Overshadowed by the tragic news from the elementary school in Newtown, Conn., and the ups and downs of “fiscal cliff” negotiations in Washington, a little- noticed news item last week was a troubling reflection of big banks not being held accountable for serious misconduct.

A recent Justice Department settlement with HSBC, a major international bank accused of money laundering, has brought to mind an expression heard during the financial crisis — too big to fail. In this case, and others, the phrase might be “too big to prosecute.” The financial penalties in the settlements are substantial, but no individuals have been held accountable.

During the financial crisis of 2008-09, many Americans saw what appeared to be a cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street. There was plenty of evidence that the big banks are too powerful and that Washington insiders are too close to Wall Street’s financial giants — and too dependent on their campaign contributions.

The decision to not indict HSBC, the giant London-based bank, on charges of money laundering is being widely criticized.

Instead of indicting any executives, federal authorities opted for a settlement in which HSBC will pay $1.92 billion. A figure of that amount sounds like a severe penalty, but given that the bank made nearly $18 billion in profits last year, the fine looks more like a slap on the wrist.

Prosecutors showed that over the course of a decade, HSBC knowingly facilitated money laundering by Mexican drug cartels and Saudi banks with ties to terrorist organizations. Following $7 billion in transfers, believed to be money from drug cartels from its Mexican branches to the United States, and after federal authorities repeatedly warned the bank to tighten its controls, the bank failed to make meaningful changes.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found in 2010 that the bank’s lax controls allowed $60 trillion in questionable transactions and 17,000 accounts flagged as suspicious.

Defenders of the settlement note that a money-laundering indictment or guilty plea would severely damage HSBC by preventing investments by pension funds or even prohibit it from operating in the U.S. It’s also noted that any future money-laundering violations by the bank could trigger a reopening of the case.

Still, most observers see it as another case of Washington being soft on big banks, which has also been seen in recent settlements involving several big international banks over charges of manipulating the benchmark LIBOR interest rate to boost bank profits.

The settlements with HSBC over money laundering and deals with other big banks, including UBS and Barclays, over LIBOR-rate manipulation suggest Washington is still not getting tough on banks or bankers.

It’s troubling that billion-dollar fines, with no fear of criminal indictment, might be seen as just another cost of doing business by banks engaged in illegal, but highly profitable activities.