A Special Understanding

Under successive neoliberal administrations in both Canada and the U.S., it has long been demonstrated that those occupying the upper echelons of our fractured societies are granted a myriad of benefits, not the least of which seems to be a virtual moratorium on prosecutions when wrongdoing is uncovered and proven. The fact that no one went to jail over the 2008 financial meltdown is but the most egregious example. Indeed, such is their power and arrogance that corporate executives were given bonuses from the very bail-out money that taxpayers funded for those institutions and enterprises deemed "too big to fail." When there is punishment of any kind for malfeasance, it is usually just fines which the errant entity can then use as tax write-offs.

Although the strongest examples of special treatment can be found stateside, Canada has its own way of dealing with financial malfeasance that should anger all of us, reflective as it is of the neoliberalism that pervades our land.

Thanks to a joint investigation by The Toronto Star and The National Obsserver {a fine online newspaper that offers subscriptions and solicits donations to support its journalism), we have yet another example in the deeply offensive special treatment by Fintrac, Canada’s money laundering and terrorist financing enforcement agency, of a major Canadian bank.

Canada’s money-laundering agency is refusing to name the bank hit with an unprecedented penalty for failing to report a suspicious transaction and committing hundreds of other violations in its dealings with a controversial client. Details of the failures — including one the agency described as “very serious”...

For nearly two years, the bank failed to report a series of unusual transactions in its client’s account, despite news reports at the time revealing he was under criminal investigation in the U.S. The transactions included dozens of large cash deposits and hundreds of international transfers worth more than $12 million, reveal the newly-released documents.

Despite the fact that the law requires reporting of transaction amounting to 10,000 or more, from

early 2012 to the end of 2013, the unnamed bank processed 1,179 international electronic transfers of $10,000 or more from the mystery client, who used a “potential shell company” and operated out of an unnamed country associated with money laundering. It also accepted 45 cash deposits of $10,000 or more, all without ever reporting the transactions to Fintrac, Canada’s money laundering and terrorist financing enforcement agency, as required by law.

With some deductive sleuthing, the newspapers were able to determine that the individual involved in these transactions was

Manitoba online pharmacy entrepreneur Andrew Strempler, 42, who pleaded guilty to mail fraud charges in the U.S. after his shipments were found to contain counterfeit medication.

While Strembler served his time and was released in October of 2015, Fintrac has treated the bank, which, under existing law, it could name, to anonymity after levying a $1.15 million fine, certainly a modest penalty given what the law allows:

Anyone who knowingly fails to report a suspicious transaction to FINTRAC can face a $2 million fine and up to five years in prison, under Canadian legislation on money laundering and terrorism financing. The maximum administrative monetary penalty for the bank's hundreds of violations would have been $1.8 million, the documents said.

The original penalty was $1.5 million, but Fintrac reduced it after 'negotiating' with the bank, which argued that the harm done was minimal.

I beg to differ with its decision to protect a major bank's reputation. Flagrantly violating the law 1,225 times in this case is damaging both to confidence in our banking system annd deeply demoralizing to the average person's sense of fair play. As Christine Duhaime, a lawyer who specializes in anti-moneylaundering law says,

“Joe Average who is fined for any administrative infraction is not afforded secrecy in this way and the rules should apply to all Canadians, legal and natural personals, equally, from banks to Joe Average.”

Yet Fintrac somehow seems to feel that they have really brought down the hammer in this case:

Fintrac said Tuesday’s announcement is meant to deter others from failing to report.

But the bank’s name was not added to a list of violators published on the agency’s website. The home page shows the name of many smaller companies, such as jewelry stores, independent securities dealers and real estate brokerages.

Quite unapologetic, Fintrac, according to The Observer report, feels it has done exemplary work in this case:

FINTRAC said it was trying to be discreet.

“The process has concluded and FINTRAC exercised its discretion not to name the entity so that we could send a timely message of deterrence to the 31,000 businesses that are subject to the Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Act”.

I'm afraid that the only message Fintrac has managed to convey is confirmation that there is indeed one law for the 'giants' who walk among us, and quite another for the rest of us. It is far past time that this special understanding (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) between certain societal segments and the massive insult to the rest of us ended.

Bell's Contempt For Its Customers

For me, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back came last year. Up to then, every three to six months I would play the game of calling my telephone and Internet service provider, Bell Canada, to renegotiate my charges, asking them what they could do for me since I was contemplating switching to the lower-priced services offered by Cogeco, my cable tv provider. The operator would check for special promotions since I had been "a loyal customer for so many years," and I would get a reduced price for both my phone and Internet. When the promotion ended, I would call again and perform the same dance.

This routine grew increasingly tiresome, and I finally decided that I had had enough of Bell's tawdry tactics when, after my final renegotiation, I looked at my bill the following month, noting that both my Internet and my phone bill had been increased by a couple of dollars from the renegotiated price. The assumption of my corporate overlords, I guess, was that, like the frog being slowing boiled alive, I wouldn't notice. But I did, and I walked.

This morning my thoughts turned to Bell upon reading a story about how it is handling the CRTC mandate for all television providers to offer a basic skinny package costing only $25. To call the corporation contemptuous is likely an understatement.

... experts say Bell’s stripped-down deal — devoid of U.S. channels — seems to veer further from the spirit of the new regulations than other carriers and changes little for most consumers, despite the CRTC’s aim “to give Canadians more choice.”

That choice is “things that we’ve never heard of,” said Dwayne Winseck, a professor at Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication.

Winseck noted the absence of American broadcast stalwarts like ABC, NBC and CBS, included in basic Canadian TV packages for decades.

“They’re working to give it a stillbirth,” he said of the roll-out, calling it “retrograde,” “begrudging” and “behind 1970s standards.”

So how, exactly, is Bell parading its disdain for those seeking to reduce their costs? By offering them an unpalatable selection of 'econo-channels':

Bell’s entry-level package, posted online without fanfare two days before deadline, costs $24.95 per month. It counts the Weather Network, TVO and 10 francophone channels among its 26 offerings, according to the Bell website.

And the insult is compounded by this:

Extra à la carte channels for $4 or $7 range from TSN to Discovery and CNN. Like other Bell cable packages, the Starter kit requires a Bell Internet subscription, starting at $64.95 per month, plus $15 monthly for PVR rental.

Thanks to a document leaked to the CBC, we also know that Bell staff is being told not to promote the package. Take a look at Bell's website and see how long it takes you to find any information about it. Our spy agencies could likely learn a trick or two from Ma Bell on effective concealment tactics.

Bell's ruse is not going unnoticed:



Being the target of a corporation's contempt is always always an unpalatable experience. When that contempt becomes egregious, it needs to be dealt with forcefully and with finality. Bell will never see me return to its fold. With its newest outrageous perversion of the spirit of the CRTC ruling, I hope others will follow suit.