Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

China, Mexico, Canada Flagged in $1.4 Billion Fentanyl Trade by U.S. Financial Watchdog

Published

10 minute read

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has identified $1.4 billion in fentanyl-linked suspicious transactions, naming China, Mexico, Canada, and India as key foreign touchpoints in the global production and laundering network. The analysis, based on 1,246 Bank Secrecy Act filings submitted in 2024, tracks financial activity spanning chemical purchases, trafficking logistics, and international money laundering operations.

The data reveals that Mexico and the People’s Republic of China were the two most frequently named foreign jurisdictions in financial intelligence gathered by FinCEN. Most of the flagged transactions originated in U.S. cities, the report notes, due to the “domestic nature” of Bank Secrecy Act data collection. Among foreign jurisdictions, Mexico, China, Hong Kong, and Canada were cited most often in fentanyl-related financial activity.

The FinCEN report points to Mexico as the epicenter of illicit fentanyl production, with Mexican cartels importing precursor chemicals from China and laundering proceeds through complex financial routes involving U.S., Canadian, and Hong Kong-based actors.

The findings also align with testimony from U.S. and Canadian law enforcement veterans who have told The Bureau that Chinese state-linked actors sit atop a decentralized but industrialized global fentanyl economy—supplying precursors, pill presses, and financing tools that rely on trade-based money laundering and professional money brokers operating across North America.

“Filers also identified PRC-based subjects in reported money laundering activity, including suspected trade-based money laundering schemes that leveraged the Chinese export sector,” the report says.

A point emphasized by Canadian and U.S. experts—including former U.S. State Department investigator Dr. David Asher—that professional Chinese money laundering networks operating in North America are significantly commanded by Chinese Communist Party–linked Triad bosses based in Ontario and British Columbia—is not explored in detail in this particular FinCEN report.¹

Chinese chemical manufacturers—primarily based in Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Hebei provinces—were repeatedly cited for selling fentanyl precursors via wire transfers and money service businesses. These sales were often facilitated through e-commerce platforms, suggesting that China’s global retail footprint conceals a lethal underground market—one that ultimately fuels a North American public health crisis. In many cases, the logistics were sophisticated: some Chinese companies even offered delivery guarantees and customs clearance for precursor shipments, raising red flags for enforcement officials.

While China’s industrial base dominates the global fentanyl supply chain, Mexican cartels are the next most prominent state-like actors in the ecosystem—but the report emphasizes that Canada and India are rising contributors.

“Subjects in other foreign countries—including Canada, the Dominican Republic, and India—highlight the presence of alternative suppliers of precursor chemicals and fentanyl,” the report says.

“Canada-based subjects were primarily identified by Bank Secrecy Act filers due to their suspected involvement in drug trafficking organizations allegedly sourcing fentanyl and other drugs from traditional drug source countries, such as Mexico,” it explains, adding that banking intelligence “identified activity indicative of Canada-based individuals and companies purchasing precursor chemicals and laboratory equipment that may be related to the synthesis of fentanyl in Canada. Canada-based subjects were primarily reported with addresses in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario.”

FinCEN also flagged activity from Hong Kong-based shell companies—often subsidiaries or intermediaries for Chinese chemical exporters. These entities were used to obscure the PRC’s role in transactions and to move funds through U.S.-linked bank corridors.

Breaking down the fascinating and deadly world of Chinese underground banking used to move fentanyl profits from American cities back to producers, the report explains how Chinese nationals in North America are quietly enlisted to move large volumes of cash across borders—without ever triggering traditional wire transfers.

These networks, formally known as Chinese Money Laundering Organizations (CMLOs), operate within a global underground banking system that uses “mirror transfers.” In this system, a Chinese citizen with renminbi in China pays a local broker, while the U.S. dollar equivalent is handed over—often in cash—to a recipient in cities like Los Angeles or New York who may have no connection to the original Chinese depositor aside from their role in the laundering network. The renminbi, meanwhile, is used inside China to purchase goods such as electronics, which are then exported to Mexico and delivered to cartel-linked recipients.

