
Billionaire Is Reported Seized from Hong Kong Hotel and Taken into China - walterbell
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/xiao-jianhua-china-hong-kong-billionaire.html
======
jwtadvice
This appears to be an aspect of the anti-corruption drive that has been
holding billionaires and politically connected people high up in the Chinese
government to account of the law, with Xiao Jianhua caught in financial fraud.

The controversy here isn't that China took Xiao Jianhua in to face the law,
but that he was taken from Hong Kong, where an agreement with Britain gives
its former colony de facto autonomy within its small borders until 2047 -
which disallows Chinese police from entering there on their own until that
time.

I haven't seen any reports yet about whether there has been cooperation with
the Hong Kong provisional government (which would make his capture legal).
Then, it's hard to determine exactly what happened as the source linked here
hasn't done that investigation yet - and is reporting on rumors that there was
a small (but notable if true) sovereignty violation.

~~~
sparky_z
It's not clear to me whether the anti-corruption drive arises out of a genuine
antipathy towards corruption or as a means for Xi Jinping to consolidate
personal power. This is especially hard because it seems likely that every
Chinese bigwig is at least somewhat corrupt, and high-level Chinese power
politics is opaque enough that it's not clear if only Xi's rivals are being
targeted.

I really don't know how to unpick that knot, but I don't think it's an angle
that should be ignored.

~~~
jwtadvice
It seems to me that it's an actual genuine effort, given that the publicity of
the drive has damaged Chinese public confidence in their institutions of
government (high profile corruption is often featured in the news) and because
many of the people taken to court have been in Xi Jinpeng's own circle and
have represented for him a loss of personal power in the party. I haven't read
much about Xi's personal power growing all particularly much during the anti-
corruption drive, and there is a legitimate question whether he will be
revoted to lead the party during the congress next year (though it is expected
to continue).

Definitely this angle on understanding the drive should not be ignored. An
attempt to corroborate it - to unpick the knot - would require a great amount
of study of the Chinese People's Party, of Xi Jinping's constituency, and both
the consistency of and the timing of charges brought to bring in the high
level fraud. Documents and communications from Jinping or his circle
discussing "who to go after" would represent a smoking gun (of course we
haven't even smelled anything like this).

I read an expose from Foreign Policy where they tried to build a case that Xi
Jinping has been using it to consolidate power, but it was very clumsy and as
its predictions and information came into question the investigative direction
taken by the expose has been abandoned (as far as I can tell).

The way the anti-corruption drive has proceeded, as I understand, has been in
tracking how government finances are being used and that the Chinese
Government tends to find - using traditional accounting audits - rings of
people who are enriching themselves using various schemes (though many times
really obvious transfers into personal accounts). So far it has appeared that
the anti-corruption effort has both been making an actual positive effect on
government efficiency and that it has been primarily non-political and
untargetted, focusing more on finding abuse of public funds than in chasing
after any officials in particular.

~~~
sparky_z
I'm not trying to claim that I'm more well versed on the subject than you.
Almost certainly the opposite! But I would like to push back a little on a
couple of the points you made.

> the publicity of the drive has damaged Chinese public confidence in their
> institutions of government

If Mr. Xi's goal were to stay on past the customary 10-year term, wouldn't he
_need_ to discredit the current institutions of government and portray himself
as the antidote?

> many of the people taken to court have been in Xi Jinpeng's own circle

My overly-simplistic model of China's government is that it is basically a
one-party system with a veneer of formality over back-room intra-party
struggles (along with a regular calendar of leadership replacement to prevent
too much consolidation of power around an individual, as happened to an extent
with Deng Xiaoping in the aftermath of Mao's death). Under this model,
official political power tends to correspond directly to internal party clout.
So wouldn't anybody with enough clout to be a threat to Xi be likely to be
found within his own circle (AKA, higher ups in the current government)? I
admit I could be way off base in my analysis here, as I haven't studied
China's government in depth.

> Documents and communications from Jinping or his circle discussing "who to
> go after" would represent a smoking gun (of course we haven't even smelled
> anything like this).

Just out of curiosity, have we seen _any_ such documents or communications (on
any subject) that weren't intended for public consumption? That seems like
important context as to whether absence of evidence can realistically be
considered evidence of absence.

Again, since you seem to have studied this in more detail than I have, I'm
interested in your thoughts on these questions.

