> Well that again isn't an example of someone being caught and receiving a penalty lower than the gain from the crime.

I disagree... and frankly, just saying it isn't is a poor answer.

> Maybe there wasn't sufficient evidence to win?

Once again, your ignorance shows. The Justice Department expressed concern it would threaten the health of the financial system if they were too hard on HSBC at the time so they gave a low fee and ignored another crime.

> But this isn't an example of a caught party with a "so low that they don't matter" penalty.

I didn't say it was. I was answering your above question about a party that was 'caught' and faced a lower... NO penalty, in this case.

Banks are require to abide by a charter that requires good behavior. For evidence of criminal conduct that charter can be revoked and HSBC should have lost their right to operate in the United States. I would certainly call that a fee so low they don't matter penalty.

Especially since HSBC is now being accused of money laundering again... this time by Nigeria.

All you are giving is negative arguments. Saying things are not, and raising speculation without a basis does not add to the discussion. I am done with this.

No penalty is not the same thing as a lower penalty. You don't go around saying people got a lower penalty that were never actually prosecuted for something.

You claim the parent is speculating without basis but the parent is asking for an example where a normal penalty is lower than the profit, because that is an extraordinary claim.

If hsbc was able to profit from money laundering while paying they penalty, they would still be doing it. They obviously had no moral barriers to doing it before so why would they stop?