QT Fashion Inc.

đź”´ High Risk

QT Fashion Inc. is a Los Angeles–based apparel wholesaler that became a central example of how ordinary-looking fashion businesses and commercial properties can be exploited in sophisticated trade-based money laundering schemes. Although it operated under brands such as QT Fashion Inc., QT Maternity and Andres Fashion, public records and court documents show that its premises and corporate structure were used to move criminal proceeds, particularly ransom funds and drug money linked to the Sinaloa Cartel, through the Los Angeles Fashion District.

This history makes QT Fashion Inc. a useful evergreen case study in AML compliance, especially for real estate professionals, high‑risk sector analysts and those concerned with beneficial ownership transparency and source‑of‑funds risk.​

Project introduction and background

QT Fashion Inc. operated as a wholesaler of maternity clothing and other apparel in the Downtown Los Angeles Fashion District, importing goods from Asia and exporting them onward to Mexico. The business, sometimes referred to publicly as QT Maternity or Andres Fashion, functioned as a typical “qt fashion inc. business” in a dense cluster of small wholesalers and warehouses, making its commercial premises and trade flows appear routine at first glance.

While the precise qt fashion inc. year of establishment is not clearly disclosed in open sources, the company was active at least by 2012, when it appears in federal investigations, and by that time had an established presence and client base in the cross‑border apparel market between the United States, China and Mexico.​

The qt fashion inc. address was within the 100‑block Los Angeles Fashion District, a high‑turnover area where thousands of businesses share similar warehouse‑style units, making location‑based red flags harder to spot. As a result, the qt fashion inc. location and its commercial premises fit the profile of a high‑risk sector node: cash‑intensive, reliant on international trade logistics and only lightly scrutinized from a real‑estate AML perspective, despite being in a major U.S. city.

From an AML risk assessment standpoint, this kind of setting is precisely where robust client verification, understanding of source of funds and scrutiny of related real estate transactions are critical but often overlooked.​

Founders, ownership and vision

Publicly available information identifies Andrew Jong Hack Park (also reported as Jong Hack Park or Andrew Park) as the qt fashion inc. owner, with Sang Jun Park as a key manager, together forming the core management of the qt fashion inc. company. Their primary business model involved importing wholesale maternity wear and other garments from China into the United States and then supplying Mexican importers, which positioned qt fashions as a mid‑tier player rather than a luxury brand but still exposed it to cross‑border financial and trade risk.

Federal case materials suggest no widely publicized philanthropic or development “vision” beyond standard commercial growth; instead, the company’s role in laundering schemes overshadowed any legitimate brand positioning such as “qt fashion inc brand” or longer‑term ambitions for qt fashion inc. careers and expansion.​

There is no detailed public record of qt fashion inc. financial statements or audited disclosures, which is typical for small private wholesalers in the United States but poses challenges for AML compliance and credit risk analysis. The absence of transparent reporting also complicates estimates of qt fashion inc. worth and historical profitability, leaving external observers and real estate professionals to infer financial health from enforcement actions, seizures and trade flows rather than conventional corporate filings.

In many offshore or higher‑risk jurisdictions such opacity would trigger enhanced due diligence, yet in the United States it has long been treated as standard practice for closely held companies, contributing to the overall vulnerability of the sector.​

The management and project head functions for QT Fashion Inc. appear to have been concentrated in a small team rather than a large corporate board, with Andrew Park as de facto chief decision‑maker and Sang Jun Park as a central operational figure. Federal indictments and media reporting show these individuals were directly involved in handling bulk cash deliveries, coordinating with intermediaries and instructing staff on how to process funds, which means governance failures were not abstract but embedded in day‑to‑day management behavior.

