Trident University

Module 1 Case Assignment

ETH501 Business Ethics
Dr. Thomas Klein
April 19, 2011

Abstract

In recent news, several financial institutions including Bank of America have decided to stop processing payments and doing business with WikiLeaks. These institutions are arguing that WikiLeaks may be doing things that are inconsistent with their internal policies for processing payments, consensus dissolves around how to respond to the allegations.

This literature review examines. The paper compares the

Should Bank of America refuse to process payments and do business with WikiLeaks?
WikiLeaks is an organization dedicated to bringing forward the truth about what governments and corporations are doing. This is what journalistic organizations are supposed to do. Governments and corporations can be very powerful and it is dangerous for the public to be uninformed about their actions. As WikiLeaks has become more effective in their mission to inform the public, governments and corporations have become more determined to silence WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has attracted substantial global attention concerning its release of thousands of confidential U.S. government documents including information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the financial industry like Bank of America. So the issue here is should one of the largest bank in the US; Bank of America stop doing business with WikiLeaks?

According to a statement issued by Bank of America “This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments,"
Unlike PayPal, both MasterCard and Visa Europe appear to have taken a wait-and-see approach before making any irreversible mandates. Visa Europe said publicly that it was conducting an investigation to determine whether WikiLeaks’ business violated the company’s operating rules. MasterCard said that it was suspending WikiLeaks’ payments until “the situation” was resolved, an ostensible reference to WikiLeaks’ unprecedented legal woes. Neither company has publicly speculated as to how its rules may have been transgressed.

In the midst of the chaos and media frenzy surrounding WikiLeaks, what legal obligations do financial institutions have to close accounts belonging to WikiLeaks and/or Assange, or to file related suspicious activity reports. Public accusations might justify a financial institution’s review of accounts held by WikiLeaks and/or Assange to determine whether there was “any independent reason to suspect that either one engaged in suspicious financial transactions that indicate some criminal activity, but to file a SAR simply because WikiLeaks is publicly accused of maybe having violated some unspecified law. financial institutions lacked hard evidence that WikiLeaks had committed a crime. While legal and/or reputational risk may be leading financial institutions to consider closing WikiLeaks’ accounts, another risk must be taken into account: customer retaliation, which in some ways is unique when it comes to WikiLeaks.

http://wikileaks.ch/About.html
Bank of America stops handling payments for WikiLeaks
Published: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 10:02 AM Updated: Saturday, December 18, 2010, 2:18 PM
Associated Press