Democrats crush Treasury official over Deutsche Bank and Trump

Democrat senators on Tuesday hammered a top Treasury official after a bomb reported that Deutsche Bank had resisted any suspicious financial activity related to President Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose companies were customers of the German lender .

In turn, at a hearing before a Senate Banking and Banking Committee, Democrats urged the director of the US Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Kenneth Blanco, to take action on the New York Times.

History continues below

The Blanco agency, known as FinCEN, is responsible for the control of money laundering and would have received any suspicious activity report filed by Deutsche Bank. According to the Times, the bank's employees prepared the reports but were blocked by executives.

"The alleged facts are in plain sight," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "It is essential for FinCEN's public trust and integrity that these goals are actively pursued."

Despite the din of the Democrats – not a single Republican at the hearing has raised the Deutsche Bank – Blanco said that he was unable to comment on the allegations contained in the article, for which he had been informed but not read.

"You are a very intelligent man," said Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). "It does not take much time to read, but it could be very informative for you."

"It's not because it's in the newspaper that's true," Blanco said. "I'm not saying it's wrong either."

Blanco suggested that the bank could have been comfortable with the risks it was taking with Trump.

"Everything is specific to the facts," he said. "In the end, this could be quite appropriate."

Prior to Tuesday's hearing, Van Hollen and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) wrote to Deutsche Bank Managing Director Christian Sewing, asking him to confirm the accuracy of the history of the Times and disclose the number of reports of suspicious activity canceled.

Deutsche Bank said that there were "many inaccuracies and misrepresentations" in the Times article, but that legal restrictions had prevented it from refuting them in detail.