~~~
jwtadvice
The quick response to these concerns is that they very highly speculative.
They are the sort of thing that - like medieval models of the solar system -
seem to predict the the movement of the planets, except that you keep needing
to explain away all the inconsistencies and that there are much simpler
explanations available, which don't suffer from the exhaustion of the
requirement to constantly tweak and reinterpret.

If Xi Jinping were to try to purge the Chinese Government (a highly paranoid
organization, with military, intelligence and national security communities
that far outlast his particular inter-party alignment) that would be
incredible, shocking and enormous news.

> If Mr. Xi's goal were to stay on past the customary 10-year term, wouldn't
> he need to discredit the current institutions of government and portray
> himself as the antidote?

Maybe? Generally, the party is the face (you used the word veneer) of the
government and its institutions. Weakening public opinion of the party only
makes sense if Xi Jinping were pushing to replace the party system with a cult
of personality. In the mind of the Chinese, Xi merely runs the party, and any
damaged public opinion about the party reflects directly on public opinion
about how Jinping is running it.

The kind of steps to become a cult of personality necessary to replace the
party system just aren't being seen. You aren't seeing the government under
Jinping trying to mass mobilize a change of public opinion to value his
leadership over and above the party system.

Rather than discredit the current institutions of government he'd need to
purge the institutions and norms which facilitate the cap on leadership and
the interior modes for leadership to be replaced, as well as top brass in the
People's Army that would enforce that - while pushing for the citizens of
China to support such a transition. I have yet to read anything that makes a
case that that's happening (much less a compelling one).

> Just out of curiosity, have we seen any such documents or communications (on
> any subject) that weren't intended for public consumption? That seems like
> important context as to whether absence of evidence can realistically be
> considered evidence of absence.

Yup. Take "Document Number 9" or the leaks regarding Ling Jihua or the leaks
from the public diplomacy and strategic communication (propaganda) centers in
China or the so called "50 Cent Party" \- their version of the US's "Global
Engagement Center".

Documents are leaked in China the same as they are leaked anywhere else. In
any case, I'm just suggesting the type of really strong evidence you'd want to
be able to reference to support a really strong claim. Unfortunately not
enough leaks from any government are available to always have a "smoking gun"
(though incredibly in the case of Brazil we got them, not that it mattered). I
agree with you that absence of a leaked smoking gun is not evidence that it
doesn't exist. My point was that there's nothing even close - so either the
conspiracy is incredibly underground, has thought 15 moves ahead, and is going
to manage to capture a government with a billion people even without taking
the steps you'd expect to see - or it's a rumor similar to those about
President Trump's, President Obama's, and President Putin's ambitions to
overthrow their governments that were/are popular during their respective
eras.

Color me really skeptical. I'm willing to believe it though - I would just
need to see the right set of circumstances or the right set of leaked
documents for it to make enough sense. Overall I'm much more interested in
current affairs, geopolitics, and the potential ouster of Najib Razak in
Malaysia and the workings of the next China party congress than these kinds of
highly speculative and underevidenced theories.

------
micaksica
I don't have a lot of sympathy for this man's problems. When you're making
your billions from the corruption in the Chinese state, you run the risk of
ending up on the wrong side of it. It's no different than any other organized
crime.

I will be very surprised if Canada does or says anything of significance,
given that these people are politically unpopular and causing issues for
British Columbia. China has all the power here. The best I imagine he will get
is a diplomat to issue a strongly worded protest that has no teeth.

~~~
brilliantcode
> given that these people are politically unpopular and causing issues for
> British Columbia.

so who are you speaking for when you use the blanket term "these people"? Are
Chinese Born Canadians and other East Asian Canadians included in your labels?

I'm seeing more and more of these anti-Chinese comments popping up on reddit
/r/vancouver and frankly annoyed to see similar fear mongering and FUD
spreading fake comments outside of that cesspool of bitter and shut in crowd.

What the hell does British Columbia have to do with this man? He made his
money in China and he got kidnapped. What possible blame do you place on this
person or the government of BC? As far as I am aware, Canada has never
successfully extracted hostages or expats in physical trouble by foreign
government or militias.

There's no Seal Team Six and CSIS really isn't tasked with Jason Bourne styled
missions which you are thinking of.

~~~
micaksica
> There's no Seal Team Six and CSIS really isn't tasked with Jason Bourne
> styled missions which you are thinking of.

I'm not sure how you extrapolated my post to this extreme. I replied to a
poster below as to how I am viewing the politics of the situation in more
detail, if you'd prefer to get a more reasoned view than the "gut summary".

I'm not anti-Chinese. I don't live in Vancouver. It would be rather strange
for me to be anti-Chinese; see my bio. I personally get a lot of benefit from
East Asia. If anything, you could say that I am in many ways pro-Chinese, but
I support _the Chinese people_.

What I _do_ have is a strong dislike for people like this man, who have made
billions for themselves through graft, rent-seeking, and cronyism by
ingratiating themselves with the party elite. Much of this man's economic
wealth is extracted from ordinary Chinese people. When I wrote "these people"
I was not talking about Chinese: I was talking about Chinese nationals that
made their wealth through corruption and exploitation instead of providing
true value to their greater countrymen, then run off to a Western sovereign
state in hopes that their actions don't catch up with them.

~~~
brilliantcode
My bad I've been reading a lot of negative comments on /r/vancouver and my
trigger level was too sensitive.

------
pixelbreaker
[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/02/01/chinese-billionaire-
ab...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/02/01/chinese-billionaire-abducted-by-
chinese-security-agents-from-hong-kong-four-seasons-hotel-reports/)

No-one knows why he's there. The issue is more with Chinese agents operating
on Hong Kong soil. They shouldn't be.

~~~
downandout
From your link: _" She then said Xiao had contacted her and did not want to
exaggerate the incident, according to the report."_

I'm not sure the incident could be exaggerated, given China's propensity to
execute those convicted of corruption/embezzlement. They kidnapped a
billionaire in another country with the likely intent to kill him sooner or
later.

~~~
true_religion
Hong Kong is not a country. It is an autonomous territory. It has only a
little higher legal status than someplace like Guam or Puerto Rico, and that
tiny bit is only there because of the sufferance of the higher government.

Hong Kong does not have an army (even US states have their own militias). It
does not defend its own borders. It does not negotiate its own diplomatic
affairs.

However, HK is still subservient to its parent government in terms of legal
matters. Taking a foreign national would be a political affair that Hong Kong
has no actual right to adjudicate.

The only thing Hong Kong has is a separate legal system, immigration control,
and its own delegates in international bodies like the WTO.

~~~
downandout
Territory or country, according to the articles, Chinese police shouldn't have
been there, yet they were. That's a problem.

------
RestlessMind
Mossad abducted Adolph Eichmann in Argentina and took him to Israel. US Navy
Seals raided and killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Indian army stormed
across the LoC and destroyed terrorist camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
Chinese police captured Xiao Jianhua in Hongkong and took him across the
border.

When are these actions justified? Only when someone is a killer or a torturer
or a terrorist? Or are they okay in case of (allegedly) corrupt billionaires
as well? Tough question, imho.

~~~
mikeash
I don't have a good answer for where the line is, but at least in the cases of
bin Laden and Kashmir, normal channels for arrest and extradition wouldn't
have worked. I'm less sure about Eichmann, but according to Wikipedia,
Argentina had a history of refusing to extradite Nazis.

In this case, China shouldn't have had any trouble getting Hong Kong
authorities to arrest and extradite this person, so it doesn't seem like the
same thing.

~~~
JDShu
> In this case, China shouldn't have had any trouble getting Hong Kong
> authorities to arrest and extradite this person, so it doesn't seem like the
> same thing.

Given the current political situation in Hong Kong, this may not be a valid
assumption.

------
monort
This happened before:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances)

~~~
trendia
The creepiest part of that incident is that after weeks of no communication,
the bookseller "wrote" an email to his daughter saying that he is alright and
not to worry about him.

~~~
emodendroket
They forced him (or maybe it was a different bookseller) to go on TV and claim
he turned himself in for some crime he committed as well, as I recall.

------
imjustsaying
Hong Kong has fallen, democracy there officially died after they refused to
let those two legislators swear in.

Not sure whose idea it was to let HK get handed over to the commies back in
the 1990's, why Taiwan didn't make a louder claim to it, or why HK didn't
assert its right to independence from extraterritorial governments altogether.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
At that point, Hong Kong was entirely dependent from the fresh water provided
by the mainland, to the point that if the taps were ever closed, hundreds of
thousands would have died before alternative sources would have been
available. You cannot just ship enough water for 6.5M people, and HK
authorities were scared that if they started constructing desalinization
systems, PRC would pressure them to stop doing that with the threat of
immediately cutting off the water. PRC had effective power over HK before they
were granted legal power over it.

Before the time of the transition they stressed that all the current treaties
for water were written to end at the time of transition, and that they would
not be willing to renegotiate them.

Any attempt to keep HK or to turn them over to Taiwan would have resulted in
mass death and evacuations.

~~~
imjustsaying
Thanks for sharing. I had wondered what the word on the street was and
couldn't find good information about it despite having searched before.

------
pdog
How will Trudeau respond? Xiao Jianhua is a Canadian citizen, after all.

~~~
xiaoma
Given the cold shoulder he's given Taiwan's president, who is also the first
female leader democratically elected in Asia, and how he barely responded to
Wang Yi's belligerent behavior in Canada, I'd say Trudeau will do nothing.

When it comes to might vs right, Canada generally sides with might. To be
honest, other than the US, the only country I can even imagine standing up to
China for the well-being of a 3rd party is Japan.

~~~
77ko
> who is also the first female leader democratically elected in Asia

There have been plenty of other female leaders elected in Asia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_government)

~~~
xiaoma
That's totally right. It should have been first female leader in any Chinese-
speaking countries. The greater point still stands. Trudeau would not snub the
democratically elected leader of any other advanced economy of 23 million.

------
skissane
I wonder, what would the world be like today if the UK had refused to give
back Hong Kong? Or, they could have refused to switch recognition from ROC to
PRC, and then handed Hong Kong to ROC instead?

The US and the UK basically gave the PRC everything they wanted in switching
the UN's China seat from ROC to PRC. They could have driven a much harder
bargain – e.g. have two Chinas in the UN, just like it has two Koreas and used
to have two Vietnams, two Germanys, two Yemens, etc; then HK and Macau could
have been given back to ROC instead of PRC. But the US and UK were so obsessed
with using PRC to spite the Soviets, they weren't thinking about what it would
mean 20, 30, 40 years later when the Soviet Union was defunct.

~~~
jwtadvice
China needed strong assurances from the US and UK that formally splitting from
the Soviet Union wouldn't see the American alliance then turn against China in
a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Could we have gotten a better deal? I'm not sure. Given the earlier incursion
into Vietnam and Korea, the military support of the ROC and the militarization
of the First Island Chain, I can't imagine that anything short of the very
strong reassurance the alliance pursued with the "One China Policy" would have
been acceptable.

The move is one of the only things heralded of the scandal-plagued Nixon
Administration as a wild success for the United States, and is even often
credited for being the key diplomatic victory that ultimately won America the
Cold War.

~~~
skissane
Did the US-China alliance win the Cold War? To what extent did it contribute
to the fall of the Soviet Union? I think most of the reasons why the Soviet
Empire fell were internal factors rather than external pressures, and the US-
China alliance made at best a marginal difference to the outcome.

Indeed, what did the US and its allies actually get out of their anti-Soviet
alliance with PRC? Nixon hoped that it would help the US in Vietnam; but
obviously it didn't – South Vietnam lost the war and they probably would have
lost it just the same even if Nixon's China trip never happened. More broadly,
I honestly can't see any military benefits for the US and its allies from the
deal. The various potential military hotspots – Vietnam, the Korean peninsula,
the South China Sea – would probably be in much the same state if the US-China
deal never happened. Obviously some sort of understanding with PRC had to be
reached eventually, since pretending ROC was the government of the whole of
China wasn't tenable in the long run, but the US could have extracted some
major concessions from PRC in exchange for recognition instead of basically
conceding to PRC all its major objectives – an alliance against the Soviets
was not a huge concession from PRC given that PRC and USSR were already
mutually hostile since the Sino-Soviet split of the early 1960s.

