首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
考研
Kidnappings for ransom, drug-smuggling, fake invoicing and extortion are just a few of the ways in which terrorists raise cash f
Kidnappings for ransom, drug-smuggling, fake invoicing and extortion are just a few of the ways in which terrorists raise cash f
admin
2019-06-20
56
问题
Kidnappings for ransom, drug-smuggling, fake invoicing and extortion are just a few of the ways in which terrorists raise cash for their nefarious deeds. Some scams take advantage of globalization; American officials found that Hizbullah, a Lebanese movement, raised funds by exporting used cars from America and selling them in west Africa.
Governments are understandably keen to cut terrorists off from sources of cash, and have been taking drastic steps to punish banks for involvement in financing dangerous people. In 2012 the American authorities imposed a $1.9 billion fine on HSBC, a British bank, for lax controls on money-laundering. Big fines have been meted out to Barclays, ING and Standard Chartered for money-laundering or sanctions-busting. BNP Paribas of France is said to be facing a fine of as much as $ 10 billion in America. Such stiff penalties are popular , and provide great press for ambitious prosecutors. Cut the flow of money to terrorism, their thinking goes, and it will wither.
Yet there are two problems with this approach. First, the regulations are so demanding and the fines so large that banks are walking away from countries and businesses where they perceive even the faintest whiff of risk. American regulators, for instance, require banks to know not only who their customers are, and what they plan to do with their cash, but also the identities and intentions of their customers’ custoers. Correspondent-banking relationships—the arteries of global finance that allow people and firms to send money from one country to another, even if their own bank does not have a branch there—are therefore collapsing. Some of world’s biggest banks privately say they are cutting as many as a third of these relationships.
This retreat will have little impact on the rich world. Britain’s Lloyds Banking Group, say, will probably always transact with Wells Fargo in America or ICBC in China. But it could prove devastating to small, poor countries whose banks lose their big international partners just because the costs of checking up on them outweigh the paltry profits they generate. Some countries risk being cut off from the financial system altogether; British banks last year threatened to close the last pipeline for money transfers into Somalia. Others will see the costs of intermediation rise; bankers talk of a tenfold increase in fees paid to send money to countries such as Tanzania. Cotton farmers in Mali and small exporters in Indonesia will find it increasingly hard to get trade finance. Even well-known charities responding to UN calls for assistance in countries such as Syria are struggling to get banks to let them send aid.
Making it harder to follow the money.
Were all of this actually preventing terrorism it might be judged a fair trade-off. Yet—and this is the second problem with this approach—it seems likely to be ineffective or even counter-productive. Terrorism is not particularly expensive, and the money needed to finance it can travel by informal routes. In 2012 guards on the border between Nigeria and Niger arrested a man linked to Boko Haram, a Nigerian terror group, with 35 ,000 in his underpants: laughable, except that the group has killed around 1, 500 people this year a-lone. Restrictions on banks will encourage terrorists to avoid the banking system. That may hinder rather than help the fight against terrorism. A former spy complains that it has become harder to piece together intelligence on terrorist networks now that the money flows within them are entirely illicit.
When the G20 meets later this year it should urge its members to accept the risk that even in well-regulated banking systems money may find its way to terrorists. Banks should be given clear guidance on necessary safeguards, but not held responsible for every breach.
What impacts do the fines have on banking?
选项
答案
The fines are so large that banks are walking away from countries and businesses where they perceive even the faintest whiff of risk.
解析
事实细节题。第三段第二句指出,这项法规如此严苛、罚款数额如此之大,使得银行只要察觉到某个国家或交易有丁点儿风险,就不会与之开展业务。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/AHra777K
本试题收录于:
翻译硕士(翻译硕士英语)题库专业硕士分类
0
翻译硕士(翻译硕士英语)
专业硕士
相关试题推荐
()isrenownedforitsuniqueplantandanimalspecies.Itisestimatedthattherearearound20,000to25,000different
What’sthechanceof______ageneralelectionthisyear?
Theyoungloverswerenotallowedtogetmarriedbecausetheirtwofamilieswere______enemies.
Thesymphony’ssecondmovement—slow,mournful,and______—isbasedonafuneralmarch.
Hewasfiredbecauseofhis______refusaltofolloworders.
Sheshouldbe______andnotmakeunreasonabledemands.
Georgehadstolensomemoney,butthepolicehadcaughthimandhehadbeenputinprison.Nowhistrialwasabouttobegin,and
Everymemberofsocietyhastomakea______tostruggleforthefreedomofthecountry.
Itriedtoseeit,______theinvisibleandimmeasurableenergyofmassofanatom,acell,aperson;Icouldalmostseeit.(visi
Theytookaboattripandtouredthesoutherncoastlineand________islands.
随机试题
关于区分一罪与数罪的标准,通常采取【】
的充要条件为()
【B1】【B12】
Oneoftheworld’soldestandmostfamousstatuesmaynot【C1】______muchlongerunlessstepsare【C2】______tosaveit.Thehugef
急性坏死型胰腺炎所发生的休克属于()
钙通道拮抗剂的结构类型不包括
灭菌效果评价标准是
文化是民族的血脉,是人们的“精神家园”,而古迹遗址无异于维系“血脉”和“精神家园”的基因。保护古迹遗址何必囿于“一日”呢?一些破坏古迹遗址的行为不受时间限制。因此,保护古迹遗址必须全天候、常态化。否则,仍不能阻止一些古迹遗址遭到破坏。在保护古迹遗址问题上,
在考生文件夹下打开文档15A.DOC,其内容如下:【文档开始】听说,旅顺到现在仍然是不对外国人开放的,因为这里有军港。因此,在大连处处都能看到的外国人,在这里却没有丝毫踪迹。旅顺的旅游景点,几乎全部和战争有关,从甲午战争到日俄战争,
在下列的软件中:①WPSOffice2003;②Windows2000;③UNIX;④AutoCAD;⑤Oracle;⑥Photoshop;⑦Linux。属于应用软件的是
最新回复
(
0
)