Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Canada’s struggle against transnational crime & money laundering

Published

4 minute read

From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute

By Alex Dalziel and Jamie Ferrill

In this episode of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Inside Policy Talks podcast, Senior Fellow and National Security Project Lead Alex Dalziel explores the underreported issue of trade-based money laundering (TBML) with Dr. Jamie Ferrill, the head of financial crime studies at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia and a former Canada Border Services Agency officer.

The discussion focuses on how organized crime groups use global trade transactions to disguise illicit proceeds and the threat this presents to the Canada’s trade relationship with the US and beyond.

Definition of TBML: Trade-based money laundering disguises criminal proceeds by moving value through trade transactions instead of transferring physical cash. Criminals (usually) exploit international trade by  manipulating trade documents, engaging in phantom shipping, and altering invoices to disguise illicit funds as legitimate commerce, bypassing conventional financial scrutiny. As Dr. Ferrill explains, “we have dirty money that’s been generated through things like drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms trafficking, sex trafficking, and that money needs to be cleaned in one way or another. Trade is one of the ways that that’s done.”

A Pervasive Problem: TBML is challenging to detect due to the vast scale and complexity of global trade, making it an attractive channel for organized crime groups. Although global estimates are imprecise, the Financial Action Task Force and The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) suggests 2-5% of GDP could be tied to money laundering, representing trillions of dollars annually. In Canada, this could mean over $70 billion in potentially laundered funds each year. Despite the scope of TBML, Canada has seen no successful prosecutions for criminal money laundering through trade, highlighting significant gaps in identifying, investigating and prosecuting these complex cases.

Canada’s Vulnerabilities: Along with the sheer volume and complexity of global trade, Canada’s vulnerabilities stem from gaps in anti-money laundering regulation, particularly in high-risk sectors like real estate, luxury goods, and legal services, where criminals exploit weak oversight. Global trade exemplifies the vulnerabilities in oversight, where gaps and limited controls create substantial opportunities for money laundering. A lack of comprehensive export controls also limits Canada’s ability to monitor goods leaving the country effectively. Dr. Ferrill notes that “If we’re seen as this weak link in the process, that’s going to have significant implications on trade partnerships,” underscoring the potential political risks to bilateral trade if Canada fails to address these issues.

International and Private Sector Cooperation: Combating TBML effectively requires strong international cooperation, particularly between Canada and key trade partners like the U.S. The private sector—including freight forwarders, customs brokers, and financial institutions—plays a crucial role in spotting suspicious activities along the supply chain. As Dr. Ferrill emphasizes, “Canada and the U.S. can definitely work together more efficiently and effectively to share and then come up with some better strategies,” pointing to the need for increased collaboration to strengthen oversight and disrupt these transnational crime networks.


Looking to further understand the threat of transnational organized crime to Canada’s borders?

Check out Inside Policy Talks recent podcasts with Christian LeuprechtTodd Hataley  and Alan Bersin.

To learn more about Dr. Ferrill’s research on TBML, check out her chapter in 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

How the federal government weaponized the bank secrecy act to spy on Americans

Published on

Armstrong Economics By Martin Armstrong

A Congressional investigation committee released an extremely concerning report this week entitled: “FINANCIAL SURVEILLANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZED THE BANK SECRECY ACT TO SPY ON AMERICANS” that details how the US government has been monitoring American citizens through bank transactions, with an emphasis on citizens who have expressed conservative viewpoints.

“Financial data can tell a person’s story, including one’s “religion, ideology, opinions, and interests” as well as one’s “political leanings, locations, and more,”’ the report begins. This investigation began after a whistleblower who happens to be a retired FBI agent alerted Congress that the Bank of America (BoA) voluntarily provided the Biden Administration information on customers who used a credit or debit card in Washington, D.C., around the January 6 protests. The new report has revealed that federal agencies have been working “hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens.”

Surveilence

As I’ve said countless times, “money laundering” is ALWAYS the excuse for why the government must track and monitor our financial transactions. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) E-Filing System is a system for financial institutions to file reports required by the BSA electronically. By law, the BSA requires businesses to keep records and file reports to help prevent and detect money laundering. This is how the Biden Administration is attempting to disregard privacy and weaponize financial institutions.

US intelligence agencies searched through records for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA” to target Americans who they believed may hold “extremist” views. The agencies searched for Americans who purchased religious texts, such as the Bible, and also labeled them extremists. Anyone expressing disdain for the COVID lockdowns, vaccines, open borders, or the deep state were placed on a watchlist. Again, the BSA was used as a premise to pull transactions placed by the individuals on this list.

Debanking

As explained by the investigative committee:

“With narrow exception, federal law does not permit law enforcement to inquire into financial institutions’ customer information without some form of legal process.9  The FBI circumvents this process by tipping off financial institutions to “suspicious” individuals and encouraging these institutions to file a SAR—which does not require any legal process—and thereby provide federal law enforcement with access to confidential and highly sensitive information.10 In doing so, the FBI gets around the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which, per the Treasury Department, specifies that “it is . . . a bank’s responsibility” to “file a SAR whenever it identifies ‘a suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation’”11 While at least one financial institution requested legal process from the FBI for information it was seeking,12 all too often the FBI appeared to receive no pushback. In sum, by providing financial institutions with lists of people that it views as generally “suspicious” on the front end, the FBI has turned this framework on its head and contravened the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.”

