Chairman LEACH. Well, let me just conclude with one observation that has nothing to do with the Bank of New York, or probably not, but it strikes me in the world where you have many societies in which people in public life control—they have disproportionate influence in the commercial and financial system, that if one does a favor for someone of this nature, financial institutions can be benefited in other ways. Or if one does not, one can be negatively impacted, and there is an implicit kind of reward-punishment syndrome that can occur with public officials and their accounts abroad. That becomes a very competitive circumstance, I would assume, as well.
It just seems fairly obvious that if one is seeking the right to have a distribution channel of one kind or another in a given country, it would be helpful to have the account of the President of that country. This is something that is a very worrisome phenomenon, I would assume. I don't know if your case, you have all of five employees in Russia, so you have not been seeking a larger presence, although you do have accounts in a large number of Russian banks.
The only thing I would add to this is the magnitude of these dollars is really stunning. International currency flows are of a volume that make even those of us who deal in Federal Government spending difficult to comprehend. You have currency flows that almost equal on a daily basis the totality of the United States budget for a year, and you have flows that come in and out of banks that are of extraordinary proportions. But, nonetheless, when you look at the issues of millions and billions applying to single individuals, it does seem to be something that our system is going to have to pay attention to.
I am struck with the likelihood that Mr. Renyi has described the Bank of New York as a possible poster boy, but there is a strong possibility that other institutions have similar kinds of accounts, and that this is an issue that does take serious review. And I am struck also with the observation of Mr. Renyi that if our country moves in a given direction without bringing along the international community, there can be difficulties, and we are all going to have to be looking at these issues with great care.
But I would say that what Bank of New York has become part of a transmission built for is something that goes beyond the banking matter, and when we look at the Russian issue and the future of Russian society, we are looking at a vital interest of the United States of America. So it means we are obligated to look at this as more than an individual institution issue, as more than a United States banking issue, but in the largest measure of the national interest of the United States and how it intertwines with the best interests of the Russian people. And that is why we have insisted that your bank appear, not out of any reason to be pointing disproportionate fingers at a particular American bank, but out of the symbolism that these are stunningly significant world events that have become centered in a financial system and then back down into a particular institution.
I appreciate the difficulty of your testimony, and thank you for your appearance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
окончание
Date: 2007-05-26 09:19 pm (UTC)It just seems fairly obvious that if one is seeking the right to have a distribution channel of one kind or another in a given country, it would be helpful to have the account of the President of that country. This is something that is a very worrisome phenomenon, I would assume. I don't know if your case, you have all of five employees in Russia, so you have not been seeking a larger presence, although you do have accounts in a large number of Russian banks.
The only thing I would add to this is the magnitude of these dollars is really stunning. International currency flows are of a volume that make even those of us who deal in Federal Government spending difficult to comprehend. You have currency flows that almost equal on a daily basis the totality of the United States budget for a year, and you have flows that come in and out of banks that are of extraordinary proportions. But, nonetheless, when you look at the issues of millions and billions applying to single individuals, it does seem to be something that our system is going to have to pay attention to.
I am struck with the likelihood that Mr. Renyi has described the Bank of New York as a possible poster boy, but there is a strong possibility that other institutions have similar kinds of accounts, and that this is an issue that does take serious review. And I am struck also with the observation of Mr. Renyi that if our country moves in a given direction without bringing along the international community, there can be difficulties, and we are all going to have to be looking at these issues with great care.
But I would say that what Bank of New York has become part of a transmission built for is something that goes beyond the banking matter, and when we look at the Russian issue and the future of Russian society, we are looking at a vital interest of the United States of America. So it means we are obligated to look at this as more than an individual institution issue, as more than a United States banking issue, but in the largest measure of the national interest of the United States and how it intertwines with the best interests of the Russian people. And that is why we have insisted that your bank appear, not out of any reason to be pointing disproportionate fingers at a particular American bank, but out of the symbolism that these are stunningly significant world events that have become centered in a financial system and then back down into a particular institution.
I appreciate the difficulty of your testimony, and thank you for your appearance.
Mr. RENYI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Renyi.