Connect with us

Business

Canada can – and should – crack down on trade-based money laundering

Published

11 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Jamie Ferrill for Inside Policy

Neglecting to take decisive action enables organized criminal networks whose activities cause significant harm on our streets and those of our international partners.

Financial crime bears considerable political and economic risk. For the incoming Trump administration, the threat that transnational organized crime and the illicit financial flows pose to global financial stability is a top priority. The threat of tariffs by the Trump administration makes the costs to Canada in enabling global financial crime all too apparent. In addition to the cost of tariffs themselves, the associated reputational risk and loss of confidence in Canada’s financial system has implications for investments, credit, supply chains, and bilateral co-operation and agreements.

Canada’s proximity to major international markets, stable economy, high standard of living, and strong institutions and frameworks make it an attractive place to do business: for both legitimate and criminal enterprises.

Trade is a key contributing sector for Canada’s economic security. It represents two-thirds of Canada’s GDP, and exports alone support nearly 3.3 million Canadian jobs. Trade is also highly vulnerable to criminal exploitation. Ineffective oversight, regulatory complexity, and lagging technology adoption, coupled with a lack of export controls, make it possible to move vast proceeds of crimes, such as those from drug trafficking, human trafficking, corruption, and tax evasion through the global trade system.

These vulnerabilities are well-known by transnational organized crime groups. They are able to effectively move billions of dollars of dirty money through the global trade system every year, a method commonly referred to as Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML).

While any statistics must be interpreted with caution, evidence shows that TBML is a prevalent method of money laundering.

What is it?

There are several types of Trade-Based Financial Crimes such as terrorism financing through trade, sanctions evasion, and simply trade fraud. However, the TBML definition is necessarily specific. Essentially here, TBML is a money laundering method: the processing of criminal proceeds to disguise their illegal origin. TBML involves the movement of value through the global trade system to obfuscate the illicit origin. This is usually done through document fraud: undervaluing, overvaluing, phantom shipping, or multiple invoicing. Different techniques employ different aspects of the supply chain. And TBML may be just one method used within larger money laundering operations.

By way of example, US authorities allege that two Chinese nationals living in Chicago laundered tens of millions of dollars for the Sinaloa and Jalisco Cartels. Drugs were smuggled into the United States and sold throughout the country. The proceeds from these sales were collected by the Chinese nationals. Those proceeds were used to purchase bulk electronics in the United States, which were then shipped – with a falsified value – to co-conspirators in China, who sold them locally. The legitimacy provided by the electronics sales and the trade transaction provide cover to “clean” proceeds from precursor crime.

Either the importer and/or the exporter of the goods can shift value. Chances here are the electronics shipped were undervalued: on leaving the country, they are declared at a (much) lower value than they are actually worth. The importer in China pays the undervalued invoice, then sells the goods for what they are worth. The profit from those electronics now appears clean, since it was used for a “legitimate” sale. The ensuing value gap can be transferred informally or stored as illicit wealth. The value has now shifted, without fiat currency leaving the country of origin.

But the cycle does not stop there. The value and money itself continue to traverse around the world, through various intermediaries such as financial institutions or cryptocurrency exchanges. It then goes right back into the system and enables the very crimes and organized crime groups that generated it in the first place. It is, in short, the business model of organized crime.

The Canadian problem

Ultimately, the proceeds of crime that have been legitimised through TBML (and other money laundering methods) supports the criminal enterprises that generated the value in the first place. In the example, these are prolific cartels who have been behind the fentanyl crisis, migrant trafficking and abuse, corruption, and widespread violence that destabilizes communities and undermines governments across North America and beyond.

With new actors, drug routes, and ways of doing business, the cartels are very much active in Canada. The Sinaloa cartel in particular has established a significant presence in Canada where it controls the cocaine market, manufactures and distributes fentanyl, and is embedded in local criminal networks. This increases Canada’s role as a strategic location for drug trafficking and a base to export abroad, notably to Europe, the US, and Australia.

Hells Angels, Red Scorpions, ’Ndrangheta, and other organized crime groups are also exploiting Canada’s strategic location using their transnational links. These groups are active in criminal activities that generate proceeds of crime, which they launder through Canadian institutions. From drug trafficking to extortion to human and sex trafficking, the foundation of organized crime relies on generating and maximizing profits. The proceeds generally need to be laundered; otherwise, there are direct lines back to the criminal organizations. They are, without a doubt, exploiting the trade sector; the very sector that provides so much economic security for Canada.

