NEWS,16.09.2012

JPMorgan, Bank Of America Probed Over Money-Laundering Allegations: New York Times

Regulators are investigating whether several major U.S. banks failed to monitor transactions properly, allowing criminals to launder money, according to a New York Times story. The newspaper cited officials who it said spoke on the condition of anonymity.The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal agency that oversees the biggest banks, is leading the money-laundering investigation, according to the Times. The report said the OCC could soon take action against JPMorgan Chase & Co., and that it is also investigating Bank of America Corp. Money laundering allows people to make money often obtained illegally appear like it came from another source.The OCC, JPMorgan and Bank of America declined to comment.The financial industry is struggling to mend its public image. Four years after the financial crisis, banks are getting closer scrutiny. And regulators are under pressure to show that they're not missing any questionable activity.This summer, British bank Barclays PLC settled charges that it had manipulated a key global interest rate. Standard Chartered PLC, also based in the U.K., agreed to settle charges that it had improperly processed money for Iran, brought by the New York Department of Financial Services after the bank voluntarily informed regulators that it was reviewing relevant practices. In the spring, JPMorgan surprised shareholders with an unexpected trading loss.If the OCC takes action, it could be similar to a cease-and-desist order that it filed against Citigroup in April. At the time, the OCC said that Citi had deficient internal controls and anti-money laundering procedures. In bank regulation, a cease-and-desist order doesn't mean that a bank has to shut down, but it is a serious sanction that requires a bank to change its practices. Citi had already told the regulator that from 2006 to 2010, it had "failed to adequately monitor" some of its transactions connected to "foreign correspondent banking."The order in April didn't make any new, specific accusations. But it did instruct Citigroup to tighten its rules so it could improve compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations. The act requires financial institutions to report suspicious activity and to put rules in place to try to make money laundering impossible for customers.Last year, JPMorgan paid $88 million to settle charges from the Treasury that it had unlawfully processed money for Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Liberia.At the time, JPMorgan said it had had no intent to violate regulations. It pointed out that it oversaw "hundreds of millions of transactions and customer records per day, and annual error rates are a tiny fraction of a percent."It's not expected that banks would be accused of trying to show support for countries like Cuba and Iran. It's more likely that they would be accused of faulty oversight that made any unlawful transactions possible. The industry has maintained that such violations are almost always unintentional.According to the Times, the Justice Department and the Manhattan district attorney's office are also involved. The Manhattan U.S. attorney's office and the Manhattan district attorney's office declined to comment.

 

Iran's Nuclear Timeline

 

Iran is nuclear capable. If Iran's leaders decided they wanted a nuclear bomb, they could build one. They have the material, the technical ability, and likely have a design. They have had these capabilities for at least five years, when they accumulated enough raw material that could be converted into the core of a bomb.But Iran does not have a bomb now. U.S. intelligence officials have high confidence that Iranian leaders have not made the decision to build a bomb. There is much confusion  some of it intentionally spread about how long it would take Iran to build a weapon.An outstanding team of seasoned national security experts has just published a clear, detailed explanation of Iran's nuclear timeline. The report of the Iran Project was endorsed by 34 security leaders, including Brent Scowcroft, Sam Nunn, Gen. Tony Zinni, Adm. James Fallon, Gen. Frank Kearney, Carla Hills, Anne Marie Slaughter, Chuck Hagel, Adm. Joe Sestak, Jessica Mathews, Zbigniew Brezinski, Nicholas Burns and this author.Here is an excerpt from the report (on p. 22) that provides a sound basis for debating what actions should be taken to convince Iran not to build nuclear weapons. This report is intentionally conservative. There may be serious technical problems that make the timeline much longer. I have highlighted in bold key phrases.While there are differences of opinion on this issue, we believe it would be extremely difficult for Iran to hide a nuclear program devoted to weapons development. No monitoring and detection system is failure-proof, but Iran has little reason to be confident that it could get away with creating a secret program to produce fissile material for a weapon.Were Iran to attempt to produce a single bomb's worth of highly enriched uranium (HEU), it would take at least one month (although some experts believe the timeline could be as long as four months or more). It is important to note that while the ability to build a single bomb is a somewhat useful theoretical construct, it has little or no correspondence to how nuclear weapons programs function in the real world.Historically, no country in the nuclear age has sought as its goal to build one nuclear weapon; nor has any country adopted a strategy of building one weapon knowing that as a consequence, its program would be exposed. The timeline for producing a single bomb's worth of HEU is subject to change, depending on the number and type of operational centrifuges available as well as the size of Iran's stockpile of already enriched uranium, particularly 20% enriched uranium. Conservatively, it would take Iran a year or more to build a military-grade weapon, with at least two years or more required to create a nuclear warhead that would be reliably deliverable by a missile.In short, it is likely that the United States would receive some warning and have at least a month to make a decision on action -- military or other. Understanding the difference between the one-month timeline of producing sufficient fissile material in order to produce a weapon, and the two-year timeline of creating a nuclear warhead, is critical when considering the likely success of military action.After a month, the weapons-grade uranium (WGU) could be reduced significantly in size (25 kilograms); if properly encased, it could be easily hidden and would be highly mobile. This would be a very hard target to detect and destroy. While it would take some additional time for Iran to translate the WGU into a meaningful military capability, the ability for the United States or others to launch preventive military strikes would be reduced. In contrast, the facility used to enrich the WGU is immobile and large and therefore an easier and somewhat vulnerable target (unless deeply buried)....The more apparent the decision to make a weapon, the more persuasive the justification for military action would be to the international community, including the United Nations Security Council. While Israel's more limited military capabilities and earlier "red line" create a closing window of opportunity to take military action, the U.S. could afford to wait for its red line to be crossed Iran undertaking a dedicated weapons program before deciding whether to take preventive military action....Given the deepening mutual distrust between the U.S. and Iran; congressional sympathy for Israel's perspective on a nuclear-capable Iran; and the conviction among some parties that Iran has already secretly decided to build a nuclear weapon, we believe the most likely military scenario is one in which preemptive, unilateral action against Iran is initiated by the U.S. and/or Israel, under conditions of some uncertainty about Iran's real intentions.