FinCEN reports that US-based money couriers—often Chinese visa holders—were observed depositing large amounts of cash into bank accounts linked to everyday storefront businesses, including nail salons and restaurants. Some of the cash was then used to purchase cashier’s checks, a common method used to obscure the origin and destination of the funds. To banks, the activity might initially appear consistent with a legitimate business. However, modern AI-powered transaction monitoring systems are increasingly capable of flagging unusual patterns—such as small businesses conducting large or repetitive transfers that appear disproportionate to their stated operations.

On the Mexican side, nearly one-third of reports named subjects located in Sinaloa and Jalisco, regions long controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel and Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación. Individuals in these states were often cited as recipients of wire transfers from U.S.-based senders suspected of repatriating drug proceeds. Others were flagged as originators of payments to Chinese chemical suppliers, raising alarms about front companies and brokers operating under false pretenses.

The report outlines multiple cases where Mexican chemical brokers used generic payment descriptions such as “goods” or “services” to mask wire transfers to China. Some of these transactions passed through U.S.-based intermediaries, including firms owned by Chinese nationals. These shell companies were often registered in unrelated sectors—like marketing, construction, or hardware—and exhibited red flags such as long dormancy followed by sudden spikes in large transactions.

Within the United States, California, Florida, and New York were most commonly identified in fentanyl-related financial filings. These locations serve as key hubs for distribution and as collection points for laundering proceeds. Cash deposits and peer-to-peer payment platforms were the most cited methods for fentanyl-linked transactions, appearing in 54 percent and 51 percent of filings, respectively.

A significant number of flagged transactions included slang terms and emojis—such as “blues,” “ills,” or blue dots—in memo fields. Structured cash deposits were commonly made across multiple branches or ATMs, often linked to otherwise legitimate businesses such as restaurants, salons, and trucking firms.

FinCEN also tracked a growing number of trade-based laundering schemes, in which proceeds from fentanyl sales were used to buy electronics and vaping devices. In one case, U.S.-based companies owned by Chinese nationals made outbound payments to Chinese manufacturers, using funds pooled from retail accounts and shell companies. These goods were then shipped to Mexico, closing the laundering loop.

Another key laundering method involved cryptocurrency. Nearly 10 percent of all fentanyl-related reports involved virtual currency, with Bitcoin the most commonly cited, followed by Ethereum and Litecoin. FinCEN flagged twenty darknet marketplaces as suspected hubs for fentanyl distribution and cited failures by some digital asset platforms to catch red-flag activity.

Overall, FinCEN warns that fentanyl-linked funds continue to enter the U.S. financial system through loosely regulated or poorly monitored channels, even as law enforcement ramps up enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Administration reported seizures of over 55 million counterfeit fentanyl pills in 2024 alone.

The broader pattern is unmistakable: precursor chemicals flow from China, manufacturing occurs in Mexico, Canada plays an increasing role in chemical acquisition and potential synthesis, and drugs and proceeds flood into the United States, supported by global financial tools and trade structures. The same infrastructure that enables lawful commerce is being manipulated to sustain the deadliest synthetic drug crisis in modern history.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

 

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

Automotive

Measure overturning California’s gas car ban heading to Trump’s desk

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Congress has passed a measure to overturn California’s phased-in 2035 ban on the sale of new gas cars.

The vote impacts 11 other states and the District of Columbia, which make up 40% of the nation’s car market and adopted California emissions standards.

The measure, which was passed by the Senate Thursday after its previous approval by the House, now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature. But the Senate parliamentarian’s objection to Congress’s authority to overturn the EPA waiver approving the ban could set the stage for a possible legal battle between the federal government and states that have adopted the California ban.

