Yes, the banks, aka Wall Street, are corrupt. The people who run Wall Street, and the government regulators who pretend to , are personally corrupt, and always retire with vast personal fortunes.
But get your facts straight. The US government, and all other governments hate money laundering.
HSBC to pay $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money-laundering case
(Reuters) - HSBC Holdings Plc agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion in fines to U.S. authorities for allowing itself to be used to launder a river of drug money flowing out of Mexico and other banking lapses.
Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel between them laundered $881 million through HSBC and a Mexican unit, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.
In a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, the bank acknowledged it failed to maintain an effective program against money laundering and failed to conduct basic due diligence on some of its account holders.
Under the agreement, which was reported by Reuters last week, the bank agreed to take steps to fix the problems, forfeit $1.256 billion, and retain a compliance monitor. The bank also agreed to pay $665 million in civil penalties to regulators including to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department.
Money laundering is required by drug cartels and terrorist organizations, which are both pursued relentlessly by governments, It's illegal corruption.
You are confusing this with legal corruption. Legal corruption is the normal order of events where the rich and powerful are allowed to do things that would be wrong if you did them, along with getting free money from the government that comes out of your pocket. You are a source of wealth for the rich, and the government is the middle man.
An example of inequality under the law is Mitt Romney's 401K. He has somewhere between $21 million and $101 million in a tax free IRA account. Most people have around $42,000 in their IRA according to the article. Until recently you were limited to around $6000 a year contribution account, and it was just increased to $16,500. So, ignoring appreciation in your IRA account, and using the $16,500 amount, it would take you around 60 years to get $1 million.
When this came out his lawyers said it was all legal and he paid all the necessary taxes. I believe that. You, however, have a fixed amount of money that you can save on taxes retirement; it's not based on your income in any way. He lives by one set of rules, you live by a completely different set of rules. Legal corruption.
As for free money from the government, what do you think the TARP bailout was about?
The Senate Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."
Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness.
During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Banks that received bailout money had compensated their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management. The Obama administration has promised to set a $500,000 cap on executive pay at companies that receive bailout money, directing banks to tie risk taken to workers' reward by paying anything further in deferred stock. Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant and author of "The Crystal Report on Executive Compensation," claimed that the limits on executive pay were "a joke" and that "they're just allowing companies to defer compensation."
Since TARP, the Fed has had zero interest rates. That is free money for Wall Street. A senile poodle with diabetes could make money with zero interest loans. This zero prime interest rate, along with quantitative easing, are deliberately inflationary. They do things like drive up the stock market and devalue currency. They also make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.
According to CNBC's Robert Frank, a Bank of England report shows that its quantitative easing policies had benefited mainly the wealthy, and that 40% of those gains went to the richest 5% of British households. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it". Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE "is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality".
In May 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but has not done quite as much for working Americans.
So money laundering is chump change. The real robbery is that our economic system steals from the poor to give to the rich. Any questions?