Canada’s regulation, reporting, and prosecution record for money laundering is notoriously weak. Its record for regulation, reporting, and prosecution for trade-based financial crimes, namely here TBML, is even weaker.

As financial institutions and other regulated entities face increased scrutiny following the TD Bank scandal and the Cullen Commission’s inquiry into money laundering in BC, more criminal activity is likely to be displaced into the trade sector and the institutions it comprises.

TBML is difficult for financial institutions to detect, especially given that 80 per cent of trade is done through open accounts. It exploits established trade structures that are meant to protect the system –like documentation and invoicing processes – by manipulating transactions outside traditional payment systems, which requires more sophisticated anti-money laundering strategies to address these hidden vulnerabilities.

Addressing the problem

Trade is a gaping vulnerability. Yet, it attracts minimal attention in countering transnational financial crime. Containing the fentanyl crisis for one requires a collaborative effort to bolster supply chains and the trade sector against financial crime. This means global cooperation, technological advances (such as blockchain technology), appropriate resourcing, more scrutiny on high-risk countries and shippers, and regulatory innovation.

But political will is in short supply. The federal government’s Budget 2024 and the resulting proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorism Financing Act will grant CBSA new authorities to counter TBML, but limited resources to make good on them. And CBSA cannot do it alone.

Transnational organized crime and the illicit financial flows that support it poses a threat to global financial stability. The enabling of financial crime hurts Canada’s reputation abroad. With a new political regime emerging in the US, Canada cannot afford to be seen as a weak link. Loss of confidence in a country and its financial system has implications for investments, credit, supply chains, and bilateral cooperation and agreements.

By neglecting to take decisive action, we inadvertently enable organized criminal networks whose activities cause significant harm on our streets and those of our international partners. With profits as their primary driver, it is imperative that we scrutinize financial pathways to disrupt these illicit operations effectively.

Organized crime groups are not bound by privacy laws, bureaucracy, political agendas, and government budgets. They are continually evolving and staying many steps ahead of what Canada is equipped to control: technologically, geographically, strategically, logistically, and tactically. Without appropriate regulations, technological advances, and resources in place, we will continue to be a laggard in countering financial crime.

More systematic change is needed across regulatory frameworks, law enforcement coordination and resourcing, and international partnerships to strengthen oversight, close loopholes, and enhance detection and disruption.  It would be a low-cost signal to the Trump administration that Canada is committed to upping its game.


Jamie Ferrill is senior lecturer in Financial Crime at Charles Sturt University and co-editor of Dirty Money: Financial Crime in Canada.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

U.S. Supreme Court frosty on Trump’s tariff power as world watches

Published on

From The Center Square

By

The U.S. Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump’s tariff authority a chilly reception on Wednesday, with his economic agenda hanging in the balance and businesses and consumers watching for higher prices.

After the president spent months talking about how much money his tariffs would generate, Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the nation’s highest court Wednesday that the import duties are solely focused on regulation, not raising revenue.

Even the conservative wing of the Supreme Court was skeptical.

“The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans. That has always been the core power of Congress,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Robert’s remark came early in the hearing, which was slated for 80 minutes, but ran almost three hours.

“The justification is being used for the power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, for any amount, for any length of time,” Roberts said. “I’m not suggesting it’s not there, but it does seem like that’s major authority.”

Twelve states, five small businesses and two Illinois-based toymakers have challenged Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under a 1977 law without Congressional approval. That law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, doesn’t mention the word “tariff” and has never been used to impose tariffs. Trump’s legal team argues that the law is a clear delegation of emergency power, granting the president broad authority to act in times of crisis.

Phillip Magness, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, said the justices showed they had reservations about Trump’s claimed power under the law, frequently called IEEPA.

“It’s always hard to predict from questions, but it was clear to me that several of the justices were not buying the arguments of Trump’s attorney John Sauer – particularly his claim that tariffs are regulations and not taxes,” he told The Center Square.

Justices also shot difficult questions to the attorneys representing the states and small businesses that are challenging the tariffs.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Neal Katyal, the attorney representing the small businesses, if Congress had given the president power to regulate admission to a national park, would that also grant the president the power to charge an entrance fee. Katyal said the president could charge an entrance fee so long as the fee was not intended to raise revenue. Alito also had sharp questions for Katyal on other issues.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed a stickier question to Katyal and Oregon Solicitor General Ben Gutman, who is representing the 12 states that challenged Trump’s tariff authority. Barrett asked if the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the power to block all imports, why would it not grant the seemingly lesser authority of allowing the president to impose a tariff on all imports. Several other justices piled on with variations of this questions, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh asked Gutman if that would leave a “doughnut hole,” as the government put it. Gutman said it was about protecting taxpayers.

