Print Article

AML Case study[ies] on Bypassing China’s Currency Controls


Lei Zhang, 41, from Las Vegas, Nevada, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison for helping Chinese gamblers bypass currency conversion limits. Lei Zhang, stood accused of collecting cash from various US-based third parties, which he would then use to ensure high-rollers visiting Las Vegas casinos from China had a ready supply of US dollars with which to gamble.

That meant these high-rollers didn’t have to be limited by China’s strict rules forbidding nationals from converting more than $50,000 per year from yuan to US dollars — and, in the process, they could avoid scrutiny from US banks as well. Instead, to pay for the ready supply of US cash, these Chinese gamblers would transfer the equivalent value of yuan from their Chinese bank accounts to Chinese bank accounts that Zhang controlled. For each transaction, Zhang received a commission.

According to a June 3 statement by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, he will also face the forfeiture of $150,000.

Zhang, who pleaded guilty in February 2020, implicated several casino hosts in the scheme.

He admitted that certain casino hosts would regularly connect him with customers who wanted to increase their gambling budget. In turn, Zhang would often give them a cut of his commission.

Neither the names of the casino hosts nor the casinos they worked for have been disclosed.

According to prosecutors, Zhang is the first individual in the US to be sentenced for his role in this type of scheme. Yet, for those in Canada, this bears a resemblance to the money laundering method known as the Vancouver model,


The model uses casino gambling to help Chinese nationals bypass currency controls and provides an avenue for criminals to launder illegitimate funds. Often, these funds are then used to fund real estate transactions or make other luxury purchases.

It also calls to mind one of Canada’s highest-profile money laundering cases in history, which, after a years-long investigation that began in 2015, was dropped in 2018 — mere months before it was set to go to trial.


The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email