Abstract
The Big Circle Boys (BCB) dominated the upper levels of the Canadian heroin market (importation and wholesale) throughout the 1990s by efficient competition and not through coercive monopoly. They operated in decentralised cells rather than with hierarchy. The cells learned from one another through differential association. A supply and demand analysis and a demographic analysis both showed that a low heroin demand in Canada could have been met, which led to substantial heroin surplus to satisfy much higher demands in the US. The supply was from Southeast Asia. The BCB were prominent high-level traders and brokers in amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) and marijuana businesses. Marijuana was sometimes bartered for American cocaine. They conducted repeat collaborations through the sharing of social, human, and financial resources. This created a BCB criminal network.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The excerpt from the DEA Intelligence Report (2016) details the reason why ‘China white number 4’ type of white heroin powder, as opposed to other darker-coloured ones, has had strong purchase historically in eastern US:
The heroin market in the United States has been historically divided along the Mississippi River, with western markets using Mexican black tar and brown powder heroin, and eastern markets using white powder (previously Southeast and Southwest Asian, but between 1997 and 2010 almost exclusively South American) heroin. Heroin use in the United States is much more prevalent in the Northeast and Midwest areas, where white powder heroin is used. The largest, most lucrative heroin markets in the United States are the white powder markets in major eastern cities: Baltimore, Boston and its surrounding cities, Chicago, New York City and the surrounding metropolitan areas, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., and these are the markets where Mexican traffickers are gaining a larger share.
- 2.
The DTES area of British Columbia , Canada, is notorious for the high prevalence of drug usage both in government approved and monitored clinical centres as well as ‘out in the open’ (e.g. on the streets and in public parks).
- 3.
Therefore, as research shows that daily users can inject heroin up to 2.5 times a day where the effects lasts around six hours, each dosage is sufficient to carry three shots by the above calculation - and even for a chronic user this would last approximately an entire 24-hour session.
- 4.
By comparison, the figures and formula used by the RCMP to estimate heroin consumption demand between 1980 and 1985 were (Lafreniere and Spicer 2002):
Between 1980–1985, the RCMP annual drug intelligence estimates report that the Canadian heroin user population remained around 20,000 users each year. The majority of the Canadian heroin user population resided in Vancouver (60%) and the remainder were located in Toronto and Montreal. In order to determine an estimated amount of heroin being imported to Canada each year to satisfy this user population’s demand for the substance, the RCMP based this estimate on the amount of heroin consumed by Canada’s heroin user population. Thus, “this estimate is based on the accepted standard that 24 milligrams of pure heroin is the minimum daily dosage required to produce dependence. However, it is believed that daily dosage levels in Canada range from 30 to 35 milligrams.” Therefore, with a population of around 20,000 heroin users, it was estimated that 175.2–255.5 kg of heroin was needed by Canada’s heroin user population each year between 1980 and 1985.
Daily Dosage Level Annual Requirement of Pure Heroin: 24 mg × 365 days × 20,000 users 175.2 kg 30 mg × 365 days × 20,000 users 219.0 kg 35 mg × 365 days × 20,000 users 255.5 kg. Table taken from RCMP National Drug Intelligence Estimate, 1981.
- 5.
Often researchers argue that law enforcement seizure cannot be a reliable indicator of the market demand, as the shipments that escape confiscation would far outweigh the volume seized or would simply be unknowingly large. These points are to be addressed in turn in this section.
- 6.
Note: It is inaccurate to equate the domestic market with sole domestic demand. The former includes both the heroin shipments in transit—in this case heroin destined for the US—that are not consumed domestically, which still contributes greatly to the domestic heroin economy, and the domestic consumption within Canada. The latter only refers to heroin consumed domestically. Given this necessary distinction, it would also be inaccurate to assess the impact of law enforcement interdiction by comparing the volume seized as a fraction of the market flow volume (e.g. what Jiggens did in his 2006 article).
- 7.
McLean (2003) also notes a similar average figure of 102 kg for annual heroin seizure in Canada between 1995 and 1999. Wood et al. (2006a, b), however, reported unusually high annual heroin seizure figures for the years of 1998, 1999, and 2000 with an average of 184 kg. The descriptions below the figure and table presented contradicted each other: the table states that the numbers show seized heroin ‘destined for Canada,’ whereas the figure states that the seizures were of heroin ‘in Canada.’ The two types of seizures could not be more different, and it is the author’s view that Wood et al. (2006a, b) were more likely than not referring to the former (that is, heroin seized outside of Canada), given that their numbers reported contradict the figures provided by the author which were cited directly from the RCMP Criminal Intelligence Directorate (2000) report.
- 8.
The formula used to produce this figure can be found in the paragraph below. Since the calculations used an unfounded and unexplained 50 mg dosage as the ‘realistic national average’ of daily consumption rather than the established and accepted average figure of 30 mg per day, the actual US heroin demand could be lowered by at least one-third the suggested figure which would amount to less than 10,000 kg per year.
An estimate of 50 mg of pure heroin a day was used as a realistic national average. The most recent estimate of the domestic hard-core addict population is 980,000. The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), which provides information on the demographic and substance abuse in 1996, 83.0% used daily, 4.0% used between three and six times a week, 1.8% used between one and two times a week, 2.2% used between one and three times a month, and 9.0% did not use during the month prior to their admission. [(0.05 g·0.001 kg/g)·(980,000 addicts)·(365 days)·(83%) = 15,000 kg].
- 9.
The 400 figure is approximated based on the previously mentioned 60%–40% ratio of drug user populations between British Columbia (60%) and all other Canadian provinces (40%).
- 10.
Note that the metropolis regions are selected instead of municipality and province in Canada or city and state in the US. The reason is that the latter choices are not representative of the regional geographic continuity in terms of population density if one were to seek the most densely populated eastern and western areas.