“It’s not a doughnut hole, it’s a different type of pastry,” he replied, saying that when the government can reach into the pocketbooks of the people, the stakes are higher, which is why the Constitution gave taxation power to Congress and not the president.

Cato Legal Fellow Brent Skorup said “most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch, ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes.”

“The government’s reading of IEEPA not only stretches the text beyond recognition, but it also threatens the separation-of-powers principles central to our constitutional design,” he said.

Magness said he sees a path for Trump to win, but not much of one.

“The Trump administration went all-in on its claim that tariffs are not taxes, but rather regulations. I believe that they did so because they see this as the only path to victory since the court has historically given more leeway to presidents in the foreign policy arena,” he told The Center Square. “I think the administration has a difficult path ahead, given how poorly their argument about tariffs not being a tax was received. Their best remaining argument is to hope that some justices grant them expansive foreign policy leeway in spite of the clear domestic tax policy implications. That path appears to have narrowed quite a bit in today’s hearing.”

Trump has said the future of America is on the line.

“Tomorrow’s United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,” Trump said Tuesday afternoon in a social media post. “With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us.”

For Alex Jacobsen, a second-generation family business owner in Nashville, Tenn., who makes the speakers used to record Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” album, the problem has never been with the tariffs.

“It’s how they’re implemented, without any due process, without any Congress or input from the public,” he told The Center Square ahead of arguments.

The court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June if not sooner.

Last week, the U.S. Senate narrowly voted to end the national emergency Trump used to impose global tariffs. Four Republicans joined Democrats in the effort, which is largely symbolic because the U.S. House has agreed not to take up the issue until March.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous lower court ruling saying Trump did not have the authority, but said Trump’s tariffs could remain in place while the administration appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 7-4 decision, the majority of the Federal Circuit said that tariff authority rests with Congress.

An August report, from the Congressional Budget Office, estimated tariffs could bring in $4 trillion over the next decade. That CBO report came with caveats and noted that tariffs will raise consumer prices and reduce the purchasing power of U.S. families.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families and pay down the national debt. Economists, businesses and some public companies have warned that tariffs will raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canadian pro-life charities and churches retain their tax-exempt status in the 2025-26 budget, a reversal attributed to public and political opposition to earlier proposals.

Canadian pro-life charities and churches will not lose their tax exemption under the Liberal Party’s newly presented fall budget despite earlier threats.

On November 4, Liberal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne presented the Canadian federal budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 in the House of Commons that included no mention of stripping pro-life organizations and churches of their tax exemption.

“Campaign Life Coalition is breathing a sigh of relief that churches and pro-life organizations were not stripped of their charitable status in the (Mark) Carney Liberal budget released today,” Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) communications director Pete Baklinski said in a statement sent to LifeSiteNews.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, before last Christmas, a proposal by the all-party Finance Committee suggested legislation that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers and religious groups of their charitable status.

The legislation would amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax. Section 429 of the proposed legislation recommends the government “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”

The bill, according to the finance department, would require “registered charities that provide services, advice, or information in respect of the prevention, preservation, or termination of pregnancy (i.e., destroying the unborn)” to disclose that they “do not provide specific services, including abortions or birth control.”

Similarly, Recommendation 430 aims to “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”

Canadians quickly responded to the recommendations, warning that it would mean the end of many pro-life organizations and the vital work that they do to help mothers in need.

Likewise, Conservative MPs and clergy alike condemned the suggestion to tax churches that provide essential services to Canadians.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for the Canadian values of helping the vulnerable, offering a compassionate hand, and being present to those in crisis,” he declared.

“The Liberal government was right to listen to ordinary citizens and faith leaders and ultimately reject these outrageous recommendations,” Gunnarson continued. “Thanks be to God, Canada lives to see another day without a dark cloud of persecution hanging over religious and pro-life organizations.”

 

“This victory belongs to the concerned citizens across Canada who took the time to sign a petition or write a letter to their MP or the Finance Minister,” he said. “This proves that when enough people speak out, good things can happen.”

Currently, the budget is under Parliamentary review, as Liberals lack sufficient votes to pass the legislation. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has declared that his party will not support the budget. The Bloc Québécois have also pledged opposition and the New Democratic Party (NDP) is considering supporting the budget.

Continue Reading

Trending

X