PDA

View Full Version : Mallick and Epass may not be totally to blame....


Greg B
10-12-2010, 10:01 PM
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/07/hsbc-settles-money-laundering-probe/?section=money_topstories

This is a story about how banking giant HSBC got hit by the BSA ( banking security act ) and given a warning to get their shit together regarding money laundering laws and procedures.

It may well be that Epass' people thought they had their paperwork in order but the new laws enacted this Summer jumped up and bit them in the ass. If a mega bank like HSBC with $180+ billion can be taken to the wood shed you can imagine what's happening to smaller operations around the world. If one does a Google search and spends the time going through the world news items you'll see problems with numerous financial corps who have had to comply. Some we don't hear about but Epass, not a bank, isn't the only one to get it's ass kicked I'm sure.

Toby
10-12-2010, 10:12 PM
It's not like these regs are all that new. They've had plenty of time to be in complete compliance but chose not to in order to avoid losing some large accounts. So yes, if that is indeed what caused SKNAB to ask Visa to freeze the ePass account then it is still Mallick's fault.

Greg B
10-12-2010, 11:24 PM
It's not like these regs are all that new. They've had plenty of time to be in complete compliance but chose not to in order to avoid losing some large accounts. So yes, if that is indeed what caused SKNAB to ask Visa to freeze the ePass account then it is still Mallick's fault.

I agree, however, Mallick may not be at total fault. That's my point. Laws get nebulous and people interpret them in all sorts of ways to gain the upper hand or cover their asses.

The past month I've had to battle with banks, companies you all know who misplaced checks, didn't fill out their administrative data correctly, and more. You would figure with their number of staff on hand they would cross all their t's and dot all their i's but when you double check they're off by a country mile. I've never, ever seen as much sloppy administrative work as I've seen the past several months. Just sloppy.

tony404
10-13-2010, 11:54 AM
Also him being in cabo during this happening makes you wonder.

gonzo
10-13-2010, 05:41 PM
I dont see how it lasted as long as it did.
Search the board we all called it a turd 7 years ago.

But then again I dont think most of us saw it as a way to avoid taxes and launder money.

Chris Mallick got way more attention than he expected and not the way he wanted with his California tan and his holllywood teeth.

I wonder what his wife thinks of him running around with the younger women for weekends in cabo with a twink in tow?

A lot of people that I know that avoid the boards see him as an arrogant little man with a ego that had to be fed and laugh that he had to make a movie about himself.
Of course several have posted the same thing here and elsewhere.

MikeSouth
10-13-2010, 06:36 PM
what happened to epass didnt happen overnight...they had ample warning and ample notice to come into compliance.

gonzo
10-19-2010, 10:05 AM
Just remember all those top notch stand up guys that were in full page ads endorsing this product... Lens...DMoney ...etc

08e9k-c91E8

RawAlex
10-19-2010, 10:31 AM
Greg, the difference is that the HSBC banks in question were warned, not shut down. Do you not think that the St Kitt's people contacted e-pass long before the shut down and said "hey, you are out of compliance, we need to fix this"?

Epass was loose and fast with money, on accounts under 5k a year. I am sure there are plenty of scammers out there who were using epass accounts as money laundering toilet paper, sort of laundering the cash by wiping the shit off of it.

Why do you think that nearly half the traffic to the st kitt's bank after the epass issue was from Russia?

At the end of the day, Epass was in a position where the St Kitt's bank could no longer front for them, likely under pressure from Visa system or regulators. Epass was unable to come into compliance, and there you go.

The real issue (for American courts, I suspect) will be what Mallick knew, when he knew it, and if he failed to disclose those facts to clients who were passing money into the system that Mallick knew as a result would likely not be easily returned.