Unlike larger groups that might have independent directors or compliance committees, the qt fashion inc. head office effectively combined ownership, operations and strategic control in a small circle, heightening the risk that personal incentives drove AML‑relevant decisions.​

Linked individuals extended beyond the United States, most notably to the principals of the Mexican importer Maria Ferre, based in Culiacán, Sinaloa. Those principals—identified in court documents but not widely known to the general public—coordinated with qt fashion inc. in usa to settle trade obligations and convert U.S. dollar cash into Mexican pesos for the cartel, highlighting how beneficial ownership transparency must be considered at group level, not only within one country.

For any real estate professional or bank conducting qt fashion inc. client verification or onboarding the qt fashion inc. office as a tenant or borrower, mapping these cross‑border personal links would have been essential to a meaningful qt fashion inc. risk assessment.​

Controversies, scandals and black money allegations

QT Fashion Inc. entered public view in September 2014 when nearly 1,000 law‑enforcement officers raided dozens of businesses in the Los Angeles Fashion District, seizing at least 65 million dollars linked to drug trafficking and other crimes. In one of the most striking episodes, federal authorities alleged that the Sinaloa Cartel used qt fashion inc. as a hub to accept and launder a 140,000‑dollar ransom payment for a kidnapped U.S. distributor whose 100‑kilogram cocaine shipment had been seized by U.S. agents.

The hostage’s family in California was directed to deliver the cash to QT Fashion, which then routed the money through at least 17 other businesses before it was reflected in pesos in Mexico, exemplifying how an apparently ordinary qt fashion inc. office can serve as a critical node in a kidnapping and extortion chain.​

Beyond ransom money, investigators alleged that QT Fashion Inc. routinely processed bulk cash from narcotics trafficking through a Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) arrangement with intermediaries and Maria Ferre. Bundles of U.S. currency—even those visibly stained or packaged in suspicious ways—were accepted at the qt fashion inc. location and recorded as payments for apparel orders, obscuring the true criminal source of funds.

These controversies mean that any qt fashion inc. real estate transaction or qt fashion inc. property acquisition during the relevant period must be treated as potentially linked to commingled illicit proceeds, at least for the purposes of AML compliance and retrospective risk analysis.​

Money laundering activities and techniques

The QT Fashion case illustrates several key techniques that are relevant not only to trade finance but also to real estate AML risk. The core method was trade-based money laundering: qt fashion inc. united states operations took bulk U.S. dollar cash from cartel intermediaries and used it to pay suppliers or settle invoices, while the Mexican importer then repaid peso amounts domestically, ensuring the cartel received clean local currency.

This BMPE approach layered the funds through the recorded accounts of qt fashion inc. company transactions, effectively turning a clothing wholesaler into a financial intermediary without the governance or controls of a bank.​

Investigators also documented related practices such as mislabeling origin (e.g., changing “Made in China” labels to “Made in USA”) to avoid Mexican tariffs, which shows how over‑ or under‑invoicing and documentation fraud can be part of a broader laundering architecture. Even though there is no public evidence of a specific “QT FASHION INC. suspicious real estate deal” like a luxury condo flip, the commercial premises and leasing arrangements formed part of the infrastructure that enabled the scheme, and any qt fashion inc.

real estate transaction during this period would warrant scrutiny for layering (money laundering stage). For example, if qt fashion inc. limited or qt fashion inc llc entities had acquired or refinanced property with undocumented cash contributions, that would have been a classic case where real estate professionals should question the source of funds and assess potential layering risks.​

QT Fashion Inc.’s business model inherently relied on international links between the United States, China and Mexico. The company imported garments from Chinese manufacturers into the United States and then shipped them on to Mexico, often to the Culiacán‑based importer Maria Ferre. This meant that suppliers in Asia, logistics providers and Mexican retailers all indirectly benefited from the continued functioning of qt fashion inc. in usa, even if they were unaware of the underlying money laundering risks.

