An exclusive article by Fred Kahn

Major money laundering scandals rarely surface through internal bank checks or regulator audits. They usually explode into the public sphere when investigative journalists or whistleblowers bring them to light. Nine emblematic cases demonstrate this pattern: 1MDB, Danske Bank, HSBC Swiss Private Bank, Credit Suisse, Azerbaijani Laundromat, the Moldovan billion-dollar fraud, Wachovia, Parex Bank Latvia, and most recently Leonteq. Each case reveals how enormous sums moved under the noses of compliance departments, only to be unearthed later by external investigators. Following these examples, the analysis turns to why compliance functions and regulators repeatedly fail, including the uncomfortable truth that some money laundering results from conscious corporate strategy.

Nine canonical cases of journalistic or whistleblower exposure

1. 1MDB (Malaysia / Global)

The 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal became one of the world’s largest kleptocracy cases, involving the diversion of over US$4.5 billion in public funds into offshore accounts and shell companies. The scheme financed luxury properties, art, yachts, and even Hollywood productions. It began unraveling after internal banking documents and emails were leaked by whistleblowers to investigative reporters from The Wall Street Journal and Sarawak Report. These journalists exposed how politically connected figures routed billions through international banks that either ignored or failed to escalate suspicious transactions.

Regulators acted only after the press revelations went global. Goldman Sachs, which underwrote several 1MDB bond issuances, was fined US$2.9 billion and faced further asset recovery obligations, totaling nearly US$3.9 billion with Malaysia. Compliance units within participating institutions had recorded anomalies but took no decisive action. This case exemplified how whistleblowers and journalists can unravel corruption that formal oversight misses for years.

2. Danske Bank Estonian branch

Between 2007 and 2015, Danske Bank’s Estonian branch became a key gateway for suspect cross-border payments totaling about €200 billion. Much of the flow originated from Russian, Azerbaijani, and Moldovan entities using non-resident accounts. The scandal began internally when whistleblower Howard Wilkinson, then head of the bank’s trading desk, warned management of unexplained transfers. His reports were buried. Later, The Guardian, OCCRP, and Financial Times journalists corroborated the leaks and published details of systemic failures, from weak customer due diligence to ignored internal alerts.

The eventual outcome was a US$2.06 billion forfeiture and criminal plea in the United States, while the bank’s leadership resigned. Regulators in Denmark and Estonia admitted oversight lapses. The scandal illustrated how whistleblowers and the media can overcome institutional inertia that lets cross-border laundering thrive.

3. HSBC Swiss Private Banking (SwissLeaks)

The HSBC Swiss Private Bank scandal originated with whistleblower Hervé Falciani, a former IT specialist who extracted account data revealing how thousands of clients used the bank to evade taxes and hide illicit wealth. Falciani handed the files to French authorities, and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and Le Monde transformed the trove into the SwissLeaks investigation. The leaked data exposed clients ranging from arms traffickers to politically exposed persons from multiple countries.

HSBC’s compliance function had ignored these risks for years, relying on self-certifications and minimal due diligence. The bank later entered a deferred prosecution agreement and paid US$192 million to the U.S. Department of Justice. The episode underscored how insider disclosure and investigative reporting can force systemic accountability across private banking secrecy.

4. Credit Suisse / Suisse Secrets

The Suisse Secrets revelations came entirely from journalists, coordinated by OCCRP and Süddeutsche Zeitung. Using leaked internal client records, reporters documented how Credit Suisse maintained accounts for dictators, sanctioned individuals, and criminals long after global AML standards prohibited such tolerance. The leaks described a culture of secrecy prioritizing profitability over compliance.

U.S. prosecutors later charged Credit Suisse Services AG with concealing more than US$4 billion from tax authorities, resulting in US$511 million in penalties and restitution. The affair reinforced that investigative journalism, not regulator initiative, remains the principal driver of transparency in Swiss private banking.

5. Azerbaijani Laundromat

The Azerbaijani Laundromat was a sophisticated network that moved roughly US$2.9 billion through European banks and shell companies between 2012 and 2014. The operation funded political lobbying, influence campaigns, and luxury purchases for elites tied to Azerbaijan’s ruling circles. The exposure came entirely from journalists, particularly OCCRP, The Guardian, and Berliner Zeitung, who analyzed leaked bank payment files and corporate registry data.

The investigation revealed how European correspondent banks processed suspicious payments with little scrutiny. Compliance teams viewed transactions as routine commercial transfers, and regulators lacked the cross-border coordination to detect the full pattern. The Laundromat’s exposure demonstrated the unmatched forensic capability of collaborative journalism.

6. Moldova billion-dollar bank fraud

The 2014 collapse of three Moldovan banks—Banca de Economii, Unibank, and Banca Socială—was the result of deliberate circular lending and fraudulent transfers totaling around US$1 billion, roughly 12 percent of Moldova’s GDP. Whistleblowers inside the banks flagged the irregular loans, but political interference silenced them. When the Kroll forensic audit leaked, journalists from Reuters and OCCRP traced the flow of funds through British and Hong Kong shell entities.

The combined work of insiders and reporters forced prosecutions and international asset recovery efforts. Compliance and supervision failures at both domestic and correspondent-bank levels made it one of Eastern Europe’s most damaging AML breakdowns.

7. Wachovia / Mexican cartel cash flows

Between 2004 and 2007, U.S. bank Wachovia processed massive cash and wire transfers from Mexican currency exchange houses linked to drug cartels. Although internal monitoring flagged anomalies, business divisions prioritized volume over scrutiny. There was no internal whistleblower; instead, journalists at The Guardian and Bloomberg uncovered the scale through court filings and interviews with investigators.

