Panama Papers

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

Under those circumstances they deserve to have the book thrown at them, and swingeing fines, and criminal action against the perpetrators.

that's always assuming you think that the USA should be the arbiter of who is allowed to trade with whom.
Personally I don't think they should have that power.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

that's always assuming you think that the USA should be the arbiter of who is allowed to trade with whom.
Personally I don't think they should have that power.

In this instance it was BNP Paribas in the US that had broken US law. If you operate in the US then I think it's reasonable that you come under US law just as if you operate in the UK then you come under UK law.

If it wasn't so mind-numbingly tedious I would walk you through how they did it as I started my career in banking making wire payments.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

In this instance it was BNP Paribas in the US that had broken US law. If you operate in the US then I think it's reasonable that you come under US law just as if you operate in the UK then you come under UK law.

Yes I know that, but that doesn't make the moral case does it.
The USA has a long history of trying to extend it judicial reach far from its own shores.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes I know that, but that doesn't make the moral case does it.
The USA has a long history of trying to extend it judicial reach far from its own shores.

American people working in America for a French bank broke American law and so were prosecuted in America. It's hard to see what is immoral.

You're all over the laws broken by migrants to the UK.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

American people working in America for a French bank broke American law and so were prosecuted in America. It's hard to see what is immoral.

You're all over the laws broken by migrants to the UK.

Give me a couple of posts were I have commented on migrants breaking UK law other than the general point that we should be allowed to deport foreign criminals (just like countries as USA or Australia, NZ etc.)
Why not try to separate your hypocritical views on the benefits of the EU from the reality.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Give me a couple of posts were I have commented on migrants breaking UK law other than the general point that we should be allowed to deport foreign criminals (just like countries as USA or Australia, NZ etc.)
Why not try to separate your hypocritical views on the benefits of the EU from the reality.

Lots of demands.

BNP Paribas broke the US law in the US and so was prosecuted.

You're trying to change the subject because you're wrong so you want to discuss something else.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Lots of demands.

BNP Paribas broke the US law in the US and so was prosecuted.

You're trying to change the subject because you're wrong so you want to discuss something else.

I believe it was a post by yourself that changed the subject to the totally unrelated issue of laws broken by immigrants to the UK and your incorrect accusation about my attitude (which you have been unable to vindicate).

You could apologise but I won't be holding my breath.

Generali wrote:

American people working in America for a French bank broke American law and so were prosecuted in America. It's hard to see what is immoral.

You're all over the laws broken by migrants to the UK.

On the actual topic, both the legal and moral situations are both central to the discussion.

In the case of Dave he appears to have broken no laws but is suffering a moral backlash, in the case of BNP they broke US laws but the moral case is debateable.
There is no need for you to introduce your bigoted views about UK immigration at all.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Lots of demands.

BNP Paribas broke the US law in the US and so was prosecuted.

You're trying to change the subject because you're wrong so you want to discuss something else.

But how about the more general question of jurisdiction? Suppose the US decided they didn't want to trade with those cheese eating surrender monkeys in France and that if the UK wanted to carry on trading with such lily-livered turncoats then we would no longer be able to trade with the US. Sure as a sovereign the US can make their own rules but would that be reasonable?

Apparently DCs mum made him a gift - I would just like to declare that I have received gifts from my parents in the past and am therefore unfit to hold public office or do anything else.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

But how about the more general question of jurisdiction? ....

US jurisdiction applies to anywhere within range of an aircraft carrier or a cruiser based Tomahawk.:)