At the same time, the Sinaloa Cartel was a primary illicit beneficiary, receiving pesos in Mexico via BMPE brokers while avoiding the need to move bulk cash physically across the U.S.–Mexico border.​

This structure underscores how countries with strong trade ties to the United States can still be drawn into high‑risk networks when U.S. real estate and trade oversight is weak. Mexico benefited in terms of ongoing apparel supply chains and local business profits, but also suffered from the reinforcement of criminal financial power.

From an AML perspective, this case is a reminder that a seemingly domestic qt fashion inc. address in Los Angeles actually sits at the center of a multi‑country value chain, requiring cooperation among regulators and real estate professionals across jurisdictions to achieve beneficial ownership transparency and effective monitoring of high‑risk sector actors.​

Following investigations, U.S. authorities unsealed indictments charging QT Fashion Inc. and associated individuals with money laundering, smuggling goods and related offences. The owner, Andrew (Jong Hack) Park, the manager, Sang Jun Park, and intermediary Jose Isabel Gomez Arreola were among those arrested, while some Maria Ferre principals remained fugitives in Mexico.

Federal agencies including the DEA, FBI, IRS‑Criminal Investigation and Homeland Security Investigations coordinated enforcement, reflecting recognition that the Los Angeles Fashion District had become an epicenter of cartel‑linked money flows.​

In response to the raids, new reporting requirements were introduced for businesses in the district, obliging them to record foreign cash transactions over 3,000 dollars—lower than the usual 10,000‑dollar threshold—to improve early detection. However, these measures focused on transactional monitoring rather than directly addressing real estate or company‑formation opacity, meaning that future qt fashion inc. market analogues could still exploit similar structural weaknesses.

There is no public indication that a specific QT FASHION INC. property acquisition was seized or that qt fashion inc. directory entries in corporate registries were permanently barred, underlining a gap between headline‑grabbing raids and long‑term structural remedies.​

Public impact and market reaction

The raids on the Fashion District and the revelations about QT Fashion Inc. had a significant reputational impact on the local market, even though authorities emphasized that only a small fraction of the roughly 4,000 area businesses were implicated. For legitimate wholesalers, there was concern that being listed near a known qt fashion inc. office or associated addresses in commercial property directories could stigmatize their operations or complicate access to banking services.

At the same time, the case raised uncomfortable questions among investors and landlords about how many tenants in the district were effectively using commercial premises as informal financial intermediaries.​

In terms of property prices, available reporting does not show a sustained collapse in values, but rather a period of heightened scrutiny and adjustments in compliance expectations. For AML practitioners, the public impact was more qualitative: QT Fashion Inc. became a reference case for training on high‑risk sector exposure, demonstrating how a tenant’s business model can transform an ordinary warehouse into a node in international crime, even when there is no obvious QT FASHION INC.

suspicious real estate deal on the title register. This has implications for how qt fashion inc. jobs and qt fashion inc. careers‑type roles are assessed in background checks, particularly for positions in finance, logistics and real estate management.​

QT Fashion Inc. as originally constituted no longer operates in the same way, following federal enforcement actions and criminal proceedings against its leadership. The specific premises once associated with qt fashion inc. address may now host other tenants or business names, but for AML purposes the historical risk profile of the property, and any QT FASHION INC.

real estate transaction linked to it, should remain on record in internal databases and enhanced‑due‑diligence files. Analysts examining qt fashion inc. worth today should treat the company more as a case study in enforcement history than as a going‑concern valuation exercise.​

Location

Los Angeles, California, USA – Downtown Los Angeles Fashion District (Garment District cluster strongly linked to cartel-related money laundering and trade-based schemes)​

Commercial premises – wholesale clothing operation (maternity and apparel wholesaler; warehouse / showroom in Fashion District)​

Privately held U.S. corporation operating from commercial premises, functionally used as an anchor node in a trade-based Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) network, with operational links to at least 17 other Fashion District businesses and a Mexico-based counterpart (Maria Ferre). Formal land-title ownership of the underlying real estate is not fully disclosed in open sources; it is likely held either by QT Fashion’s corporate entity or a separate landlord entity, which creates a structural opacity typical of U.S. commercial property where beneficial landowners are often shielded by LLCs. (Ownership of the real estate itself: suspected but not confirmed to be distinct from the operating company.)​