The phased-in zero-emission vehicle requirement is set to apply to California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington for the ongoing model year 2026, and Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. for model year 2027.

In the last weeks of the Biden administration, the EPA approved a waiver allowing California’s gas car ban to move forward. Because California’s emissions regulations — they were created to combat the state’s notorious smog — predate the EPA, the state was grandfathered in with the ability to set more stringent emissions requirements than the federal standard so long as the EPA grants a waiver for each such requirement.

Under the power of congressional review, Congress can vote to overturn executive regulatory decisions within 60 legislative days, suggesting the Biden administration’s decision not to approve the waivers until its final weeks could have been made with this power in mind.

Now, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he is suing the Trump administration for unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act.

“These unlawful and unlawful CRA resolutions purport to invalidate clean air act waivers that allow California to enforce state-level emissions standards,” said Bonta at a news conference. “The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian … both determined the CRA’s process does not apply to the EPA waivers.”

“California has received approximately 100 waivers … and the CRA has not been applied,” continued Bonta.

In 2019, the first Trump administration withdrew a California vehicle emissions EPA waiver, leading to ongoing court cases that were withdrawn by the federal government when the Biden administration took power in 2021, and a reinstatement of the waiver in 2022. A lawsuit filed by multiple states and the energy industry against the 2022 reinstatement failed when a court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, with the Supreme Court agreeing to review the finding on the lack of standing.

After the overturn’s anticipated signing by President Trump, the matter of Congressional Review and the constitutionality of California’s regulations are likely to bring the issue to a more final adjudication.

The ban would have required that 35% of cars in model year 2026 be qualifying zero-emissions vehicles, which allows for a large share of plug-in hybrid models, in addition to the now ubiquitous battery-electric vehicles, and rare hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. In California, which has the nation’s largest EV charging network and highest EV adoption rates, ZEV sales declined from 22% in the last quarter of 2024 to 20.8% in the first quarter of 2025, suggesting buyers are becoming less enthusiastic about purchasing electric vehicles.

Given that the 2026 model year is already under way for many automakers, a ZEV increase from 20.8% to 35% would have required a 68% increase in ZEV market share within the year, leading Toyota to call California’s requirement “impossible to meet.”

Automakers would have had to either restrict the inventory of non-qualifying vehicles, as Jeep has done in the past, purchase costly excess credits from automakers with excess ZEV credits such as Tesla or Rivian, or pay a $10,000 fine for each car they sell that doesn’t meet the requirement. Consumers still would be able to buy gas-powered cars in other states, or buy them on the used market, which experts say would have resulted in rising used car prices not only in states impacted by the ban, but nationwide, as used cars from around the country would likely be imported to impacted states to meet continued demand for gas-powered cars.

The typical financing payment for a new electric vehicle is over $700 per month, even after accounting for subsidies, putting EVs out of reach for most American families.

“We need to ‘Make California Affordable again’ by giving consumers options and not boxing them into a single choice and forcing them to purchase expensive electric vehicles they can’t afford,” said state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, after Congress passed a measure overturning the ban. “Furthermore, as vice chair of the Senate Transportation Committee and a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I am concerned that California is not truly prepared to have 15 million electric vehicles on the road by 2035 … If everyone plugs in and charges their EVs, we will experience rolling blackouts because of inadequate energy capacity.”

In 2022, California energy grid officials requested that EV owners not charge their cars during a heat wave, highlighting the grid’s insufficient capacity to meet even recent demand. UC Berkeley researchers say the state must spend $20 billion on grid upgrades to handle energy transfers to electric vehicles, not including additional costs to the grid to support the anticipated transition from natural gas-powered appliances, which would increase grid strain even further.

