Some individuals have left – but HSBC won’t say how many; bonuses have been clawed back – but it won’t provide details

There goes another $800m (£500m). HSBC’s latest provision to settle money-laundering allegations takes the total to $1.5bn but there is still no end in sight. Chief executive Stuart Gulliver has warned that the eventual fines could be “higher, perhaps significantly higher.” A serious hit is coming.

There are good reasons for Gulliver to be fearful. First, he can’t be confident that HSBC’s pleas of contrition will yield any benefit. As he says, the various US authorities have “substantial discretion in deciding exactly how to resolve this matter”. What’s more, the bank could face corporate criminal charges.

Second, Standard Chartered forked out $340m for offences, relating to the reporting of Iran-related transactions, that look puny compared to what went on at HSBC. The Standard settlement was widely regarded as a shake-down led by a new-ish New York regulator trying to make a name for itself. But if $340m is the going rate for minor infringements in the US, what’s the score for an HSBC-style real deal? Five times as much, which is roughly where the provisions stand now? Ten times? More?

When a final tally is established we may reflect on what a soft ride the officer class at HSBC has received for this disgraceful chapter in the bank’s history. Remember the seriousness of the allegation: a Senate committee said HSBC “exposed the US financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering controls”. And remember that the period in question is more than half a decade – from 2004 to 2010.

Some individuals have left the bank as a result, says Gulliver, but he won’t say how many. Some bonuses have been clawed back but, again, he won’t provide details. Such shyness hardly meets the test of accountability that shareholders, who ultimately pay these fines, would expect.

For example, has Lord Green – chief executive from 2003 to 2006, then executive chairman to 2010 and now a government trade minister – been caught by the claw-back principle? Or is this a case of a bank admitting that mistakes were made but simultaneously maintaining that nobody in the boardroom could have been expected to do anything differently?

Gulliver’s efforts to improve HSBC’s culture appear sincere and forceful. But they would be improved by a fuller account of how the Mexican operation, in particular, fell so short of acceptable standards. Negotiations with US authorities currently make that demand difficult to meet. But when a settlement is finally reached, the bank should tell all. Sparing the blushes of former bosses shouldn’t enter the equation. A £1bn bill for bad behaviour deserves a fuller explanation than anything HSBC has offered to date.