pseudodemocracias siglo XXI: la banca lava miles de millones, impunemente, mientras los trabajadores son privados mediante procedimientos judiciales de su salario para mayor gloria de los dioses banqueros.Justicia es Injusticia, puro Orwell en el S XXI

drug money laundering o de cómo la gran banca lava mejor…el dinero negro de la droga

 El sistema bancario internacional es un perfecto modelo de lo que es el funcionamiento de una de las ramas del poder más fuertes dentro de las democracias homologadas del presente tiempo de globalización y posmodernismo orwelliano
El banco norteamericano Wachovia, que fue adquirido en la turbulencia de la crisis de 2008 por Wells Fargo, es uno de los que se sabe y se ha probado como uno de los lavadores de dinero de los cárteles de la droga. Se sabe de 380 mil millones de dóalres lavados y de una multa de 160 millones
Bueno, no está mal el negocio…para este banco.Y los demás que han ido a esta fuente de cash o sea, de efectivo , para sobrevivir en tiempos difíciles.
La cuestión es que si un ciudadano en España , pongamos por caso,solicita un préstamo de 300 euros y luego lo va aumentando a raíz de la generosa oferta de tomar más, por parte de una de las varias compañías tapadera de los grandes bancos, como es Cofidis, que presta dinero a por ejemplo, asalariados cuya única garantía o “aval” es su nómina , el susodicho banco , el Santander, o sea, Cofidis, va a llegar hasta seis mil euros de préstamo a la módica tasa de casi un 25 % de interés. En caso de no pagar puntualmente el recibo mensual a este banco , se le cobrará un recargo mensual de casi un , créalo usted, 50 % extra.
Bien. El citado ciudadano , en caso de no poder hacer frente a su compromiso de pagar lo prestado por Cofidis o sea Banco de Santander, se verá frente a un JUZGADO en el cual , si no tiene dinero para pagarse un abogado, solicitar uno de oficio al Estado es su “derecho”. Ahora bien: ese derecho implica unas condiciones, tal como ser incapaz de pagar un abogado privado, es decir, tener un umbral de salario mensaul que no supere un mínimo bastante bajo.
Sigue el procedimiento de la JUSTICIA ( créase oo no , ese es su nombre real): el juicio contra el no pagador se saca adelante de este modo en España: no presenta abogado, por no poderlo pagar ni tener uno de oficio, ya que su salario supera el umbral establecido por las leyes vía “Colegio de abogados”( es decir, la cofradía de corte MEDIEVAL). El caso es que ese asalariado que se atrevió a no pagarle a un gran banco , sea el Santander,Wachovia,BBVA,Citigroup,etc etc, se verá con su nómina CONFISCADA, es decir, se embaragrá su salario para que el tal banco pueda cbrar su préstamo impagado. Esto sin que el juez haya escuchado las razones del acusado, porque no puede éste acudir en su defensa si no va con abogado y procurador , las dos , eh.Bien. El siguiente paso es que cuando cobre lo que el juzgado decida, se verá al borde de la miseria, tanto el acusado como su familia.Esto es lo que se conoce como procedimiento judicial…y no va ala cárcel porque de ir, el banco no podría cobrarse a lo mafioso su préstamo del cual ya ha cobrado en la inmensa mayoría de los casos , mucho más de lo que prestó por la sencilla razón de los intereses tan sublimemente excesivos…
La cuestión esencial es , por lo tanto la siguiente:
Se puede y debe dejar a la banca tomar y enriquecerse con el dinero de las mafias de la droga , pero a los que piden un préstamo , por ejemplo, para pagar los estudios de sus hijos que tampoco han logrado becas o ayudas de un Estado pseudodemorcrático y pseudo socialista y obrero , en el caso del PSOE español pongamos por caso….éstos cidadanos carne de cañón de la Big Bussiness banca y el sistema judicial INJUSTO Y MEDIEVAL…no tiene más que someterse a este modelo medieval de siervos de la gleba al servicio de los amos y sus capataces políitico jurídicos…todo ello aderezado de mucho circo televisivo y mucho pan para un pueblo cada día más atemorizado ante la perspectiva de no tener ni qiquera un salario que exponer a la banca voraz que acabe fagocitándoselo vía JUSTICIA en esos tremendos fantasmas de la Idea de Justicia que son los procesos de embargo de nóminas….
Aquí pongo el artículo publicado por la revista norteamericana NACLA ( está en inglés, discúlpenme)
lterNet / By Zach Carter 52 COMMENTS
Wall Street Is Laundering Drug Money and Getting Away with It
Wall Street has been caught laundering massive amounts of drug money. So why isn’t anybody being punished?
July 16, 2010 |
This piece originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future. It has been expanded for this publication.

