zlacker

[parent] [thread] 13 comments
1. seanmc+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-02-06 18:35:33
It could be real Chinese income backed by fake paper work (money laundering) or fake income backed by fake paper work (fraud). You can take out $50k per year, a lot more via exemptions, so you don’t need money laundering to get money out of china into the USA (I had to move a few hundred K before, all the paper work was legit).
replies(2): >>maxglu+f3 >>jabban+cb
2. maxglu+f3[view] [source] 2024-02-06 18:48:05
>>seanmc+(OP)
I presume you were foreign national with more options. Options for diasphora Chinese, many who illegally hold dual citizenship and relies on PRC nationality to do transactions/capital flight in PRC is different.

I highlighted the original quote where branch is mostly Chinese-Canadian for context. Aurora is 20% Chinese, it's a big diasphora neighbourhood. There isn't some big "fake chinese income" conspiracy, it's the entire (proven) business plan (money laundering) with occasional fraud. I think pretty much everyone knew Chinese are buying million+ propertiers with laundered money, and it fuels the bubble as much as any other foreign buyer.

replies(1): >>seanmc+P5
◧◩
3. seanmc+P5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 18:57:42
>>maxglu+f3
Ya, foreign nationals are allowed to export their earnings. But even Chinese citizens can also pool those $50k yearly allocations, it doesn’t take a lot of friends and family to do that.

I’m not really sure what is happening among the rich, but among the middle class, it isn’t so much money laundering but having lots of savings with no good investment options, or just wanting to make money while someone else takes on the risk. They don’t have access to money that needs laundering.

replies(2): >>jabban+Zb >>maxglu+0c
4. jabban+cb[view] [source] 2024-02-06 19:19:31
>>seanmc+(OP)
> You can take out $50k per year

Try buying a house with 50k a year... This is exactly what the "scheme" solves. You have new immigrants who have (in many cases) legitimate money (e.g. by selling property back in china) but cannot move it out of the country quickly due to capital controls on the chinese side.

Since mortgages are meant to spread out costs over time, it's the perfect solution. However, banks (understandably) care about income rather than existing capital. So you have a lot of "safe" customers who are unlikely to default and less sensitive to interest rates (compared to the local borrower pool), and banks looking for customers amidst high interest rates... You can see how something like this can easily arise from these conditions...

> you don’t need money laundering to get money out of china into the USA

I cannot comment on what your situation was (maybe through a business?), but AFAIK it is very hard to move capital out for regular individuals. Your realistic options to wire out capital are just "education" and "tourism". While technically you can claim "investment", it will almost always not be approved and cause a watch to be put on all your accounts.

That being said, usually documentation of the funds outside of china is completely legitimate and above board. There is no need to fake this. The only paperwork magic that needs to happen is towards the chines government... However, it still _looks_ like money laundering because you can only wire $50k a year, so many need to resort to wiring from accounts of different individuals (friends and family) to different individuals, despite the funds already being fully documented and reported outside china.

replies(1): >>seanmc+qk
◧◩◪
5. jabban+Zb[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 19:22:38
>>seanmc+P5
> But even Chinese citizens can also pool those $50k yearly allocations, it doesn’t take a lot of friends and family to do that.

So as an observer of this, you will see money coming out of one place, spread to many accounts, wired overseas to different recipients, then re-aggregated...

What do you think that looks like...? Surely not money laundering?

replies(1): >>maxglu+nc
◧◩◪
6. maxglu+0c[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 19:22:40
>>seanmc+P5
It happens, it can be more annoying than one thinks since people with wealth to exfiltrate correlated with other family members who also have wealth to exfiltrate, graft is family business. Nephew/niece studying abroad? That's 100k gone per year for next 4-5 years. Meanwhile living well is expensive, annoying to be dependant on personal capital flight group. And post crackdown, it's more risky to drag family/friends into pooling. Especially if they're public sector/public sector adjacent. Frequently, it's easier to pay someone commission to move money for you.

In my experience, middle class aren't buying million+ RE, they pool together savings to send kids abroad, and maybe put a down payment on a condo that the kid pays off once they get decent job in west. And by middle class we really mean upper flat out highincome top %5-10 relative to all PRC house holds who are middle class tier1/2 regions.

But agreed, domestic non gov investment ecosystem pretty trash, hard to beat investing in your kid(s) and saving for retirement until a mature system develops. Which IMO hard goal since focus isn't to further wide wealth disparity by giving that 5-10% more consumption/investment abilities but to bring up the next quantiles of households - the actual middle class. This is where my assessment departs from most, I think "common prosperity" for PRC is getting more households richer, but at PRC development levels, that diminishes the households with enough savings to retire and surplus to invest. And this has all sorts of implications on inflation/FX rate.