Operationally and legally linked individuals include:

  • Andrew Jong Hack Park (also identified as Jong Hack Park) – described as owner of QT Fashion.​

  • Sang Jun Park – manager/executive of QT Fashion with direct handling of large bulk-cash transactions.​

  • Mexico-based partner entity: Maria Ferre and its principals (including Luis Ignacio Orozco Muñoz, Armando Arturo Chavez Gamboa, and Daisy Corrales Estrada) as counterparties in the laundering chain, though not owners of the L.A. property itself.​

No direct Politically Exposed Person (PEP) connection has been publicly documented for QT Fashion’s owners or managers. However, the case illustrates systemic U.S. tolerance for anonymous and opaque corporate structures that can be freely used by foreign criminal networks and, by extension, could easily be repurposed by PEPs without meaningful ownership transparency checks. (PEP involvement: not identified; structural PEP risk remains high due to opacity and weak beneficial-ownership verification in U.S. real estate and closely linked trade-finance sectors.)​

The core “asset” in this case is the commercial operating platform and its linked trade flows rather than a single trophy property purchase. QT Fashion’s business was used as the U.S. node to receive large volumes of bulk cash which were then coded as payments for apparel shipments to Mexico, embedding illicit proceeds into apparently legitimate trade-based payment streams. The use of bulk cash in the United States—where real estate and commercial leases can be funded directly or indirectly with physical U.S. currency and where beneficial ownership of property-level LLCs is often unverified—creates scope for acquisition or lease of premises without transparent funding trails, though specific purchase or lease financing for the QT site is not disclosed. (Acquisition/lease funding via tainted operating revenues: suspected but not confirmed.)​

  • Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML) / BMPE: Use of QT Fashion and at least 17 other businesses to accept cartel bulk-cash ransom and narcotics proceeds, disguising them as apparel payments.​

  • Layering through multiple commercial entities: Funds routed through numerous Fashion District wholesalers at the direction of Mexico-based importer Maria Ferre, fragmenting and obscuring the original criminal source.​

  • Use of commercial premises as laundering infrastructure: The physical Fashion District property cluster, including QT Fashion’s space, operates as a de facto laundering platform where “normal” cash-intensive wholesale trade provides plausible cover for unexplained bulk cash deliveries.​

  • Potential mis-invoicing / mislabeling: Associated actors in the same network changed clothing labels and manipulated origin descriptions to evade tariffs and duties, a classic TBML technique that can also conceal the true value flows tied to real estate-funded inventories and logistics.​

Classic real-estate-specific methods such as deliberate overvaluation, rapid flipping, or luxury condo purchases are not evidenced directly for QT Fashion’s property; however, the U.S. system allows commercial properties to be owned by layered LLCs with minimal disclosure, creating similar opacity benefits if such strategies were used. (Real-estate overvaluation / flipping: not documented for this case.)​

  • 2012: Kidnapping of a U.S.-based distributor by the Sinaloa Cartel; ransom of approximately 140,000 dollars demanded in the United States.​

  • Late 2012 – 2013: QT Fashion accepts ransom bulk cash in the United States and funnels it through 17+ Fashion District businesses as payments linked to apparel shipments to Mexico-based importer Maria Ferre; federal affidavits describe QT Fashion receiving around 1.5 million dollars in bulk cash at the direction of Maria Ferre over roughly 16 months.​

  • September 2014: Massive federal raid on downtown Los Angeles Fashion District (sometimes reported as seizing between 65–100 million dollars in cash and bank deposits) including QT Fashion’s premises.​

  • Post‑2014: Indictments and ongoing legal proceedings against QT Fashion owners/managers and associated Maria Ferre principals for money laundering and related offences.​