Their reporting showed that over US$370 billion in transfers were inadequately vetted. Wachovia ultimately paid US$160 million in penalties and forfeitures for Bank Secrecy Act violations. The exposure proved how external media can transform a localized regulatory action into a global case study in AML negligence.

8. Leonteq (Switzerland / France / Germany)

Leonteq, a Zurich-based structured-product specialist founded by former Lehman Brothers bankers, is under scrutiny for alleged aggravated money laundering linked to tax fraud. The story broke through journalists from Les Echos and Financial Times, who revealed that French, Swiss and German regulators were investigating serious compliance gaps. The Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (ACPR) referred the case to prosecutors in Paris after finding failures in suspicious-activity reporting and risk monitoring.

Investigations also noted that Leonteq’s French branch charged margins exceeding 12 percent while selling opaque investment products and tolerated dubious intermediaries. No whistleblower has come forward publicly so far. The case illustrates how sophisticated financial-engineering firms can blur the line between aggressive profit-seeking and laundering facilitation.

9. Parex Bank (Latvia)

The Parex Bank affair stands out as an early example of whistleblower exposure. John Christmas, former Head of International Relationships at Parex, began raising internal alarms in the early 2000s about fraudulent lending and concealed offshore transactions. When ignored, he went public, documenting his allegations in communications later used by journalists and researchers. His disclosures suggested that Parex operated as a conduit for Russian and Baltic illicit flows, with layers of shell companies masking beneficial owners.

Subsequent journalistic and NGO investigations revealed how Parex’s collapse in 2008 was followed by a controversial state bailout and later by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s involvement in restructuring. The whistleblower’s warnings had anticipated many of the issues later acknowledged by investigators, making Parex a precursor to the modern era of large-scale Baltic money-laundering exposures.

Why compliance units and regulators routinely fail

Every major scandal above followed a similar timeline: internal hesitation, delayed escalation, then external exposure. The systemic causes extend beyond technical shortfalls.

Data fragmentation and poor cross-border visibility
Banks operate across jurisdictions with siloed systems. Compliance staff see limited slices of client behavior. Regulators depend on filtered data or voluntary reporting. Journalists, through leaks or whistleblowers, piece together full transaction chains across borders.

Alert overload and desensitization
Automated monitoring generates thousands of alerts daily, most false positives. Analysts triage for volume, letting sophisticated laundering slide beneath thresholds. Regulators, flooded with filings, focus on volume metrics over analytical depth.

Opacity of beneficial ownership
Shell companies and trusts obscure real controllers. Compliance functions often accept superficial due-diligence files, especially when documentation appears compliant. Journalists break through these facades using registry leaks and international data sharing.

Profit and deliberate complicity
A hidden but powerful driver is profit. Some money laundering persists not through ignorance but through deliberate corporate calculation. Banks and financial intermediaries sometimes choose to serve risky clients or jurisdictions, charging premium fees—sometimes millions of dollars—for providing opaque structures, high-risk correspondent accounts, or complex investment vehicles. These decisions can be approved at high levels under euphemisms like “strategic client relationships” or “market expansion.” The organization internalizes regulatory fines as a business cost, effectively monetizing compliance risk. This structural cynicism allows laundering to evolve from negligence into strategy.

Revenue pressure and conflict of interest
Compliance staff often lack authority compared with profit centers. Raising a high-risk client issue can end careers. Senior management can override internal warnings to preserve income streams. Regulators, wary of destabilizing major institutions, sometimes prefer settlements over structural sanctions.

Jurisdictional limits and cooperation failure
Laundering is transnational, but regulation remains national. Cooperation across financial-intelligence units or supervisory bodies is slow and encumbered by secrecy laws. Journalistic networks, by contrast, exchange information freely.

Underinvestment in analytics and talent
Despite technological advances, many banks use outdated monitoring systems. Regulators also face staffing shortages and limited data-science capabilities. Investigative reporters, aided by leaked big-data troves, often display more analytical agility.

Insider facilitation and professional enablers
Lawyers, accountants, and trust administrators design schemes that skirt reporting rules. In some cases, insiders modify or suppress alerts. Whistleblowers who resist can face retaliation, which deters internal disclosure and drives information to the press.

Dependence on self-reporting
Supervisors often only know what banks admit. If reports are delayed or incomplete, early intervention becomes impossible. Media leaks of Suspicious Activity Reports frequently expose what regulators missed.

The cumulative result is a pattern of institutional blindness. Journalists and whistleblowers act as external auditors of last resort, forcing disclosure where internal ethics fail. Unless structural incentives change—linking executive accountability and personal liability to compliance quality—the next wave of scandals will follow the same script.

---

Related Links

• Reuters – Goldman Sachs pays $2.9 billion to settle 1MDB probe
• BBC – Danske Bank fined over €200 billion money laundering scandal
• The Guardian – HSBC Swiss leaks expose global tax evasion network
• Financial Times – Credit Suisse pleads guilty in U.S. tax fraud case
• OCCRP – The Azerbaijani Laundromat uncovered
• Bloomberg – Moldova’s billion-dollar bank fraud still haunts the country
• The New York Times – Wachovia fined for laundering Mexican drug money
• FinCrime Central – Cover-Up #1: Parex Bank, Latvia, and the EBRD
• Les Echos – Leonteq under investigation for money laundering and tax fraud

Other FinCrime Central Articles Written By Whistleblowers

• All 6 cover-ups written by John Christmas, Parex’s whistleblower
• The Dark Side of Banking: Money Laundering Inside One Of The World’s Most Powerful Banks, by Antonio Jimenez Perez
• THE BLACKMAIL: New Citigroup Verdict Sheds Light on Mexican Oil Scandal, by Alan Rivera Prieto

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand, or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.