Us and US Law

  Teaboy 17:07 17 Aug 2010

I read in today's newspaper that Barclay's bank has paid a huge fine into the coffers of the US for infringing a ban the US imposed of trading with various countries they(the US) did not approve of.

Again I read another banker is under threat of extradition to the US to stand trial for also trading with one of these countries.

It appears that the world is now subject to the obedience of US law!

  wee eddie 17:12 17 Aug 2010

If you wish to Trade in the US of A, you must obey their laws. It's the same in the UK

  interzone55 17:20 17 Aug 2010

Barclay's has bases in the US, and they own a couple of US banks, so they have to abide by US laws.

  Forum Editor 17:28 17 Aug 2010

but companies which trade from there are, and that applies to Barclays, as has been pointed out by the others.

  Teaboy 17:38 17 Aug 2010

fair enough-but still dont like it.

  morddwyd 19:53 17 Aug 2010

Regardless of the current state of their economy, they have the money, and money is power in today's world - money talks, merit walks.

On the small matter of national laws, how many US servicemen, accused of rape while serving overseas ( and there have been quite a few in the last fifty years or so) have ever faced trial in the country of the alleged offence, rather than being shipped back quickly to the US?

  Forum Editor 22:34 17 Aug 2010

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Barclays agreeing to pay a fine.

What has happened is that between 1995 and 2006 Barclays staff in New York forged documents to hide transactions with countries which are on the US governments 'banned or restricted commerce' list. These are countries which the American government has identified as posing a risk to America's security, foreign policy or economy under the terms of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This is a Federal Act which empowers the President to declare an embargo of a specific country, or to closed down organisations during a declared state of emergency. Since 1933 American Presidents had almost limitless power to declare emergencies, and to prolong their existence without asking Congress. In 1973 this power was revised and limited by the new Act I mentioned above.

Barclays admitted that it acted illegally by concealing commercial transactions with banned countries, and has agreed to make substantial payments by way of fines. Barclays isn't alone in concealing its illegal dealings - Last year Credit Suisse agreed to pay $538m for hiding thousands of transactions on behalf of clients in Iran, Sudan, Libya, and earlier this year the Wells Fargo bank agreed to pay $160m for failing to stop more than $100m of Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking cash being laundered through its accounts.

  spuds 23:52 17 Aug 2010

If you want a commodity, any commodity, then money talks in any language. Fines usually cover up a host of other things.

A bit like plead bargaining, I suppose ;o(

  morddwyd 06:50 18 Aug 2010

"I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Barclays agreeing to pay a fine."

Absolutely nothing, but the thread title is Us and the US Law".

  Teaboy 17:03 18 Aug 2010

Now a golf club president is under threat of extradition to the US for allegedly selling arms to Iran.

So what! Business is, after all business, and mills bombs disguised as golf ball should be a good sell.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

Is this the future of VR and AR?

Best iPad buying guide 2017

Comment regarder le Bureau des L├ęgendes en ligne ?