There is no open-source timeline of property title transfers or mortgage refinancings for the precise building used by QT Fashion, which reflects broader U.S. real estate opacity where commercial property title information is fragmented, non-standardized, and not cross-linked to AML‑relevant beneficial owner data. (Detailed land-title transaction chain: unknown.)​

  • Ransom-related transaction: Approximately 140,000 dollars in cartel ransom funds accepted and laundered through QT Fashion and connected businesses to secure the hostage’s release.​

  • Broader BMPE/TBML activity involving QT Fashion: At least 1.5 million dollars in bulk cash received at the direction of Maria Ferre over a 16‑month period, funneled across the Fashion District network.​

  • Wider operation context (Fashion District cluster): Authorities seized an estimated 65–100 million dollars during the 2014 raids, illustrating the scale of cartel-linked laundering supported by U.S. commercial properties and financial channels in the district.​

Exact amounts tied to real-estate acquisition, renovation, or mortgage payments on QT Fashion’s specific premises are not publicly quantified. (Real-estate-specific laundering quantum: suspected but not confirmed.)​

  • Operation targeting Los Angeles Fashion District cartel money laundering (sometimes referred to as an outgrowth of Operation Fashion Police), involving DEA, FBI, IRS‑CI, HSI, and other agencies.​

  • DOJ / U.S. Attorney’s Office (CDCA) indictments detailing the use of QT Fashion in BMPE ransom laundering and trade-based schemes.​

  • Analytical work by corporate intelligence platforms (e.g., Sayari) highlighting how apparel importers, grant deeds, and property‑holding LLCs form a web of companies and real estate that facilitate fraud and laundering, including explicit reference to QT Fashion as a ransom laundromat.​

There is no explicit reference in open sources to QT Fashion being named in Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, or FinCEN Files, although the case typology closely mirrors the kinds of opaque, cross-border structures and underreported suspicious activity that those leaks have documented elsewhere. (Direct linkage to leaks: not identified.)​

  • 2014: Federal raids on QT Fashion and other Fashion District firms; seizure of large volumes of cash and documents; multiple arrests including QT Fashion owner Andrew Jong Hack Park and manager Sang Jun Park, plus associate Jose Isabel Gomez Arreola.​

  • Indictments of QT Fashion and Maria Ferre-related individuals for money laundering, smuggling goods, and related financial crimes.​

Subsequent DOJ/IRS cases in the same district against other wholesalers (e.g., customs duty evasion and large-scale laundering through undervaluation) demonstrate a broader enforcement pattern, but also underline how U.S. regulators chronically react after extensive abuse has occurred instead of preventing misuse through proactive beneficial ownership transparency and real-estate AML controls.​

High. The United States—and specifically California’s Los Angeles Fashion District—presents a structurally high risk of money laundering and asset concealment via commercial real estate and trade-based flows because:

  • Beneficial ownership of property-holding entities and operating companies is often opaque; real estate registries are fragmented, with weak integration into AML compliance systems.​

  • AML rules for real estate are partial and often geographically limited, with long-standing exemptions and lobbying-driven delays that enable criminals and foreign networks to exploit gaps.​

  • Political and regulatory reluctance to impose full transparency on LLCs, trusts, and professional gatekeepers has allowed transnational criminal organizations such as the Sinaloa Cartel to embed themselves into U.S. commercial property ecosystems with relatively low risk of early detection.​

  • Maria Ferre (Culiacán‑based Mexican clothing importer), with principals Luis Ignacio Orozco Muñoz, Armando Arturo Chavez Gamboa, and Daisy Corrales Estrada – critical counterpart in laundering chain.​

  • At least 17 additional Los Angeles Fashion District businesses that received and redistributed QT Fashion-linked funds as part of the BMPE scheme (names not all public, but integral to the layered network).​

