This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But I am also saying that a bank which exclusively does business outside the US should not be required to do so. I'm saying that if I make money in France, then take that money to Switzerland and put it in the Swiss bank that has no branches in the US, the US should not have any right to force that bank to divulge anything about my account. The US can try to force me, as a US citizen, to divulge the info, but if I don't, they have no right to compel the Swiss bank which is not maintaining any branches in the US or courting US customers in the US to do so.

I find it deplorable that any nation would try to force a bank in another country, with no ties to the requesting nation, to break its own secrecy laws to aid the foreign nation's prosecution of one of its own nationals. That's a gross, ridiculous over-reach.

I don't disagree with any of this. But your complaint really has nothing to do with the facts. We are not running around the world forcing companies with no US ties to give up a bunch of information as it pleases us. Part of UBS' settlement for the crime they committed was turning over information about other criminals they are hiding. They did not have to do that. They could have taken the full penalty. They chose not to. They rolled on their clients instead. Why didn't you draft a post about how shitty UBS acted concerning the crime they committed and the resulting sell-out of their clients to save their own skins?

And as yesterday's article stated, the Swiss government will decide what information gets passed along to ours. And I bet UBS and other Swiss banks who do business here want their government to cooperate.

So the "gross, ridiculous over-reach" you're talking about doesn't exist. You act like you've got some prosecutor walking into Bank of Zurich and demanding that they release information on every US citizen that has an account there.

TM

[dtb]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

So the "gross, ridiculous over-reach" you're talking about doesn't exist. You act like you've got some prosecutor walking into Bank of Zurich and demanding that they release information on every US citizen that has an account there.

You mean like Jason Bourne? I wouldn't fuck with that guy. Which distinguishes me from Sarah Silverman.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I do not buy into the stereotype. I played softball (even broke my nose doing it) and am anything but fat or gay.

No stereotype that is entirely false will catch on. No stereotype that is entirely true is useful.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't disagree with any of this. But your complaint really has nothing to do with the facts. We are not running around the world forcing companies with no US ties to give up a bunch of information as it pleases us. Part of UBS' settlement for the crime they committed was turning over information about other criminals they are hiding. They did not have to do that. They could have taken the full penalty. They chose not to. They rolled on their clients instead. Why didn't you draft a post about how shitty UBS acted concerning the crime they committed and the resulting sell-out of their clients to save their own skins?

And as yesterday's article stated, the Swiss government will decide what information gets passed along to ours. And I bet UBS and other Swiss banks who do business here want their government to cooperate.

So the "gross, ridiculous over-reach" you're talking about doesn't exist. You act like you've got some prosecutor walking into Bank of Zurich and demanding that they release information on every US citizen that has an account there.

TM

We don't know how broad the initial request was, and having dealt with Federal prosecutors, I'd be shocked - shocked - if it didn't include a demand for everything imaginable, including the exempted category I cited. As Cletus noted, if you want 5, ask for 25. They started with 52,000, and now they're down to 4,450. Shows what kind of borderline bad faith went into the initial request.

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They started with 52,000, and now they're down to 4,450. Shows what kind of borderline bad faith went into the initial request.

And when someone argued that your initial production request was "borderline bad faith", you'd tell them to comply with the request and kindly fuck the hell off, too. That's specious, and you know it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

And the Swiss replied that "Every American who has ever seen a packet of "Swiss Miss" and failed to perform mandatory service in the Swiss military has violated Swiss law. Please extradite them immediately." And then told the DOJ to kindly fuck off.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We don't know how broad the initial request was, and having dealt with Federal prosecutors, I'd be shocked - shocked - if it didn't include a demand for everything imaginable, including the exempted category I cited. As Cletus noted, if you want 5, ask for 25. They started with 52,000, and now they're down to 4,450. Shows what kind of borderline bad faith went into the initial request.

Demand, request, negotiated. Who cares? If they had asked for 100, they would have received 100 or less. This just doesn't bother me in the context of a settlement by a bank who has broken the law (hell, the request is related to one of the laws they broke, no?). And you still haven't answered why you're so pissed at the prosecutors and not the bank. But I'll chalk it up to a personal experience you've had with a prosecutor and the fact that you now seem to think they overstep as a rule.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

I don't really want to argue about what people would get away with if they could. But if I did, I would start with the assholes who skip out on their taxes and leave you and me paying more.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by robustpuppy

I see there is still something seriously off about you.

I appreciate your honesty.

Off to the Ashram, now.

(And welcome back).

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm saying I agree with you. I'm saying you and Cletus are right that a bank doing business in the US should have to divulge the info.

But I am also saying that a bank which exclusively does business outside the US should not be required to do so. I'm saying that if I make money in France, then take that money to Switzerland and put it in the Swiss bank that has no branches in the US, the US should not have any right to force that bank to divulge anything about my account. The US can try to force me, as a US citizen, to divulge the info, but if I don't, they have no right to compel the Swiss bank which is not maintaining any branches in the US or courting US customers in the US to do so.

I find it deplorable that any nation would try to force a bank in another country, with no ties to the requesting nation, to break its own secrecy laws to aid the foreign nation's prosecution of one of its own nationals. That's a gross, ridiculous over-reach.

Aren't you changing the hypothetical? UBS does do business in the United States and broke U.S. laws while doing so.

ETA: Scroll then post.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

They could have taken the full penalty. They chose not to. They rolled on their clients instead.

TM

This isn't my field, but wouldn't the continued maintenance of the accounts, without disclosure, be a continuing violation? There wasn't really anyway for them to get out from under the prosecution w/o divulging the identity of the subject accounts, was there? Wonk?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No stereotype that is entirely false will catch on.

e.g. Atticus's twosies issues.

No stereotype that is entirely true is useful.

c.f. Atticus's twosies issues.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

If I'd know that I would have used you instead of Finch. But I stand by my example of every catcher everywhere.

'scuse me?

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I do not buy into the stereotype. I played softball (even broke my nose doing it) and am anything but fat or gay.

I played softball too, and was even the catcher! Yay me!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No stereotype that is entirely false will catch on. No stereotype that is entirely true is useful.

Everything in moderation, except for moderation itself.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

"if they could." Big caveat.

You appear to be ranting about something that you recognize has never happened, and that you know is impossible.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

This isn't my field, but wouldn't the continued maintenance of the accounts, without disclosure, be a continuing violation? There wasn't really anyway for them to get out from under the prosecution w/o divulging the identity of the subject accounts, was there? Wonk?

Good question. I don't know. There must be a difference between the nature of the accounts. Otherwise, why would they request info on 50,000 and only get 4,000?

TM