You are going about it the wrong way. You don't fine the poor immigrant working for starvation wages. That is pointless. He has nothing. Fine the problem: the bahamian employer profiting from his labour. He is the one making money and he is the one with the money.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And there is very little but stupidity spoken in the Bahamas, so this one really will take some beating.

Tough not to be with proudloudandfnm on this one.

"Dr." Ferguson-Buffoon more like.

Reminds me not to go east of the airport for the next few months. Unless Brent is lying, the traffic jams at the Immigration road-blocks are going to be of historic proportions.

LOL. I have had a "real" Bloomberg terminal since 1991 (which I pay for myself) and have known Michael since '78.
So, I think I can manage.
But it seems it will take a greater investment on your part to civilize your language.

Or not...

OK, without insults, because neither am I ignorant, nor do I think you are:
CCA is a fully owned subsidiary of CSCEC and as such does not publish a separate balance sheet that I can find, nor is there one on Bloomberg.
You might recall that ASSETS are equal to liabilities. So ASSETS are not what is available for seizure because assets are pledged in return for financing (liabilities).
The way ALL Chinese State owned companies operate is that they borrow funds from state owned banks for operations (at exorbitant interest rates, might I add) and this is how the state directly controls and directs their expansion abilities and opportunities in foreign markets. And mainly it enables them to invest the vast surplus of $ they have as a result of their trade surplus, rather than just buying US treasuries. I think you will agree with this.
Therefore what is "available" for seizure is probably next to nothing as unpledged assets are likely to be minimal. Most, if not all "shareholder equity" in this company (CCA) is likely to be in the form of goodwill.
Now, let us assume that the courts look through all structures in place (of which there are many, no doubt) and all mortgages in place. The result would be such a scandal in China that it would have vast political ramifications.
You will say that the judiciary in the USA is totally independent of the executive. And it is. Up to a point. And that point is a serious breakdown in foreign relations. And all this is going to happen over a Sarkis, whatever that might be? No, it is not.

John, please refrain from commenting on things you know absolutely zero about. You just expose your massive ignorance for everyone to see:
1. There is no such thing as "British" law. It is English Law or Scottish Law. No others.
2. English common law is the mother and father of precedent. It existed for about 300 years before anyone even set foot in the Americas. Do you think the Americans invented their legal system? Did they shit. They just copied English Law, which is entirely based on precedent. Which is hardly surprising since they applied English law for over a century in their courts before Independence.

Back to school for you.

C'mon Banker, you know better than that. What assets does it hold? A few machines and construction equipment. All liquid assets can be moved at the press of a button and will be if not already done.
Future cashflow is future cashflow...it does not exist now.
I am quite sure that Trump is not going to go balls deep into a fight with China over an Izmirlian. Who gives a toss about him?

I thought our food came from the supermarket.

Are you on drugs? Properties in the Bahamas were seized by US courts?
Not even by accident.
Properties in the Bahamas can only be seized by Bahamian Courts. A US court can ask a Bahamian one to seize something, but that is all that they can do: ask. No US decision is automatically enforceable here.