The missing simple description in the article is: Launderers with tainted money buy struggling businesses that have large assets as collateral for loans, and t

The missing simple description in the article is: Launderers with tainted money buy struggling businesses that have large assets as collateral for loans, and then walk away with the loan. It leaves the bank holding the asset to be sold off. From the launderer's value at risk perspective, $10m in dirty money is worth probably $5m or less clean, because if you taxed that $10m and did all the fees, and then there is the risk of being caught for the crime that generated it, 50% free and clear seems pretty good. The more I learn about the investment business, the more I think it's like crime without the violence. The money laundering problem in Canada is most obvious by the oversupply of certain retail businesses, but there are other scams I see on investment prospectuses more often than seems normal. The two problems I think is a lot of the launderers are politically connected, so there is no scrutiny, and even if leadership did something, it would only be to put even more of a burden on law abiding businesses. Imo, complex laws and regulations only affect the people who follow them, and they reward corruption.