  • U.S. and Mexican financial institutions processing payments for cross-border apparel shipments; specific banks are not named in the open sources but clearly facilitated transfers without effectively disrupting the laundering pattern, illustrating systemic banking-sector shortcomings. (Bank names: not disclosed.)​

  • Other regional wholesalers and property-related LLCs highlighted in later analyses (e.g., Wax Jean, Ambiance Apparel, Towneford Property LLC, and Towne and Stanford, LLC) as part of a broader, overlapping corporate and real-estate network used for fraud and laundering in the same geography.​

Commercial (wholesale / warehouse / showroom)

TBML, BMPE, bulk cash, layering via multiple wholesalers, possible mis-invoicing / label fraud

North America (USA – California)

High

QT Fashion Inc.

QT Fashion Inc.
Country:
United States
City / Location:
Downtown Los Angeles, California – Fashion/Garment District cluster. ​
Developer / Owner Entity:
QT Fashion Inc. (also operating as a maternity/apparel wholesaler; underlying titleholder of the building itself is not clearly disclosed in open sources and may be a separate landlord LLC – suspected but not confirmed). ​
Linked Individuals :

Andrew Jong Hack Park (a.k.a. Jong Hack Park) – owner/principal of QT Fashion Inc., indicted for participation in money laundering via Black Market Peso Exchange; Sang Jun Park – manager/executive handling bulk cash at QT Fashion; Jose Isabel Gomez Arreola – associate linked to deliveries of cartel funds; principals of Mexico-based counterpart Maria Ferre (Luis Ignacio Orozco Muñoz, Armando Arturo Chavez Gamboa, Daisy Corrales Estrada) as key foreign controllers of flow but not owners of the L.A. property itself. No confirmed PEPs identified, but structure is highly vulnerable to PEP misuse.

Source of Funds Suspected:

Suspected proceeds of drug trafficking and Black Market Peso Exchange operations linked to the Sinaloa Cartel, including at least one 140,000‑dollar ransom payment from a kidnapping victim’s associates and additional narcotics-related bulk cash delivered over approximately 16 months; possible commingling with customs and duty‑evasion schemes through mis-declared apparel shipments. ​

Investment Type:
Commercial operating platform and premises used for wholesale trade and logistics; likely lease or commercial ownership supporting inventory warehousing and trade-based payments rather than pure speculative real-estate flipping. ​
Method of Laundering:
Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML) via Black Market Peso Exchange; bulk cash accepted at commercial premises and disguised as payments for apparel shipments; layering through at least 17 Fashion District wholesalers; possible mis-invoicing and label fraud to mask value and origin of goods; use of opaque U.S. corporate structures and fragmented property records that obscure beneficial control of the commercial site. ​
Value of Property:
Exact market value of the specific commercial premises is not publicly reported; given location in Downtown Los Angeles Fashion District, value is likely in the multi‑million‑dollar range, but this remains an informed estimate rather than a documented figure (approximate value only, not confirmed). ​
Offshore Entity Involved?
Shell Company Used?
1
Project Status:
Complete
Associated Legal / Leak Files:

U.S. DOJ / U.S. Attorney’s Office (CDCA) money-laundering and BMPE indictments targeting QT Fashion and Maria Ferre; multi‑agency Los Angeles Fashion District raids (DEA, FBI, IRS‑CI, HSI) with seizures estimated between 65–100 million dollars; subsequent prosecutions of related wholesalers for laundering and customs fraud; referenced in analytical reporting and corporate intelligence mapping of Fashion District laundering networks. No direct listing in Panama Papers, Pandora Papers, or FinCEN Files has been publicly identified, though the case typology closely mirrors those leaks. ​

Year of Acquisition / Construction:
AML Network Risk Rating:
đź”´ High Risk
Quick Links:
Popular Pages:
Disclaimer & Legal:
Facebook-f Twitter Youtube Pinterest-p Instagram Tiktok
© 2025 AML Network. – All Rights Reserved.