Too-big-to-fail is a much bigger problem than you thought. We’ve all read damning accounts of the government saving banks from their risky subprime bets, but it turns out that the Wall Street privilege problem is far more deeply ingrained in the U.S. legal system than the simple bailouts witnessed in 2008. America’s largest banks can engage in flagrantly criminal activity on a massive scale and emerge almost completely unscathed. The latest sickening example comes from Wachovia Bank: Accused of laundering $380 billion in Mexican drug cartel money, the financial behemoth is expected to emerge with nothing more than a slap on the wrist thanks to an official government policy which protects megabanks from criminal charges.

Bloomberg’s Michael Smith has penned a devastating expose detailing Wachovia’s drug-money operations and the government’s twisted response. The bank was moving money behind literally tons of cocaine from violent drug cartels. It wasn’t an accident. Internal whistleblowers at Wachovia warned that the bank was laundering drug money, higher-ups at the bank actively looked the other way in order to score bigger profits, and the U.S. government is about to let everyone involved get off scott free. The bank will not be indicted, because it is official government policy not to prosecute megabanks. From Smith’s story:

No big U.S. bank . . . has ever been indicted for violating the Bank Secrecy Act or any other federal law. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again . . . . Large banks are protected from indictments by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory. Indicting a big bank could trigger a mad dash by investors to dump shares and cause panic in financial markets.

Wachovia was acquired by Wells Fargo in late 2008. The bank’s penalty for laundering over $380 billion in drug money is going to be a promise not to ever do it again, and a $160 million fine. The fine is so small that Wachovia will almost certainly turn a profit on its drug financing business after legal costs and penalties are taken into account.

International authorities know the banker-drug-dealer connection goes well beyond Wachovia, but governments aren’t doing anything about it. A 2009 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that most rules to prevent drug money laundering through banks are being violated. From the report:

“At a time of major bank failures, money doesn’t smell, bankers seem to believe. Honest citizens, struggling in a time of economic hardship, wonder why the proceeds of crime – turned into ostentatious real estate, cars, boats and planes – are not seized.”

In late 2009, the head of that U.N. office, Antonio Maria Costa, told the press that much interbank lending—short-term loans banks make to each other—was being supported by drug money. As financial markets froze up in 2007 and 2008, banks turned to drug cartels for cash. Without that drug money, many major banks might not have survived.
ECONOMY
AlterNet / By Zach Carter 52 COMMENTS
Wall Street Is Laundering Drug Money and Getting Away with It
Wall Street has been caught laundering massive amounts of drug money. So why isn’t anybody being punished?

This scenario is several steps beyond what most of us think about when we debate too-big-to-fail. The government isn’t shielding Wachovia from losses on risky bets in the capital markets casinos— it’s shielding the bank from the prosecution of outright criminal behavior. The drug money business did not pose risks to the financial system, and Wachovia wasn’t losing money on it. Wachovia is simply being shielded from what ought to be the ordinary functioning of the justice system.

Think about what would happen if you or I were accused of laundering $380 billion in drug money. We could not simply settle the allegations out of court in exchange for an apology and a fine. We’d spend the rest of our lives in jail for financing a ruthless, bloody and illegal business. About 22,000 people have been killed in the Mexican drug trade since 2006, and the drug trade itself can’t happen without extensive money laundering operations. Moving the money is one of the most difficult and critical elements of any criminal enterprise—without ways to convert crooked cash into seemingly innocuous funds, crooks simply can’t operate. Wachovia was doing top-level dirty work for drug dealers.

On the streets of American cities, the mere possession of these drugs can land you with a multi-year prison sentence. But financing multi-billion-dollar drug empires? Don’t do it again, pretty please.

Too-big-to-fail isn’t just a matter of systemic risk and mathematical models gone haywire, It’s about the basic functioning of our democracy. You cannot have a functional democracy in which an entire privileged class of bankers can get away with anything—and if you can get away with laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money, there’s not much you can’t get away with.

Yesterday, Congress passed a decent Wall Street reform bill, but that legislation will not end this criminal imbalance. If the bill will really end too-big-to-fail, the Justice Department could immediately end its special immunity policies for large financial institutions. That isn’t going to happen. The public deserves tougher prosecutors, but we also need further legislation to break up the megabanks so that they can’t use their economic clout to bully everyone in Washington.

Zach Carter is an economics editor at AlterNet. He writes a weekly blog on the economy for the Media Consortium and his work has appeared in the Nation, Mother Jones, the American Prospect and Salon.