Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng arrested in Vancouver, faces extradition to U.S.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

^ good, it's probably best you stay out of this. Anyone who simply reduces this to Pro-China or not is really simple minded, black or white, this or that.

Those who cannot hold the tension of someone who is NOT Pro-China and yet see holding Meng Wanzhou for over a year for extradition for a crime that the US imposed is so effed up probably should stay on the sidelines. Let me put it in like this, wanting this shit to end doesn't necessarily mean you are Pro-China. Or, you can think China is corrupt, dirty, and ruthless but still think this shit should end.

Like, Canada isn’t just hanging out waiting here. It’s not about wanting or not wanting something to end. This is how courts work, and how trials work. Trials take time, appeals, which are a legal right take time. If Canada were to extradite without a trial, that would completely oppose the entire fabric the legal system in this country is built upon.
I don’t get what your angle is here about it taking too long. Are you angry that it’s a violation of her rights to a prompt trial, or that Canada is wasting resources To keep her here?

[320icar]

Originally Posted by whitev70r

^ good, it's probably best you stay out of this. Anyone who simply reduces this to Pro-China or not is really simple minded, black or white, this or that.

Those who cannot hold the tension of someone who is NOT Pro-China and yet see holding Meng Wanzhou for over a year for extradition for a crime that the US imposed is so effed up probably should stay on the sidelines. Let me put it in like this, wanting this shit to end doesn't necessarily mean you are Pro-China. Or, you can think China is corrupt, dirty, and ruthless but still think this shit should end.

Do you not understand how trials work? If she didn’t fight the charges her ass would have been overnighted to the US

[twitchyzero]

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by 320icar

Do you not understand how trials work? If she didn’t fight the charges her ass would have been overnighted to the US

But she wasn't charged with anything in Canada? I don't even know if this is considered a trial or not as it was not to decide guilt and sentencing. From my understanding, it was to decide whether the extradition request from the US was valid or not?

I can't speak to the US fraud claims, I don't know enough about it but violating US sanctions? Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, why can't I sell a bunch of iPhones to Iran? Because US says it's not cool since they contain US tech? If that's the case, there must be thousands of people around the world violating US sanctions every day. If she violated US sanctions while she was in the US, then that's a different story.

[320icar]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

doesn't have sanctions against Iran, why can't I sell a bunch of iPhones to Iran?

Kind of a difference between just some nobody and one of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world (huawei is bigger than Apple) which she represents

[westopher]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

But she wasn't charged with anything in Canada? I don't even know if this is considered a trial or not as it was not to decide guilt and sentencing. From my understanding, it was to decide whether the extradition request from the US was valid or not?

I can't speak to the US fraud claims, I don't know enough about it but violating US sanctions? Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, why can't I sell a bunch of iPhones to Iran? Because US says it's not cool since they contain US tech? If that's the case, there must be thousands of people around the world violating US sanctions every day. If she violated US sanctions while she was in the US, then that's a different story.

You answered your own question. The trial was to decide if the extradition was valid. Canada will not extradite people to a country if the charge doesn't equate to Canadian law. This trial was to determine whether her charges were related to something that is illegal in Canada. Fraud is illegal in Canada. Fraud is illegal in the United States. We have an extradition treaty with United States, because as ridiculous of a country as it can be, we are tied in closely with them, and have this as a legal agreement with them.
She didn't sell Iran some phones, she used proceeds of Iranian sales to go through an American bank, while lying about where those funds came from. You can sell Iran phones if you want, but you can't also lie about it while using a US bank to funnel those funds.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by 320icar

Kind of a difference between just some nobody and one of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world (huawei is bigger than Apple) which she represents

What if I sell hundreds of thousands of iPhones to Iran every year as a middleman? Perfectly legal in Canada.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

What if I sell hundreds of thousands of iPhones to Iran every year as a middleman? Perfectly legal in Canada.

Yes but then what if Apple asks you where you sold those phones and you tell them "Not Iran". That's F-r-a-u-d. That's what she's being charged with.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by westopher

You answered your own question. The trial was to decide if the extradition was valid. Canada will not extradite people to a country if the charge doesn't equate to Canadian law. This trial was to determine whether her charges were related to something that is illegal in Canada. Fraud is illegal in Canada. Fraud is illegal in the United States. We have an extradition treaty with United States, because as ridiculous of a country as it can be, we are tied in closely with them, and have this as a legal agreement with them.

Sorry, that first paragraph was rhetorical. I understand the conclusion from Wednesday. Just trying to wrap my head around the US charges, not the Canada portion.

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Yes but then what if Apple asks you where you sold those phones and you tell them "Not Iran". That's F-r-a-u-d. That's what she's being charged with.

Fraud is just part of the charges, the other part is breaking of US sanctions. That's the part I'm confused about. Honestly, since it's perfectly legal in Canada, I would straight up tell Apple I'm selling them to Iran. Did she violate the sanctions while she was in the US?

[westopher]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

Sorry, that first paragraph was rhetorical. I understand the conclusion from Wednesday. Just trying to wrap my head around the US charges, not the Canada portion.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chine...rged-financial

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

Fraud is just part of the charges, the other part is breaking of US sanctions. That's the part I'm confused about. Honestly, since it's perfectly legal in Canada, I would straight up tell Apple I'm selling them to Iran. Did she violate the sanctions while she was in the US?

