The articles demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how regulation works in an international environment
One article refers to the appointment of “monitors” at HSBC in New York as part of a settlement with the authorities there.
Those monitors complained that they were not immediately welcome when they went to London and Hong Kong.
The article admits that the monitors had no jurisdiction outside the US but it’s more than that: HSBC in the USA is a subsidiary; it is not the headquarters.
Also, the monitors are not regulators: the extent of what is it permissible to show them will be defined by the regulators in the countries they visit.
They might have imagined they were working on something like the Financial Services Authority’s Project Trident but Project Trident was when the UK’s then regulator decided to inspect overseas branches and subsidiaries of UK headquartered banks. It’s not the same at all.
The over-riding impression left is that monitors were obstructed which by definition means that the article takes the view that, despite the disclaimer, the monitors were entitled to unrestricted access to any part of the Group that they wanted.