So a nominal loss is acceptable. The main thing is to get it laundered, and there is usually some price to pay to do so.
Tony Montana's downfall in scarface happened because he didn't understand this. Here's a scene where his banker explains to him difficulties in laundering as volume rises:
Secondly, I don't think I agree with your descriptions of the mechanics.
I will quote user @lsc below: "You realize that "money laundering" usually isn't about tax evasion, right? it's about figuring out how to take money gotten from an illegal venture and figuring out how to make that money come from a trackably legitimate source, which means paying taxes on it"
You want to spend the money, which is why you are bringing it into the "white" economy.
Nominal loss is acceptable to many people. If you are worth 10 billion, you might be okay with taking a 1% loss on a million dollar home to just to speed things up. This has nothing to do with it being black or white. You will be just as sensitive or insensitive to losses if you don't need to take them. That is, if you can be patient and get full price, you will do so.
The implied point I didn't spell out is that it can be difficult to launder money without taking a nominal loss. Obviously, if you can avoid it, you do. But if the loss is less than the loss you fear from not laundering, it still looks attractive.
I don't know the chinese case, but I'm assuming capital controls and other laws in both china and the receiving country in some way make it easier to buy and keep real estate compared to more productive assets. There are also advantages such as helping with visas, etc
If you consult the list of money laundering methods on Wikipedia you'll see some involve tax evasion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering