From Khawaja to Epoch Times: Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Law Meets Global Financial Crime

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/07

Part 3 of 4

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee. 

In this 4-part interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman on Canada’s ongoing vulnerabilities in counterterrorism and extremist financing. Tsukerman traces the problem back to porous financial oversight, weak cooperation with allies, and the persistence of diaspora networks sustaining separatist and militant causes abroad. From the assassination of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar to the activities of Samidoun and Tamil separatist charities, she highlights how groups exploit hawala, cryptocurrency, and fraudulent charities. Tsukerman also assesses landmark Canadian cases, such as R v. Khawaja, and explains why cartels like Sinaloa and MS-13 are now classified as terrorist entities. The discussion underscores Canada’s lagging enforcement and geopolitical consequences.

Interview conducted August 22, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There was a significant legal case involving this. In R v. Khawaja (2012), the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Canada’s anti-terrorism legal framework. The case involved Mohammad Momin Khawaja, who was convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act for facilitating terrorism abroad. His conviction and lengthy sentence reinforced the Canadian courts’ willingness to uphold terrorism charges even when the activities extended beyond Canada. Should we expand that?

Tsukerman: Yes, that case is important because it established precedent. It made clear that Canadians could be held criminally responsible for supporting or facilitating terrorism abroad, not just domestically. It also demonstrated that Canadian civil liberties challenges would not overturn the broader anti-terrorism framework.

Mohammad Momin Khawaja, a Canadian software developer, was the first person charged under Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, which had been enacted after 9/11. He was arrested in 2004 for providing material support to a UK-based terrorist cell linked to al-Qaeda. The group had planned to use homemade explosives in coordinated attacks. Khawaja’s role was to build a remote-controlled detonation device, nicknamed the “Hi-Fi Digimonster.”

He was initially convicted on seven terrorism-related offences under Section 83 of the Canadian Criminal Code and sentenced to ten and a half years in prison. However, on appeal, his sentence was increased to life imprisonment plus concurrent terms totalling 24 years on other counts. In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction and sentence, making it a landmark case that tested Canada’s new anti-terrorism provisions.

Jacobsen: So this was basically a lone wolf situation?

Tsukerman: In some ways, yes—but in other ways, no. It was not just an isolated individual; he was part of a genuine conspiracy tied to an al-Qaeda cell in the UK. What made the case significant was that it was the first real test of Canada’s post-9/11 terrorism legislation. His actions clearly met the legal criteria: violent intent, risk to life, and active participation in a terrorist plot. There was nothing about the case that violated his rights—it was straightforward.

The only reason it generated controversy was that it was the first time the law was applied. Civil liberties groups sought to test whether Canada’s terrorism provisions would withstand scrutiny in court. However, in Khawaja’s case, the facts were so clear and by-the-book that the challenge had no chance. His case firmly established that Canada’s anti-terrorism framework would be upheld and applied to serious, credible threats.

Jacobsen: And then there is another case—not purely terrorism, but more financial crime. The Falun Gong and The Epoch Times are still ongoing issues. There are continuing financial questions around that network. The overlap between religious movements, media influence, and political activism in that case is another area that needs scrutiny. 

Mainstream reporting and reference works have extensively documented those connections. In June 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Wei Dong “Bill” Guan, the chief financial officer of The Epoch Times, in the Southern District of New York. He was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and bank fraud involving at least $67 million. Guan pleaded not guilty.

The DOJ emphasized that the charges did not concern the outlet’s news-gathering operations. Instead, the indictment alleged that an internal team had engaged in a large-scale financial scheme. According to prosecutors, the group used cryptocurrency to buy discounted prepaid debit cards loaded with illicit proceeds, including fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits. They then laundered the money through a series of layered transactions, often via accounts opened using stolen identities, before funnelling it into company accounts.

Prosecutors further alleged that Guan misled banks when questioned about suspicious activity, dismissing significant transaction spikes as routine business fluctuations. The case highlighted how extremist-aligned or ideologically motivated organizations sometimes exploit financial systems through fraud, money laundering, and crypto-based schemes to sustain their activities.

According to court filings, the case against The Epoch Times CFO Wei Dong “Bill” Guan is ongoing. Court dockets indicate that proceedings are expected to continue into 2026. This matters because while people can say almost anything on social media, court testimony and indictments carry much more weight. A courtroom is far more serious—statements are under oath, evidence is scrutinized, and the consequences are severe.

The indictment charges Guan with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years, and two counts of bank fraud, each carrying a potential sentence of up to 30 years. Taken together, he faces a potential maximum sentence of 80 years in prison. The United States judicial system tends to treat financial crimes more seriously than the Canadian judicial system, both in sentencing and enforcement.