Many people say that Nixon's decision was a great strategic move, but I am
unconvinced – the US got some short-term assistance against the Soviets which
it didn't really need and didn't make much difference anyway; in exchange, the
US put itself in a weaker strategic position vis-à-vis China for many decades
to come.

And of course, China's economic development since the 1980s has provided many
economic benefits to the US and its allies. But, that still could have
happened even if there was a more assertive US policy towards PRC, such as a
"two Chinas policy" of recognising both PRC and ROC and maintaining diplomatic
relations with both. Under this model, it would not be essential that PRC
itself abandon the "one China" position, merely that it be willing to accept
trade and diplomatic relations with countries that adopted the "two Chinas"
position instead. If the US had made that the price for US-PRC trade from the
outset, I think Beijing probably would have come around to paying it. In the
1970s, the US was a vastly richer country than PRC (the gap is still there but
it has closed a lot in the last 30-40 years), and PRC had far more to gain
from US trade than vice versa, so the US arguably had more power to set the
ground terms for the relationship – but the US despite having the far stronger
hand chose not to play it.

~~~
jwtadvice
Thanks for your informed and interesting comment!

This is an interesting position, though I think it suffers from the same
shortcuts that much US thinking does when it tries to grapple with prior
arrangements that seem inconvenient today because of changing strategic
context.

To what extent did it contribute to the fall of the Soviet Union? An
incredible amount. China blocked the Soviet Union in all of South Asia, it
abstained from diplomatic support - it wielded both its position on the UNSC
and it's nuclear capability to check USSR. Then, it challenged the central
tenets of Communism specifying that it had a different interpretation closer
to the original theory - thus challenging the centrality of Russia
ideologically. China's withdrawl represented approximately a third of the
world population removing itself from the union: the concept of "domino
theory" at the time described - in a certain pop science way - how states
arriving into and dropping out of the union had a chain reaction effect. Since
the alliance with China, the Cold War no longer was fought in the Asian
theatre - closing down an entire continent of front to the war. The rest of
the Cold War would be fought in Central Asia (and eventually in the Middle
East), and in Europe.

Of course, the United States knew from very early that it was going to lose in
Vietnam: the Pentagon Papers discussed this in great detail. The United States
was there on a cost imposition exercise. The result it found in the alliance
with China was a mutually satisfactory way to close the conflict. In this
regard China didn't win the Vietnam war either.

> The various potential military hotspots – Vietnam, the Korean peninsula, the
> South China Sea – would probably be in much the same state if the US-China
> deal never happened.

I have no idea. That's 60 years of alternative history to imagine.
Fascinating, but not clear.

> Many people say that Nixon's decision was a great strategic move, but I am
> unconvinced – the US got some short-term assistance against the Soviets
> which it didn't really need and didn't make much difference anyway; in
> exchange, the US put itself in a weaker strategic position vis-à-vis China
> for many decades to come.

This seems to be a rising opinion in the National Security Core of the United
States, and also seems to be the take of the new Trump Administration.

Personally I see this as historical revisionism, contextualized by modern
concerns over historical accuracy.

I fully agree that China and it's potential rise are considered by the
National Security State of the American Government to be a dark horse
scenario, and a greater potential spoiler to American hegemony than Russia (a
waning power) today.

I understand how someone could mistake the situation we are in today with a
security outlook at China's rise and want to throw out some of the alliance
concessions because in this day and age they are inconvenient. We've seen that
before in history (indeed, in American history) and so it's congruent with the
kind of behavior we would expect.

> China's economic development since the 1980s has provided many economic
> benefits to the US and its allies. But, that still could have happened even
> if there was a more assertive US policy towards PRC

I think all of this is very accurate, provided there was _some_ deal to get an
alliance. Had it been possible for the United States to do that without
recognizing PRC, I serious doubt. But yeah, if that had been possible, I think
much of the geoeconomic situation would have looked the same.

------
rrauenza
Update:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-
billionaire...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-billionaire-
idUSKBN15F2AM)

"Chinese billionaire whereabouts a mystery but denies abduction"

"A missing China-born billionaire was quoted by state media on Tuesday as
saying he had not been abducted from Hong Kong by mainland Chinese agents as
some news outlets had reported but was receiving medical treatment."

------
quakeguy
Swimming with sharks includes being eaten by some on day or another.. Thats a
chinese saying btw, HN folks.