- 11.
New York City is in and of itself a metropolis with multiple large boroughs; hence, its surrounding regions are not included in this representation.
- 12.
See Volume II for a discussion and analysis of the Wong Ze Wai ecstasy group.
- 13.
Section 6.3 serves only as a brief introduction to the major BCB actors involved in high-level drug operations. Their roles and relations are examined in much greater detail in Volume II, where entire chapters are devoted to exploring the connections between actors within and between BCB cells as well as their capacity to act collectively to achieve trafficking and smuggling objectives in the drug trade.
- 14.
The suggested price of a kilogram of cocaine and a unit of heroin in Canada both ranging between CAD 35,000 to CAD 45,000 wholesale was based on the author’s own data, derived from testimonial evidence given in court proceedings involving the BCB.
- 15.
Despite his non-BCB status, Vongvilay features prominently in BCB drug trafficking schemes and network. His criminal activities and BCB associations are addressed at length in Volume II.
- 16.
Although this component of the trafficking activities in this example embodies the act of money laundering, the mentioning of foreign currency exchange in scenario one is only done out of necessity as the Canadian seller has not any choice but to receive USD in payment. By comparison, scenario two does not mention any money laundering process, because this activity is meant to be separated from the bartering procedure if it is not deemed a necessary step or one that cannot be avoided.
Bibliography
Academic Publications and Books
Adilman, S., & Kliewer, G. (2000). Pain and Wasting on Main and Hastings: A Perspective from the Vancouver Native Health Society Medical Clinic. British Columbia Medical Journal, 42(9), 422–425.
Desroches, F. J. (2005). The Crime That Pays: Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Jiggens, J. (2006). Estimating the Size of the Australian Heroin Market: A New Method. Paper Presented to the Social Change in the 21st Century Conference, Centre for Social Change Research.
Mclean, M. E. (2003). Temporal Correlation Between Opiate Seizures in East/Southeast Asia and B.C. Heroin Deaths: A Transoceanic Model of Heroin Death Risk. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 94(5), 346–350.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Wood, E., Stoltz, J., Li, K., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2006a). Changes in Canadian Heroin Supply Coinciding with the Australian Heroin Shortage. Addiction, 101, 689–695.
Wood, E., Stoltz, J., Li, K., Montaner, J. S. G., & Kerr, T. (2006b). The Cause of the Australian Heroin Shortage: Time to Reconsider? Addiction, 101, 621–625.
Government and Official Publications
CDC/NCHS. (2015, March). Data Brief 190: Drug-Poisoning Deaths Involving Heroin: United States, 2000–2013.
DEA. (2016). Resource Centre, Statistics and Facts. https://www.dea.gov/resource-center/statistics.shtml
DEA Intelligence Report. (2016, June). National Heroin Threat Assessment Summary – Updated (Unclassified).
Health Canada. (2008). March Report. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites-lieux/insite/index-eng.php#fnb1
Lafreniere, G., & Spicer, L. (2002). Illicit Drug Trends in Canada 1980–2001: A Review and Analysis of Enforcement Data. Prepared for the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Library of Parliament.
NDIC. (2000, February). Heroin Consumption in the US.
Parliament of Canada. (2002). December Committee Report. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1032297&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2&File=177#ftn56
Pulse Check. (2004, January). Drug Markets and Chronic Users in 25 of America’s Largest Cities. Executive Office of the President Office of National Drug Control Policy. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/drugfact/pulsechk/january2004.pdf
RCMP Criminal Intelligence Directorate. (2000, March). Drug Situation in Canada 1999.
Statistics Canada. (2015). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/index-eng.htm
United Nations. (2000). World Drug Report 2000. Oxford University Press. https://www.unodc.org/pdf/world_drug_report_2000/report_2001-01-22_1.pdf
United Nations. (2001, December). Forum on Crime and Society. Centre for International Crime Prevention, 1/2.
US Census Bureau. (2015a). http://www.census.gov/popclock/
US Census Bureau. (2015b). https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/webatlas/regions.html
US Department of Justice. (2014). https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015%2520NDTA%2520Report.pdf
Judicial Documents
Attorney General of Canada, Federal Court. (2016, January 11). Ye Yong Long, Ye vs Canada, T-261-15.
British Columbia Court of Appeal. (2009, February 27). Li Sum, R vs Li, CA035586.
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). (2008). Wu Yi Feng. File No./Dossier A7-00769.
Provincial Court of British Columbia (PCBC). (1994, June 6). Regina v. Yuk Kuang Vongvilay, Sum Wong, Yuan Chang Wong: Proceedings at Preliminary Inquiry, Volume I. Vancouver Registry: Docket 65636D.
Supreme Court of British Columbia (SCBC). (2002a, January 4). Her Majesty the Queen Against See Chun Lee, Gou Din Ho, Wei Bo Chen, Chuk Fong Tao, Chak Nam Chan, Siu Wah Chau and Cheung Hung: Publication Ban Pursuant to S. 648 of the Criminal Code (Ruling). Vancouver Registry: Docket CC010051.
Supreme Court of British Columbia (SCBC). (2002b, March 1). Her Majesty the Queen Against See Chun Lee, Gou Din Ho, Wei Bo Chen, Chuk Fong Tao, Chak Nam Chan, Siu Wah Chau and Cheung Hung: Publication Ban Pursuant to S. 648 of the Criminal Code (Ruling re Authorization P48/99). Vancouver Registry: Docket CC010051.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chung, A. (2019). BCB Activities 2: Drug Trafficking. In: Chinese Criminal Entrepreneurs in Canada, Volume I. Transnational Crime, Crime Control and Security. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05132-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05132-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05131-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05132-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)