You don't work for Apple though. If you worked for Apple, and sold iphones to Iran, you'd be in breach of US regulations (even Apple Canada is related to Apple Inc. in USA)

Now instead of "selling phones to Iran" to a 3rd party phone retailer in Iran, you are selling to a fake company which is owned by your own company (sold to make it look like someone else bought it)

And instead of selling phones, you're dealing with hundreds of millions of USD worth of technology

And when banks started getting cold feet and dropping you, you kept lying about your relationship with this fake company. Instead of saying "oh shit they're onto us, let's find a legal solution to running in Iran" you just kept lying and breaking more laws.

So your analogy does work, kinda, if you change a few details

[!LittleDragon]

So it's like when Dell sold to Iran. Wonder if anyone was charged there...

[threezero]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

So it's like when Dell sold to Iran. Wonder if anyone was charged there...

Look like Dell only sold couple thousand euro worth or equipment to Iran? Doesn’t compare what Huawei did.

For a country hell bent on upholding international “morality”. Imposing Economy sanction and prosecution a foreign company for violation a law that doesn’t exist in their home country doesn’t seems all the.... righteous.

But that for another topic.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

So it's like when Dell sold to Iran. Wonder if anyone was charged there...

The Dell Dude should have known better than to sell some computers to Iran in exchange for a bag of weed. According to wiki, he was fired and blacklisted from the entertainment industry after that.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

But she wasn't charged with anything in Canada? I don't even know if this is considered a trial or not as it was not to decide guilt and sentencing. From my understanding, it was to decide whether the extradition request from the US was valid or not?

I can't speak to the US fraud claims, I don't know enough about it but violating US sanctions? Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, why can't I sell a bunch of iPhones to Iran? Because US says it's not cool since they contain US tech? If that's the case, there must be thousands of people around the world violating US sanctions every day. If she violated US sanctions while she was in the US, then that's a different story.

I think in your case, as well as many people that I encountered wondering about wtf are we doing with Meng here if Canada wasn't part of sanction was the very point that was just ruled.

Meng's lawyer argued that since Canada wasn't agreeing to sanction Iran, her action shouldn't be illegal/crime.

Crown prosecutors argued that it's not about the sanction, but about what she did itself that constitute as fraud, and that is INDEED crime on both countries, establishing double criminality (consider as crime in both countries).

More specifically, Meng's lawyer wants a very SPECIFIC interpretation of what constitute as fraud: if only US was sanctioning Iran, then even if the case were in Canada, since Canada wasn't sanctioning Iran, what she did was fine as we didn't block such TRANSACTION (pay attention to this, as they narrowed it down to this, and how the judge interpreted it).

What the judge ended up ruling was the ACTION itself and the interpretation of fraud. Judge didn't want to set a precedent where fraud, or any crime for that matter can have a very specific and narrow interpretation. Just because your bad ACTION is skipping certain technicalities doesn't mean that the specific TRANSACTION itself just became legal.

Thus, in her ruling (yes, I read it), she specified a hypothetical scenario where this thing played out on Canadian side with CDN entities risking on breaching laws. Such ACTION (lying to banks) IS FRAUD, PERIOD. And the fact that the TRANSACTION wasn't TECHNICALLY considered a crime by ITSELF because Canada wasn't sanctioning Iran became irrelevant.

tl:dr - Think it this way, if you were lying (about other things) to bank in order to obtain a loan, that's FRAUD, even though you technically qualify for the loan. You just made shit up to make you look better. The technical qualification doesn't cover the FACT that you lied to the bank, which is a crime. Hence double criminality was established.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by threezero

Look like Dell only sold couple thousand euro worth or equipment to Iran? Doesn’t compare what Huawei did.

For a country hell bent on upholding international “morality”. Imposing Economy sanction and prosecution a foreign company for violation a law that doesn’t exist in their home country doesn’t seems all the.... righteous.

But that for another topic.

Huawei USA absolutely existed in USA.

[Y2K_o__o]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

But she wasn't charged with anything in Canada? I don't even know if this is considered a trial or not as it was not to decide guilt and sentencing. From my understanding, it was to decide whether the extradition request from the US was valid or not?

I can't speak to the US fraud claims, I don't know enough about it but violating US sanctions? Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, why can't I sell a bunch of iPhones to Iran? Because US says it's not cool since they contain US tech? If that's the case, there must be thousands of people around the world violating US sanctions every day. If she violated US sanctions while she was in the US, then that's a different story.

She lied to HSBC staff that a shell company "Skycom" was NOT a subsidery of Huawei, and has trade deal with Iran. At that time, she was the executive board director.

US has very strict policies for banks who they are dealing with when it comes to sanctions.

[m4k4v4li]

its politics. thats it. everyday high profile company execs knowingly are doing trade deals with sanctioned countries and laundering money through US banks. The law is selectively applied

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by m4k4v4li

its politics. thats it. everyday high profile company execs knowingly are doing trade deals with sanctioned countries and laundering money through US banks. The law is selectively applied

I'd love to read more about this. Can you hook a brotha up with a link?

[buhdeh]

Both Bell and Telus just announced they will not be using Huawei for 5G rollout

[twitchyzero]

Rogers already has limited 5G up, are they not going Huawei anymore?

[Teriyaki]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

Rogers already has limited 5G up, are they not going Huawei anymore?

Maybe just shutting up and hoping people don't question it.

[bcrdukes]

They use an Ericsson network for 5G, not Huawei. The announcements were made several years ago, so Huawei has been out of the picture for a while. It was Telus and Bell who were undecided, until today.

[buhdeh]

If I recall, Rogers had decided long ago to go with Ericsson.