Devouring the Heart of Portugal(damninteresting.com) |
Devouring the Heart of Portugal(damninteresting.com) |
One thought that came to mind while reading it is how easy it is to do the wrong thing, and how hard it is to prove or stop people from doing the the wrong thing. There's such an asymmetry.
Following the rules necessarily puts constraints and friction on your ability to act. Ignoring the rules allows you to move more nimbly.
It seems like in almost all of these cases the criminals only fail because they don't stop, which gives authorities enough chances to finally catch them.
Makes you wonder how many criminals stop at the first success and never get caught.
This is also a story about how Artur Alves dos Reis sparked growth by injecting money into the Portuguese economy.
"He then sent the required funds to his National City Bank account by wire transfer, all while the paper checks were still bobbing across the Atlantic."
Does anyone know the proceedure that financial institutions used back then to confirm wire transfers (as in all the steps involved, including acks)?
I don't doubt this "adjustment for US dollars in 2022" was done according to best practices and inflation charts.
Doesn't make it any less ridiculous when juxtaposed with the actual purchase power like this.
Second, I doubt whether serial delusions of grandeur would be unanimously lauded on HN.
He would just need to stop there and focus on managing the central bank instead of A&M bank
Although A&M bank could have become one of the most respected investment banks given its connection.
Almost all of which have similar origins (and ongoing operations) in something lucrative and unsavory.
So you either win or you lose. He lost after being so close to winning. My lack of admonishment comes from my main observation that he could have stopped before starting A&M bank and been indistinguishable from any other well off person. He was a respected business leader at the time.
I doubt he would have succeeded nevertheless. In the end the law was changed to apply to him retroactively, which was unconstitutional (and I'm sure it's still unconstitutional on most parts of the world), and that only to give him more sentence time. He would have been removed from the bank, one way or another.
Whether it was HSBC’s opium trading
Or JP Morgan Chase’s fraudulent securities offering for a water company that decided to operate as a bank
There are lots of examples of maneuvering towards legal legitimacy
It really just depends on where your ambitions lie and what consequences you are willing to risk.
(note: all those banks are now results of many mergers and hardly represent their oldest branches)