London ( CNN ) -- UBS to pay $ 1.5 billion over Libor manipulation , HSBC paid $ 1.92 billion for failing to stop money laundering , Standard Chartered paid $ 667 million , ING , $ 619 million , Credit Suisse , $ 536 million , ABN AMRO $ 500 million and the list goes on and on . While the number of fines imposed on banks has remained constant over the past 10 years , the value of fines has grown considerably faster than inflation . One has to ask , therefore : Is this the new norm ? Are U.S. regulators using financial penalties as a method of indirect regulations ? And will it actually work ? American regulators have unique views about how to run a banking industry , views that often differ from their global counterparts . The latter , by and large , have a hands-off approach to an industry that is globally focused . The U.S. has tried , on countless instances , to influence global regulations . But it has been to no avail . The financial services market outside the U.S. is bigger than the domestic market . So , if Europe or Asia decides on its own path , the U.S. has very little power to stop it . It 's therefore not unreasonable that the U.S. regulators impose different oversight on foreign banks than domestic equivalents . This is likely the reason we 've seen fines of considerably higher value imposed on non-U.S. banks for similar infractions . Read more : Eurozone still has mountain to climb . Sure , some U.S. banks have seen fines in the hundreds of millions : Bank of America , JP Morgan , Wells Fargo come to mind . But the vast majority of U.S.-based fines are small . You would be forgiven for thinking this is discrimination . It 's really indirect regulation . If a U.S. bank breaks rules , it is relatively easy for U.S. regulators to march into their offices , take all the material they need for an investigation and then dictate policy for the bank . In the case of a foreign operation , they ca n't do that . The U.S. authorities have no rights to material held in foreign offices . Further , once funds leave the U.S. , they are often irretrievable without political help . This is the reason why global financial services regulations are necessary and inevitable , although decades away . By fining at the billion dollar level , banks wishing to operate within the U.S. will be encouraged to be far more carefully than domestic operations . This is exactly what the U.S. regulators want . Banks find it difficult to operate in the U.S. because they often have to adhere to rules that are diametrically opposed to rules in their home countries . Money laundering is a great example . The U.S. basically asks banks to assume Iranians and Iranian organizations are guilty until proven innocent , while the rest of the world wants banks to assume Iranians are innocent until proven guilty . This means global banks have to operate an infrastructure for U.S. rules and a second infrastructure for the rules of other regulators . The costs are high and the risks are many -- and banks simply do n't want to do it . In the end , it 's not going to work . The U.S. can fine HSBC or UBS all they want , these two banks are incredibly strong and can easily afford it . But what about troubled banks , or ones like government-owned RBS ? If they were to levy the same fines for these banks they could put them out of business . If a bank of RBS 's size went under , it could cause economic instability in its home country . The government would have to get involved . And fining them a lesser amount for the same infraction would not go down well with HSBC or UBS who would most certainly send a thousand lawyers to Washington to ask why they were discriminated against . After all , you get a $ 100 fine for going 20 miles over the speed limit if driving a Ferrari or a Ford . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ralph Silva .
Number of fines imposed on banks has remained constant for a decade , but fines ' value has grown faster than inflation . Silva asks : Are U.S. regulators using financial penalties as a method of indirect regulations ? And will it work ? American regulators have unique views on how to run banking and have tried to influence global regulations . They are not likely to change their approach in the near future.