The indictment alleges that Guan oversaw a scheme in which fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits were purchased at steep discounts—often 70 to 80 cents on the dollar—using stolen identities. These proceeds were converted into cryptocurrency and then used to purchase prepaid debit cards, which were subsequently layered through multiple accounts, some of which were opened under false or stolen identities, before being funnelled into Epoch Timesaccounts. When questioned by banks about a massive revenue spike—from roughly $15 million to around $62 million—Guan allegedly claimed the increase was due to “donations.” Ironically, when later questioned by a Congressional office, he dismissed donations as an insignificant portion of the outlet’s revenue.

At his initial bail hearing, Guan was released on a $3 million personal recognizance bond. That essentially meant he was freed under the court’s trust that he would not commit new crimes, would return for hearings, and would not flee. Initially, his trial was scheduled for March 2025. It was later pushed to October 31, 2025, with a status conference set for December 6, 2024. Following a request from a co-defendant, Lei Van Hong, and with the consent of both Guan’s lawyers and the prosecution, the trial was rescheduled for February 2, 2026.

The history of The Epoch Times reveals aggressive outreach and fundraising—people receiving newspapers delivered unasked, and campaigns that many considered intrusive. This case appears to be a more extreme manifestation of the same aggressive financial character. It reminds me a bit of how groups like the LTTE continued fundraising and propaganda after their military defeat—you see continuity of the cause, even if the battlefield is lost. Do you think that comparison is accurate?

Tsukerman: First, a disclaimer. I have been quoted in The Epoch Times and know journalists who currently work there. That said, I assess that this case appears less about the movement itself and more about a small group of greedy officers who allegedly exploited the organization’s infrastructure for illicit financial gain. The structural parallels to other extremist or diaspora organizations are worth noting, but the specifics here may be more about corruption and opportunism than ideological continuation.

If the allegations are proven, those individuals should be convicted and imprisoned based on their actions. However, so far, I have not seen any evidence that the money laundering scheme was connected to Falun Gong as a religious movement or that the funds were being used on behalf of The Epoch Times for ideological purposes. It looks more like personal enrichment at the expense of the company. In other words, this could have happened at any organization, regardless of ideology, and it would have been treated the same way by prosecutors.

For the Falun Gong, it is not my cup of tea. It does have a kind of cultish, personality-driven feel to it. That said, I have never seen evidence of systemic abuse on the scale of, for instance, Scientology, which clearly operates like a predatory organized-crime structure. To the best of my knowledge, Falun Gong does not fall into that category.

If people want to practice a peculiar ideology peacefully, that is their business. What is interesting is that the Chinese government aggressively labels Falun Gong a cult, while at the same time, it is the best-organized Chinese opposition movement abroad. Inside China, it is unpopular—most people there view it as strange. However, outside China, it has become a central hub of anti-CCP activity.

As for The Epoch Times, its editorial stance has shifted in recent years, adopting positions that align with parts of the MAGA movement. One of the most visible examples was its promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. However, that has little to do with Falun Gong doctrine. Instead, it reflects a strategic political calculation: many in the Falun Gong diaspora believed that Donald Trump would take a stricter stance on the Chinese Communist Party. That belief propelled them into the same orbit as other Trump supporters, driven by independent political reasons.

While Falun Gong’s religious or philosophical mindset does not directly dictate the outlet’s politics or business practices, its organizational style is worth noting. It is highly aggressive, and that aggressiveness has cultural roots. In China, you often see propaganda that is blunt and confrontational, much more so than Russian state propaganda, which tends to be slicker and less physically confrontational.

Even leaving politics aside, this aggressive style may stem from cultural experiences of scarcity. Growing up in a developing society with limited resources can produce a mentality where being pushy is seen as necessary for survival. I will give you an example. I was once visiting a museum as part of a tour group. A group of Chinese tourists who spoke no English or local languages arrived. Because they misunderstood the ticketing system, they believed that if they did not enter at the exact time printed on the ticket, they would be denied entry. This was not true—the tickets were valid within a window, and the museum was flexible. However, because they did not understand, they became very pushy and aggressive, trying to get to the front of the line.

It was apparent that this was a cultural issue: several different people in the group exhibited the same behaviour. That is why I think The Epoch Times’ style—its aggressive outreach and presentation—owes less to Falun Gong doctrine and more to broader cultural traits shaped by life in China.

The style we were discussing—this very aggressive approach to promotion and outreach—seems more like a matter of cultural habit than a deliberate strategy to finance failed movements. It is similar to how town barkers used to shout for attention, or like certain very assertive street vendors in parts of the Middle East who get directly in your face to sell goods whether you want them or not. It is unsophisticated, but it is designed to grab attention.

That said, I am not claiming that these organizations are not also independently funnelling money toward doomed objectives. They probably are. I am simply saying this particular style of communication likely reflects a broader cultural pattern rather than a calculated diaspora strategy.

Jacobsen: Anything else you want to cover on the financial side?

Tsukerman: We have hit the significant cases. Others may surface later, but we have covered the most important ones so far. Canada’s Criminal Code will undoubtedly continue to produce material, but for now, I think we have covered the essential ground.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.