Updated:
Original:

Barclays Barely Noticed It Was Doing Illicit Business In Zimbabwe

Whatareyougonnado?
Author:

Honestly, who at the bank even has time to notice non-egregious violations, let alone to self-report them? Especially when the fine, $2.5 million, is not even a rounding error on its legal reserve.

Barclays processed 159 transactions worth $3.4 million from July 2008 to September 2013 to or through financial institutions in the U.S., including at its New York branch, for corporate customers of Barclays Bank of Zimbabwe that were majority-owned by people on U.S. sanctions lists, Treasury said….

The bank didn’t voluntarily self-disclose the apparent sanctions violations to Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control but the case wasn’t egregious, according to a penalty notice posted to OFAC’s website.

Barclays Pays $2.5 Million over Zimbabwe Sanctions Breaches [WSJ Risk & Compliance Journal blog]

Related

Barclays Shareholders Want To Know Why Jes Staley Hasn’t Fixed It Yet

It's not like the bank was in terrible shape when he got there or anything.

Getty Images

Barclays Acted A Bit Too American In Its Dealings With British Customers

That kind of predatory nonsense belongs only in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

No, wait! Put it back!

SFO Adds Some Existential Drama To Barclays Qatar Trial

Specifically, whether Barclays will have to find something to do other than being a bank. (Probably not.)

No, wait! Put it back!

Barclays I-Bank Shouldn’t Exist, Does, Is Thusly A Problem

What to do with an unloved business that fails all the Goldilocks tests but still contributes most your revenue?