◧◩◪◨
7. maxglu+nc[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 19:24:57
>>jabban+Zb
Not on Canada's end, it's a bunch of people using legal capital controls to get money into Canada. On PRC end, it's evading capital controls, which depending on your geopolitical alignment, can be illegal activity. But if you're in the west, you want that Chinese money. Free money from competitotrs as good as brain drain from competitors.
replies(2): >>seanmc+Kj >>fennec+Ko1
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. seanmc+Kj[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 19:57:39
>>maxglu+nc
Capital controls have bad intentions anyways, I have no qualm with PRC citizens trying to avoid them. Not everyone in the west wants or likes Chinese money. It does lead to them basically exporting their bubble abroad, but Japan did the same in the 80s before their big bust.
replies(2): >>jabban+Ct >>maxglu+Ol1
◧◩
9. seanmc+qk[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 20:00:48
>>jabban+cb
Foreigners on Z visas can wire out whatever they earn, so for me it wasn’t an issue. There are even foreigners who rent out some of their allocations since you always have PRC expenses, but this is of course illegal.

I used my wife’s $50k allocation once because I was held up by some paper work (you need a lot of paper work, notarized, etc…). They didn’t ask any questions about what it would be used for, but this was 2016, and they changed the rules a few months later.

replies(1): >>jabban+Nq
◧◩◪
10. jabban+Nq[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 20:30:08
>>seanmc+qk
Foreigners are not fully exposed to the local market though, so there's no need to do capital controls. _Income_ is never an issue, as there are taxes to cover that. The main thing being cracked down on is people moving accumulated _wealth_ out.

Also, things have changed _considerably_ since 2016 (as these things tend to do). Indeed, nobody --- foreign or domestic --- needed to document use as long as you stayed within the $50k (you would be asked to if you went above that). Later it became a mandatory question, but wasn't enforced. These days it is enforced rather strictly. If you claim education, you need to provide statements of tuition and housing etc. For tourism there's similar requirements, and usually they limit discretionary spending budgets to ~$10k.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. jabban+Ct[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-06 20:43:10
>>seanmc+Kj
Yup. Hence the capital control (less money leaking out means an easier recovery after the bust).

Of course, as is rational in capitalism, this just makes it even more urgent to skirt the capital control, lest you be caught with the burden of the bust. This was also why crypto was even an option for doing this, for a short while at least.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
12. maxglu+Ol1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-07 02:14:43
>>seanmc+Kj
Yes, PRC citizens avoiding capital controls end up playing on the same field as other global wealth. I think PRC exporting their bubble is over stated - 10s of millions of tier1 buyers got into the speculation/RE game early in 90s that they'd be millionaires with wealth to enter western RE game regardless where PRC RE market stablizes. And there are just millions of millionaires in China, independant of wealth from RE bubble. Many buyers are simply independantly wealthy from other business ventures ontop of having multiple tier1 units to liquidate to buy western RE. The folks buying million+ dollar properties and 100k cars in the last few years didn't liquidate everything they have in PRC to start new life in Canada. Canada is a retirement plan they bought with change. Sure not everyone wants PRC money, but the sellers certainly do, as do the intermediates who benefits from PRC capital flight.
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. fennec+Ko1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-07 02:42:52
>>maxglu+nc
It's not free money if house prices are pumped and sold, profits then returned to China.

They used to try to overbuy milk powder in NZ, ignoring supermarket limits imposed bc NZ mothers couldn't find enough formula for their kids. Chinese buyers would sell it back to China to make a tidy profit, after their baby formula scandal drove demand for foreign baby formula (which still exists today). Worked at a supermarket at start of uni, got so fucking sick of being screamed at in mandarin bc I refuse to sell them 30 tins when the limit was 2. Over and over, every damn shift.

Source that isn't me: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/china-buys-up-big-in-nz-baby-m...

replies(1): >>maxglu+fL1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. maxglu+fL1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-07 06:32:44
>>fennec+Ko1
>profits then returned to China

Are those profits returning to China? If they wanted profit they would invest in Chine RE which (until recently) was much more profitable and speculative than western RE. Western RE investment was for capital flight to bring wealth abroad. Very few want to bring money INTO PRC.

Baby formula actually great example, at least from what I know in AU market. Yeah you had the occasional tourists bringing back a few cans to savec money, but the sellers getting 30 tins and doing weekly shippments to regular customers in PRC were getting paid in AUD. $60 per tin into AU economy flipping milk powder. It's a good gig, it's no real estate money though. You can argue it's net bad for society because some gain at society loss, but that's how it be in capitalism. Some interests profit at the cost of others. And the interests who profit from PRC money, arguably the establishment, wants to keep profitting.

[go to top]