Under this premise, anyone who held a viewpoint that opposed the Biden Administration was considered a “suspicious” individual who required monitoring. The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network created a database to carefully watch potential dissenters. Over 14,000 government employees accessed the FinCEN database last year and conducted over 3 million searches without a warrant. In fact, over 15% of FBI investigations during 2023 has some link to this database. It is estimated that 4.6 million SARs and 20.8 million Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) were filed in the last year.

The committee noted that the government is incorporating AI to quickly search the web for “suspicious” Americans:

“As the Committee and Select Subcommittee have discussed in other reports, the growth and expansion of AI present major risks to Americans’ civil liberties.211 For example, the Committee and Select Subcommittee uncovered AI being used to censor “alleged misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election . . . .”212 Those concerns are not hypothetical. Some AI systems developed by Big Tech companies have been programmed with biases; for example, Google’s Gemini AI program praised liberal views while refusing to do the same for conservative views, despite claiming to be “objective” and “neutral.” With financial institutions seemingly adopting AI solutions to monitor Americans’ transactions, a similarly biased AI program could result in the systematic flagging or censoring of transactions that the AI is trained to view as “suspicious.”

This is extremely troubling and goes beyond government overreach and violated numerous Constitutional protections. The government effectively transformed banking institutions into spy agencies, and anyone who could potentially hold a view that did not fit the Biden-Harris agenda has been treated as potential terrorist. It is completely insane that someone could be seen as an extremist for purchasing a religious text or purchasing a firearm. This is discriminatory, predatory behavior that puts millions of lives at risk. Think of governments in the past who have rounded up names of dissenters based on religion or ideology. They claim they are merely observing us, but the goal is to silence us.

The committee said their investigation has just begun as they will not allow the government’s abuse of financial data to go unchecked. Furthermore, they are concerned that these warrantless searches can lead to widespread debanking practices where the government can easily block any dissenter from participating in society by crippling them financially. This is yet another reason why governments want to push banks to create CBDC so that they can punish citizens with a simple click of a button.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Trump’s proposed EV subsidy cuts and tariffs could upend BC’s electric vehicle goals

Published on

From Resource Works

Canada’s regime of electric vehicle subsidies is facing a crisis with United States President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to end his own country’s EV incentives. Trump has proposed eliminating the $7,500 USD tax credit for those who purchase EVs, as well as threatening to impose a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.

Considering the interconnection of the North American automotive industry, this has the potential to severely disrupt Canada’s ambitious goals for widespread EV adoption. In British Columbia, whose provincial government has fully embraced the EV transition, the consequences of Trump’s presidency will be felt the strongest.

Trump’s pledge to eliminate the subsidies comes from his economic vision of a reduced role for the federal government in the American economy. This does resonate with vast segments of the U.S. market, but how it will impact Canada’s automakers is far less clear-cut.

EV subsidies in Canada, either at the federal or provincial level, are essential for the EV industry’s momentum to be maintained. Rebates of $5,000 are offered federally, and $4,000 under the CleanBC “Go Electric” program.

BC consumers can afford to buy EVs at a higher rate, and that helps sustain sales.

If Trump terminates the subsidies, automakers like General Motors, which are already dealing with slower EV production, will be reluctant to stay the course. The EV supply will fall, causing higher prices.

BC is Canada’s trailblazer in the EV market, accounting for almost 1 in 5 EV registrations across the entire country despite making up less than 14 per cent of the population. Policies like CleanBC have made EVs an attractive, affordable option for middle-class buyers, and the provincial government is committed to building up EV infrastructure.

The provincial government’s interim mandates are designed to align with federal goals, which aim for 10 per cent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2025, 30 per cent by 2030, and then 100 per cent by 2040.

BC’s progress will be derailed by market turbulence triggered by Trump’s proposed policies. The removal of U.S. subsidies will be paired with his threat of 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian imports.

In addition to the likely reduction in EV supply, automakers like GM and Ford, which produce many of the EV models partially made in Canada for export to the American market, will be made more expensive and price Canadian-made EVs out of competition.

In BC, the EV battery plants being built in Ontario and Quebec will be delayed or even cancelled due to the lack of economic viability. Manufacturers will shift back to producing hybrid or gas-powered cars, hampering BC’s EV and ZEV targets.

As a result, BC consumers will be hit hard by the twin blows of inflated EV prices and slashed rebates. Provincial and federal budgets are already stretched, and CleanBC could be on the chopping block for cuts if the North American EV industry stagnates.

Charging infrastructure, another key component of BC’s EV strategy, might also suffer. As manufacturers like Tesla and GM scale back production, investments in public charging stations could decline, perpetuating range anxiety and further slowing EV adoption rates.

Trump should be taken at his word when he says EV subsidies will be slashed and tariffs will be imposed on Canadian markets. For BC, the stakes are even higher, and the choices made by the province’s leaders may determine if the CleanBC regime and the EV program will survive the next few years.

One thing is clear, the North American automarket is more unpredictable than it has ever been since NAFTA, and Canada as a whole does not hold the balance when it comes to leverage.

Continue Reading

Trending

X