts of US workers in the adult entertainment industry.

There are countless examples of banks implementing policies which go directly against the national interest.

I think what people are missing is banks having their own agenda and blueprint for the future which they collectively coordinate and cooperate with the media and others to enforce.

The bottom line here is china promised hong kong autonomy. That's the agreement china made. Now china seeks to bring hong kong under its own iron curtain and it would appear that banks support this. Rather than acknowledging the sovereignty of hong kong as a self governing place.

1. Laundering money isn't something that is legal or endorsed by the banks heads. This is going to be being done by certain employees of the bank without the knowledge of the executives. I highly doubt the executives would endorse this sort of thing, as they'd easily face the wrath of federal and state regulators -- losing their licenses with ease.

2. I haven't heard of this, could you provide some of the info so I'd be able to read into it?

3. Closing the accounts of US workers in adult entertainment. I assume this is done because the banks feel as if this is a high risk for chargeback / fraud industry so they don't want to do business with it. There's nothing wrong with that.

Let me know if I'm wrong on this one. I think I've explained this from a very realistic point of view.

[Searing]

I hate to say this..but it is my 'assumption' and I hope I am dead wrong, that once the ink is barely dry on this 1st phase of

getting rid of China Tariffs with the USA and vs versa. (They are mainly Agricultural from what I can see). I fear that China

with Trump now more or less being 'distracted' by (1) US Election (2) A likely cooling ecoinomy (3) North Korea (4) the other

2/3 continuing tariff issue with China (4) the likely further movement of Irag to Iran's influence. (4) Afganastan isssues. (5) The

Arms Control Treaty running out with Russia this year  and last but not least, (6) the continuing many, many, court cases and

the Impeacment.

So, I 'assume' any 2-3 of the above will be enough of a 'distraction' for China to go in and 'squash' Hong Kong protestors and

claim it is an internal matter. Even though there are a couple decades or so of them 'supposedly' staying autonomous.

Sh*t is gonna come home to roost in the USA this year, you can only kick so much down the road without clear actions and policies

before other countries will see this as a way to take things to their own advantage with 'supposedly' few consequences.

So my prediction is sometime Q1 2020 in Hong Kong this will unfortunatly come to pass. Massive Crackdown with troops.

[Sithara007]

To be fair with the HSBC bank, I don't think that any bank in any other country could have done anything different.

Let's assume a scenario in which there is a large violent anti-governmental protest in the United States against the killing of Qasem Soleimani. The protesters manages to raise $70 million, without the permission from the authorities. Now the authorities order the bank to freeze these funds. Do you think that the banks will be in a position to reject the directive from the authorities?

I am getting suspicious about this entire episode. $70 million is a huge amount of money. I have never heard about so much money being raised in any protest around the world.

[NathanJB]

To be fair with the HSBC bank, I don't think that any bank in any other country could have done anything different.

Let's assume a scenario in which there is a large violent anti-governmental protest in the United States against the killing of Qasem Soleimani. The protesters manages to raise $70 million, without the permission from the authorities. Now the authorities order the bank to freeze these funds. Do you think that the banks will be in a position to reject the directive from the authorities?

If there is a legal order coming from the courts, then the directive will be followed by the banks. Otherwise, the government cannot just command any bank for that matter to freeze a particular account simply because it is used for non-violent protests, or owned by some opposition groups of members, etc.

I am getting suspicious about this entire episode. $70 million is a huge amount of money. I have never heard about so much money being raised in any protest around the world.

Hong Kong is a very rich financial district not just within the Chinese territory but the whole of Asia. There must be so many business tycoons inside and outside Hong Kong who are one with the objective of the protesters which is to maintain their state's freedom against the authoritarian hands of China.