Did David Eby hide money from dealing with Chinese
Executive summary
No credible evidence in the supplied reporting shows British Columbia Premier David Eby “hid money” from dealings with Chinese actors; the documents and articles provided instead describe Eby raising alarms about alleged Chinese interference, seeking intelligence briefings, defending anti‑money‑laundering work, and facing scrutiny over an advisor alleged to have ties to pro‑China networks — but none of these sources allege or document that Eby concealed personal or political funds [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the accusation would require, and why that matters
A claim that a sitting premier “hid money from dealing with Chinese” implies deliberate, secret financial transactions linked to Chinese entities and an effort to conceal those transactions; the material supplied does not include any financial records, government audits, whistleblower affidavits, or investigative reporting documenting such hidden transfers or accounts, so that specific, criminal implication is unsupported by the available reporting (no source shows financial concealment).
2. Reporting shows criticism and scrutiny of Chinese influence, not hidden funds
Multiple mainstream outlets record Eby publicly expressing concern about alleged Chinese meddling in Vancouver elections and requesting briefings from CSIS, actions that are the opposite of concealment — he sought information and transparency from federal intelligence services [1] [5] [3] [2].
3. Eby’s public record on money‑laundering and real‑estate links to China
Eby has been a vocal critic of opaque money moving into B.C. real estate and casinos and posted speeches and policy work on transnational money‑laundering, positioning himself as an advocate for anti‑money‑laundering reforms rather than someone concealing financial ties; critics have debated his handling and emphasis, but the reporting cites his speeches and policy activity rather than evidence of hidden personal funds [6] [1] [7].
4. Allegations about an advisor do not equal proof against Eby
Some outlets and commentators have highlighted that an adviser to Eby, Ding Guo (David Ding), was described by critics as having pro‑China affiliations or being named in press events about foreign influence; Rebel News and opinion pieces raise this as a concern, but those pieces do not present documentary proof that Eby personally hid money or benefitted financially from Chinese actors — they allege influence risks tied to an associate, not clandestine financial transfers by Eby [4] [8].
5. Criticisms, conflicting narratives and possible agendas in the sources
The supplied sources include partisan outlets and opinion pages (Free Republic, Rebel News, theBreaker) as well as mainstream Canadian media (CBC, Globe and Mail, Global News); the partisan sources frame the issue as scandalous while mainstream reporting emphasizes investigations, CSIS limits on disclosure, and calls for transparency — readers should note that outlets like Rebel News have political agendas that may amplify allegations, whereas CBC/Globe report Eby’s public requests for briefings and lack of access to secret intelligence rather than financial wrongdoing [9] [4] [2] [5].
6. Direct answer and journalistic verdict
Based on the documents and reporting provided, there is no evidence that David Eby hid money in connection with dealings with Chinese actors; the public record in these sources shows him publicly probing alleged foreign interference, pressing for more federal intelligence sharing, advocating anti‑money‑laundering measures, and facing scrutiny over an advisor’s activities — but nothing in the supplied reporting substantiates the specific criminal claim of concealed finances by Eby [1] [2] [6] [4]. If financial concealment evidence exists, it was not included in the supplied sources and therefore cannot be corroborated here.