Money Launderer Sentenced to Prison - Not Employed By a "Too Big to Fail" Bank

Twenty-eight states have legalized medical marijuana; recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and the District of Columbia. Nevertheless, the federal government has numerous money laundering regulations in place that block banks from servicing legal marijuana providers. Consequently, legal marijuana dispensaries are forced to do all transactions in cash. Hence, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with nine other Senators, recently wrote an official letter to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (FinCEN) in hopes of easing those banking rules. A spokesman for FinCEN told the Los Angeles Times that they’re reviewing the letter.

This gesture by this group of Senators was a plea for common sense. Providing banking options for legal marijuana businesses will reduce the risk of potential violent crime. Secondly, it would increase financial transparency, which would actually prevent possible money laundering. In other words, criminal organizations would view cash-only marijuana dispensaries as a better destination for laundering money, as opposed to dispensaries where there are electronic records for every transaction. 

Worst of all, this federal fiasco is all for show. These bureaucrats are most concerned with projecting an image of being “tough on crime.” It’s all style and no substance. Case in point, the “Too Big to Fail” banks have employed the most egregious money launderers. Regardless, none of these white collar criminals have gone to prison. Let’s take a look at a recent story involving a Denver woman that illustrates this dichotomy.

Last November, Marybell Delarosa-Quintana was sentenced to five years in prison for money laundering. In fact, the judge said that it would have been 15 years if she had not testified against several Mexican cartel members. As an insurance agent for a small business in Denver, Delarosa-Quintana laundered $281,000 for two Mexican drug cartels. The primary bank that she chose for her deposits was Wells Fargo. This was an ironic choice because Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia after it was involved in the largest money laundering case in U.S. history. Wachovia processed $373 billion in suspected drug money over a four-year period even though federal regulators warned the company about those particular transactions. Nevertheless, no employees of Wachovia were prosecuted and the company had to pay a penalty of $160 million, which was only a fraction of their profits. The takeaway here is that Marybell Delarosa-Quintana was guilty of not working for a “Too Big to Fail” bank.

London-based HSBC, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, eventually surpassed Wachovia’s record for the biggest money laundering scandal. The U.S. Department of Justice described HSBC as the “preferred financial institution for drug cartels and money launderers.” As much as $670 billion of potential drug money went unmonitored by their bank. In fact, drug cartels knew the exact dimensions HSBC bank teller windows. Accordingly, they stuffed boxes of cash through those windows on a daily basis. 

El Chapo's Sinaloa Cartel laundered money through HSBC branches. (Photo - Day Donaldson/Flickr)

Money laundering may not offend you personally if you don’t agree with the war on drugs. However, HSBC also knowingly did business with a Saudi Arabian bank, Al Rajhi, which had links with the 9/11 terrorists. Can you guess what the punishment was for HSBC? In 2012 the DOJ entered into a plea agreement in which HSBC was fined $1.9 billion, but none of their employees faced criminal charges. One year later, former Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified before Congress that the DOJ had been hesitant to pursue some of the largest banks because they were considered "too big to fail." However, a recent report by the House Committee on Financial Services’ Republican staff contradicted that claim. This report found that Holder and other top officials of the DOJ overruled their staffers’ recommendation to prosecute HSBC. As a matter of fact, HSBC negotiated a more favorable plea deal after Holder had personally issued a “take-it-or-leave-it” deadline.

The only plausible explanation for such glaring hypocrisy is the revolving door between government and the private sector. It’s one hell of a racket. Several government officials are succumbing to conflicts of interest while serving in law enforcement or as regulators. The payoff comes when they return to the welcoming arms of the private sector with lucrative salaries for services rendered. As for Eric Holder, he returned to the powerful law firm Covington & Burling in 2015. His salary was never announced publicly, but his former Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer, returned to Covington & Burling in 2013 to reportedly $4 million annually in compensation. Hence, you can assume that Holder’s payday was even greater. Albeit, HSBC was never a client of Covington & Burling; consequently, there was no direct quid pro quo. However, their firm has represented several major banks. And that conflict of interest is the most apparent explanation for why every “Too Big to Fail” bank received the white glove treatment from the DOJ while Holder was in charge.

All in all, the money laundering aspect illustrates one of the many glaring examples proving that the drug war is a lie.