Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by philiphodgen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

philiphodgen

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that explanation. The transaction is:

1. Own property.

2. Borrow big bag of cash from Bad Guy.

3. Gamble or spend the cash.

4. Pay back the loan from clean sources.

I understand it, but I guess I have never dealt with the KYC people at a casino. I still see obvious choke points (for the conversion of drug-laden currency into gambling chips, for instance) at which Explanations Must Be Made, but perhaps there are channels that I do not know about.

Let’s just say my experiences with the KYC systems have been rigorous.

View on HN

Canadian (state operated!) casinos are notoriously lax in checking the source of the funds that people bring to gamble. A bunch of people in Canada that I ran a gas station with made off with several hundred thousand $CAN in cash and spent it all in the Sault Ste. Marie casino without so much as a single question. Gambling with illegally obtained funds is A-Ok in Canada as long as the government is on the receiving end.

Yup, winnings under $10G are not reported to revenue Canada. Want to launder money? Go into a casino and have a good time for a few hours. Do not spend more than a couple of hundred.

Revenue Canada asks where the money came from? "I 'won' it at the casino". Rinse and Repeat.

Why would you (a) pay a margin to the house an (b) process such piddly amounts when you can clear 100's of thousands or millions in one go, plus make substantial return on your "investment"?

A) I wasn't referring to the methods in the article, instead, from the previous poster. B) The way I mentioned, is 100% legal, C) its also useful to mere mortals.

The channel you're not aware of is that explanations don't have to be made - everyone knows it's happening, and it has the blessing of at least the powerful parts of the legal system, if not the odd idealistic beat cop here and there. Not too much to worry about.

EDIT: Is the downvoter aware of some criminal charges being laid sometime within the many years this has been known to be going on? If not, what might be the nature of your disagreement?

>> 4. Pay back the loan from clean sources.

Except that the source is not in fact clean. China forbids the transfer of such wealth out of the country. But this system accomplishes exactly that. (Settlement of debt is a form of wealth transfer.) It isn't clean. only apparently clean. So the loan on the house has been paid off using dirty money, a proceed of a Chinese crime, and therefore could theoretically be seized through civil forfeiture.

This settlement between two foreign subsidiaries for a transaction in another jurisdiction should sound familiar - it's what global multinationals have been doing for decades. While it could theoretically be viewed as a domestic crime in China, the reality of bringing action against them from Canada is virtually nil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com