Your ISP "deliberately" routes child pornography over their networks all the time--that doesn't make them distributors of child pornography.

HSBC provides a banking service. Unlike with ISPs, they are responsible for overseeing how their service is used, to prevent money laundering. Failing to oversee the employees who failed to follow the regulations designed to prevent HSBC's service being used for money laundering is not the same thing as actually money laundering (juicy reporting aside).

HSBC knew what they were doing, that is things were explicitly illegal, and profited from that.

Who actually launders money then? Hint: it's not mobsters since their craft is illegal by itself and therefore no separate law for laundering would be needed.

> HSBC knew what they were doing, that is things were explicitly illegal, and profited from that.

The whole point is that the government couldn't prove that HSBC knew what was going on. The only thing they could prove was that the internal controls were broken (and that they knew they were broken and did nothing to fix it).

And yet, if it was some poor black kid caught on the wrong side of the tracks, the government/justice system could happily put his ass in jail despite them not being able to prove anything or him being innocent. As has happened time and again...

By and large, the government doesn't put poor black kids in jail without proof. A lot of my friends are public defenders working with these sorts of people, and by and large they commit the crimes they're accused of committing. The problem isn't that the government jails these people without proof, it's that you and I as voters, along with "just say no!" moms, etc, have continually voted for "tough on crime" laws that punish these people vastly out of proportion with what they did. But they did do it, and the police have proof because it's easy to prove "poor black kid" crimes. It's easy to prove it with evidence like "you tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop" or "we found the stolen car at your house."

With white collar crime the situation is different. Those laws make otherwise innocuous acts and omissions criminal to achieve broader social purposes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying an incorrect fact to a shareholder, or making a killing on a lucky trade, or getting the better end of a big deal. All those things only become wrong with proof of criminal intent (you knew the fact was wrong and intended to defraud investors--you didn't just make a mistake or restate a bad projection, you had inside information about the trade--you didn't just get lucky, you didn't disclose information you knew to be material to your counter-party).

We require intent for these things, because they are otherwise quite ordinary. They happen all time. People make mistakes all the time. People get lucky on trades all the time. People get the better of a deal all the time. It's only intent that makes them wrong.

But intent is intrinsically hard to prove. If you want to nail a "poor black kid" for grand theft auto, you just have to prove that he has the car and it's someone else's car. The intent requirement (that he didn't do it involuntarily) is easy to prove from circumstances. If you want to nail a banker for insider trading, you not only have to prove that the trade physically happened (which is easy), but you have to prove that the banker knew insider information. And proving what was inside someone's head is hard.