Continue Reading

Alberta

SERIOUS AND RECKLESS IMPLICATIONS: An Obscure Bill Could Present Material Challenge for Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector

Published on

From Energy Now

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments

Senator Rosa Galvez’s recent op-ed in the National Observer champions the reintroduction of her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (Bill S-243) as a cornerstone for an “orderly transition” to achieving a low-carbon Canadian economy. With Prime Minister Mark Carney—a global figure in sustainable finance—at the helm, Senator Galvez believes Canada has a “golden opportunity” to lead on climate-aligned finance. However, a closer examination of Bill S-243 reveals a troubling agenda that potentially risks not only crippling Canada’s oil and gas sector and undermining economic stability, but one that could impose unhelpful, discriminatory measures. As Carney pledges to transform Canada’s economy, this legislation would also erode the principles of fairness in our economic and financial system.

Introduced in 2022, Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments, particularly with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.  The Bill’s provisions are sweeping and punitive, targeting emissions-intensive sectors like oil and gas with what could only be described as an unprecedented regulatory overreach. It requires institutions to avoid financing “new fossil fuel supply infrastructure” and to plan for a “fossil-free future,” effectively discouraging investment in Canada’s energy sector. To that end, it imposes capital-risk weights of 1,250% on debt for new fossil fuel projects and 150% or more for existing ones, making such financing prohibitively expensive. These measures, as confirmed by the Canadian Bankers’ Association and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in 2023 Senate testimony, would have the effect of forcing Canadian financial institutions to exit oil and gas financing altogether. It also enshrines into law that entities put climate commitments ahead of fiduciary duty:

“The persons for whom a duty is established under subsection (1) [alignment with climate commitments] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

While the applicability of the term used in the legislation that defines a “reporting entity” may be a subject of some debate, the legislation would nonetheless direct financial institutions to put “climate over people”.

 

There are significant implications here for the Canadian oil and gas sector. This backbone of the economy employs thousands and generates billions in revenue. Yet, under Bill S-243, financial institutions would effectively be directed to divest from those companies if not the entire sector. How can Canada become an “energy superpower” if its financial system is directed to effectively abandon the conventional energy sector?

Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow Canadian Energy Focused Newsletter Here
Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow US Energy Focused Newsletter Here

Beyond economics, Bill S-243 raises profound ethical concerns, particularly with its boardroom provisions. At least one board member of every federally regulated financial institution must have “climate expertise”; excluded from serving as a director would be anyone who has worked for, lobbied or held shares in a fossil fuel company unless their position in the fossil fuel company was to help it align with climate commitments defined in part as “planning for a fossil fuel–free future.” How is “climate expertise” defined? The proposed legislation says it “means a person with demonstrable experience in proposing or implementing climate actions” or, among other characteristics, any person “who has acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” Bill S-243’s ideological exclusion of oil and gas-affiliated individuals from the boards of financial institutions would set a dangerous precedent that risks normalizing discrimination under the guise of environmental progress to diminish executive expertise, individual rights and the interests of shareholders.

Mark Carney’s leadership adds complexity to this debate. As the founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, Carney has long advocated for climate risk integration in finance, despite growing corporate withdrawal from the initiative. Indeed, when called to testify on Bill S-243 in May 2024, Carney praised Senator Galvez’s initiative and generally supported the bill stating: “Certain aspects of the proposed law are definitely achievable and actually essential.”  If Carney’s Liberal government embraces Bill S-243, or something similar, it would send a major negative signal to the Canadian energy sector, especially at a time of strained Federal-Provincial relations and as the Trump Administration pivots away from climate-related regulation.

Canada’s economy and energy future faces a pivotal moment.  Bill S-243 is punitive, discriminatory and economically reckless while threatening the economic resilience that the Prime Minister claims to champion. A more balanced strategy, one that supports innovation without effectively dismantling the financial underpinnings of a vital industry, is essential. What remains to be seen is will this federal government prioritize economic stability and regulatory fairness over ideological climate zeal?


Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based energy analyst. Ron Wallace is a Calgary-based energy analyst and former Permanent Member of the National Energy Board.

Continue Reading

Trending

X