The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Chief Christine Lagarde was convicted of criminal charges over the facilitation of suspicious transaction which amounted to $400 mln. While she could have faced a $15,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence, the Court of Justice of the Republic did not impose any punishment.
As security and Bitcoin expert Andreas Antonopoulos emphasizes, banks and government institutions are at the core of corruption and criminal money flow. Banks settle significantly large sums of money for various criminal organizations without disclosing the transactions to the public.
Oh, these closed doors agreements
The result of the trial was very unexpected. Lagarde acted as a facilitator between former president Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard Tapie, signing off a payment worth $400 mln as a result of a closed doors agreement. The evidence and allegations provided to the court were verified, yet the court decided not to sentence the IMF Chief.
Lagarde’s incident involving the IMF and the French government can be observed as another case of bank and government corruption.
While governments across the world including India, South Korea, China and Australia are declaring war on cash to prevent criminal usage of money, the fact is, banks have served criminals for decades by processing illicit funds and transactions.
Digital currencies vs. the global banking system
One of the aspects of banking that allows such manipulation of money flow and settlement of transactions is the opaque banking systems that serve the global financial ecosystem today.
Unlike digital currencies like Bitcoin, banking systems aren’t transparent and immutable, which ultimately provides banks and institutions like the IMF to process and facilitate suspicious transactions.
In the case of Lagarde, strong evidence was provided that proved the transaction was facilitated by the IMF for Tapie and then President Sarkozy. Yet, despite the evidence and the fact that Lagarde was convicted, she did not face any criminal charges.
Criminals are provided with more financial privacy
Thus, while the public and the general population aren’t provided with financial privacy, criminals and criminal organizations benefit from closed doors banking where billions or even trillions of dollars are processed for their benefits.
When Lagarde was questioned about the incident, she merely stated:
“Was I negligent? No. And I will strive to convince you allegation by allegation.”
She also went on to explain her stance, firmly stating that she is not guilty of negligence. She added, “I would like to show you that I am in no way guilty of negligence, but rather that I acted in good faith with only the public interest in mind.”