~~~
brilliantcode
Well, I think a lot of people are overlooking these "rendition" cases taking
place in HK.

When they control the political will of HK, they will inevitably control the
economy of HK.

HK is no longer the safe haven it once was. Looks like Singapore is about to
get another huge boost in business after banking secrecy is coming under
attack in Europe.

------
jrockway
One country, one system.

~~~
xiaoma
Doesn't matter. The UK has no spine and will never push to enforce the terms
of their 1997 treaty with China that transferred control of HK. When a trading
partner is as valuable as China, all ideals go out the window.

I remember the promises well since I was in Taipei and watching Chris Patten,
Britain's final governor of HK, talk about it on the news during the hand-off.

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/hong-k...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/hong-
kong-protests-betrayed-by-china-abandoned-by-britain)

------
Ka-Ching
Casablanca in 1942 = Hong Kong today.

~~~
xutopia
I am unfortunately not a student of history. Can you explain what you mean by
this?

~~~
Ka-Ching
1\. Casablanca the movie was timed to open in 1942 to benefit from the
publicity surrounding the just-completed Allied takeover of Casablanca the
city. Until November of 1942, this port city in Morocco, which was formerly a
part of the French colonial empire, had been under the dual control of Nazi
Germany and the Nazi-puppet government in Vichy, France, that the Germans had
installed after occupying France in 1940.

2\. Nowaday, the situation of Hong Kong looks like Casablanca during World War
II.

------
zeeshanm
Here is a background on Xiao:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/asia/tiananmen-
era-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/asia/tiananmen-era-students-
different-path-to-power-in-china.html)

------
ajross
Seems extraordinarily unlikely to be related to the current chaos within the
US executive branch. The new Trump administration is dealing with like six or
seven crises at the moment (of its own creation, no less). China knows that a
little malfesance on its part won't come anywhere near TV news.

This is what people mean when they praise things like a "steady hand on the
tiller". These coming years are going to be one disaster after another.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Likely or unlikely? Your comment seems to contradict itself.

------
ythn
> The billionaire, Xiao Jianhua, who has been missing since Friday, is in
> police custody in China, where he apparently is safe, said the person, who
> spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of arrest.

It's interesting to see how a country with no freedom of speech or press
operates. Sure they have a great and growing economy, but at what price to the
citizens?

There are no secret police in Ba Sing Se

~~~
jMyles
> is in police custody in China, where he apparently is safe

My understanding is that this is a contradiction in terms.

~~~
maccard
I think by safe they mean he is alive.

------
brudgers
From a sovereignty perspective, Hong Kong is part of China.

~~~
FabHK
And from the perspective of legislative, judicial, and executive powers (incl.
police work), it isn't.

~~~
mwfunk
Isn't that the difference between sovereignty and self-governance? HK is self-
governing in a lot of ways, but it's not a sovereign state, so it exists at
the mercy of China. I don't know to what degree HK's independence is
guaranteed by international treaties vs. agreements that are purely internal
to China. If there's no international agreement with entities outside of China
to honor HK's independence, surely the Chinese government could overrule the
local government when it sees fit (like the US Federal government taking
precedence over state governments when there are conflicting laws and
interests).

~~~
FabHK
IANAL, and it's complicated - there was the UK-China "handover" treaty that
guarantees the 50 yrs of autonomy, starting from the 1997 handover.

But note that I'm not disagreeing with the original poster or you: it might
well not be sovereign. My point was that having mainland police acting on HK
soil is problematic, as it stands, no matter what the status with respect to
sovereignty is.

------
zimzam
J

------
karpodiem
.CN is why BTC is doing well

------
bitmapbrother
>Mr. Xiao is a Canadian citizen with an Antiguan diplomatic passport, though
he was born in China.

Ah, the Antiguan diplomatic passport. This has tax evasion written all over
it.

~~~
kpil
Still, diplomatic passport, although a shady one.

I guess we could go an lock up all Chinese diplomatic representatives then?

~~~
bitmapbrother
Can you can buy a Chinese citizenship with a Mastercard or Visa and not even
appear in the country? Buying passports in these countries are almost
exclusively used for hiding money.

