10
I'm working on a small fictional country that might be good for money launderers. How would this affect its relations with other countries? (please click for details) (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/worldbuilding@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The country is small:

It's less than 10 000 sq km in area, has fewer than 1 million people, and GDP less than about US$50 billion. It might have a coast. It's a liberal democracy, or at least mostly a liberal democracy. It's been independent for almost 100 years, attempts a strong neutrality, and is thus generally non-aligned.

I suppose the country's currency is hard, or reasonably hard, enough that it can be freely exchanged.

In this country you can bring a gym bag with US$1 million (say 10 000 $100 bills) in or out of the country. There are banks there which you can deposit the money, and while they might be required to report this to the government, the government won't tell the governments or other international organizations about it.

What would be the consequences for such in international relations?

Thank you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Also getting in with bags of money, or whatever that is too obvious, would pick the attention of other countries. Things like legally accepted gambling, depositing in banks that don't ask the origin of the money ("fiscal paradises") and other activities with some degree of legitimacy more easily pass under the radar if used for money laundering, thus not picking the attention of countries willing to investigate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Commenting as I remember. Thus breaking into several comments btw.

    But something else, a coast, or even a big river where bigger ships can pass by, would allow for strong maritime commerce. Not necessarily involved with crime, though the money laundering part would make an eyebrow rise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Small tangent, but regarding the neutrality, if a country generally successfully tries not to be anyone's enemy, it can fly under the radar even if it's continent-sized too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Diminutive territories from what I can observe, specially the stable ones, usually have strong tourism.

    What type of tourism it offers however, depends on its geography, history, culture and/or what its economy provides.

    Also I presume that the country's stable enough because of the strong economy. And in such case, I'd also presume it exists far (or at least sufficiently so) from chockepoints of geopolitical conflicts, meaning it isn't forced to take sides simply by proximity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Also not all countries have the same types of production.

    So if for example it's a desert country, it may need to import water or at least what's needed to make drinkable water. Or a mountainous country which may need to import vegetables. Or a cold mountainous country which may need to import meat too.

    And so, based on their needs, their bilateral relationships may change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    As I presently have it, the country isn't resource-rich, but has enough to get along, plus they have a reputation of self-reliance. They can feed themselves, though the price of some foods could be high in the case of a blockade—oranges might become expensive, but people can get their vitamin C from other plants grown there. With water conservation, rainwater collection, and maybe some desalination, they have enough drinking water. They have some coal or similar.

    I suppose there's 2 types of tourism:

    tourism for those who want something a little out of the beaten path: maybe students, or students-of-sorts, of culture, language, religion, and society.

    It doesn't have miles of wide sandy beaches where one can swim in, not having to wear a wet suit, it doesn't have famous landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall, the Washington Mall or White House or the Grand Canyon, Taj Mahal, or the Pyramids. If you're an American, there are probably better places for Spring Break or retire to. If you're European, there might be better places in the Mediterranean, or maybe further south or east.

    It also has an area, perhaps 10 sq km in size, that is (in a way) better than Nevada: gambling, legalized prostitution, and recreational marijuana use, and maybe a few other things. Tourists in the country who do these outside of the district face arrest, charges, and deportation. Perhaps at any given time, there might be 10 000 to 25 000 foreign visitors in this district.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent